Being on 3 Frigates, 1 Destroyer and 1 Aegis Cruiser, ASW was a thing. Got to do the writing down of bearings and ranges of the contact on a plexiglass status board for the DRT/NC2 plotter, the DRT South Plotter, DRT North Plotter, ASAC-er (MAD, ETI, Julie and Jezebel buoys...Steuf's, Neptunes and Sea Kings...where else could a 20 year old have such fun?), CICO. ASW, in my view, was the biggest challenge for us. Much of it was voodoo in the old days. Bet those guys on G-George never had to buy another beer.
British "Ultra" intelligence was so successful at locating boat future positions, attacks had to be artificially randomized, data left unshared with some naive and leaky allies, and even reducing numbers of attacks so as not raising suspicion that codes were completely cracked risking encryption changes. The wars at sea then were won with what is now called cyber.
Even in mid-44 with U-boats mostly driven to impotence, running an attack with a glass nose B-24 took some big brass ones. (The boats had up-armed and were staying on the surface to fight it out.)
The other big brass ones? Flying an ASV Swordfish over the North Sea and the Channel in 1944-1945. That's just crazy.
I suspect in any naval campaign against an enemy with a sizable submarine fleet, we will run out of sonobuoys before we run out of P-8's. At least we are not giving aways sonobuoys to the Ukrainians, but I do wonder how robust our domestic production capacity is.
Good Fullbore. I have always thought that our side could have made the 1940-43 U Boat war end much earlier if we had devoted more resources such as Liberators to ASW. Instead we frittered them away chasing the Strategic Bombing chimera.
It has been suggested that long range naval bombers like this be used to launch strike missiles in far WestPac. Somehow the Poseidon doesn't seem like an attack aircraft to me but I am not a naval aviator~
Robert Work has suggested that the USAF's B-1 fleet is suitable for this role, to the extent it should be transferred to the US Navy. Assuming the B-1 is a good fit for the task operationally, there are problems. The B-1 has a number of programmatic enemies inside DoD and in the Congress. The B-1's are difficult to maintain because of a lack of spare parts and because of configurational differences among the airframes. In addition, the airframes don't have all that much service life left in them. Could the B-21 be used for long range naval strike?
How about a 747 air liner with the entire interior remade for carrying anti-ship weapons exiting through a rotary or tail mounted conveyor launcher? https://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm
As far as missiles that can be launched against the Chinese, the US is in a distinct shortage in launcher platforms both surface and air, missile inventory of many types, as opposed to China's every increasing numbers of platforms and missiles - I think
IIRC the Lib crew did not survive the war.
"Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes, the bear eats you"
They did survive the War, Flight Lieutenant Moore, DFC, passed in 2008.
Very glad to hear that.
Being on 3 Frigates, 1 Destroyer and 1 Aegis Cruiser, ASW was a thing. Got to do the writing down of bearings and ranges of the contact on a plexiglass status board for the DRT/NC2 plotter, the DRT South Plotter, DRT North Plotter, ASAC-er (MAD, ETI, Julie and Jezebel buoys...Steuf's, Neptunes and Sea Kings...where else could a 20 year old have such fun?), CICO. ASW, in my view, was the biggest challenge for us. Much of it was voodoo in the old days. Bet those guys on G-George never had to buy another beer.
After they returned, "About three hours later I saw him carrying plates of fish and chips to the other members of his crew still in their beds.”
Says a bit about the man, and his leadership. Well done, sir.
British "Ultra" intelligence was so successful at locating boat future positions, attacks had to be artificially randomized, data left unshared with some naive and leaky allies, and even reducing numbers of attacks so as not raising suspicion that codes were completely cracked risking encryption changes. The wars at sea then were won with what is now called cyber.
G George was a flying ENGLAND!
Even in mid-44 with U-boats mostly driven to impotence, running an attack with a glass nose B-24 took some big brass ones. (The boats had up-armed and were staying on the surface to fight it out.)
The other big brass ones? Flying an ASV Swordfish over the North Sea and the Channel in 1944-1945. That's just crazy.
Why we need MOAR P-8s!
I suspect in any naval campaign against an enemy with a sizable submarine fleet, we will run out of sonobuoys before we run out of P-8's. At least we are not giving aways sonobuoys to the Ukrainians, but I do wonder how robust our domestic production capacity is.
Good Fullbore. I have always thought that our side could have made the 1940-43 U Boat war end much earlier if we had devoted more resources such as Liberators to ASW. Instead we frittered them away chasing the Strategic Bombing chimera.
Radar was the most effective ASW tool in WWII and this story is a good illustration of that.
It has been suggested that long range naval bombers like this be used to launch strike missiles in far WestPac. Somehow the Poseidon doesn't seem like an attack aircraft to me but I am not a naval aviator~
Robert Work has suggested that the USAF's B-1 fleet is suitable for this role, to the extent it should be transferred to the US Navy. Assuming the B-1 is a good fit for the task operationally, there are problems. The B-1 has a number of programmatic enemies inside DoD and in the Congress. The B-1's are difficult to maintain because of a lack of spare parts and because of configurational differences among the airframes. In addition, the airframes don't have all that much service life left in them. Could the B-21 be used for long range naval strike?
Lack of spare parts also because of programmatic enemies. I don't get why USAF never fully funded the logistics needs of the B-1B fleet.
B-21 might be able to do the job. I hope we buy a lot of them.
How about a 747 air liner with the entire interior remade for carrying anti-ship weapons exiting through a rotary or tail mounted conveyor launcher? https://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm
Why consider an expensive aircraft meant for transcontinental missions? Why not use an aircraft meant for infra-theather missions?
A bomber's range gives us basing flexibility and can translate directly into on-station time.
As far as missiles that can be launched against the Chinese, the US is in a distinct shortage in launcher platforms both surface and air, missile inventory of many types, as opposed to China's every increasing numbers of platforms and missiles - I think