Comments on: Loaded for (simulated) Bear http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:48:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: badbob http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/comment-page-2/#comment-418243 badbob Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:11:34 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/#comment-418243 Bowels? You got that right. Specifically, the end of the intestine about to be ejected! Especially if certain folks are reading this stuff on page 2! Just kidding. To answer your Q- No. Nothing on the horizon. Perspective: In '98 CSA was canned (no $$) and the plan was Hawkeye and C-2 because, well, what would a Navy airwing be without an overloaded prop plane? Prowler wanted Growler and that left only the poor S-3 to offer up...No brainer for the Hornet Dictatorship who needed everybody else's $$$. Hell, in my calculation Naval Aviation got, max, 2.7 extra SuperHornets out of the Viking Sundown deal! Truth. Only option for TACAIR is to 'spin' the capabilities by redefining /de-scoping the missions (in work I'll wager) and make do with the numbers; OR, buy more SuperHornets to cover more mission areas not covered (ovhd tanking). My problem with that is that basically with a SuperHornet you only get v2/3 's of a an airplane. 1/3 HAS to be a tanker....Bad begets bad. You see Nose, in acquisition it's all about getting $$$ on contract. Deliverables? Well those can always be negotiated as to numbers. In Badbob's 'ideation', (psychotic?) it's all about the numbers. By numbers I mean numbers of Real Flyable aircraft tested and in production for the USN to operate! You always hear me harping about the numbers..65 aircraft on on CVN designed to handle 115 ain't right! Where's the beef? BTW, on the non-TACAIR side BIG 'hurdles' are coming some faster daily. Stay tuned. IMHO, Naval Aviation is about to reach convergence. b2 Bowels? You got that right. Specifically, the end of the intestine about to be ejected! Especially if certain folks are reading this stuff on page 2! Just kidding.

To answer your Q- No. Nothing on the horizon.

Perspective: In ’98 CSA was canned (no $$) and the plan was Hawkeye and C-2 because, well, what would a Navy airwing be without an overloaded prop plane? Prowler wanted Growler and that left only the poor S-3 to offer up…No brainer for the Hornet Dictatorship who needed everybody else’s $$$. Hell, in my calculation Naval Aviation got, max, 2.7 extra SuperHornets out of the Viking Sundown deal! Truth.

Only option for TACAIR is to ‘spin’ the capabilities by redefining /de-scoping the missions (in work I’ll wager) and make do with the numbers; OR, buy more SuperHornets to cover more mission areas not covered (ovhd tanking). My problem with that is that basically with a SuperHornet you only get v2/3 ‘s of a an airplane. 1/3 HAS to be a tanker….Bad begets bad.

You see Nose, in acquisition it’s all about getting $$$ on contract. Deliverables? Well those can always be negotiated as to numbers.

In Badbob’s ‘ideation’, (psychotic?) it’s all about the numbers. By numbers I mean numbers of Real Flyable aircraft tested and in production for the USN to operate! You always hear me harping about the numbers..65 aircraft on on CVN designed to handle 115 ain’t right! Where’s the beef?

BTW, on the non-TACAIR side BIG ‘hurdles’ are coming some faster daily. Stay tuned.

IMHO, Naval Aviation is about to reach convergence.

b2

]]> By: Nose http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/comment-page-2/#comment-418244 Nose Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:49:14 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/#comment-418244 Lex, Good point on CEO decision making. Also accurate using the term CEO. AND, just from the sidelines - seems like you are using the changing geopolitical situation to your advantage (WRT the we have what we have and Hornet fits the Jointness plan nicely). IIRC, wasn't so back in early 90's. Either way, it is a good discussion - one that should have been discussed by others about 30 (?!?) years ago when we were out shopping for new jets. Bob - you are in the bowels of the beast there. CSA still a viable option? Any discussion at all about tanker, or are you just barking at the wind generators (updated green version)? Nose Lex,

Good point on CEO decision making. Also accurate using the term CEO.

AND, just from the sidelines – seems like you are using the changing geopolitical situation to your advantage (WRT the we have what we have and Hornet fits the Jointness plan nicely). IIRC, wasn’t so back in early 90′s.

Either way, it is a good discussion – one that should have been discussed by others about 30 (?!?) years ago when we were out shopping for new jets.

Bob – you are in the bowels of the beast there. CSA still a viable option? Any discussion at all about tanker, or are you just barking at the wind generators (updated green version)?

Nose

]]> By: badbob http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/comment-page-2/#comment-418242 badbob Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:25:14 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/#comment-418242 Si, Senorita! b2 Si, Senorita!

b2

]]> By: Michelle http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/comment-page-2/#comment-418241 Michelle Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:09:05 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/#comment-418241 badbob, so is that what you call loaded for bear? badbob, so is that what you call loaded for bear?

]]> By: badbob http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/comment-page-2/#comment-418267 badbob Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:00:53 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/#comment-418267 Here you go, SE. Make sure you're sitting down: http://graysmatter.codivation.com/content/binary/BarbaraEden.JPG Here you go, SE. Make sure you’re sitting down:

http://graysmatter.codivation.com/content/binary/BarbaraEden.JPG

]]> By: craig mclaughlin http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/comment-page-2/#comment-418240 craig mclaughlin Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:43:27 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/11/29/loaded-for-simulated-bear/#comment-418240 I don't have a rooting interest and I don't know anything at all, really, about carrier aviation, big picture or small, but I've enjoyed the dialogue. All I know is that I got out of the Navy a while back, went about my business and then looked up one day and saw that everything flying is an F-18 or an H-60. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe-- as Dr. Pangloss would say-- its the best of all possible things. But I doubt it. Now excuse me, I've got to go buy some Old Spice, since Bruce Campbell is hawking it these days. Groovy. I don’t have a rooting interest and I don’t know anything at all, really, about carrier aviation, big picture or small, but I’ve enjoyed the dialogue. All I know is that I got out of the Navy a while back, went about my business and then looked up one day and saw that everything flying is an F-18 or an H-60. Maybe that’s a good thing, maybe– as Dr. Pangloss would say– its the best of all possible things.

But I doubt it.

Now excuse me, I’ve got to go buy some Old Spice, since Bruce Campbell is hawking it these days. Groovy.

]]>