Sean Meade, blog editor for Thomas Barnett, channels his inner journalist to somehow get a trip to Europe on Ares dime maybe? Sean sends this dispatch from Farnborough. If only SysAdmin looked this good. Click the links for popup video, and turn up the volume.
We've been thinking about air power a lot lately, particularly with the UCAS discussion, but also with this emerging F/A-XX discussion. If the Navy wants to develop a new aircraft, we would suggest starting with the A-10 and make it capable of operating off an aircraft carrier. In other words, navalize an existing design, or an evolution of an existing design, but avoid as much as possible building brand new. The only bleeding edge carrier based aircraft the Navy should be developing is the UCAS. All the bleeding edge aircraft the Navy need right now are land based.
If the Naval aviation community and the Navy take a strategic position to keep an evolutionary focus for carrier based airpower, never attempting to be the bleeding edge leader in aviation with a carrier system, the Navy will maintain at least 10, if not 12 large aircraft carriers in the 21st century. If the Navy tries to push for bleeding edge aircraft, the Navy will see the big deck carrier downsized, and will never be able to afford enough small carriers to forward deploy strike aircraft in the same numbers they can today with big carriers.
And yes, we think the whole 'but big carriers are so vulnerable' argument is silly. Show me the Navy or Air Force that makes getting passed the US surface and submarine fleet for a good shot at the carrier look easy, and I'll change my position. Bottom line, carriers are vulnerable to nukes, and in that scenario, no surface ship is a good investment.
No comments:
Post a Comment