- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Cdn Blackshirt said:Well then reverse the order or your argument. In your ideal task force, what inherent capabilities do you want and what kit is necessary to provide those capabilities.
My list (based on presence of threat in likely areas of deployment) ...
In my opinion, because I believe UAV's/UCAV's will get exponentially better in the upcoming years, I would start with a single 22000 Schelde Enforcer LHD and add a light catapult specifically for UAV's/UCAV's and if I have limitations on when I can deploy based on 1/3 cycle then so be it. ...
That's just me....
Matthew. [dons blindfold, lights cigarette and awaits the inevitable....] ;D
It makes sense to me that UAVs would be a useful tool for the Navy. It makes sense to me that the capabilities of UAVs will expand greatly, though probably unevenly, in the years to come. Maybe the day will come when JSFs will be replaced by UAVs for CAS for Amphibious Assault (and maybe even replace Super Hornets, et.al. for Blue Water operations and inland strikes), but already you are contemplating a ship for UAVs that replace aircraft that don't yet exist!
I honestly don't know enough to be making meaningful contributions regarding what I think a Battle Group should include. Nonetheless, (from a very big picture perspective) I can't see that building an "aircraft carrier" for "aircraft" that exist only in theory is a good idea (even financially, if nothing else). Given the uncertainty of new and future technology, relying on it to provide solutions is spurious at best.
48th: What if someone is already on the "inside" ... it's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again ... how many contractors are involved in this stuff?