The Air Boss on the State of U.S. Naval Aviation and the Aircraft Carrier

[@cstuck33]

This was excellent. Rare case when the moderator actually knows what they're talking about, and asks good questions, Thanks

[@Gunni1972]

That's probably why they looked so nervous.

[@rexw2203]

@@Gunni1972 you picked up on that too, did ya? 😉 ..and what's the deal with their shoes? Inconsistencies there or....not?

[@raymondyim3860]

@@rexw2203 Brown shoes for aviators

[@kenhelmers2603]

Happy Anniversary to the Carriers! Thank Mooch and the panel members.

[@WhoWouldWantThisName]

Great job moderating this panel Ward. You continue to make your country proud. Thank you for your continued service in retirement.

[@davidpf043]

Wow, the closing comments on PLM and the future of CQ are fascinating. As a 70s era carrier type, I know we have put enormous effort into making boat ops safer and more predictable. The prospect that CQ might become simply learning carrier procedures rather than mastering the specific skills is quite revolutionary.

[@heloshark]

Great insights from the panel - superbly moderated. Would love to see a similar panel that includes a senior Marine Corps Aviation leader or two.

[@Pricklyhedgehog72]

It was neat to see the back office brains of carrier operations talk shop. It's hard to believe how much work goes into maintaining logistically new and existing carriers for current and future threats; a broad extension of US diplomatic and military diplomacy now and beyond in a complex world. Very interesting to hear about the cat's and traps stats for our Gen5 aircraft, and what these new platforms mean for Naval aviation training and retention long into the 21st Century. Nice job managing the panel Ward, professionally done.

[@WhoWouldWantThisName]

@@Kaatu-barada-nikto From what I have heard it sounds like `Direct Energy Weapons' appears to be the answer they have to that. I believe the Air Boss mentioned them here as well. I have no idea what the status of such technology is right now but that is the only solution I have heard mentioned as a response to these missiles.

[@mainiac4pats]

What an honor Ward, well done 👍🏼! Can’t say enough good things about how your career has brought the US navy closer to the general public through KZbin. Many other things you’ve done have contributed in a wide breadth, but I have felt closer to the Navy for knowing your channel. Thanks!

[@glenn9229]

this is definitely on point....... Mooch's skill in bringing the public along in smart, relevant and sometimes brave discussions about the future of naval aviation warfare will only serve the community and the Navy well in the future. The panel members look to be highly skilled and well across the breadth of their portfolios. Great discussions to be a party to. Thanks all concerned

[@GintaPPE1000]

Excellent job Mooch. You've proven again how your experience living on the military side of things makes you a uniquely-invaluable contributor to defense reporting: only those who've lived it know what the real important questions are.

[@johnhoffman8203]

It takes extreme insight into all the subject matter to ask the questions and carry the conversations that you were able to do with the O-9 and 8s.

[@geoffplesa8822]

Thank you for presenting this excellent panel and forum. 👍

[@gunslinger4203]

Thank You all for the excellent discussion!

[@williamwelch6480]

Excellent discussion Ward. Efforts to bring these panel presentations to subscribers are very appreciated. Thank you.

[@johngeorgegately7402]

Ward -- congrats on ANOTHER feather in your helmet. Two things: 1. this was fascinating, although inscrutable in many ways (not being a vet). 2. I still can't imagine how you folded yourself into the back seat of a Tomcat!

[@Quiquetenax]

Thanks for hosting that Mooch. Up front and personal with three busy guys. Informative and interesting.

[@kortaffel]

Lots of KZbin Admirals were in chat too. Consensus was: The JSF can't target enemies in a valley, Tom Cruise said so. Drones are the future, and bring back the battleship

[@robertlamanes6715]

Well done Mooch , You were able to get to the nitty gritty . As a Canadian I respect your efforts to get us close to what's happening . I noticed that you had the utmost respect for your panel . They tell how it is . No bull

[@zorkwhouse8125]

@War Carroll Heck yeah man! Congrats for getting to moderate/lead this panel - that's pretty darn cool. An honor as well. From a budgetary standpoint and what these gentlemen have described, I think it makes a great case for not throwing any more good money after bad on the thus-far failed littoral class ship project and to redirect that money into meeting the needs described here to the greater degree that would allow. That isn't to say that the concept/importance of the mission these ships were supposed to take on was misguided or superfluous. Its just that the reality turned out to be that the promises made by the contractor were either flat out b/s or, giving them the most generous benefit of the doubt, just significantly optimistic. The need for these classes of vessels still exists but I think it feels irresponsible (and I'm not pinning that on the navy, I believe this likely falls on the members of congress etc responsible for appropriating the funds and directing where they're going) to wipe the slate clean and hand over more money to this same company that essentially burned the navy and the tax payers by knowingly delivering ships to the navy that were incapable of performing the missions they had been specially and specifically commissioned to handle. Unfortunately that *isn't* currently the plan, as we are presently in line to hand over tens of millions more to the same company that delivered the first series of what turned out to be unusable ships. And yes, they clearly were unusable because the navy has chosen to retire them within only a few years of putting to sea - which is unheard of under any type of normal circumstance. It is just very unfortunate that, in times of tighter budgets, certain other *priorities* seem to be taking precedence over providing the navy with what they actually need and in making the best use of the money available.

[@Lake_Lover]

VADM Whitesell blows me away. Smart, smart man. Glad he's on our side. Thanks to all of these leaders! It's easily seen why they are in these rolls and leading our Navy.

[@alexseiler1604]

Thanks for your genuine and relevant reporting. So much content and access to accomplished leadership. Thx Ward!

[@smacdiesel]

My grandfather served on the first carrier, time goes by so fast.

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

Well done Ward!!! Seems like youre moving up in the world. Even being a jet jock, it must've been tough to breathe with the rarified atmosphere around the flags!!!🤣 Very informative and insightful, although I still struggle to hear anything told in glowing terms when it comes to the Ford...

[@WhoWouldWantThisName]

Well to be fair these guys were peers of Ward's back when he was in, so I don't think he is made nervous by them. If he were still in the Navy he might be a 2 or 3 star himself.

[@DonWan47]

Damn. These guys are sharp, they know where individual squadrons are all over the world.

[@Gates54]

Wow, that was excellent! They were very open and honest in their answers.

[@kingcrazymani4133]

Thanks for this talk, Mooch & Admirals.

[@tfajsh]

Thank you Ward for your dedication to bringing this content to all of us

[@vincentlamolinara9476]

Mooch - from Vinny Positive - love your wise and worthy efforts to discuss Naval Aviation - best so far was story of your father

[@thomaslemay8817]

Thank all of you for this briefing and thank you again for your service. I have one simple concern with a 100-percent electronic approach-and-landing automatic system . If for some reason that electronic system fails will it still be possible to recover the asset ? Very early in my Private Pilot training the rental aircraft I was flying experience an electrical system failure including fire in the cockpit . I cut the main circuit breaker deployed the fire extinguisher I was in the controlled airspace of the airport. I flew back to Midfield downwind and began circling until I received the green light signal from the tower to land. I landed the plane and stopped on the first taxiway. An airport tug came out and towed the aircraft back to the FBO. I told him I was finished with that airplane for sometime . The repairs included a complete new wiring harness several circuit breakers and an alternator. I personally needed new pants and shoes ( fire damage) . I still believe a pilot should be able to land with no help other than some lights .

[@georged1209]

@T.J. Kong You say "fairly resilient". How much combat damage will it take to knock out the auto landing system on either the platform or the boat? As a helo driver from ancient history times I was always proud that I did my CQ in the T-28 and I still remember the first pass at the Lex.

[@georged1209]

@T.J. Kong That is not responsive to the question about potential combat damage. If you don't know just say so.

[@s.marcus3669]

I love the two officers wearing brown shoes; a throwback to the "brown shoe navy"!

[@robertkettle2829]

Remembering the all or heavy Grumman airwing. Great rundown. Thank you. One side note as a born and raised Western New Yorker…. SUNY in SUNY Albany is pronounced SU as in Sukhoi and NY as in knee.

[@00calvinlee00]

Great Work Mooch! I will say I was disappointed that no time was spent on the Growler/VAQ Question. To go from looking at the loss of five VAQs, the Sailors, Aircrews, experience and Capabilities to potentially seeing a return to Tactical Naval Reserve Squadrons is huge. Electronic Attack is needed now more than ever as threats to the CVSG increase from Near-Peer Adversaries with ASMs and their own EW Capabilities. There still needs to be organic ASW for the continued Submarine threat. Six to eight H-60s simply do not cut it and P-8s are good platforms but predictable and vulnerable in a number of aspects.

[@pongokamerat8601]

You are a real contributor in making "the normal guy" understand the seriousness of the evil changes that have been taking place on Tellus for too long.

[@JackWaldbewohner]

Ward you are running the show! I'm dazzled! Well fone!

[@jonschreiber4012]

That was a great panel discussion.

[@chadpyett6441]

Very well done ward must be a measure of pride in where the navy has come since you were last in?

[@WardCarroll]

There is. We're in good hands.

[@lordbyron8927]

Awesome content, great job with being the mediator. Kept it relevant and a great flow.

[@vxe6vxe6]

One of the biggest things Naval Aviation did to improve mission capable rates was to get rid of the "SPINTAC" (special interest aircraft) program. Unless you were a maintainer you'll never know how many hours were wasted on pulling apart a perfectly good aircraft to get the squadron "hangar queen" up in a FMF status and once the FCF was good to pull it apart and get the plane you just pulled apart back in a FMF status.

[@beerguy1320]

If you like hearing tactical direction and buck stops here naval information, smash that like button and show your support!

[@nycshelbygt500]

Forgot to ask the most important question. Did they enjoy Top Gun Maverick and how do they think it will impact Navy Pilot recruitment for the next 10 years.

[@ErikGarces]

Mooch, you've become my go to guy on naval aviation news

[@MrBaloo44]

Ward, really.. Commander? Seeing from Paris, France as a O6 in the reserve, like it says in Top Gun Maverick "you should be at least a 2 stars admiral by now!!" what happened? You got it all, encyclopedia knowledge of naval aviation, great sense of humor, so articulate, usmc aviator family, respected by the community... I don't get it.. The fellows on stage aren't better than you are.. Congrats for your channel, outstanding work..

[@Albertkallal]

Well, that was really amazing, and fantastic job by Ward as the host. I've underestimated you again. Some great points - and the mcq refueling capacity and range? Really impressive. Other surprise was already the significant reduction in having to refuel aircraft on return to ship. Is this due to automated landing assistance systems, or better mission/fuel management? (My guess seems to be landing assistance systems). All and all good news. And number of EMALS trap counts continues to rise - hope the reliability is there.

[@pedzsan]

Very educational for me. I didn't know what "Sinatra" (which is actually CNTRA), "RAG", "FRS", "CQ", etc. I had to pause often and search to follow the conversation. But it is encouraging to hear various bits of what they said such as it becoming easier and safer to land jets on carriers.

[@tfdtfdtfd]

"TBD" was the acronym I had the most trouble with 😂

[@longtimepittsowner5589]

This was an excellent presentation by the worlds best. There is a lot of ownership in the idea of carrier and aircraft that fly from it from all members of the panel. December 6, 1941 we were sure We were protected perfectly; 9/10 were were sure we were protected. Our anticipation and perceptions were unable to prevent the terrible consequences. We must be prepared for every eventuality let us never forget what happened….

[@leveretth]

WC and three Admirals - How could I resist? BZ

[@Hammerli280]

The biggest worry I have with MQ-25 is that it's currently assigned to the E-2 community...who intend to fob it off on warrant officers. In other words, there will be no high-level support for it. As opposed to the MQ-4, which is being fully integrated into the MPRF community.

[@davealbert6684]

Sir, thank you, some interesting takeaways into NAVAIR from a ground pounder RIGGER. 😁

[@miceinoz1181]

Very informative, thanks Mooch.

[@420BulletSponge]

Having worked in Fly 1 it surprised me the other day when the Truman lost an aircraft over the side. It was stated it was due to extreme weather but also the underway replenishment was being performed. The weather couldn't have been that extreme during unrep, I figure they don't want to admit some poorly trained blue shirt in Fly 4 doesn't know how to use chocks and tie downs properly.

[@zorbakaput8537]

That's as good as any other guess out there.

[@FN_FAL_4_ever]

I worked in V3 division in hangar bay 1 aboard the Truman as an undesignated airman before striking AD3. If there was extreme weather/heavy sea states, if I remember we were supposed to use 16 chains to tie down a Super Hornet, and that was in the hangar bay. I think the blue shirts half assed tying down that bird.

[@vxe6vxe6]

You don't know what happened. To assign blame before the official reports comes out (or the leaked youtube video) it's just guesswork on your part. They could have been moving the plane, the brakes failed on the tow tractor, the brakes failed on the plane, both the tractor and plane brakes failed, the plane didn't have brakes and they were using chock walkers, the flight deck was wet and hadn't been resurfaced and was slick, there are all sorts of things that could of happened beside a mistake by the deck crew.

[@FN_FAL_4_ever]

@@vxe6vxe6 very much like the guesswork on your part? Take your own advice first.

[@bobwampler3387]

Excellent discussion.

[@drewvickers1520]

Thanks for the candid look behind the curtain Ward, and many thanks to the panelists. Great to know at least some of our tax dollars are not being wasted. Top Shelf content as always.

[@rockwelltorrey4756]

Gosh, I had forgotten how Admirals talk.

[@thereissomecoolstuff]

What's with the admirals socks. Isn't there a uniform standard for the khaki uniform. I see 3 different colored socks. Did the navy change the rules. Are these guys retired? Just curious.

[@michaelmassino6344]

I noticed that too. I'm former Navy so I know what you mean. Uniform of the day.

[@bernieburawski1446]

Naval Aviation is like that. Some squadrons I was in had relaxed standards. For example, I was in VS-21 and called "The Redtails" and the CO allowed their pilots to wear red shoelaces on their boots!

[@thereissomecoolstuff]

@@bernieburawski1446 cool. I worked in field that required a uniform. If I was going to be in public like this I would wear the uniform correctly and per the order. I think it sends a bad message. Dynasty Decline always starts with the socks.

[@AA-xo9uw]

Male Officer Service Uniform Service Khaki Socks, Black 3501.78 OPTIONAL ITEMS Socks, Khaki(2) 3501.78 Socks, Dress (Black/Khaki/White) Article 3501.78 b. Correct Wear Wear right side out with service or dress shoes. Wear black socks with black shoes, khaki socks with brown shoes, and white socks with white shoes. Description and Wear of Uniform Components Chapter 3 Footnotes 2. For male and females, socks color shall match service shoes, except khaki socks shall be worn with brown shoes. For females, when wearing slacks with dress or formal shoes (pumps or flat), hosiery is optional. When wearing slacks with service shoes (oxford), socks are required. When wearing skirts, hosiery is optional, and wear a slip if the skirt worn is unlined. Hosiery when worn will be flesh tone. When not wearing hosiery, no-show socks or foot liners will be worn for hygiene purposes and to minimize foot abrasions and blisters.

[@RickCarter1776]

Let me just break it down barney style. Black shoe black socks, brown shoes khaki socks, white shoes white socks. Brown shoes are only for CPO and Officer in aviation rates. Common Navy term black shoe Navy/Brown shoe Navy. i.e. reg Navy black shoe, aviation community brown shoe Navy. if you notice the officer in between the 2 on the ends wears black shoes, and is not a naval aviator. both of the other Adms wear wings and thus brown shoes. lastly get 3 pairs of khaki socks and you will find slight differences of shade....That should break it down pretty simply. Hope that helps

[@香料國境]

Excellent. Thankyou.

[@kevkeary4700]

great to see an independent arbitrator and an American patriot being MC on these important issues.

[@johnferguson1455]

Excellent

[@aaroncarr5725]

I feel for the sailors on the Ford. That’s a horrible schedule. Having been on a carrier from precom to the end of first deployment I know how bad that time sucks.

[@mhsvz6735]

Excellent, thank you.

[@dannyotter7247]

Fascinating - nice one Mooch :-)

[@jamesmterrell]

Accident investigation aside, I heard Boss say they need to learn how to land on the CV manually. So, any information on the JSF that crashed recently the boat and could that impact the dependence of PLM?

[@dinosaurfan2409]

I was not fully aware that fighters often land on the carrier by the pointing the noise and with an automatic landing program. I hope I did not misunderstand that. I understand the benefits of it, but I personally feel it should be required for students to learn how to land on a carrier manually in both the environment and weather conditions of the open ocean and continue to do so in the fleet. That is what makes naval aviators with their earned their wings of gold and distinguish them. You never know there may be a situation where the program may not work, and you will have to land the airplane manually, and you better be prepared to do that however the environment and conditions at sea may be.

[@davidmiles6865]

Thanks!

[@texasknight5175]

Never get tired of the brown shoes.

[@henryvagincourt4502]

Many a year has passed since my exchange posting with the USN, I'd do it all again tomorrow, ex Royal Navy............Fly Navy!

[@maxmclanahan6821]

Not having the hands on training and actual hands on of landing of a jet aircraft onto the boat is questionable in my book. Even with all the great systems we have now for our aircraft and the backup ones also. No one can say 100 percent they cannot fail. I know in my fifty years in aviation I have witness enough systems failures even in the best equipped aircraft. That when it came down to a critical system failure that the one guy (THE PILOT) and his skill got the mission done and the aircraft back safely. Both in the military and civilian aviation world. We have learned many hard lessons from the past, from the fire on the Forestal to the shuttle breaking up over Texas. I just hope we do not have to with pilots not having to ever land on the boat under their control.

[@cristiancazares3935]

Starts @2:58

[@plnmech]

I am happy to see that admirals are not wearing blinders to the future as were the battle ship admirals of WW2 were in respect to carrier aviation and they see and openly embrace unmanned aircraft to supplement and even replace manned aircraft because time marches on and to live in the past will set you up to loose and unlike WW@ we will not have time and space to recover from our mistakes in judgment.

[@zorbakaput8537]

Good grief what an appalling comparison. The inference is the Navy hasn't learnt anything in 75 years since WWII. The leaders today are human too they can only go the planning and info they have today. Tomorrow it maybe all different and they have at least planned for flexibility. Remember in the leadup to WWII the Forces had an even more intransigent Congress than they have today. Check out the state of the American Air Force in 1940. With respect, it sounds like you are the one living in the past.

[@plnmech]

@@zorbakaput8537 read my comment I was complimenting the admirals for having such clear foresight to be able to put the in the past where it belongs.

[@LTVoyager]

@@zorbakaput8537 Good grief. What an appalling misunderstanding of a comment.

[@bluemarlin8138]

The “battleship admirals of WWII” definitely WEREN’T wearing blinders (well, maybe the German and Italian ones were). The US and UK were both crash-building carriers before the war even started. It just took 3-4 years to build one in peacetime, and 2-3 in wartime, so the Allies didn’t have huge numbers of carriers in the beginning. They would have built more carriers even earlier, but they were constrained by naval treaties. (Lexington and Saratoga also took up a lot of the US’s displacement limit because they were so large.) The US “fleet problem” exercises showed in the early 1930s that an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible. We just didn’t think the Japanese has the logistics capacity to pull it off. The main problems with US carrier aviation early in the war were (1) Japan was using better tactics, (2) Japan had more experienced pilots who had been at war for a few years, and (3) Japan had longer-ranged aircraft, and the Zeros were better at traditional dogfighting tactics. Once the USN and its pilots got some combat experience and killed off some of their pilots, and replaced the early war carrier losses, we pulled ahead. But I do agree that it’s good to look to the future, and I think the US is way ahead in that department.

[@plnmech]

@@bluemarlin8138 I wasn't complaining about naval aviation I was complaining about the battle ship admirals who were running the prewar show.

[@jurgenblick5491]

That is good to hear

[@nimaiiikun]

Hi Mooch. have you ever done a video on your thoughts on the retirement of the F-14 in favor of the Super Hornet and the Super Hornet proposal?

[@theadmiral4625]

THANK YOU FOR AN AMAZING FORUM!!!!!!!!!! AND THANKS TO HII FOR THE COOL TOYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@danmartens8855]

Three cheers for the BGT's (Big Gray Targets)!

[@gregstovall3079]

Good grief. I've been at this DoD game since mid-70s and it appears to be the same song, different day with a few more buzz words thrown in so we don't look stupid. Just when we get a handle on the technology du jour and begin improving our metrics along comes the next coming thing where we have to learn the new stuff, suffer the FMC hits, come up with a program to get well, fight the bean counters and nimrod executive and legislative branches so we can make some progress. All while keeping an eye on the prize and never forgetting there are no points for second place.

[@nickhimaras9331]

Great exchange CDR Carroll! Since we are NOT all versed in Naval Aviation PROCUREMENT and ADMISTRATION terminology. please try explaining the acronyms, next time.

[@jasonradio202]

ODU, nice

[@kaewakoyangi8071]

I wish the participants had shown a little more excitement in the way they spoke.

[@vincentlamolinara9476]

Mooch - Negative - (despite your well thought questions) - appears “we” are caught in a paradigm of thought analogous to WW1 aircraft at first limited to artillery spotting vice actually carrying weapons. The back to the future return to long range aviation (that died with the F-14 / A-6) afforded by the MQ-25 stealth tanker (“50k gas at 500nm”) is proof of being entrenched in a way of thinking when a networked strike-fighter (even cyber /EW) capable drone might be the real future.

[@charlesberlemann8831]

Interesting..... I just wish I had, available, a glossary of all the acronyms and initials these guys were using. I know more about Naval Aviation than when I pushed the "Play" button but some of it was hazy. p.s. WAs Admiral Downey chewing gum?

[@dougruebsamen3970]

I love listening to your commentary but I (along with,maybe, lots of other folks) didn't have a clue what y'all were talking about. Is a program like this designed for the average guy or a very specific and knowledgeable group?

[@jedibusiness789]

Love how they’ve master military buzz words considering all they do is launch, fly, recover, break, repair and repeat.

[@LMVG2233]

I am a female retired attorney. When my nephew received a contract to fly for the USMC four years ago, I began to study naval aviation. Given that background, I could follow this discussion. I think it would be difficult for a person with no naval aviation background to truly appreciate all that was covered.

[@noahway13]

Is it military SOP to always say, Great question, or Thank you for that question?

[@WardCarroll]

Ha! I think that's the first thing they tell guys when they make admiral.

[@buddystewart2020]

Some of this was interesting, some of it way over my head. I need a freakin' up to date acronym list, sheesh. Main problem is I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to air. I was a black shoe DD sailor, I just didn't deal with anything to do with air.

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

Same... With the exception of knowing the names of the choppers in our det (Ren and Stimpy), didnt get much airdale learnin on an AFS!!!

[@rael5469]

These Admirals are selling a lot of watches with this video. I can tell ya. ;)

[@SkyhawkFlyer]

I'd have liked to heard their input on not having a carrier-based anti-submarine platform given both Russia and China are building up their sub fleets.

[@ianhobbs6326]

SH-60R are an organic ASW asset

[@SkyhawkFlyer]

@@ianhobbs6326 They have limited range and time on station. They barely scratch the surface of ASW for the CTF.

[@menziesdave1263]

Hi Ward, That info from your interview with the 3 top navy admirals was interesting BUT I really wanted to know about the outcome of the F35 that hit the deck recently in the Sth China sea. What exactly happened to cause this, has the aircraft been recovered & what is the pilot's health status/& future job prospects???? Thanks.

[@optrdocksidebars7106]

The aircraft was recovered roughly a month after the accident by the US. As to the cause and future prospects of the pilot, his future will largely depend upon the investigation and whatever conclusions they draw about if he was at fault or not. Going off the fact it’s pretty evident it was a ramp strike by not being on profile, unless there was an outlying factor with the aircraft, I’d say his flying days are done.

[@Gunni1972]

@ 41:40 Requirements side of UCAVS: How the hell can a " Multirole- Long Range Combat/EW Drone", that is capable to keep up with a normal air wing in speed and have a meaningful Payload be small and cheap"? Who is going to build it? IKEA? You need an Engine that sips on fuel, yet perform supercruise with a payload and fuel. Has enough lift to carry air to air or Air to ground ordonnance. All you really save in weight is the Pilot, Seat, and Life support systems. Otherwise, it is a full-fledged Plane, relying on Remote control signals. "Extended range" is only doable, if it can refuel on loitering MQ 25. Some Physics go a long way with a "Wishlist". Magic carpets do not exist.

[@ingoos]

Just in case the navy is looking for a new way to prevent "bolters" (thus improving turn arounds....) imagine stepping on the business end of a garden rake and quickly meeting the handle. Likewise, the arresting cable can be raised to be caught by the tailhook (which can have multiple hooks to increase the likelihood of catching the cable).

[@fernanddubois1792]

Ripping the landing gear off the aircraft quite likely

[@ingoos]

@@fernanddubois1792 only if we actually use a garden rake. Obviously, what is needed is something similar-functionally a lever.

[@thomaslemay8817]

Ted, they did use a net system on straight deck ships, it stopped landing aircraft from hitting aircraft on the end of the deck resulting in damage to the landing aircraft and preventing damage to any on the end of the deck , not a grate result but better than the alternative at the time. The short comming of that system is the reason we have the angeled deck today. You are looking for a hardware solution to a software problem (skills and training).

[@tedntricia]

If you want to discuss details about getting ships out of RCOHs, send me a DM. Without BS.

[@nycshelbygt500]

WoW. Lots of bean counter talk, but not much excitement for the next 100 years of Carrier Aviation. Since the 1990s, Naval Aviation has stagnated. The USAF is literally 40 years ahead of the Navy in terms of stealth platforms. And 25 years ahead in UAVs. Any war in the Pacific will not involve the US Army making a Thunder Run in M1 Abrams Tanks to an adversary's capital or a Marine Amphibious landing on a beach. It will be all sea battles involving very long range strikes, cruise missiles, and short and medium range ballistic missiles. The center piece will be Carrier Battle Groups and submarines. Doesn't sound like the US Navy is ready for the Future of Warfare.

[@idolhanz9842]

Naval Institute and the Air Force Association ---powerful advocacy and lobbying power....

[@WardCarroll]

Naval Institute doesn't lobby.

[@rael5469]

"....to present dilemas to our threat." YES !.....but if they can actually field the hypersonics ....I mean....game changing technology HAS come along over the years......it is NOT impossible that game changing technology....hypersonics.....could come along and make the carrier battle groups obsolete, virtually overnight. God forbid.

[@SlowrideSteve]

I re need some translation here Mooch

[@paultemple5042]

I don't care who says what, from protecting our Allies, to defending our Nation' territory, to humanitarian aid and search and rescue at Sea. Aircraft Carriers will always be needed. The first Aircraft Carrier made permanently changed Military Power at Sea. And for as long as there are Oceans on this Earth Aircraft Carriers will be an Irreplaceable asset. And the only thing that is more Irreplaceable are the Men and Women that Operate both the Aircraft Carriers and the Aircraft deployed on them.

[@CallsignEskimo-l3o]

Why do they have different colour shoes?

[@AA-xo9uw]

Surface types wear black shoes, airedales wear brown shoes.

[@Bryster51]

Way too short!

[@muesli4597]

I’ve never been responsible for a death. Let alone a kill chain

[@keeper2883]

Ward Carroll for SecNav!!!!

[@ruthdilbeck2035]

What is "Sinatra"?

[@AA-xo9uw]

CNATRA - Chief of Naval Air Training

[@psoltan]

Holy sh*t! What a torrent of acronym-ladened, defensive vagueness. If it wasn't for Ward injecting some positivity into the discussion, it would have been a depressing talk. All the men on that panel are experts at putting the best spin possible on dealing with an enormous number of problems at the same time. 🙄

[@glenn9229]

welcome to the Admirals lounge, that's how it works......it's an unclassified presentation so you cant talk specifics on many programs, it's an international audience including any potential adversary, so vague is the new black. As an overseas Naval Aviator, it was probably the best panel presentation with specifics and "state of the nation" information I've seen, even if it was quite reasonably a little lacking in some specifics. Sadly, one glaring omission is aviation force ASW. The threat is increasing exponentially, and 60Rs and P8s arent going to cut it long term.

[@DNowlan1]

Very interesting stuff but allow me to play the devil's advocate on a few things. I'll do this easiest to hardest Firstly I have very deep reservations about pilots seeing the boat once they actually get to the RAG for multiple reasons. Yep I get that PLM and auto carrier landing systems have made landing on the boat a lot easier. That being said and I say this with no dis respect to Air Force pilots but naval aviators have to operate at a much higher level. That is primarily because of the boat and you spend at least 50% of your time over water. In the F-14 days the great leveller of whether you had the right stuff or not is could you land on the boat. The nail here is if you can't land a T-45 or analogue on a carrier you have no business being a naval aviator. Also you only have to look at mishaps like US Flight 1549 (the miracle on the Hudson) and QF-32 to realise that from time to time automatic aids don't always work. This is put into very sharp relief when you are flying a $100 million plus aircraft. Secondly I was very saddened hearing the comments about the F-35's FMC being a non issue for multiple reasons. Firstly data sharing is all great but with the F-35C having a FMC of 30% or so that is no guarantee that a 4 ship can do it's job. When the JPO program director LtGen Fick was challenged on this at a HASC F-35 sustainment hearing he had to back away from that party line very quickly. Also when going against a peer opponent in an electronically contested airspace, if this is the major thing you are relying you are in deep trouble. A cursory review of the Pentagon's DOT&E reports on the F-35 bare this out. But more importantly it shows a perception that information sharing trumps the basics of payload and speed. This is very concerning. Yes information sharing is a great enabler of this but it is no replacement to the key cardinal parameters of payload and performance. However the thing that got my attention was what was said about UAS system and how it shows a disconnect with engineering basics. At the 42:00s mark there was a discussion that you could get a UAV with a combat radius of 800n.m plus that is about the size of a Valkyrie or Loyal wingman. Any back of the beer coaster calculation shows that this doesn't add up. Bottom line if you need to haul 2000lb or so of air to air weapons for a DCA mission or an Interdiction mission carrying a 5000 lb weapons load which is what you need to be combat effective and you want to do this supersonic/high subsonic with an effective combat radius of 800 n.m plus you will wind up with something the size of an F-14/F-22/J-20. That is manned or unmanned. That really got my attention. Don't get me wrong I wish the air boss and his team every success but that is my 2 cents worth.

[@michaelwalker2437]

Hey Mooch! Why no brown shoes for you?

[@WardCarroll]

I WAS wearing brown shoes.

[@michaelwalker2437]

@@WardCarroll Omni, Omni ,VOR. You are forgiven my son. Old habits never die. I don’t even own a pair f black shoes . Rhino sends (Flight Surgeon VA35 ‘85)

[@GSteel-rh9iu]

I know these were carrier Admirals; how many real FREM Constellations could we have bought with the $60billion they flushed away on LCS and more on the Zumwalt thingee that never worked. Some heads should have rolled ... just saying

[@MrTexasDan]

US estimating that they can get hypersonic missiles down to $10M apiece, which means the Chicoms can do it for much less, let's say $5M. What keeps me awake at night: That someone in China wakes up and realizes they can mass produce these missiles and send a thousand of them at a Ford-class carrier for a fraction of the cost of that carrier.

[@bluemarlin8138]

Easy, fella. No one has proven that hypersonics can even hit a moving warship. There are a lot of technical hurdles there. Even targeting a carrier would be a tall order. Satellite tracking isn’t as easy as people think, especially when we can and would shoot down those recon satellites. No aircraft will get close enough to target a carrier with radar, and even if their few nuclear subs could get close enough to get a vague location for the carrier, it probably wouldn’t be precise enough to use for targeting.