Comments on: The World’s Worst Kept Secret

By: Putting on their Big Boy pants « Checks with Chart

Putting on their Big Boy pants « Checks with Chart — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:31:39 +0000

[...] like Carrier Aviation, submarine building is not a skill developed over night. Let’s hope, for the crews’ [...]

By: RonF

RonF — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:53:30 +0000

Who said “A journey of a 1000 miles begins with but a single step.”?

So it’ll cost time, money and lives to build up a carrier force? The Chinese are quite willing to expend all of the above, and aren’t nearly as reticent to expend the 3rd factor as we are if it’ll speed things up. This may not end up our problem. It may end up our children’s problem. But if we sit on our lead we’ll lose it.

By: badbob

badbob — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:05:51 +0000

bc,

Sigh….Si, Senor.

By: MaxDamage

MaxDamage — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:56:31 +0000

One odd thought on a Chinese aircraft carrier, what if they’re not planning on taking over Singapore but rather stopping piracy of their trade fleet?

Given they’ve no skin in the game with respect to the crew, the ship, or for that matter much of the cargo, having a carrier to sink a pirated cargo ship not of theirs with only a half-million dollars worth of stuff for Wal Mart isn’t a bad deal. Insurance has to pay up, the crew isn’t theirs, the ship isn’t theirs, pirates learn who owns that sandbox.

For a trading nation dependent upon the sea sometimes it might be best to kill not only the messenger but also everybody he’s ever met.

That would not be unusual for the Chinese.

– Max

By: bc

bc — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:13:07 +0000

b2: I have nothing but respect for the S-3 (the men, machines and the missions; I grew up next door to them, east coast and west). Your no-brainer would work, except one thing: the tanking mission has been assigned to the Rhino. I ain’t disagreeing with you, or agreeing with them, but of the few things I do know, NAVAIR doesn’t go backwards well, or often. Once in, they’re in. I’m afraid the S-3 will sit it out at AMARG or continue life in the Forestry/FMS afterworld.

I know you know so I should leave it alone.

By: b2

b2 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:44:54 +0000

bc,

I am well aware of the FRC SW and SE and which aircraft they support. You seem to think you just fly one in, park it, drop off the keys and pick it up in a week! Not.

NRE must be completed for each job, materials with long lead times procured, special tools designed and finally thousands of man hours expended to complete the work. Setbacks and breakage are standard. All require custom work… This ain’t WWII and Rosie the Riveter doesn’t exist…

Throughput, capacity, call it what you will, the FRCs can only do so much..That is where private industry comes in especially for the foreign customers with the same aircraft. It ain’t an easy situation and despite how much $$ you throw at the problem the schedule drags you down..Uniformed officers in both articles are “spinning it” because they both know they will be fighting for the same limited resources for $hit happens issues…The P-3 and Hornet problems aren’t acquisition or planned maintenance actions. Rather, they are emergent and unexpected structural component replacement/rework. IE- the frame on your BMW just cracked before 100,000 miles/5 years and you have no warranty yet you have to go to work every day…

I would also remind you the Pirates, the Iranians and the Chicom-Rooskie threat grows along with all the other commitments, including deployments under the shell game called FRP the USN has…There is no Reposition Day or POM scheduled due to world events.

That’s where no-brainer solutions come in..Sometimes you can’t buy or clever your way out of a mess…