Posted on 02/18/2021 6:04:08 AM PST by Onthebrink
Sometime late last year, the U.S. Navy tested one of Northrop Grumman’s remotely piloted helicopters for use as an anti-submarine warfare platform, USNI News reported. During the evaluation, the Fire Scout drone dropped miniaturized sonobuoys into the water, essentially small acoustic devices that listen for enemy movement underwater.
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
High speed screws, in the water.
But seriously, this is a great idea. Networked drones could patrol and prosecute a lot of square miles, in any weather, without risk to human helo crews.
Modern technology has made almost all surface combat vessels obsolete. They are floating coffins for their brave young crews. Being commanded by the bizarre , diverse creatures the current NAVY favors does not help. Submarines traditionally find refuge by diving deep but suspect that once detected they will be destroyed before they can dive. Politically correct, pole climbing battleship admirals control the Navy.It faces disaster.
You leave out the fact that an unprovoked attack on a U.S. combatant ship will trigger an overwhelmingly violent retaliation. The prospect of such a retaliation heavily deters such an unprovoked attack, does it not?
Nevertheless if the American fleet as currently constituted, led and armed goes to all out war against a technologically sophisticated opponent, it will be a disaster.
I retired from the Navy as an P-3 ASW operator 31 years ago. They were talking about Fire Scout even back then. Who knows, maybe the time has (finally) come.
You leave out the fact that an unprovoked attack on a U.S. combatant ship will trigger an overwhelmingly violent retaliation. The prospect of such a retaliation heavily deters such an unprovoked attack, does it not?
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor they understood that the United States would react. Their plan was to take over their side of the world before the Americans could respond.
Their miscalculation was not sinking Americans carriers and not understanding just how fast America could respond.
So to answer your question a decision to attack another nation is often based more on hopeful assumptions then reality.
What happens if/when that fear is no longer a factor? Shiite happens. So does war. Fear of retaliation is a weak weak armor.
Or, to state that more genetally: if ANY military goes into combat with technologically inferior weapons, it will more often than not get defeated.
Exceptions might include militaries which substitute mass numbers for technical sophistication, such as our WWII Sherman tanks against the newer German Panzers.
But that is unlikely to happen again.
The key point to remember is that for every threat there are counter measures nearly all of which require teamwork among various weapons, ships, aircraft etc.
That’s why no ship or weapon ever operates completely independent of its support group.
And why support groups are designed to counter expected threats.
So the question on any mission is whether all expected threats are adequately countered.
Wow! ***Generally***!
Automatic word completions can be a killer!
What you suggest not only requires a modicum of technologically appropriate ordanance but firm, competent, purposeful leadership to prosecute properly and effectively. Sorry but today’s Navy senior and more omniously middle leadership are truly politically correct ,pole climbers but not competent or insightful military leaders. They are better suited for salons than the high seas.
I hear you.
Can’t confirm or refute what you say, but Republican leadership should slow or reverse such trends.
I don’t accept that all is permanently lost.
We began WWII with a very rude awakening, but were able to recover.
Hopefully we could do that again.
Both the Navy and the Army waisted billions of dollars on this piece of crap. They could have had a far more advanced system for far less cost and 10-12 years sooner.
When I was a boot on my way overseas for the first time, the air terminal was stacked up. Too many passengers, not enough planes. Lots of guys sleeping on their sea bags. Down at one end was something I’d never seen before: A master chief (E-9) sitting on a pile of sea bags, holding court for us youngsters.
He was wearing aviation greens (which I had never seen, either), and the National Defense Service medal, third award. He had served in War II, Korea, and Vietnam. I don’t remember his other awards, but since he had fought in three wars, I’m sure he had FU fruit salad.
I don’t remember all the sea stories and history he related to us, but one thing has stuck in my mind for half a century and more: Every time war breaks out, he said, the Navy brass are nothing but paper-pushing, chair-warming, congenital REMFs. The first thing they have to do is get rid of those useless parasites and get some warriors out on the tip of the spear.
He had seen it with FDR, bragging that he had cut defense to the bone then kept cutting, and with Truman, who let himself be blindsided by the North Koreans, and again with Johnson in Vietnam.
What we have now may be the worst case of it, but America still has warriors to call on.
Actually, until Trump Repbulicans were a huge problem. The problems of counter road-side IEDs while bogged down in middle east messes does little to prepare us for defense of a large blue island nation in the Pacific in close proximity to a red-state, which is a space-force/navy/AF problem and not a problem for elite and specialized ground forces.
“What we have now may be the worst case of it, but America still has warriors to call on.”
I think you’re right, hope so, pray so.
“space-force/navy/AF problem and not a problem for elite and specialized ground forces.”
Right — problem from time immemorial is that it’s very difficult in peace time to predict what will or won’t work in actual combat.
The best they can do is educated guesses and plan for great flexibility.
It helps not to engage in useless strategic distractions, however. The probability of success in attacking the right problem goes up if you stop spending resources on what you know is the wrong problem. But the myopic so-called globalists are blind to the real strategic threats.
How about if they confirm our voting machines were, or were not, hacked — now there’s a genuine strategic threat well worth investing our most capable resources to prevent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.