The E-2 Hawkeye is the Navy’s long time aerial battle
management and situational awareness asset for carrier groups. The Hawkeye typically operates offset from
the carrier and many miles away so as not to give away the carrier’s
location. The problem with the Hawkeye is
that it is no longer survivable. Chinese
and Russian Very Long Range Air to Air Missiles (VLRAAM) are now in service
that can reach a large, slow, non-stealthy target like a Hawkeye from two
hundred or more miles away (see, “Goodbye Poseidon and Hawkeye”). The Hawkeye’s lack of speed, stealth, and
maneuverability all but guarantee that, if targeted, the Hawkeye will be
destroyed. Even the mere threat of
VLRAAMs means that the Hawkeyes will have to operate much farther back than
previously. Situational awareness will
be greatly reduced and aerial battle management will be rendered much less
effective due to simply being unable to see the battle from so much further
back.
 |
| E-2 Hawkeye |
 |
| Chinese VLRAAM |
So, what’s a battle management/situational awareness aircraft designer to do?
Enter the B-1/2/21 …
The B-1/2/21 bombers were designed as stealthy, fast,
penetrating aircraft. The B-2, in
particular, was, apparently, originally designed as a high altitude,
penetrating bomber, with a ceiling of 60,000 ft. Operational requirement changes for a low
level penetrating capability implemented late in the design process are claimed
to have reduced the B-2’s ceiling to under 50,000 ft. (1) The Drive website’s Tyler Rogoway speculates
that the B-21 will return to a high altitude bomber. (1)
If we’re willing to consider a radical change in operational
methodology regarding how we perform aerial battle management and situational
awareness, we can immediately see the possibility of a new approach using
large, fast, high flying, stealthy ‘bombers’.
For the moment, let’s focus on the B-21 since it’s the only
one that could currently be built although existing aircraft could be modified. However, given the limited numbers of
existing bombers, that would seem unlikely.
We’ve noted that the requirement for a giant radar on the
back of the aircraft precludes stealth, speed, and maneuverability. Why do we need such a large radar? We need it to provide the power, sensitivity,
and performance necessary to operate hundreds of miles from the actual aerial
battlefield which is a necessary requirement to ensure the survivability of the
Hawkeye, given its non-survivable characteristics. However, think about it … what if we didn’t
have to stand a hundred-plus miles off from the battlefield? What if we could stand essentially in, or on
top of, the battlefield? If we could, we
wouldn’t need such a large radar. We
could get by with a much smaller one.
Well, that’s exactly what a B-21 would give us: a high flying, stealthy, fast, survivable
aircraft that could bring a much smaller radar much closer to the battlefield –
essentially, on or in the battlefield.
The B-21 ‘Hawkeye’ would be mixed into the battlefield and,
using a low probability of intercept AESA radar combined with its inherent
stealth, could monitor and control the battle up close. With Mach+ sprint speed to escape and evade
when threatened, the aircraft’s survivability is further enhanced.
Of course, the entire concept comes down to whether or not a
sufficiently capable radar exists, or could be developed, that could fit
internally on the B-21. If it could, the
concept is viable. If not, ignore this
post!
There is one other requirement for a B-21 ‘Hawkeye’ and that
is a large crew. With all due respect
(none) to the people who suggest that the F-35 will perform battle management,
that’s just nonsense. True battle
management, not just guiding a single missile that someone else launched,
requires computers, displays, and manpower.
Fortunately, a suitably modified B-21 would have ample room for a battle
management crew. I note that the preceding
sentence may not be accurate given the B-21’s flattened airframe. If sufficient space for crew and work
stations can’t be fit into the B-21 then it would be necessary to design a
somewhat modified aircraft though still along the same lines we’ve been
discussing. That’s an engineering issue
and without detailed B-21 blueprints none of us are qualified to assess
it. We’ll stick to the conceptual design
and leave the physical design to the designers.
 |
| B-21 'Hawkeye' ? |
If the concept appears viable, it would be easy for the Navy
to tap into the upcoming production of the B-21 and purchase a number of
aircraft for conversion to a ‘Hawkeye’ variant.
Taking the concept a step further, it would also be an opportune moment
to design a ‘Hawkeye’ variant based on the B-21 but incorporating more
extensive, specific modifications intended to enhance mission performance such
as greater altitude, increased internal space (if needed), enhanced bottom aspect
stealth, enhanced self-defense electronics, greater sprint speed, etc. Of course, this would drastically drive up
the cost of what will, undoubtedly, be an already expensive airframe but the
capability offered would justify the cost.
Effective battle management and situational awareness is a force
multiplier of priceless value.
One final aspect to consider is that a B-21 ‘Hawkeye’
doesn’t need to be a carrier based aircraft and, likely, wouldn’t be. Given the 6,900 mile range of a current B-2,
a B-21 ‘Hawkeye’ could easily be land based and cycle to carrier/naval
operations, as needed. Carriers could,
in fact, maintain on-board E-2 Hawkeyes for routine operations and call on B-21
‘Hawkeyes’ when necessary although this may be an overly costly redundancy.
In summary, if we’re willing to adopt a completely different
approach to situational awareness and battle space management, a B-21 ‘Hawkeye’
may be the answer to the carrier’s current E-2 vulnerabilities while still accomplishing
the function. With upcoming B-21
production run, the Navy has an opportunity to acquire some very advanced capabilities
without having to pay for the basic airframe development costs although the ‘Hawkeye’
modifications would still be significant.
(1)The Drive website, “The B-21’s Three Decade Old Shape
Hints At New High Altitude Capabilities”, Tyler Rogoway, 6-Oct-2017,
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14919/the-b-21s-three-decade-old-shape-hints-at-new-high-altitude-capabilities
In 2015, Defense One posted an article about the other potential uses of the B-21 bomber that included, among other uses, acting as a battle management aircraft like the E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS. Which is similar to what you've just proposed. But, at a projected unit cost of more than $500 million a copy for the bomber version, buying a couple of dozen would put a huge bite on the Navy's budget.
ReplyDeleteIf a B-21 AWACS is built, I suspect the Air Force would be the primary operator. But, the pairing of a B-21 (AWACS or not) with the F-35/F-22 has a lot of potential as now you have two true stealthy platforms that can better operate against a peer adversary's air defense network.
"buying a couple of dozen would put a huge bite on the Navy's budget."
DeleteMost people fail to understand that cost is immaterial. What matters is value. If I spend one dollar and get nothing for it, that's wasted money. If I spend one hundred dollars but get immense benefits, that's money well spent.
If I pay $500M-$1B for an aircraft and get little combat benefit, that's a colossal waste. However, if that aircraft can increase the combat effectiveness of a carrier force by an order of magnitude, I'll gladly pay that cost. It's all about value.
Where could the Navy get billions of dollars to pay for those aircraft? Well, stop building $15B-$20B Fords and return to evolutionary Nimitz'es for $8B-$9B. Don't buy $1B+ mini-Burke frigates that we don't need and, instead, buy small, cheap dedicated ASW vessels for $200M. Don't build $8B Zumwalts that have no main weapon. Don't build $600M LCS that have no use. Don't build a new SSBN that is smaller than the Ohio but more expensive. And so on. The Navy's budget is plenty big enough if they would just spend the money wisely.
You're preaching to the choir about cost and value. And, you're right about shipbuilding costs, but buying such an aircraft would eventually compete for money for other aircraft programs leading to a prioritization issue.
DeleteLook at carrier aviation today. We still lack a fixed-wing ASW aircraft and some of the current designs are getting long in the tooth and need replacement. When the B-21 comes on line, the Navy will be buying replacements for their Romeos and Sierras and starting to look at replacement for the Rhinos, while still procuring F-35s.
And, at the same time, do we need two branches flying basically the same aircraft? The Hawkeye is different as it is carrier capable. And, the concept works for fighters like the Phantom and Lightning II, where you're building large numbers and can take advantage of the economies of scale and amortize development costs over hundreds or thousands of units. But, the number of Hawkeyes, AWACS, and JSTARS total about 100 aircraft. In this case, get the Air Force to assign some number of aircraft in direct support of the Navy.
"the fight gets back to basics"
DeleteNo, not really. Take just one example of wiser spending. If the next two carriers were Nimitz'es instead of Fords, we'd save something on the order of $20B over the 8-10 years of the combined build. Let's use the longer time frame. That gives us $20B savings over 10 years which is $2B per year for 10 years. We could buy 2-4 B-21 'Hawkeyes' per year for 10 years just on those savings alone WITHOUT COMPETING FOR FUNDS WITH ANY OTHER AIRCRAFT - those would be "free" aircraft, in a sense.
We both know the Navy will not stop production of the Fords to buy more Nimitzes. But say they did and there was $20 billion in savings. What's more important, more ships or these B21 AWACS?
DeleteFor $20 billion, we could procure a third Nimitz ($8-$9 billion), 3 Virginias ($7-$8 billion, and 3 Burkes ($5 billion). Or, spend that money to expand the amphibious fleet and add dedicated mine warefare ships back to the fleet. Wherever the needs are greatest.
And, as you know, the Navy is looking to procure a large surface combatant sometime around 2025, which is certain to strain the ship building budget. Whatever savings there are from building Nimitzes over Fords would be better spent, in my opinion, on building more ships.
"Whatever savings there are from building Nimitzes over Fords would be better spent, in my opinion, on building more ships."
DeleteAnd that's a completely valid debate. A B-21 'Hawkeye' would be an enormous force multiplier. Of course, additional carriers (I note that you left out any money for procurement of the associated air wing at $6B-$9B each, depending on air wing size!!!!), subs, etc. are all also very valuable. You're correct that it's about prioritizing. Personally, I would prioritize a B-21 'Hawkeye' over the others but that's a legitimate debate.
As a point of interest, a $9B Nimitz plus a $7B air wing would only leave $4B. That's one sub (plus change) or two Burkes. Not quite the windfall you started with! Those air wings are expensive! Even more expensive if we up-size the wings to where they used to be!
As my comment related to building more ships, I intentially neglected to include the cost of the carrier's air wing which falls into a different budget bucket. But, your points are taken. Conversely, we could use the savings for ship maintenance and improve our naval shipyard capabilities.
DeleteLet's assume a B-21 'Hawkeye' is an enormous force multiplier. Does it make sense for the Navy to procure and operate a small fleet of such aircraft, say 20 to 30, or leave that role to the Air Force? The Navy would have to pay to train flight crews and maintainers, procure new equipment and tooling to maintain the aircraft, and add hundreds, maybe thousands, of new parts to their logistics system. All of that comes with a substantial cost.
In an alternate reality where the Navy operated a fleet of A-12 Avenger IIs, I could imagine some modified for the ISR/AWACS role. Or, procure a larger variant built specifically for the ISR/AWACS mission. But, alas, that's not the case.
All in all, if a B-21 ISR/AWACS variant is built, I believe the Air Force is better positioned to procure, maintain, and operate such an aircraft.
"Conversely, we could use the savings for ship maintenance and improve our naval shipyard capabilities. "
DeleteYou are on the money! Needs like new drydocks, better and more maintenance facilities, additional construction cranes, etc. are far more valuable, in the long run, than a few ships more or less.
"Does it make sense for the Navy to procure and operate a small fleet of such aircraft"
We do it now with the E-2 Hawkeye so I don't see why not. However, if the Air Force wanted to procure and operate the aircraft, I'd be fine with that.
"We do it now with the E-2 Hawkeye so I don't see why not."
DeleteThe E-2 is a necessity since it is carrier capable and while procurement number are small, it has some commonality with the C-2. And, given its long history, its a well known quantity to operate and maintain. Whereas, the B-21 Hawkeye is a completely new aircraft with new needs and its own share of risks.
A Navy B-21 Hawkeye is a great idea, but the Air Force already operates the E-3 AWACS, which this would either replace or supplement. Having the Navy operate the same aircraft, in my opinion, is an unnecessary duplication of effort.
Now, if the Navy needs a stealthy manned maritime patrol aircraft, have I got the plane for you.
"The E-2 is a necessity since it is carrier capable"
DeleteThe Navy also operates land based P-3 Orions and now the P-8 Poseidon. The Navy has also stood up the Triton UAV which is a very small, land based fleet of aircraft. Procuring and operating a small fleet of land based aircraft is clearly not a problem. It's simply a question of whether the aircraft in question offers sufficient value to be worth the effort. A stealthy 'Hawkeye' would seem to be well worth the cost and effort.
Again, though, who operates the aircraft is of no interest to me.
Not to be obtuse or anything, but I would refer back to my earlier comment about this being a duplication of effort and an expensive one at that. Yes, the Navy operates small fleets of certain types of aircraft. But, the Air Force has long been responsibility for theater-level airborne early warning and control.
Delete" the Air Force has long been responsibility for theater-level airborne early warning and control. "
DeleteYes, they have. However, this would not be a theater level asset. This would be a direct replacement for the Navy's E-2 Hawkeye. This would be a carrier support aircraft, not a theater asset.
Probably enough time spent on this. Who controls the aircraft is unimportant. Only the mission matters.
Just buy some E-737s now in production for allies. It has more radar range and much more speed. The Navy already has 737s as C-40s and P-8s. The P-8s need to be paired with E-737s anyway lest air refueled enemy fighters jump them on patrol 1000nm off the coast. An E-737 can see enemy fighters long before they can be detected, allowing the pair to turn away.
ReplyDeleteHow to pay, drop half the plan for P-8s to pay for E-737s, which are more valuable and the P-8S need them to patrol.
I say this as gently as I can, you may not be grasping underlying concept. The 737 AEW&C is not some magic aircraft that can see everything from a thousand miles away. Unless we've been completely lied to about stealth, a 737 AEW&C is not going to see a stealth aircraft until 20 or 30 miles, a semi-stealth aircraft at 30-50 miles, and large, non-stealthy aircraft at 50+ miles. No one knows the exact detection ranges so don't bother arguing them. The point is that the 737 is going to have to get well within the 200+ mile range of a VLRAAM in order to see all or even most aircraft. That's the reality of the modern stealth aerial battlefield. That puts the 737 squarely in the 'dead' category.
DeleteUnless you believe that a 737 can detect stealth aircraft 200+ miles away, at the limit of the VLRAAM, a 737 is simply not survivable. And, if you do think a 737 can detect stealth aircraft at 200+ miles then you need to tell the military how to do it because they're stumped!
VLRAAM like our AMRAAMs cannot track targets 200 miles away, maybe 20 miles away and only directly ahead in a small cone. They must be guided by a much larger radar that can see that far, unless its just a lucky pot shot. In addition, the E-737 can see these missiles coming and move out of the way. And a stealth aircraft cannot be emitting radar to guide anything or it gets detected.
DeleteThe same issue arises with radar-seeking missiles. The E-737s detects a missile (any missile) so just shuts its radar, does a steep curving dive, and once all is clear, turns radar back on. All this applies to the Hawkeyes too.
Your view of this type of aerial combat does not match reality. I'll leave it at that.
DeleteAnon is understating the lethality of VLRAAMs and overstating the survivability of 737s, for sure.
DeleteBut I think we're also too far in the other direction. VLRAAM doesn't look to be particularly maneuverable. If it only gets spotted in the last 20 miles, a 737 airframe almost certainly can't get out of its envelope. However, if it is spotted closer to 50 or even 100 miles out, gliding towards its target at mach 4-6, then even a high-subsonic civilian jet stands a good chance of getting out of its envelope. And that's assuming that maneuvering is the target's only defense.
ECM, chaff, flares, active decoys, friendly fighters, and possibly an SM-2 are all likely to be in the way. This is a big missile - and it has to be to carry enough fuel, engine, sensors, and warhead - so shooting half a dozen of them to get a reasonable pK against a realistic target requires a serious strike.
That isn't at all meant to say that a stealthy AWACS equivalent isn't a great idea. I like the concept as described, and I'll add my 2 cents on improving it soon.
" VLRAAM doesn't look to be particularly maneuverable."
DeleteI assume that the Chinese VLRAAM has mid-course guidance so that maneuvering by the target will not allow it to escape. Long range standard missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, and even the old AIM-54 Phoenix had mid-course guidance so I don't see why a VLRAAM wouldn't. That being the case, and since someone had to have a target lock in order to shoot the VLRAAM, mid-course guidance should be a given.
I also suspect that some people don't realize the speed of the VLRAAM. It's reported to be Mach 6 or so. That's 76 miles per minute! Spotting the missile at 50 miles allows only 39 seconds to evade and that assumes instantaneous recognition of the threat and reaction. By the time a large, slow, unmaneuverable 737 completes a turn away, the VLRAAM will be on it.
The VLRAAM is a serious problem. The Air Force has stated that they need to get away from large, slow aircraft. Apparently, they agree that 737's aren't going to be outrunning or outmaneuvering these kinds of missiles.
I can show people reality but I can't make them accept it.
It's also important to understand the tactical value of a VLRAAM other than the simply destruction of the target. If the Chinese can force our AWACS to stand 25, 50, or 100 miles further back, our control of the aerial battle becomes that much less effective.
DeleteIf the Chinese can force an AWACS to shut down, maneuver, dive, or leave the area to avoid a missile, we'll completely lose control of the aerial battle. Even if/when the AWACS returns, it doesn't just instantaneously regain control. It's like an air traffic control operator. They don't just sit down cold and instantly start controlling. It takes time to acquire the mental 'picture' of what's happening, who's who, what the pilots want to do, and what the controller wants to do. Battle management is even more difficult. An AWACS that has to flee is likely a mission kill and a victory for the enemy.
If additional aircraft, ships with Standard missiles, electronic warfare aircraft, etc. are required to babysit and protect an AWACS, those are all assets that are lost to other operations - again, a win for the enemy.
Thus, the tactical impact of a VLRAAM extends beyond just the possible destruction of the target.
Anyone with a basic understanding of aerodynamics knows that Mach 6 is pure BS, especially below 50,000ft. Due to skin heating and fuel consumption, Mach 2 for 200 miles is difficult. And it might surprise you that a 737 can hit .8 Mach if needed as it flees. Then there are decoys and escorts.
DeleteYeah CNOps, Anon doesn't seem to understand VLRAAM's flight profile. It does climb up to >50k feet, it does boost up to mach 6, and it retains a significant fraction of that energy (mach 4, 5? I don't know) on account of it being Very Pointy. 20 feet long to 1 foot wide is a serious aspect ratio - mitigating the impact of drag - and those rear finds are tiny, further reducing drag.
DeleteAbout that; I was presuming in my maneuvering scenario that the missile is detected (50-70 miles to target is presumablybly after midcourse update) on an intercept course to the target's predicted position, the target moves out of the missile's current path but not out of the sensor FoV, the missile tries to turn to intercept the aircraft's new course, but it struggles to do this *aerodynamically* on account of its significant terminal speed and the small fins that are necessary to conserve that speed over 200 miles. I do not suggest this is an easy dodge for a 737. For an aerodynamically performant fighter, it likely is. Still, I think this is plausible, and that's before other defenses.
Regarding those other defenses; I thought our doctrine already called for these to operate in an area (relatively) near other aerial HVTs (B-52, tankers, ISR craft, EW craft, etc.), but obviously not in a tight formation, and that assets are already assigned to screen attacks on the group. That's how I conduct my AirSea battles...
The degree of maneuverability of the Chinese VLRAAM is unknown. I would note that we consider the ESSM (Mach 4+) to be highly maneuverable and able to track/match terminal evasive maneuvers of incoming anti-ship missiles so I see no reason why a VLRAAM wouldn't be maneuverable enough to track/match a 737!
DeleteI don't know what the Air Force does with their AWACS but the Navy's Hawkeyes (the original subject of the post) do not cluster with tankers and EW. EW aircraft accompany the strike aircraft. Tankers locate on ingress and egress routes. Yes, fighters are allocated to protect high value units but a fighter is not going to be of much use against a VLRAAM. We have no missile that is capable of shooting down a VLRAAM with any regularity. The biggest problem is the comparative speeds and relative geometry. The fighter's AMRAAM, for instance, is no faster than the VLRAAM and may be slower. Thus, for any other than a fortuitous perfect geometry shot (presumably, head on), it has no hope of intercept. It's not even obvious that perfect geometry shot would be successful given the fuzing challenge of successfully triggering a combined Mach 8-10 closing speed.
Other defenses, such as decoys or ECM might prove somewhat effective, as they would against any other air-to-air missile but that degree of 'maybe' is not what we want to bet our high value assets on!
The prominent strakes, canards, and (proportionally) large fins that confer ESSM, AMRAAM, and other highly maneuverable AAMs enough lift to match the terminal maneuvers of supersonic missiles and fighters are notably absent from VLRAAM. Without these features it relies on high-drag, low-lift body lift to maneuver, meaning it flies like the dart it looks like. I'm sure it can turn more than enough to make use of its mid-course update and match most maneuvers E2s or 737s can make, but it's only just engineered to that standard.
DeleteConsidering its non-stealthy airframe and envelope, you are likely to get radar and/or IRST returns from it seconds after launch if you're a B-21/E2/E3 within 200 miles. Generously assuming it accelerates instantly, there are 2.5 minutes until intercept. From more conservative ranges you'd have less time, but there's also more time since burnout isn't instant. That's a lot of time.
What can a fighter do with that time to defeat the missile?
First, shoot your AMRAAMs and sidewinders at it. Their pK isn't great on that target, but I wouldn't say there is no hope if you're in its frontal 30 degree cone - basically anywhere near the target - and it's worthwhile in this case because...
While doing this, you're already moving to get directly in its path, turn away to show it your tail pipe, spoof it, and use your own countermeasures and maneuverability to soft kill it.
All of these attempts can fail, losing you either the fighter(s) or the targets, and CNOps is right that HVT 737s demand more fighter support than HVT stealth airframes, so the additional investment in a stealth airframe is probably worthwhile for any payload that would turn a 737 into an HVT, especially the ones that need to be delivered deep inside the A2/AD environment, and especially as this threat matures. We should "go big" on stealth; the B-21 airframe offers the volume to house a variety of strike and/or ISR missions payloads if some consideration is given to this in the design, and that opens up the possibility of mass producing them to replace the aging fleet of heavy support aircraft and bombers.
Actually, if you look at photos of the VLRAAM and ESSM, the control fins appear nearly identical in relative size. The ESSM has side-body strakes (lift?) but they're not control surfaces, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong). ESSM uses skid-to-turn and given the visual similarity, I would assume the VLRAAM does, too. In short, I see no reason why the VLRAAM wouldn't have maneuverability equal to an ESSM.
DeleteI wish I could embed photos in a comment to compare the two but I can't. You'll have to look at ESSM and VLRAAM for yourself.
You also correctly note that a 737/E-2 has nowhere near the speed/maneuverability of an anti-ship missile.
Regarding pK, I have seen speculative articles that suggest that typical missiles cannot trigger their fuze, explode, and disperse in a useful and large enough pattern in time if the closing speed is too great. I don't know if this is true but it's certainly plausible. For example, if something were approaching at the speed of light, you'd have no hope of triggering, exploding, and dispersing before the object was past. This is, of course, a ridiculous example but it demonstrates that there is a speed at which conventional fuzing/exploding/dispersing is simply too slow. What that speed is, I don't know.
Consider a closing speed of Mach 10. That's 2 miles per second. Given the very short range of a proximity fuze sensor, can it sense a target in time to react? Suppose it senses the target at 1 mile - that's 0.5 seconds to achieve full frag dispersal. That seems unlikely.
As I said, the articles were speculative, not authoritative so I don't know if this is an issue at these speeds or not.
Regarding alternate mission payloads, a B-21 tanker would be quite useful in addition to quite expensive. On the other hand, it might be ready before the Air Force gets its new tanker working!
We've lost fixed wing ASW. We've fubared mid-air refueling. We're about to fubar fixed wing COTS... And OP is right; E-3 is old, slow, and approaching obsolescence. Even if there are no Bandits trying to kill it, I fear it won't have the speed and range to be where the shooters need it, when they need it. The whole series shoulda/coulda/woulda been replaced by a new series of jet aircraft decades ago.
ReplyDeleteLet's just kill air-wings and CVNs already. Considering the limitations of the F-35s and F-18s, we wouldn't be losing much of value. Our Catobar CVNs aren't that much more capable than a conventional powered STOBAR carrier with 2/3rd the size and 2/3rds the airwing.
E-planes can be accompanied by land-based fighters and land-based tankers and land-based ASW aircraft to serve whatever is left on the water.
Carriers without effective air wings, DDXs with out guns, LCS without modules... Its a hell of a corner we've painted ourselves into.
"Our Catobar CVNs aren't that much more capable than a conventional powered STOBAR carrier with 2/3rd the size and 2/3rds the airwing."
DeleteCome on, now, let's be a little bit objective and fair. There is no existing ski jump carrier in the world that even remotely equates in combat power to a CVN. You're quite right that our air wings have shrunk in both size and capability but they still put ski jump carriers to shame.
"Let's just kill air-wings and CVNs already."
Okay, I'm willing to explore that a bit. Let's start with, how will you supply air power in the South China Sea, if not by carrier? Without air support, we can't operate surface groups. Are you proposing eliminating surface ships, as well? Without some degree of air support, enemy ASW ships and aircraft will be able to operate unhindered. That will severely impact our submarine ops.
Are you sure you've thought this through? If you have, tell me how you propose to supply air support in the Pacific theatre.
A CVN can be, should be,and used to be, quite a powerful force
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the currently anemic airwing, and the people who pretend it is adequate. 30-40 Hornets/F-35s plus somd E-2, plus some helos per CV is not adequate.
Can the current airwing supply meaningful air-support in the China Sea? Is it adequate enough to not just defend the fleet from air, surface, and sub attack, but to take the fight to the enemy forces and kill them at a distance? Can our airwing find the enemy, kill the enemy, and defend against an enemy counter-strike all at the same time? Can it defend distant surface scouts or islands and itself at the same time?
It seems to me the current airwing is only capable of defending the battle group itself from attackers, and occasionally sending a couple planes to drop JDAMS on ISIS fighters. Our current airwing cannot 'chew bubblegum and walk'. One job at a time only, please.
As-is; our current force exists merely to defend itself from attackers.
You have a major misconception working! No carrier, ever, has been a war winning entity by itself. Carrier combat doctrine calls for 4 carriers operating as a group in combat. I've posted on this several times. When considered, properly, as a carrier GROUP, the combined air wings consist of 120-160 F-18 and dozens of Growlers, Hawkeyes, and helos. That's a bit better although the air wings are still quite anemic compared to past air wings.
DeleteThe closest we've ever come to operating single carriers was during the early, desperate times of WWII when carriers conducted some individual raids but that was due to lack of carriers rather than by design or intent.
A single carrier in combat is ineffective, as you rightly point out.
Finally, you're missing the mark on the carrier's strike capability. The strike capability of the carrier GROUP lies not in the air wings but in the Tomahawks of the Burke/Tico escorts. A 4-carrier group would have 20 or so escorts and could muster several hundred Tomahawks for strike. The carrier, today, exists to protect the Tomahawk shooters.
This is proper carrier operating doctrine.
Is that the core doctrine as the Navy sees it? They seem to operate mostly in groups of ones and twos.
DeleteVery rarely do we see 3-4 carriers sailing together, and everyone loses their minds when it happens.
In your perfect world we routinely sail 4-5 carriers together with 20+ escorts.
In my perfect world we have powerful air-wings with great support (ASW,Tanking,Cots,AWACs) aircraft.
No one knows what the Navy's doctrine is today but when war comes they'll quickly rediscover proper doctrine. We settled on 4 carriers as the ideal group in WWII. We planned for 3-4 carriers as the preferred group for war with the Soviet Union. There is no reason to believe we won't revert to proper doctrine when the time comes.
DeleteNow, you raise the very good question, why aren't we training the way we plan to fight? I have no answer for that other than the pattern of extreme stupidity the Navy has been exhibiting for many years now.
There is no reason for me to believe that anyone can teach the Navy anything about how to use aircraft carriers or do business better. Not without major culture shifts.
ReplyDeleteBest case scenario: By the time the Navy "rediscovers proper doctrine" the enemy will have obtained their objectives and the CVN taskforce will arrive or form too late to effect the outcome. The one or two carriers near the action will stand-by at a distance "it's too dangerous to get any closer, and we don't have the firepower to effect the outcome anyway."
Worst case scenario: the enemy will sink or damage enough lonely flattops to prevent your large task force from ever forming.
"Best case scenario: By the time the Navy "rediscovers proper doctrine" the enemy will have obtained their objectives and the CVN taskforce will arrive or form too late to effect the outcome. "
DeleteYou seem to be ignoring history and the history of war. The aggressor almost always achieves their initial objectives (as Japan did in WWII). The US historically absorbs the initial enemy surge and then masses the strength to fight back.
China would have only the forward deployed, Japan-based carrier as a possible target. The remaining carriers are based in the US with occasional single carriers deploying elsewhere around the world but well out of reach of China. There is no realistic scenario in which China could initially sink multiple carriers. While they don't train for it (inexplicable!), I'm sure the Navy understands the proper doctrine of multi-carrier groups.
Presumably an investment in even-longer ranged AAM would make sense to keep VLRAAM shooters further away. I can't see the point of stealthing an AWACS as active transmissions would give it away so I'd focus on defensive systems - missile speed and maneouvrability development is outstripping aircraft development by miles right now. Perhaps there is mileage in putting the radar in drones so the transmission is separated from the aircraft?
ReplyDelete"I can't see the point of stealthing an AWACS as active transmissions would give it away"
DeleteIf you believe the military and manufacturers (a big if!), low probability of intercept radars are effective and not readily detectable. That being the case, pairing a stealth aircraft with a LPI radar makes perfect sense.
The concept of distributing the radar function among smaller drones is appealing but the reality is that unless the drones are the size of full size AWACS aircraft, the radars and power outputs that can fit on small drones precludes the kind of large volume monitoring that an AWACS performs.
An alternative option to B21 AWACS LPIR
ReplyDeleteRadar systems require high power, often in the megawatt range, as at long range as signal is subject to the inverse square law of propagation in both the transmitted signal and the signal reflected back, radar's received energy drops with the fourth power of the distance. To get 10 time the range you need at least 80 times the transmitting power, without taking into account any losses.
Aircraft and ships Radar Warning Receivers, RWR, will detect the radar beam revealing the position of the AWACS, due to the inverse square law, the RWR is always at an advantage over the radar in terms of range, it will always be able to detect the signal long before the AWACS radar can see the target's echo.
So problems with active AWACS systems including detecting stealth aircraft with a high power long waveband VHF? LPIR (is such a radar feasible?), they are active systems and so always possibility will be targeted, depending on the cat and mouse state of art tech on who has the better LPIR or RWR at that moment in time, would expect the RWR will have an in-built advantage.
An alternative possibility is to go passive with AWACS stealth aircraft, bi or multi-static radar with just the receiver on aircraft and use sacrificial drone radar transmitters to use only when necessary and also able use all the signals generated by any other active radars in area picked by the large passive antenna on AWACS, would also need to integrate a large long range IRST, from 60,000' range would be hundreds of miles if not to a thousand, IRST is passive and detection not so limited by aircraft stealth design if atmospheric conditions favourable, with full fat long, mid and short wavebands (would need to activate the drone radar transmitters in adverse conditions). Will need two or three a/c in passive mode to triangulate to establish range to targets.
As always a trade off, would expect active radar AWACS would give better coverage but survivability low with threat of VLAAM and equivalent Chinese and Russian SAM SM-6 missiles with range of 300+nm, compared to a passive AWACS?
"at long range as signal is subject to the inverse square law of propagation in both the transmitted signal and the signal reflected back"
DeleteHence, the call for a stealthy AWACS that can get very close to the aerial battlefield, thus obviating the need for an enormous radar perched on the back of the aircraft.
" LPIR (is such a radar feasible?)"
Well, for purposes of this post and the suggested B-21 'Hawkeye', an LPI radar is mandatory. Whether such a radar is truly hard enough to detect so as to allow the concept to work is the key question. The various manufacturers claim LPI works but we know that manufacturer's claims are notoriously optimistic. Still, the military seems to be buying into it, hence, it forms the basis of the suggested B-21 'Hawkeye'. Lacking any definitive information one way or the other, I'll assume it works moderately well.
"passive with AWACS stealth aircraft"
Conceptually, I'm with you. Whether the technology is sufficiently advanced and effective is an open question. One mundane concern is weather. Clouds, rain, etc. would seem likely to impact passive sensing to the point of invalidating its use as an AWACS but, again, I don't know the technical details well enough to say for sure.
"trade off, … survivability low with threat of VLAAM and equivalent Chinese and Russian SAM SM-6 missiles with range of 300+nm, compared to a passive AWACS?
DeleteBear in mind that the range of the missile systems is not the issue. The issue is detectability of the AWACS aircraft. To be ridiculous to illustrate the concept, if an AWACS was so stealthy that it could orbit one mile from a SAM system or VLRAAM aircraft and not be detected then it wouldn't matter, in the least, what the range of the missiles was.
The concept in the post postulates an AWACS stealthy enough to operate in or very near an aerial battle and not be detected. Whether this is actually possible is unknown, however, the Air Force believes that a B-2 bomber can penetrate Chinese airspace successfully with all manner of land, ship, and airborne radars searching for it so it's not that big a leap to postulate a B-21 'Hawkeye' which is even more stealthy, flies higher, and is faster, indeed being able to operate in close proximity to the aerial battle.
I would envision this B-21 'Hawkeye' operating at extreme altitude (60,000+ ft) and fairly close to the aerial battlefield - close enough that a smaller, lower power radar could be utilized. As you know, LPI success is enhanced by using less output power. The lower the radar output, the less likely it will be detected.
Obviously, I don't know if the concept is feasible but it certainly seems worth a little investigation because, if it could work, the payoff would be enormous.
This is closely related to the suggestions I was going to make on this topic, so I'll throw them in here.
Delete"the Air Force believes that a B-2 bomber can penetrate Chinese airspace successfully with all manner of land, ship, and airborne radars searching for it"
Keep in mind, this capability relies upon carefully *not* flying too close to radar emitters. The LPI radar, RWR, ESM suite, battle management system, and the rest of the B-2's defensive suite all work together to help the aircraft do this. Now, that's to avoid detection, and it does seem to be possible to actually avoid detection. If detected, the B-2's stealth still makes it very hard to target, but that's not a game you want to play with this kind of asset.
Nick: "go passive with AWACS stealth aircraft... use all the signals generated by any other active radars in area picked by the large passive antenna on AWACS"
This was, essentially, my suggestion. I planned to elaborate a bit more on why this is an ideal sensor network architecture. The purely passive component would be an effective long range detection system, but CNOps' points about weather (including man-made electromagnetic "weather") and the like affecting this in an active battlefield are spot on. There needs to be an active component. LPI radar on the B-21 Hawkeye is certainly worth keeping and using; the B-21 Raider will already have it. But LPIR is necessarily limited in its signal strength and detection range to remain... LPI. Hawkeye-launched expendable decoys make sense, but expendable active radar emitters? I don't see that being economical and effective regardless of the carrying platform. The ideal active node in the network is something that is also stealthy/maneuverable/defended enough to operate in the contested area, and has a robust communications link that can send data about its emissions (necessary for good radar performance) and returns (a bonus). CNOps is gonna hate it, but it's... the F-35.
We've previously (repeatedly?) covered why F-35s on their own are lemons for ISR. They have narrow radar FoVs, their detectors are too weak, etc. All of that is still true. However, if you pair a group of them with a high altitude stealth AWACS with a thorough C4ISR suite of its own that is capable of maintaining *direct links* with multiple F-35s, you've got something a lot better than the sum of its parts. An F-35 pilot can't manage all the data that their plane can generate, but the plane can send (most of) it to a B-21 with little attention paid by the pilot to anything that isn't a direct threat. Unlike an F-35-centric ISR mission, this can be done during an engagement where the F-35 has jobs other than monitoring all of their sensors. If the link is broken by weather or EW, F-35 has the computing power to store the relevant data for a time; said data is still useful for battle management (not targeting) for a few minutes.
The B-21 Hawkeye concept should be an effective ISR platform without relying on data from F-35s or any other platform, but this network approach provides capabilities that the B-21 airframe can't provide on its own regardless of what we put on it.
"Keep in mind, this capability relies upon carefully *not* flying too close to radar emitters."
DeleteRemember that we're talking about a Hawkeye aerial battle management function. Almost by definition, this means locations over water, either protecting the carrier group or managing a carrier battle. We would not attempt to send a Hawkeye, whether E-2 or B-21, over a heavily defended and 'radared' land location - that's just not what a Hawkeye does. So, that almost eliminates the very powerful land radars as threats. Of course, aircraft radars remain a threat but those are much lower power and capability.
"passive"
I have no problem with passive sensors and would highly encourage provision. I just have severe doubts about their ability to provide REAL TIME sensing which is what's required for battle management. That said, let's mock it up on an airframe, send it to a Red Flag exercise and see if it can do the job!
"CNOps is gonna hate it, but it's... the F-35."
The problem with using the F-35 in the manner you've described is the very limited field of view that you noted. Think about an F-35 in combat: twisting, turning, climbing, diving - the data picture is going to be a whirlwind of fragmentary scans. An AWACS, sitting high above, is going to receive these tiny fragments and have to assemble them into a coherent picture IN REAL TIME in order to conduct battle management. I simply don't see that as technically feasible. We can't get the F-35's magic pilot helmet to assemble a coherent picture for just the single aircraft's view. Scan rate, lag time, jerkiness of display, etc. are all problems that we haven't figured out how to fix, yet, and that's without violent maneuvering. F-35 pilots commonly report helmet display lag when they move their heads. How are we going to assemble several of these into a master view, IN REAL TIME? We just don't have the technology, yet. Maybe someday but not today.
I do have to say. Sense high mach numbers are no longer a big deal (super bug and f-35 are NOT speed demons unless they are clean) Is having a prop driven air frame THAT big of a deal anymore?
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure what you're saying/asking? Speed is always desirable though not normally the number one design consideration.
DeleteIf you're suggesting that keeping a prop driven E-2 Hawkeye is acceptable, I think not, at least not for the scenario and concept of operations laid out in the post.
A prop plane is going to be more easily detected (radar reflection off props) although with a giant radar on its back that may be a moot point. A prop plane is going to be slower although relative to a hypersonic missile that, too, may be a moot point.
For the concept of operations in the post, fast and stealthy are requirements.