The Navy has always been lukewarm, at best, about the
F-35. For example, former CNO Greenert
often downplayed the importance of stealth and the Navy has delayed and
minimized its F-35 purchases as much as possible.
Recognizing that China is the driving threat, the Navy may
have realized that the F-35 is not ideally suited for the Pacific theater. A 2019 Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments report points out,
…
in order for a future carrier air wing to be effective in a major conflict with
China, it would need to develop aircraft that could operate consistently at
ranges of up to 1,000 nautical miles from the carrier. That’s double the
effective combat range of an F-35C. (1)
That being the case, which ComNavOps happens to agree with, it
makes no sense to purchase either Super Hornets or F-35s.
This is one decision by the Navy that I agree with
wholeheartedly. That may surprise some
readers but the logic is inescapable. It
is silly and pointless to purchase aircraft that are not suited for the
mission.
While the Navy has not announced any increase in F-35
purchases, neither have they announced any decrease. I’d suggest applying the logic of the F-18
termination to the F-35 and terminating its procurement, right now, in addition
to the F-18. It makes no sense to
continue to acquire more aircraft that are not suited to the mission and it’s
not as if the lack of new aircraft for a few years will matter. We have more than enough aircraft to equip
the one or two carriers that we’re struggling so mightily to put to sea each
year. If we need more aircraft, we can
always focus on repairing some of the 50% of the aviation fleet that is sitting
idle, awaiting depot level maintenance.
Of course, the corollary to the decision to terminate F-18
production is that the NGAD has to be suited to the task and be affordable in
the requisite numbers. History suggests
that the odds of those two conditions being met in a new acquisition program
are quite poor. The potential saving grace
in this situation is that the Navy will not be tied to a monster, joint acquisition
program that only partially meets their needs as was the case with the F-35. If the Navy can keep the NGAD a purely Navy
program, they may be able to keep the requirements focused on their needs.
Of course, this also assumes that the Navy even understands
what the requirements are. Given the
debacles and poor decisions of the Ford, LCS, CMV-22 COD, MQ-25, and now the
unneeded frigate, it is quite likely that the Navy won’t get the requirements
right even without interference from other services. Still, hope springs eternal and we have to
hope that they can correctly define the requirements. If they fail, they will have no one else to
blame.
Disturbingly, the latest statements from current CNO Gilday
suggest that the Navy doesn’t know what it needs from the NGAD.
Chief
of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said late last year the service was still
thinking about how it would move forward with carrier aviation.
“I
do think we need an aviation combatant, but what the aviation combatant of the future
looks like? I don’t know yet. (1)
Seriously? You’re the
top guy in the Navy and you don’t yet know what you need from the next
aircraft? That’s pathetically inept. Do you really not know or are you just scared
to put yourself on record and are waiting for myriad studies to give you the
cover you need for deniability if it fails?
Why don’t you take a lesson from the Marine Commandant? Although I have misgivings about his vision,
he has a very precise vision and it didn’t take him more than about an hour in
office to flatly, fearlessly, and emphatically lay out that vision. So, come on CNO Gilday, either demonstrate
some leadership or step aside and let someone with more vision and courage lead
the Navy.
Moving on … Cost is other aspect that has to be
addressed. A $100M NGAD is simply not
going to be affordable in sufficient numbers.
Again, the Navy’s history of cost control in acquisition is stunningly
poor and does not give rise to confidence that the Navy can control costs and
produce an affordable aircraft.
Even so, this is a golden opportunity for the Navy to
terminate the F-18 and get out from under the crushing F-35 budget weight before
too many are purchased. It’s a chance to
reset the entire naval aviation component.
The F-18 can serve as a gap filler while the NGAD comes on line,
assuming it happens quickly (and it can – see, “How To Build A BetterAircraft”), and the F-35 can serve as the stealthy sensor platform that the
Navy has talked about while allowing the [hopefully] better suited NGAD to
assume the workhorse combat role.
No matter how you look at this, one thing seems clear: the
Navy seems to be abandoning the F-35 already although, to be fair, they never
really embraced it. It appears they’ll
make the minimum number of purchases required by the program directors and move
on to the NGAD.
Honestly, the possibility that the Navy could dodge the bulk
of the F-35 debacle has me positively giddy.
Of course, leave it to the Navy to quash that feeling with yet another
poorly executed acquisition program.
Still, as I said, hope springs eternal!
(1)USNI News website, “Navy Cuts Super Hornet Production to
Develop Next-Generation Fighter”, Sam LaGrone, 10-Feb-2020,
https://news.usni.org/2020/02/10/navy-cuts-super-hornet-production-to-develop-next-generation-fighter
Drop the F/A in the designator. Use the term naming standard as it should be and call it a F - ighter. Under the naming convention a Fighter has a secondary mission as an attack aircraft. It was a slick but misguided Navy Admiral that said let's call the F-18 and F/A-18 to sound like you get more.
ReplyDeleteNAMES DO MATTER! If you hang that Attack role as a primary function of the FIGHTER you are going to get an F-35 again. If you think that a high performance aircraft can carry bombs 1000 NMi you are trying, right off the bat, to defy the laws of physics. You will get a suboptimal solution for BOTH roles.
Why is this so freaking hard for the Navy to understand? Oh right because they are all Careerists who won't have to fly, or pay for the, the abomination they will deliver.
Keep buying F-35Cs until NGAD is ready. The F/A-18A-Ds are aging out.
ReplyDeleteAny timeline for F/A-xx is pure fantasy at this point. They don't even know what they want. We can't spend years buying no fighters while the existing fleet rusts its way out of existence.
F-35C may not be everything the Navy wants, but it's far better than the aging, decrepit, legacy Hornets it's replacing. And the program is finally starting to mature.
the F-4 Phantom proved that a plane designed as a fighter can do the attack mission as well. Repeated for the F16.
DeleteIts all down to the electronics and why not if you can have the same or better electronics from an A6 in a two seat F18E.
That was what they called multi role , one or the other depending on the weapons fit . Its now moved on further with swing role with both weapons fit allowing both roles in a single mission.
No multi-role aircraft is as good at a given role as a purpose designed, single function aircraft. We've covered this extensively. For example, anecdotal information and fragmentary reports suggest that the multi-role F-35 is nearly helpless against the single role F-22 in exercises.
DeleteFor a benign environment, sure, multi-role is fine but when you face the enemy with equal capabilities you need a dedicated, single-function aircraft to win and survive.
I've completely debunked multi-role combat aircraft in multiple posts. Feel free to peruse the archives.
That would be interesting, I could only find this 'multi' comparison-
DeleteSingle Versus Multi-Function Ships
Historically the F4 designed as interceptor-fighter for the Navy did very well as an attack plane and fighter for the USAF. It would have been even better with a turbofan like the Brits added for better takeoff thrust and longer range.
The F16 was an attack plane which used a very powerful engine from fighters. It later added more fighter missiles.
The original multi role plane which was good at both ( but only in different versions) was the WW2 Mosquito. There have been plenty of cases of obsolete fighters moved on to attack duties and not doing it so well.
Im sure I'd agree with you for the extremes so that F22 is the ultimate fighter and the B1 or B2 the ultimate attack plane.
In the middle by accident or combined with design there are some good compromises , and what plane isnt a compromise.
The F-4 was a poor fighter (smokey engines, no gun, etc.) which was fortunate to go up against a third rate air force with poorly trained pilots (and Russian advisors!).
DeleteThe best attack plane of the era was the A-6. It was unmatched because it was designed as a pure attack aircraft. The best interceptor was the F-14 because it was designed as a pure interceptor.
There's nothing wrong with taking on a secondary role in a permissive environment as the P-47 and F-14 did but the original intent must be a pure, single function aircraft.
The F-22 was a pure fighter and puts the F-35 multi-role aircraft to shame as a fighter. The pure attack A-10 puts the multi-role F-35 to shame as a CAS aircraft. And so on.
When we go up against Chinese stealth fighters we'd better hope it's with our F-22s not our multi-role F-18s.
"I could only find this 'multi' comparison-
DeleteSingle Versus Multi-Function Ships"
Use the blog search function. Here's a link to get you started: The Strikefighter Myth
We should bear in mind that Navy F-4s with no gun had better kill rates than Air Force F-4s with no gun, because Navy training for ACM was more thorough than Air Force training. Revolt of the Iron Majors goes into that a fair bit.
Delete@ComNavOps: i'm not surprised that F-35s aren' faring as well as F-22s. Its the replacement for the F-16 and F/A-18: i recall Gulf War Air Power Survey's assessment that across the board, F-16 and F/A-18 squadrons were less adept at air to air compared with F-15 squadrons. The last 20-30 years has been groundpounding - the only serious training for A2A is being done by F-15C squadrons and F-22 squadrons.
Anyhow, is the F-35 perfect, probably not, but the LRIP 13 price is now down to 79.3 million for the A, it's a genuine capability improvement over the F-16... the Navy might want to slow down, but the Air Force is going all in.
DeleteI expect the F-15EX, the USAF's new interim fighter interceptor, is going to soldier on for the next 2 decades while the Air Force fucks around with Penetrating Counter Air. At least they'll have an interim option. Navy has nothing.
I read aviation combatant to mean, he doesn't know what kind of aircraft carrier to buy next. Thus impacting what kind of aircraft to buy next. Who has ever called a fighter an aviation combatant before?
ReplyDeleteCongress will continue funding more F-35Cs and maybe F-18s even if the Navy doesn't want them, especially as Navy has left a vacuum with no clear future plan for the NGAD.
ReplyDeleteAssuming this happens, Congress does need to go along with stopping SH and you can bet BA will fight this, with no add on F35 C or B USMC increased buys, what the heck is going to be left flying off USN carriers before F/A XX, NGAD or next alphabet soup name comes next in 2035? Because getting something into production and real IOC not some fake IOC isnt happening before 2035 and that's still probably too optimistic!!!!
ReplyDeleteSo what's flying off USN carriers in 2035: 12 remaining time expiring SH, 12 F35C and maybe 12 F35B?
Anybody wondering why we still need super carriers???
I agree, this is the chance for the Navy to start redeeming itself. In reality it should be looking for two planes... a fighter and an "attack" plane. But thats unlikely. They can still shine here though by fast tracking this new aircraft. Dont dink around with focus groups and 18 committees to analyze it. Dont gear up to produce an aircraft thats no better than contemporaries by the time it hits the fleet!!
ReplyDelete"I need a fighter with X range, Y amount of payload capacity, and Z speed. Reuse of existing engines and systems is to be done to greatest extent possible with minimal changes. I want design proposals in 12 months, and functional prototypes in 24-30. We endedxpect the winner to be ready for production by 2025...."
I think the Navy has been reading Will Roper,
DeleteMr. Roper has heard the old joke, and doesn't want to end up there.
In 50 years the Air Force
will have one 60 billion dollar plane ?
https://www.airforcemag.com/ropers-six-keys-to-century-series-success/
@CNO
ReplyDeleteIn life, there's a clear form of communicating a turnaround so that people can organize their efforts towards the new priorities. And more importantly, stop doing the things that leadership has identified (rightly or not) as the bad habits that required a reorg in the first place.
The squish-tastic language from our still-new Navy leadership is soo,sooo far away from that. Maybe we'll have working carriers, maybe we won't. Maybe we'll have some airplanes for the outer air battle, maybe we won't show up for it. Maybe frigates, maybe not.
My non-consensus prediction? You'll see layup of 5 Burkes/year starting 2021. No FF(x)s. Depth restriction on Ohios to extend cycles/lifespan. Columbia SSBN 5+ year delayed IOC. Ford-class truncated to 3 carriers. Retirement of Nimitz, Eisenhower and Vinson before 2030.
It's crazy. Status quo is institution is dying and industrial infrastructure to support it going away. It's going to return to a pre-industrial organization where a handful of artisan vendors turn out hand-made parts at great expense and questionable reliability. Time not on side for this kind of equivocation and circumlocution.
I think were chosen to manage the decline and say nice words.
On one hand, the money to fund NGAD has to come from somewhere. On the other hand, the Navy wants NGAD to be a 6th Generation fighter on par with the Air Force's PCA, a generational leap ahead of 5th Generation (F-22, F-35)... when nobody in the entire world has a concrete idea on what 6th Generation fighters are going to look like. Only a nebulous concept of "better than 5th Gen".
ReplyDeleteAgree money has to come from somewhere, I dont even think USN believes it's own crap, no way NGAD is a reality and deployed by 2030. So USN goes more than 10 years with no new buys of SH and just stated number of F35C-B buys? What's going to be flying past 2030? Not much! Price wise, this is going to be super expensive, USN wants 1000nm combat range: it has to be a big airframe to carry all that gas plus missiles and bombs in internal bays....that's a lot of $$$$$$$.
DeleteI would respect Gilday if he had come out and been lot of specific even if I thought he was misguided than coming out and saying he thinks we still need an "aviation combatant ", whatever the heck that means....he's so bureaucratic or weak ass lame or both that he cant even say he needs a jet fighter?!?? Seriously, he's a top military commander????
I want a prototype fly off. I want to see and touch the airframe before I commit to buying a 1000 of them. I do not want the A model to be useless for a decade. Make cost of operation a foundational design priority and keep the Marines far far away.
ReplyDeleteYou couldn't possibly be implying the last 20 year's method of buying the F-35, Ford, LCS, Zumwalt had some issues, could you?
Delete;p
Andrew
Was the F22 the last plane chosen via fly off? U.S. at least.
DeleteThere was also a flyoff between the X-32 and X-35 for the JSF program.
DeleteI wonder what a non carrier centric Navy would look like and to what extent it could accomplish necessary missions. We could buy a lot of B-21s for the cost of a few carriers and the associated infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteIf you chose to rid air cover for the fleet sure, then buying B-21s *might* make sense.
DeleteBut then, you do not need to buy B-21s to fight in North America, which is all you will be able to do if you buy nothing but B-21s and have no Navy/merchant marine to sustain overseas operations.
At that point, the optimum solution is to buy ballistic missiles, which are astronomically lower life-cycle costs than any manned/unmanned aircraft.
GAB
CNO,
ReplyDeleteAs you say, it's crazy to not know what they want in a new plane. It should be obvious, or at least obvious to anyone who reads a certain excellent practical naval blog.
What were the F18 and F35 short comings? Lack of range was the biggest issue.
LRASM has somewhat overcome this, but the plane needs soe legs too.
So a larger plane , with the geometry taken from the F22/35 , perhaps two F35 engines, for carrying more internal ordnance and fuel.
Cut costs by using a "good enough" coating, or even none at all.
Calculate the acceptable range you need to get to, taking into account the missiles, and you might find you don't need to have the radar cross section of a marble.
As per usual, this is imho
Andrew
1. Whatever fighter the Navy buys, a credible tanker aircraft is mandatory.
ReplyDelete2. The other missing component is a long range missile to kill bombers, MPA, or AWEC aircraft.
3. A 1,000nm range, and the requirement to carry big, heavy, long-range missile implies a large aircraft like the F-111B or the F-6D Missileer designs.
GAB
For the F-35C, replacing the F135 with an adaptive cycle engine, and adding CTFs (the Israelis are rumored to be looking at this) might almost get you there, if that all pans out.
DeleteA more elaborate mod might be to lengthen the F-35A/C a bit, for better area ruling and more internal volume.
On the missile front, it'll be interesting to see how much further the AIM-260 will go.
I don't think you can modify the F35 as much as you think. With LO requirements, you cant change much outer mold line of the airframe, you would have to redo the LO tests, it's not like the old days like when Brits added a few feet to IDF to make ADF Tornado. Engine wise, new engines would be more efficient which would help but you are limited to about an 10% trust increase because you are stuck with the original inlets, if you modify them, you are throwing out LO again....I doubt USN would go for it anyways.
DeleteWould be faster and probably cheaper to just reuse F35 radar, electronics and F135 engine with complete new airframe, which you probably new anyway to put all the gas you need to have 1000nm combat range.....
Well, you CAN change the outer mold line, but you're right, it'd be more difficult than for a non-LO aircraft. Doesn't mean it's impossible though.
DeleteLikely still a lot cheaper than building a completely new aircraft, which would need LO testing from scratch, in addition to every other test required of an aircraft.
Assuming a 30% improvement in range with an adaptive cycle engine, the F-35's strike profile radius would go from 670 nmi to 871 nmi. Then it's just a matter of how to get 130nmi more fuel.
Air refueling will get it there easily, but require tankers.
CFTs or drop tanks would also do it, with the aforementioned LO issues.
Or a bit more internal fuel + area ruling from a fuselage stretch.
"670 nmi"
Delete:) No one but a public relations product brochure believes that! A real combat mission with some useful loiter time will be lucky to have a 300 miles combat radius. I've posted on this.
To briefly remind everyone of a few salient points, an actual combat mission is not just a max efficiency, straight line flight out to a point and back. It involves non-straight line waypoints, climbing to altitude, altitude changes, maneuvering to avoid radars, possible low level ingress at high/max power, afterburn maneuvering around the target area, significant loiter time if the mission is A2A, low level egress at max power, more altitude changes, and so on. As I said, 300 miles would be a good combat radius for a simple, easy mission.
Of course, tanking can extend the combat radius but every mile the tanker is closer to the enemy increases the chances of the tanker being shot down (recall the posts about the very long range Chinese/Russian A2A missiles?).
"Assuming a 30% improvement in range with an adaptive cycle engine"
As history tells us, assumptions always pan out! Or is that just the opposite? I can never remember.
"No one but a public relations product brochure believes that! A real combat mission with some useful loiter time will be lucky to have a 300 miles combat radius. I've posted on this."
DeleteThat number is the _demonstrated_ combat radius flying the Navy KPP mission profile. The Navy hasn't published the details of this profile but it typically specifies the loadout (likely 2 x 2,000lb JDAMs and 2 x AMRAAM), takeoff, climb to cruising altitude, time over target, return, landing and reserves.
Mission profiles like these are benchmarks, using simplified, but somewhat realistic parameters. They are useful for comparing aircraft. (e.g. will an F/A-18E, flying the same profile, have a larger or smaller combat radius). This is usually what people talk about when citing "combat radius".
CNO is more pessimistic than me on F35C range, I figure its probably between 400 to 500. 670 seems a reach or perfect conditions. ADVENT would help but I dont think necessarily as much as you think, it's still the same trust class as an F135, with more fuel to carry onboard, you have to run the engine hotter or longer to get where you are going, it's more efficient than an F135 but not necessarily translates as a 30% increase in range because other parameters such as weight have now changed.Plus, you still have inlet issues. Aerodynamics would change with fuselage stretch, you hope it would beneficial but then again you need LO testing and do new catapult and landing testing,etc...that's why in my book and experience talking to
Deletepeople in industry, go new airframe from scratch. Mods at the edges can help for maybe an extra 100nm but we looking at almost doubling F35C range, it would take a major redesign and I dont think USN is interested at all going that route. Reminds me of F111B story, USN was done with it and just took some parts like radar and Phoenix and bought a new design in the F14. IMO,that's more realistic.
As far as I know, as anybody modified a LO aircraft once design is frozen? I dont think so, even PAKFA and J20 haven't shown that many changes once aero and LO designs were frozen.
"CNO is more pessimistic than me on F35C range,"
DeleteI am, but until some pilot who has flown actual, challenging combat missions tells us what can be done, we're just speculating so I could be right - or not.
What I base much of my assessment on is the descriptions of actual combat missions going back to Vietnam, Israel, and other higher end combat scenarios. When you read those about those missions, what's striking is the degree of 'non-linearity', meaning that the missions are not straight out and straight back. They involve many waypoints, lots of high thrust maneuvering, altitude changes, afterburner flying near the target, etc., all of which conspire to GREATLY reduce the actual combat radius.
Could you concoct a theoretical combat mission with minimal maneuvering, minimal high thrust usage, and so on, resulting in longer range? Sure, but that wouldn't be a realistic combat mission.
So, while I have no actual F-35 combat radius data or NATOPS fuel consumption data, I do have LOTS of actual combat mission descriptions and they all, uniformly, involve much greater fuel consuming flying and maneuvers than the theoretical combat profiles that get used for range claims by manufacturers. So, while I don't have data, I do have extensive evidence to suggest that realistic combat radii are VASTLY overstated.
Saab is claiming a 800 nautical mile combat radius with a 30 minute loiter in a combat air patrol configuration for the GripenNG. It isn't stated what the combat air patrol configuration has for a weapons load, probably just air to air missiles. This information is from marketing material for a sale of Gripens to Brazil, so the data is likely presented in the most favorable terms.
DeleteThe Gripen M would likely have a different combat range but should be close since the airframe was designed with potential naval use in mind.
https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/proud-to-be-brazilian/the-fighter/
"This information is from marketing material for a sale of Gripens to Brazil, so the data is likely presented in the most favorable terms."
DeleteThat indicates a decent range/endurance and, yes, you've correctly identified that the claim is certainly based on the most favorable scenario they can imagine. Now, instead of 'loitering', throw in full throttle and afterburner air combat maneuvering, full throttle ingress/egress, etc. and that 'loiter' time becomes about 10 seconds or you have to cut the range back to 400 miles in order to gain useful combat time at the target.
If all you want to do is max-conserve cruise out 800 miles, max-conserve circle around for 30 minutes, and then max-conserve back to base, all under ideal weather/winds (tail wind there and back!) then, yes, it can probably be done but that's not really a combat mission, is it? Read about any historical combat mission from any era and you're struck by the max power, violet maneuvering that takes place. All of which cuts deeply into claimed range/endurance.
The Zero had a combat range of a 1000 nm and could do its mission. It is not some mystic requirement that has never been met.
ReplyDeleteThe Zero was credited with a one-way range of 1100-1500 miles depending on variant. The combat radius was, at best, half the range which means a combat radius of 500-700 miles, max. Quite impressive by any standard but not a combat radius of a thousand miles!
DeleteThe excellent range was achieved with the aid of a centerline drop tank - nothing wrong with that.
As an example, Japanese fighters flying from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, a distance of 650 miles, were operating at their extreme limit and were unable to loiter over Guadalcanal due to the extreme range.
Thanks for the clarification. I have read your post on combat range, it is a remarkable how elastic that number can be. I just think the Navy should have "long range" as a core foundational priniciple right from step zero.
DeleteIt is all to easy to sacrifice it for other attributes.
"I just think the Navy should have "long range" as a core foundational priniciple right from step zero."
DeleteAbsolutely correct! I view the main carrier function as very long range air superiority which makes very long range a very important characteristic, as you say. This also strongly suggests that the aircraft would be fairly large to hold more fuel. Conceptually, it would be an F-14 type large aircraft as opposed to a smaller F-16 or F-18. A larger aircraft would also be able to carry a larger weapons load.
"combat range, it is a remarkable how elastic that number can be."
Quite right! It's an almost completely fictional number because it's affected by so many factors - you can make it be any number you want by including or excluding tanking support, weapons load, simplicity/realism of mission, and so on. It provides an arguing point for people to sling 'ranges' back and forth but it's not really relevant except on a very broad comparative basis.
"not some mystic requirement that has never been met."
Your point is valid and stands. In more modern times, we've built the F-14 and A-6, both of which had usable combat radii of 500-700 miles. Both of those aircraft put the F-18/35 to shame so you're right - we've done this before. We're just asking to add a bit more to what we were able to do decades ago. With newer, more fuel efficient engines it should be doable.
The A-6E with 4 x Mk84s and a single drop tank only had a "benchmark" combat radius of 400 nmi when flying a penetrating Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi profile.
DeleteOwing to stealth and modern standoff weapons, an F-35 can fly 270 nmi further, staying Hi the whole way, admittedly with half the payload.
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/A-6E_Intruder_(TRAM)_SAC_-_November_1979.pdf
I suggest a slightly revamped B-1 designed to be more maitainence friendly and less expensive to fly than the current model. 200 of these with the appropriate standoff weapons ranging deep across the Pacific might be more useful than carriers in choking off Sino access to her trade routes.
ReplyDeleteHow would these B-1s find targets?
DeleteExistant technical means. The same ones that serve carrier groups and should not be discussed on a forum. But yes, I understand the "kill-chain".. is a chain requiring, indent/targeting/etc. An argument could be made that the speed and range of a B-1 would actually lend itself to a less robust kill chain, and easier servicing of the same. And the B-1 would perhaps stand as a great example of your excellent musing on "How to build a better aircraft". I know nothing though, honestly. Just spitballing here.
DeleteThe challenge with any weapon is targeting. B-1s, operating independently, would have no search asset to assist them. Their own radar is optimized for group targeting, not water. I don't know what the effective detection/identification range would be for the radar in 'water mode' against a stealth warship. Presumably, it would be fairly short range (20-50 miles???) which would put the large, not very stealthy B-1 well within range of the target ship's defensive weapons.
DeleteThe overall concept being pitched for the B-1 isn't too far-fetched. Its very similar to the Soviet plan to hit our Atlantic fleets with Blinders/Backfires. Have subs provide targeting data and change the B-1 radar suite and that's a viable option for attacking foreign shipping from a distance.
ReplyDeleteBut its just one tool.
The concept of many tools in the toolbox is well understood by those who frequent this blog but its lost on the beancounters in Washington.
Those of us who operate or have operated at the front lines don't want 1 tool that does 5 jobs. We want the 5 best tools to do the job.
When you are not on a wartime footing its a much harder argument to make.
Different planes = different training schools for pilots/maintainence, more parts to order, stock, and maintain.
All that stuff adds up to lots and lots of money.
Without a clear threat, the desire to save money with a JSF is tempting.
But as we know, the best fighters have always been those designed from the ground up as a fighter.
"don't want 1 tool that does 5 jobs. We want the 5 best tools to do the job."
DeleteVery well said!
"When you are not on a wartime footing its a much harder argument to make."
The really sad part is that it shouldn't be a harder argument to make. Our professional warriors (generals and admirals) should be well aware of the needs and should be hammering those needs in front of Congress … but they're not. Our professional warriors are failing us.
If we can see it on a blog, why can't they?