Barrett Tillman's NAVAL INSTITUTE article

[Tom_Cervo]

Reading military history you get a strong feeling that there are "elites" and "slums", areas with no basis in objective reality. In the 20's and 30's the RN regarded anti-submarine warfare as a slum--F.J. Walker was regarded as eccentric for chosing it as a specialty. Same with the FAA, a guaranteed career-killer.

One impression I got from the Tailhook controversey was that helo pilots aren't regarded with the same respect as fighter or strike pilots. Hard to believe of any organization that regards itself as professional, or sane--unless someone thinks that subs are averted and pilots are rescued by the aura of their own perfection.
AKA "You know I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."

John Jervis was the man who said they can not come by sea, and it was a statement based on fact, not hauteur. These decisions have to be made on a similar basis, not the thought of Arleigh Burke rolling in his grave.

[bristol scout]

Who was, of course, famously challenged to a duel by a humiliated (or so he felt) officer!

Dave.

[James A. Pratt III]

Intresting artical Barret. I have read awhile back one of the reasons we can't put a stop to piracy off Somolia is not enough SHIPS! The reason we nearly lost Iraq not enough TROOPS! ditto Afganstan. Add to this incompetance and PC ness. Looks like these big defense cuts are a bad idea.

[bristol scout]

Defence cuts are always a bad idea-----at best you lose jobs and expertise, at worst you lose lives in the event of hostilities--and if the hostile force is big enough and powerful enough you quite simply lose the war--and your freedom.

It does'nt get any clearer--all the schools and hospitals and health care and all the other essential trappings of the free western democracies amount to nothing---if you suddenly become not free and not democratic.

Dave.

[mike_baram]

That is what having---and maintaining a large and well trained and equipped Navy gives you---not just the extension and mobility to place your forces wherever you need them--or may need them to be in future, but the ability to deny others that mobility and safeguard your own shores.

I'm starting to think we'd be better off with fewer but faster ships.

Do we need super-carriers when UAVs can sneak up on an enemy and blast him to whatever paradise he believes in?*

However, I'm not up on technological advances in ship design, so I'll leave any further speculation to the experts.

*Besides, the savings can be put toward building up our cavalry units.

[Barrett]

[QUOTE=Tom_Cervo;444178]

One impression I got from the Tailhook controversey was that helo pilots aren't regarded with the same respect as fighter or strike pilots. Hard to believe of any organization that regards itself as professional, or sane--unless someone thinks that subs are averted and pilots are rescued by the aura of their own perfection.
AKA "You know I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."
QUOTE]

Definitely absolutely not true. I was in The Tailhook Thing from before the beginning til after the end. yes, at one point there was Helicopter Discrimination, but that was before The Vietnam Thing. (Helo pilot to fighter pilots: "When you're down in the water and the sampans are coming to get you, call for a Phantom to pick you up.")

Fact is, roughly half of all golden wingers are "rotorheads", and there were helo guys and gals on the assn. board of directors as well as editor of the journal. So The Admiral's Aide was not disdained on account of her hardware. Rawther, it was her attitude. She and some others went looking for trouble and found it. When you think "Tailhook scandal", think Naval Leadership Scandal because that's far more accurate. The leadership failure started with the bush leaguers and went downhill from there.