1. P-3's don't have any external gun weapon capability, they can carry only harpoon/torpedoes. Neither is useful for deterring a pirate. The other argument against it is that making them leave their high altitude and overfly some fishing vessel really reduces their on-station time and takes away from their primary radar duties.
2. Convoys create "2 masters" that we (US) don't like. If you hear a distress call, do you leave your convoy? If yes, you left your post. If no, you're "insensitive"..
1. P-3's don't have any external gun weapon capability, they can carry only harpoon/torpedoes. Neither is useful for deterring a pirate. The other argument against it is that making them leave their high altitude and overfly some fishing vessel really reduces their on-station time and takes away from their primary radar duties.
2. Convoys create "2 masters" that we (US) don't like. If you hear a distress call, do you leave your convoy? If yes, you left your post. If no, you're "insensitive"..
sneakerboots 2 years ago
Okey, two questions;
1. You mention maritime surveillance aircraft as not being able to influence an attacker, what about P-3's armed with Mk46s?
2. You cited the Indians using a sort of convoy system, why not just institute this as the norm?
Probably just dumb questions from an armchair Admiral, but I'm curious.
rulver76 2 years ago