Well, if you're counting on JSF to be running to-spec, on-time, and
on-cost (which I know you have to be), you're Screwed! :-)
While the argument, "the Marines always get what they want," has a great
deal of validity, the simple physics that empty weight and Max take-off
weight of the F-35B are almost identical has to give pause. I liked the
idea of the RN returning to "real" carriers with cats, but also understand
that QE and PoW are too far along to make that economical in era when NO
ONE has any money.
But if you're depending on US DoD to do something right, well, best to
consider some fall-back positions. I'm just sayin'.
Seriously, while no one likes Bill Sweetman's regular commentaries in
AWAST, he is right on the money. We have painted ourselves into the corner
on this one, and all of NATO along with us. American procurement is
dead-flat broken.
Yes, this is still related to Traveller, but perhaps not as closely as
current naval affairs were related to Star Fleet Battles.
Dave
>
> Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing QE afloat, and visiting her at
> Portsmouth Navy Days 2017/18 (ish). All we need is Lockheed-Martin to keep
> the F-35 on schedule.
>
> I feel submarines are closer to Traveller ships, much more constricted,
> unlike the expansive new generation of ships' interiors.
>
> Martin.
>
> --- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>>
>> It seems like CVF is far enough along that at least one of them will
>> actually touch salt water, unlike the last CVA-01 QE and PoW, which is a
>> good thing. I really want to see those CVFs splitting water.
>>
>> BAE has taken over a lot of US Navy efforts in the past few years.
>> Several
>> former co-workers of mine are now working for BAE writing training for
>> US
>> Navy gun mounts, manufactured by BAE subsidiaries here in the US.
>>
>> This is related to TNE because spaceships are just alternate reality
>> real
>> ships, and in the game we get to make sure they actually get "built"
>> instead of cancelled.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
>
on-cost (which I know you have to be), you're Screwed! :-)
While the argument, "the Marines always get what they want," has a great
deal of validity, the simple physics that empty weight and Max take-off
weight of the F-35B are almost identical has to give pause. I liked the
idea of the RN returning to "real" carriers with cats, but also understand
that QE and PoW are too far along to make that economical in era when NO
ONE has any money.
But if you're depending on US DoD to do something right, well, best to
consider some fall-back positions. I'm just sayin'.
Seriously, while no one likes Bill Sweetman's regular commentaries in
AWAST, he is right on the money. We have painted ourselves into the corner
on this one, and all of NATO along with us. American procurement is
dead-flat broken.
Yes, this is still related to Traveller, but perhaps not as closely as
current naval affairs were related to Star Fleet Battles.
Dave
>
> Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing QE afloat, and visiting her at
> Portsmouth Navy Days 2017/18 (ish). All we need is Lockheed-Martin to keep
> the F-35 on schedule.
>
> I feel submarines are closer to Traveller ships, much more constricted,
> unlike the expansive new generation of ships' interiors.
>
> Martin.
>
> --- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>>
>> It seems like CVF is far enough along that at least one of them will
>> actually touch salt water, unlike the last CVA-01 QE and PoW, which is a
>> good thing. I really want to see those CVFs splitting water.
>>
>> BAE has taken over a lot of US Navy efforts in the past few years.
>> Several
>> former co-workers of mine are now working for BAE writing training for
>> US
>> Navy gun mounts, manufactured by BAE subsidiaries here in the US.
>>
>> This is related to TNE because spaceships are just alternate reality
>> real
>> ships, and in the game we get to make sure they actually get "built"
>> instead of cancelled.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
>