Pages

Thursday, October 15, 2020

The Future Air Wing

The Navy has begun the process of designing the next generation (I absolutely despise that term as it implies that we’ll leap a generation ahead, which never works) carrier fighter.  The Navy is supposedly, also, preparing for future war with China although you’d never know it from the lackadaisical approach they’re taking.  Regardless, this all brings to mind the composition of the future carrier air wing. 

 

The Navy seems utterly confused.  They claim to want long range aircraft but continue to acquire short to medium range Hornets and F-35s.  They seem to want to emphasize unmanned but have refused to develop unmanned combat aircraft and are content with a tanker.  They say that anti-submarine warfare is important but show no interest in a new S-3 Viking equivalent.  They say that sortie rate is a paramount design factor even though that claim has been thoroughly debunked.  They’re building bigger Ford class carriers even though the air wings are steadily shrinking.  They claim resupply (COD) is important but replaced the C-2 Greyhound with a less capable MV-22 variant.  And so on …

 

So, if the Navy has it wrong, what is the right air wing for the future? 

 

Obviously, the air wing composition depends on the missions it will be given so we have to start by defining the mission.  Unlike many observers and the Navy, itself, ComNavOps does not see strike as being a main air wing mission in a future war.  I’ve posted that the task of future aircraft carriers is to escort Burke Tomahawk shooters and to establish mobile, local air superiority for other operations such as landings, Air Force bomber strikes, or cruise missile attack streams (basically escorting cruise missiles so that they can’t be significantly attrited during flight).  The common requirement from those missions is for a very long range, very high weapons capacity, long endurance/loiter air superiority fighter.  In order to meet those requirements, the aircraft will have to be quite large compared to what we’re used to today.

 

Let’s look, first, at the aircraft types our future air wing will need.

 

Fighter – There will be no more design-compromised strike/fighters.  We need single purpose, exquisitely optimized air superiority fighters to deal with the stealth fighters that the Chinese are developing and now fielding.  A semi-fighter / semi-strike aircraft isn’t going to be good at anything – witness the Hornet. 

 

The fighter we need will be a very long range, very high weapons capacity (12-18 missiles), long endurance/loiter air superiority fighter.  The aircraft will need good speed to enable it to reach the far off operational areas in time to be effective (we don’t want to spend half a day slowly cruising to reach the operation area only to arrive with exhausted pilots).  This suggests the need for sustained, economical supercruise.  All of this strongly suggests a much larger size fighter although I’ll leave the actual dimensions to the design engineers.

 

ASW – We desperately need to reconstitute fixed wing ASW to provide distant, outer layer ASW.  We need a modernized S-3 Viking with basic stealth shaping, decent speed, and good loiter time.

 

Tanker – Since we’re contemplating long range air superiority engagements, we’ll need a dedicated, long range tanker.  The idiocy of using front line combat aircraft as tankers is over.  The tanker needs to be a fairly large aircraft in order to carry enough fuel to be efficient and effective.  The problem with the Hornet as a tanker (aside from the idiocy of using a front line combat aircraft as a fuel truck) is that it couldn’t carry enough fuel to be effective for anything other than overhead recovery tanking.  Unfortunately, even the Navy’s new unmanned tanker carries too little fuel to be effective.  We need something on the order of a Viking or A-3 Skywarrior.  Of course, if it’s going to be in the vicinity of engagements, it will need basic stealth shaping.  Obviously, it will need enough speed to reach its refueling points in a timely manner.

 

Airborne Early Warning (AEW) – We’ve previously discussed the vulnerability of the current E-2 Hawkeye and the need to replace it with a stealthy B-21 variant (see, “B-21 Hawkeye”) or equivalent.  This will allow the Hawkeye to accompany and support far flung engagements without being a large, slow, blinking target.

 

Electronic Warfare (EW) – The EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler have proven their value many times over and that value has only increased with modern electronic warfare.  We need a new EW aircraft that has the stealth, speed, range, and endurance to operate with the fighters, providing direct support at great distance from the carrier.  Presumably, this would be an electronic variant of the air superiority fighter which, since it would be a larger aircraft, would dovetail nicely with the EW requirements by being large enough to carry more equipment, pods, and operators.

 

Strike – While strike is not a primary mission, there is a need for a secondary strike aircraft.  This would be a modernized A-6 Intruder with good payload, basic stealth shaping, decent range, and good ground sensors.  These would not be used for 1000+ mile, deep penetration strikes but, rather, for medium range, moderately contested strikes that, for whatever reason(s) don’t warrant cruise missile attacks.

 

Now, let’s look at the numbers.

 

 

Type

Squadrons

Squadron Size

Number of Aircraft

Fighter

VF

4

14

56

Strike

VA

1(a)

10

10

AEW

VAW

1

8

8

ASW

VS

1

8

8

EW

VAQ

1

8

8

Tanker

 

1

10

10

 

 

 

 

Total = 100

 

(a)Depending on the mission, an additional VF squadron could replace the VA.

 

 

 

Operating in a wartime 4-carrier group, this gives us 400 aircraft including 224 fighters.

 

This air wing composition and size provides an effective means of accomplishing the carrier’s main mission of air superiority.  It is worth recalling that ‘stealth’ can be achieved not just via the aircraft’s inherent stealth characteristics but also through the use of supporting electronic warfare measures (see, “Alternative Stealth”).  For example, if the enemy’s radar can be disrupted then our aircraft are ‘hidden’.  EW will be extremely important in future aerial battles and this air wing provides a strong measure of EW support that is integrated directly into the fighter’s efforts.  Added to that is the ability to provide battle direction/management via stealthy AEW aircraft.  This ability to bring an E-2 Hawkeye forward in the form of a B-21 Hawkeye and provide battle management is a force multiplier, itself.  Overall, this is a balanced air wing with enough aircraft to accomplish its mission.

 

There you have it.  Having defined the proper role of the carrier, we were able to define the type and size of air wing needed to fill that role.  It is one of heavy air superiority with most of the remaining aircraft devoted to supporting the fighters in the air superiority role.


63 comments:

  1. Isn't a B21 to big for a carrier? or have I misunderstood you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I don't see a B21 derivative operating from a carrier.

      Technically it doesn't need to, given its range, but then you run into the tyranny of distance (particularly in the Pacific).

      Delete
    2. Unless you've seen some spec's, we don't know the dimensions of the B-21 other than it's smaller than the B-2. That aside, the B-21 is a template. If it needs to be scaled down a bit, that's fine.

      Delete
    3. I really break this down into a single engine bomber drone that can tank, do ASW, and if need be Early Warning or Electronic attack. This would be the B-21 like carrier aircraft. The manned fighter will have 2 engines and super cruise. I might even skip the afterburner for range. I'd also make sure I had a laser for my short range weapon and focus missile load for long range. Like the F-22 it could have some strike ability swapping out missile load. I really wouldn't go past 8 future large AIMs internally and assume they are a bit larger. The swap would allow for 16 SDBs. I want hard points on both these aircraft such they could haul 2 smaller loyal wingman type aircraft to the area of operation. Think the stealth pod they developed for the super hornet except with wings and an engine.

      Delete
    4. Using the A3 Skywarrior as the maximum size for a carrier aircraft and the X-47B as a stealth aircraft that could be upsized to the folded dimensions of the A3 you get the following dimensions.
      "X-47 Jumbo"
      60.5 feet in length
      98.5 feet wingspan
      49 foot folded wingspan

      The B2 has a wingspan of 172 feet and the B-21 wingspan is not public but has be stated to be less than the B2.

      An enlarged carrier aircraft based on the X-47B has a wingspan 57 percent the size of the B2 and only 9 feet shorter in length.
      I don't know if 98.5 foot wingspan is realistic for carrier operations but it is within the operational and historical range. The E2 has a wingspan of 80 feet 7 inches and the C130 has a wing span of 132 feet both of which have operated off an aircraft carrier.
      An aircraft this size should have excellent endurance for ASW and may be able to also fulfill the AEW, EW and Strike roles.

      Delete
    5. X-47B shaped aircraft also store well on the flight deck if the aircraft are stored in alternating nose and tail positions.

      Delete
    6. You don't need to scale up a UAV to the size of a whale to get whale fuel, payload, and range. Scale it up to a wingspan the same as the E-2. MTOW in the 60-70k range using one of the engines from the B-52 re-engine competition.

      Delete
    7. I agree that the A3 is a bit large. The thought exercise was to use the largest carrier aircraft as a starting point and the x47b as a stealth aircraft with known dimensions as the basis of a fictional aircraft that could be developed for an aircraft carrier.
      The result would be much more capable than anything currently in inventory.

      Delete
  2. A stealth fighter with 12-18 missiles? An F-22 is a big plane and carries just 8 with a full air to air loadout.

    You would be looking at a F-15E fully loaded with air to air missiles then putting the missiles inside the plane!

    Wouldn't this be bigger than an A-5 Vigilante in length then made wide and tall to fit all the armament internally to allow stealth?

    Does a Nimitz or Ford carrier have the space to fit 56 of these plus the other planes? (I notice your air wing doesn't include space for COD or helo's which is fine but helo's are light and narrow in storage and modern carrier air wings are less than 80 aircraft).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "An F-22 is a big plane and carries just 8 with a full air to air loadout."

      You just proved my point that we've grown used to small aircraft. The F-22 is NOT a big aircraft. It's 62 ft long x 44 ft wingspan. By comparison, the F-111 was 73 ft long x 63 ft wingspan and we would have happily operated that from a carrier if the Navy hadn't gone the Tomcat route (63 ft x 64 ft).

      The issue for carrier aircraft is folding. The operating dimensions don't matter as much as the folded dimensions. If you can fold the aircraft's wings sufficiently, you can operate quite large aircraft. An 80 ft wingspan is fine if you can fold it to 40 ft (the E-2 Hawkeye is almost exactly that).

      The point is that we've become so locked in to our small aircraft / small weapons load paradigm that we can't even conceive of a larger fighter.

      Breaking out of the paradigm, maybe there are other ways to carry the weapons that still offers reasonable levels of stealth: external stealthy pods or blended into the aircraft's body or internal rotary launchers or thicker fuselage for more carry or …

      Break out of the paradigm!

      Delete
    2. What fighter is bigger than an F-22 MTOW? F-111B wasn't even that heavy. The only thing that comes to mind is Mig-25/31 and its not on carriers. Reality is the Navy grew around a 70k limit, largest ever launched for fun was 84k. EMALS is designed for 100k.

      Delete
    3. Wasn't the F-111 still going to operate with the F/A-18? rather than be the sole fighter? I know it's wikipedia but on the carrier air wing page there is never more than 24 F-14's carried.

      My question wasn't really about operating a large plane, the A-5 was larger. It's the number of large planes.

      Or are supercarrier hangers mostly empty nowadays?

      Delete
    4. "Or are supercarrier hangers mostly empty nowadays?"

      The air wings of the early conventionally powered Constellation, Forrestal, and the like consisted of 85-90 aircraft. As newer, nuclear powered, larger carriers were built, the air wings, inexplicably, shrunk. Carriers, today, have an air wing of around 60-65 aircraft and this will shrink further as F-35C squadrons will drop from 12 aircraft to 10 as the Hornet is replaced.

      There is plenty of room on carriers!

      Delete
    5. "never more than 24 F-14's carried."

      Different time, different philosophy. Back then, the air wings were balanced between fighter and strike. This concept almost all fighter.

      Delete
    6. The F-111a MTOW was 42t, the carrier version (B) was approx 35.8t (although that would be expected to grow slightly in production models by the sound of it).

      The F-14 MTOW was 33.7t (slightly more than 74,000 pounds)
      The F-22 MTOW (so far as we know) is 27.2t
      The A-3 Skywarrior was 37t (82,000 pounds)!

      Sorry AndyM, but the Tomcat proved operating fighters that are dimensionally & by mass much bigger than the F-22 from carriers quite happily. We are just used now to the nerfed F-14...

      Delete
    7. 83,500 lbhttps://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/

      Delete
    8. *eats humble pie*
      And I've just found another source stating 60,000lb - but several that corroborate your number (including Lockheed themselves) so lets go with your answer meaning the Tomcat is dimensionally bigger but lighter.

      Its certainly no deal-breaker & if we're going with CNOs theory of a mostly-fighter wing, something a bit bigger than a current F-22 would still fit in large numbers on something as massive as a Ford.

      Delete
    9. But that's the problem an F-22 only carries an air-to-air loadout of 8 missiles the one in the post carries 12-18 so needs to be significantly bigger than an F-22.

      Delete
    10. "one in the post carries 12-18 so needs to be significantly bigger than an F-22."

      OR … it needs to be redesigned from the start for a larger missile load. Why does the F-22 only carry 8 missiles? Because that's what it was designed for. That's what the designers felt it needed. If the requirement had been for 12-18 missiles from the start then that's what they would have designed for. Now, what would have resulted from that in terms of size is unknown but it certainly could have been done. For example, is it all that hard to imagine two or three internal rotary launchers that would each hold 4-6 missiles without producing an aircraft five times the size of a B-52? Design the weapons load and then build an aircraft around it - as was done with the A-10.

      I'm hearing a whole lot of paradigm knee-jerk reactions and not a lot of calm, rational thinking.

      Hey, it may be that it's not possible to accomplish what I've laid out and if that's the case then I'll re-evaluate. However, I see no reason why it can't be done - it just hasn't yet been done because no one has made it a requirement, yet.

      Delete
    11. "But that's the problem an F-22 only carries an air-to-air loadout of 8 missiles the one in the post carries 12-18 so needs to be significantly bigger than an F-22."

      Consider the design challenge from a conceptual approach. Let's say we want to use triple launchers for AMRAAMs - that's three missiles arranged in a triangle. We'd need four launchers to give us 12 total missiles. Let's say they're arranged two by two: two launchers, front and back with another pair next to them on the other side of the aircraft. Pretty simple. What's the dimensions of such an arrangement? An AMRAAM is 14' x 7" so the overall launcher requirements are 28' x 28". That's the size of the aircraft. Very small. Of course, it won't fly because it has no engine or anything else it needs. Now, it's a simple matter of adding the engine, cockpit, etc. and seeing what the resulting size and shape of the aircraft is.

      By the way, the AIM-54 Phoenix missile was 13' x 15" and was arranged on the Tomcat in exactly this front and back, side by side configuration under the aircrat although those were single missiles, not triple launchers.

      Delete
    12. "triple launchers for AMRAAMs...overall launcher requirements are 28' x 28"

      I like the idea. The dimensions you state are well within the practical dimensions of a long range fighter's internal weapons bay. I would caution that a rotary launcher for an air superiority fighter would have to be pretty robust to handle the high-G maneuvers required of such an aircraft, and this would be associated with a non-negligible size increase for the dimensions of the launcher itself, but it's still doable.

      I'd be inclined to separate the "missile truck" (B-21 derivative) and "missile target" (F-35-ish conventional fighter, or maybe also B-21 derivative, EW configuration in either case) roles into separate platforms. If we're consistently going to use a high-subsonic B-21 derivative for EW and AEW to support the fighters anyways - and these require constant fighter escort on sorties - then there's a limited need for fighters that travel faster. Supercruise is nice to have, but it's really not much faster than 0.9M and significantly less fuel efficient - it's also quite difficult (read; borderline impossible) to design a highly stealthy flying wing with efficient high-subsonic cruise capability that is also capable of Supercruise and stable yet maneuverable at supersonic speeds.

      The more important characteristics in all front line airframes in my mind are acceptable levels of stealth (w/ EW support), high missile payload, and sufficient maneuverability to avoid missiles with degraded sensors fired in front or side-on engagements.

      Delete
    13. "and these require constant fighter escort on sorties"

      I would hope that being stealthy and fast would mean that they DON'T require constant escort by fighters. That's why I specified stealthy and fast - so that they could operate close to the fight, on their own.

      And, of course, by close I don't mean wingtip to wingtip during a dogfight. I mean stand off but close enough to be effective and responsive.

      Delete
    14. Do you see a B-21/X-47 derivative for the EW/AEW/Tanking roles being capable of high-supersonic flight (if not supercruise) and sufficient maneuverability to opt out of a dog fight with a J-20 or the like sent specifically to hunt these support aircraft? I'm not against the idea, but I expected such craft would likely be limited to high-subsonic flight and would require escorts to avoid having to dogfight; their stealth, EW, and maneuverability at 0.9M should make standoff engagements relatively survivable but would be insufficient to escape a specialized and determined interceptor.

      Delete
    15. "capable of high-supersonic flight"

      Not particularly. They need sufficient speed to reach distant locations in a timely manner but they don't need to be supersonic. If supersonic/supercruise were reasonably possible without hugely impacting that design and cost that would be great but it's not a requirement.

      "opt out of a dog fight"

      Opting out of a dogfight means recognizing the attempted engagement far enough off to go silent and use their stealth to disengage before they're yankin' and bankin' with a J-20. I don't know if I gave the wrong impression but these aircraft are not going to be wingtip to wingtip with the fighters. They'll be MUCH closer than today's versions would but they'll still be set off a ways.

      Delete
  3. ComNavOps, I'm a little bit confused.

    Looking at your proposed fleet structure, you propose 15 CVNs like Nimitz and 12 CVs like Midway. You're not going to get that wing on a Midway, and you may be cramped even on a Nimitz, since the aircraft would be significantly larger. Yes, we flew RA-5s and A-3s off Ranger in my day, but the wing wasn't all RA-5s or A-3s; in fact the numbers of those were pretty small.

    Marc Mitscher's 4-carrier CTFs in WWII were generally 2 CVs and 2 CVLs/CVEs. With your proposed numbers, I thought you were envisioning something like that for your 4 carrier CTF. But that kind of 4-carrier CTF wouldn't carry 4 of those wings, so the aircraft count would be a bit short of 400.

    I agree pretty much with everything else you say. I do think the attack airplane needs longer legs, maybe 1200-1500 NM sortie range, not because we plan to do deep strike missions from the carrier, but rather because in the Chinese A2/AD context, we would like to be able to stand 1000+ miles offshore and still hit the mainland.

    I agree with your idea of having both CVNs and CVs, and have thought in terms of maybe 12 of each, which could then be formed into six 4-carrier CTFs if needed--2 for WestPac, 1 for Northern Europe, 1 for the Med, 1 for the Mideast, and 1 for surge/replacement. I have gone back and forth on the conventional carrier part of the duo. If possible within budget, I'd like to do modernized Kitty Hawks. If not, then the CSBA CVL, which looks like about the size of the 1960s-1970s version of Ark Royal. And I like the CSBA concept of converting the older LHAs/LHDs to interim Lightning Carriers, and upgrading the newer ones and future construction to CVLs with cats and traps. If we can do the Kitty Hawks, then phase them out as the Kitty Hawks come online.

    I'm envisioning an air wing of about 80 for the CVNs--36 VF, 10 VA, 12 S-3 (6 ASW, 5 tanker, 1 COD), 6 AEW, 6 EW, 9 helps, and 1 V-22. I'd go with about 60 for the Kitty Hawk or 40 for the CVL, scaling down from those numbers. In each case, that should leave some room to add some unmanned aircraft, as warranted.

    I basically agree with you conceptually, just trying to figure out how to make your numbers work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we move to smaller Midway/Forrestal size carriers then, of course, we'd have to adjust the air wings.

      Delete
    2. I'm half on board with going strict CVL except use 2 nuke plants adapted from the SSBN wwith life of core reactors. Max out the build rate and buy them in batches of 3 for every 8 years. 32 month delivery interval landing on 15 hulls. My wing would be:
      4 tanker
      4 EW
      4 EA
      2 SAR helo
      3 x 10 strike guessing 1 squadron UAV and 2 manned.
      1 spot for a COD
      That is still larger than any other planned air wing aside from our own.

      Delete
    3. Almost forgot, you could almost cram 2 of these wings on a CVN while they are still around. Also, my Tankers would be the same as the strike UAV squadron airframe as might the EW. EA based on the manned fighter. So basically down to 2 airframes.

      Delete
    4. "If we move to smaller Midway/Forrestal size carriers then, of course, we'd have to adjust the air wings."

      OK, got it, that's what I figured, just wanted to make sure. IIRC, your Midway-sized carrier had 44 VF and 4 AEW, so a Mitscher-style 4 carrier CTF (2 CVN, 2 CV) would have right at 300 aircraft, which is still a pretty formidable force. My 2 CVN, 2 CV Kitty Hawks would have 280, with the possibility of adding maybe 20 unmanned, so pretty much in the same ballpark.

      "That is still larger than any other planned air wing aside from our own."

      Andy, I don't see any VF. Maybe one or two of your VA squadrons could be changed to VF depending on the mission. Obviously if you put two of those wings on a CVN, you'd have plenty of room to substitute VF for VA as needed.

      Delete
    5. My 2 manned fighter squadrons would be the VF.

      Delete
    6. "I'm envisioning an air wing of about 80 for the CVNs--36 VF, 10 VA, 12 S-3 (6 ASW, 5 tanker, 1 COD), 6 AEW, 6 EW, 9 helos, and 1 V-22. I'd go with about 60 for the Kitty Hawk or 40 for the CVL, scaling down from those numbers. In each case, that should leave some room to add some unmanned aircraft, as warranted."

      To clarify a bit, I'm thinking 12 S-3s or equivalent replacements (6 ASW patrol, 5 tanker, 1 COD) and 6 E-2s or replacements for AEW.

      For the VF and VA missions, I'm thinking we need three different airplanes, instead of the F-35 trying to be all three.

      Attack/Strike--needs long legs (1200-1500 NM strike radius, not necessarily to conduct deep strikes, but to be able to conduct strikes from carriers outside enemy A2/AD range), stealth, and a big bomb load; replace the bomb load with electronics for the EW aircraft
      Fighter/Interceptor--needs loiter time, long-range sensors and weapons, and speed, maneuverability, and vision in case it gets caught in a dogfight, stealth a nice to have.
      "Marine A-10"--a CAS specialist, rugged and reliable, big cannon and heavy weapons load, able to operate off a carrier, and preferably off short and/or unprepared strips, so Marines can take it ashore with them and keep close to the front to pop up as needed.

      Air wings could be:
      CVN--36 VF, 10 VA, 12 S-3, 6 AEW, 6 EW, 9 helo, 1 V-22
      CV--24 VF, 10 VA, 8 S-3, 5 AEW, 5 EW, 7 helo, 1 V-22
      CVL--24 VF or 20 VA and 4 EW or 12-10-2, 6 S-3, 4 AEW, 5 helo, 1 V-22

      Delete
    7. Mine would be
      48 VF
      16 VA
      12 VS (6 ASW, 4 tanker, 2 COD)
      8 VAQ/EW
      6 VAW/AWACS
      12 helo (6 ASW/ 4 ASUW/ 2 SF)
      4 UAV tanker
      2 M-22 COD

      Delete
  4. This is exciting reading. How much would DoD love to have an additional 200+ stealth fighters capable of operating in the Western Pacific independent of fixed air bases?

    The Limiting Factor of carrier aircraft size is the elevators. We've demonstrated that we can have stealthy shapes that can fit. The "cranked kite" style can fold up particularly well, and perhaps a stealthy "swing wing" could be a thing.

    The aircraft should ALL be big, because they all need substantial increases in range and weapons carriage. The fighter/EA needs speed, while the tanker and ASW need endurance.

    Unmanned has little point or place. There is no lack of brave pilots eager to throw their bodies into an air combat fight. Various autopilot systems, long-ranged weapons, decoys, and the simple navy traditions of multi-crew aircraft can provide what would be needed in terms of surviabality and combat endurace at range.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The Navy seems utterly confused"

    Think you misspelled "corrupted" there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Makes sense.....So it'll never happen. OH, maybe a "6th gen" fighter will pop up, but USN might only buy enough to have 10-12 per carrier, basically keeping the SH and letting the 6th gen take the place of the -35C. I just dont see the USN pumping enough dough into making a new airwing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I just dont see the USN pumping enough dough into making a new airwing."

      Rest assured that I suffer from no delusion that this will actually happen. However, it is worth the effort to keep pushing it. Without effort, nothing would ever change. With effort something might, even if it's only around the margins. Rickover didn't give up. Mitchell didn't give up. Perhaps I'll influence someone inside the Navy to make some positive changes. Or, perhaps not but I'm enjoying the challenge!

      Delete
  7. Perhaps the NATF-22, which I know nothing about.

    https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-martin-natf-22-f-22n.30486/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course, people want a super fighter jet meet all their dreams. Problem is --- do you have necessary technical capability.

    Besides that, one thing which navy want and is achievable - twin engine jets than single engine F-35. It is doable if there is money.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why no helicopters in your carrier air wing? The current carrier air wing includes one sea combat squadron (HSC) and one maritime strike squadron (HSM) with squadron having some 8 to 10 helicopters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You almost answered your own question! There is no value in a maritime strike squadron associated with a carrier. The carrier group has so many other ways to conduct maritime strike that a helo squadron is utterly redundant and the least capable option.

      The only useful helo on a carrier is a few search and rescue and some ASW (the escorts will have ASW helos so even this is questionable as far as usefulness). I consider helos as add-ons and I don't bother formally accounting for them. So, sure, add a half dozen helos.

      Delete
    2. If the Miss Marines don't need them for amphibious assault, the amphib flat tops should make dandy helo carriers. Waste not, want not.

      Delete
    3. "helo carriers"

      A dedicated ASW helo carrier makes far more sense than using up spots on a CVN, doesn't it?

      Delete
    4. Well, aren't the maritime strike helicopters (MH-60Rs) already assigned the escorts? The carrier is probably carrying 6-8 helicopters as it is.

      All that aside, back in the late-90's a carrier air wing consisted of about 60 fighter/attack aircraft and another 20 or so AEW,EW, and ASW aircraft for a total of about 80 fixed-wing aircraft. Is adding another 20 fixed-wing aircraft too much for today's carriers? The crew impact is probably pretty small, maybe another 300 or so added to the air wing crew. But, what about jet fuel capacity, weapons, and everything else needed to support the extra planes?

      As you know, the current carrier air wing is too small. In the short term, adding another 10-12 Super Hornets for tanking would allow the 4 fighter and strike squadrons to operate at full strength.

      Delete
    5. "Is adding another 20 fixed-wing aircraft too much for today's carriers?"

      As you know, carriers are designed for a maximum of around 95-100 aircraft so adding aircraft to the current 65-aircraft air wing is not a problem.

      As far as impact on berthing, fuel, etc., there is none as the carriers were designed for 100 aircraft. The capacities are already there.

      Delete
  10. "We need a modernized S-3 Viking with basic stealth shaping, decent speed, and good loiter time."

    A possible limitation on the usefulness of stealth in this airframe is the sonobouys. Are the enemy going to be able to RDF them? If they can then the stealth's primary purpose would be to make weapons lock more difficult vice prevent detection. The question is is the effort to be stealthy worth price?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good question. I think the answer is that the sonobuoys are very low power, line-of-sight comms and would not be detectable from very far away.

      The purpose of the stealth for a fixed wing ASW aircraft is to allow it to roam far in front of the carrier, providing distant, outer layer protection without being readily detected from a distance.

      Delete
  11. "We need something on the order of a Viking or A-3 Skywarrior. Of course, if it’s going to be in the vicinity of engagements, it will need basic stealth shaping. Obviously, it will need enough speed to reach its refueling points in a timely manner."

    The best way to go in this regard would be to design a large manned attack aircraft with tanking in mind. Easy to convert to tanking and easy to convert to unmanned if so desired. The main argument I see for the unmanned tanker is that you can make a bunch of extras and store them for the inevitable day you take losses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The main argument I see for the unmanned tanker is that you can make a bunch of extras and store them"

      Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of storing extra aircraft on a carrier. We did it routinely in WWII. But, I have to ask, how does being unmanned make them any more 'storable' than a manned aircraft?

      Delete
    2. My bad. I didn't mean on the carrier. I was thing more of a strategic reserve. The reason for the unmanned, is that its hard to store pilots. A semiuseful unmanned AC is more useful than a manned AC that you can't use because your pilots got killed in war. Think of the difficulties that Japan went through in WWII after losing their cream of the crop carrier pilots. Having the stockpile may help some on that.

      Delete
    3. Ah, I see. Of course, storing unmanned aircraft is only helpful if the unmanned aircraft is capable at whatever its task is. Seemingly the easiest task would be tanking. Of course, we see the unbelievable problems the Air Force is having building and operating a manned tanker so I'll wait to see how successful the Navy's unmanned tanker is. I'm dubious.

      Delete
    4. In my head my upscaled XB-47 UCAV could carry 4 torpedoes internally. Sonobuoys would befull sized and podded in underwing hardpoints similar to what general Dynamics has marketed for the reaper.

      Delete
  12. I don’t see a stealthy AEW platform working in any context. Too many emissions will render any platform out of the stealth equation.

    F-22/35 weapons loads are smaller due to internal fuel requirements. Increasing both would increase acft size dramatically. We’ll probably be seeing a self-protection directed-energy weapon soon too. Not sure how big that footprint will be.

    I see a larger, stealthy, not stealthiest, missile truck type platform without high speed designed for fleet defense. High endurance and so-so maneuverability but highly network leveraged to expand A2AD bubble.

    If long range strike will be Burke sourced missiles, hypersonic as Tomahawks are not the future, I don’t see a need for CVN boats.

    I agree that longer range, persistent ASW assets are in high demand. Sub-launched long range hypersonic SSMs may make that pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I imagine an aircraft with two tandem weapons bays able to handle four long range AAMs, four 2000lbs. bombs or four ASMs or four ASCMs. A/C is longer than what we have now, perhaps long enough for a third tandem weapons bay with stealthy pods on the wings for additional ordinance while a 1000-1200 mile range on internal fuel is desirable. Another approach is to use two tandem rotary launchers with six heavy weapon slots(2500lbs. capacity) each for a total of 12 heavy weapons. Conformal fuel tanks, bigger fusalage, sidebays for AIM-9X, AIM-120, AIM-260 carried in pairs in each side bay, internal fuel to 30,000+pounds, economical in subsonic cruise engines, gun of 30mm potential for future laser, MTOW 90-100,000 miles with top off from tanker, empty weight <50,000lbs. and max 100,000lbs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Move engines from fuselage to fuselage sides to free up space for fuel and weapons. I rather like the tandem rotary launcher concept that gives 12 slots total but tandem bays with ejector racks is also good if we can have three tandem bays and use the under inlet bays like F-22/F-35 for additional AAM/ASM/bombs/ASCM. This produces an a/c with six to eight heavy 2500lbs. stations. Need a long range AAM with 200 mile range and 2000lbs. weight to counter long range Russian/Chinese AAMs intended to take out AEW and tanker A/C.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could see reaching a new heavy for a carrier aircraft here, but I think they are more likely to edge up toward that 100k number real slow vs 84-88k. The Russians have the Mig-31, SU-24, and Sukhoi-34 in the 100k camp. We've only done it with the F-111 and lightened that up a lot for the carrier.

      Delete
  15. "Unlike many observers and the Navy, itself, ComNavOps does not see strike as being a main air wing mission in a future war. I’ve posted that the task of future aircraft carriers is to escort Burke Tomahawk shooters and to establish mobile, local air superiority for other operations such as landings, Air Force bomber strikes, or cruise missile attack streams (basically escorting cruise missiles so that they can’t be significantly attrited during flight)."

    In a peer war with China, I agree. But do you really think that either China or we would be crazy enough to start a full-blown shooting war with a nuclear-armed enemy? I think we have to discourage that possibility by being entirely ready to destroy them if they tried (and by not being stupid ourselves). So I'm with you that far.

    But what I expect is exactly how Cold War I came down with the Soviets--lots of proxy wars and bear wars. And we need to prepare to win those as well. And both air strike and amphibious assault can and presumably will play major roles in any such "limited" conflicts.

    There is one additional factor not present in Cold War I--the economic competition. And right now we are quite frankly losing that one. We need to reverse that. I have my own thoughts about ways to do that, but those get political and I will respect your prohibition against political conversation here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think you have forgotten something, the usefulness of a aircraft carrier is determine not by the number of aircraft she carriers,but by the number of sortes she can fly off her deck.Yes the number of aircraft available is one controlling factor,but not the only one. Just as important is the rate she recover her aircraft and the rate of launches she can make. Noe the number of launches can be improved by improving the power and reliability of EMALs, something that is possible to do. The is a limit to a one flight deck to land aircraft as lone as they can can handle
    one recovery at a time. This is a real limit to the size of air group an aircraft carrier can handle,no matter how large a hanger deck is or the total number of aircraft store on deck

    The only way we can improve a carriers firepower in my opinion is crease the payload each aircraft carries during a sort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "number of sortes she can fly off her deck."

      No. I've addressed this before in posts. Carriers in war do NOT operate by sortie rate. They launch missions and then recover the mission aircraft when the mission is over. Continual launches (sortie rate) simply do not occur in combat. Launch rate and recovery rate are not a factor. Carriers operate in cycles. You need to read up on carrier ops.

      "number of launches can be improved by improving the power and reliability of EMALs,"

      This isn't even remotely true. EMALS, when it works, is already more powerful than the heaviest Navy aircraft. Adding more power wouldn't accomplish anything since the power is regulated DOWN to launch the aircraft. Launch rate is NOT a function of catapult power. Not even a little bit. Launch rate is a function of the time required to move aircraft on deck, the time required to hook up, the time required to perform safety checks, etc.

      "This is a real limit to the size of air group an aircraft carrier can handle,"

      Again, no. Landing rate does not determine air wing size. Landings occur in cycles as part of the cyclic operations. The only determinant of air wing size is space on the carrier.

      Please don't argue this. You are so incorrect that I'm going to simply delete any attempt to argue this.

      Delete
  17. Any thoughts on close air support from the sir wing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carrier air wings should not be engaged in close air support. It's not their job … or shouldn't be, at any rate.

      Delete
    2. Is that because it is a USMC thing? Or just because carriers should be engaged in Air Dominance and ground support should come from naval gunfire?

      Delete
    3. I've written many posts and comments about the role of the carrier, amphibious assault, and ground support. Check out the archives and you'll find lots of interesting articles on the subject.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.