BlackBeard wrote:

:On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson wrote:
: In article caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@
: 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...
:
: On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
: :at surface targets too:
: :
: :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController...
: :
: :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
: :expensive after awhile.
: :
:
: Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
: the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
:
:
: I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
: what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
: serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively
: inexpensive.
: Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
: I deleted the entire post.
: I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
: see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
: playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
: might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out
: of me.
:
: It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making
: it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I
: suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar
: ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas
: than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That
: balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some
: different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are
: probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit
: stingy with those!
:
:
:The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive
:knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the
:group.
:

And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer.

I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't
derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check -
Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of
positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or
facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says
and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for
the same reason.

If you're looking for classified or 'sensitive' data or arguments
based upon them, you're looking in the wrong place...

--
"I know Slayers. No matter how many people there are around
them, they fight alone."
-- Spike, the vampire