The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing that proved illuminating as regards future Navy strikefighter plans.(1) The testimony video is linked in the reference below and the strikefighter shortfall remediation is discussed around the 58:00 mark of the recording and continues until around the 1:05:00 mark.
The Navy is proposing to make changes to last year’s plan that will reduce the strikefighter shortfall to zero by 2025.
Here are the salient points to come from Adm. Loiselle:
Reducing number of F-35C squadrons per air wing from 2 to 1 but increasing the number of aircraft per squadron from 10 to 14. That would take the F-35C numbers from 20 per air wing down to 14. It was not clear whether the eliminated F-35 squadron would be replaced by another F-18 squadron or whether it would be a net reduction in air wing squadrons. If the F-35 squadron is replaced by an F-18 one, that would result in a net increase of 6 aircraft.
Two squadrons of F-18s from Fallon would be freed up by replacing them with F-16 and F-5s.
The Navy anticipates returning 28 F-18E/F Hornets from inactive status to active status.
The Navy believes that the existing Service Life Modification (SLM) program pipeline can handle additional aircraft in 2025 to compensate for any remaining shortfalls.
Aircraft are coming into SLM with far more corrosion than anticipated.
SLM will produce full Block 3 F-18 aircraft with the 10,000 hr life modification (the original 6,000 hrs plus an additional 4,000 from the SLM).
The Navy anticipates by 2025 the SLM program will be able to process an aircraft in one year versus the current 18 months or so.
Navy is looking at using their own technicians to conduct corrosion repairs on aircraft prior to entering the aircraft into the SLM process and include only less corroded aircraft in the SLM program.
VFA-204 reserve squadron flew adversary training missions at various locations and was a deployable squadron but their F-18 Hornets will be replaced with F-5s and no longer be Navy deployable.
F-16s will operate in Fallon instead of F-18s.
VFA-12 (Oceana) will be the only F-18 equipped reserve squadron and only deployable reserve Hornet squadron. That’s a very thin reserve component!
____________________________________
(1)Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces Hearing: “Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request of the Department of Defense for Fixed-Wing Tactical and Training Aircraft Programs”, RADM Andrew Loiselle, USN, Director, Air Warfare Division (OPNAV/N98) – testifying on behalf of the Navy, 13-Jul-2021,
https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings?ID=D50BE244-286E-41DD-88CF-C1523BEC70E4
Are we saying that in a war and that when all available carriers are deployed, that there is one squadron of aircraft that can be used to replace war losses, unless you rob squadrons from carriers under maintenance?
ReplyDeleteI assume there is spare individual aircraft that can be assigned to existing squadrons? I assume they would be piloted by the F5/F16 pilots?
Again this looks thin especially as I believe there is one less carrier wing than the number of carriers?
There are two less wings than carriers. We have 9 air wings.
DeleteAlso, note that in a peer war we'll likely lose the equivalent of at least a full air wing in combat losses in the first month … and have no replacements.
DeleteThe comments were like so many things from Navy leadeership these days, vague. I, in the end, took it to mean 3 x 10 Super Hornet squadrons and 1 x 14 F-35.
ReplyDeleteThe current F-18 squadrons are nominally 12 aircraft though more realisticially 11 (no one seems to be manned to full strength any more). The current F-35 squadron is 10. So, the increase from 10 to 14 could only apply to the F-35 squadrons unless the Navy has quietly sneaked the F-18 squadrons down to 10 recently.
DeleteBut, yes … vague.
As I understand it, two of the four F-18 squadrons have been deploying with 10 planes and the other two with 12, with the extra planes dedicated to air refueling, for a total of 44 planes per wing. I take the comments to mean they’ll standardize on 3x10 plane F-18 squadrons and 1x14 F-35 one, for the same total of 44 strike planes. Of course, shortly we’ll have the MQ-25 come online, so that should help…
DeleteI wonder since the F-35 manufacturing pipeline is stretching over several countries, how difficult would it be to rapidly increase production? I assume we would have to rely on host foreign countries to do that and there's a high chance that many "peace-loving" countries would decline to do that. Worse, there is always a possibility that these nations may refuse to do businesses with us as it might anger China's economic trade. Judging by the Turkey's pullout, that would make replacing a lost country in the pipeline extremely difficult and lengthy (it took several months for it to return pre-Turkey production speed).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I understand that we have no reserve Super Hornet but still a large amount of Hornets in storage. I wish we still have the F-14 in storage as reserves...
"still a large amount of Hornets in storage. "
DeleteThe early A/B/C/D Hornets that we have in storage are in storage because they've reached the end of their flight hours. They would need to undergo the SLM process which is currently taking around 18 months and is revealing much more internal corrosion than expected. It would require a LOT of effort to get them back into useful, flying condition. Still, in a war, they'd be better than nothing.
"F-35 manufacturing pipeline is stretching over several countries, how difficult would it be to rapidly increase production?"
DeleteDon't forget that in a war, China would attempt to cut our shipping off so even if various foreign countries were willing to increase production of their components, we would likely have difficult getting shipments.
We would attempt to cut China's shipping, why wouldn't they do the same to us? To think we'll continue on with our manufacturing as before is folly.
"F-16s will operate in Fallon instead of F-18s"
ReplyDeleteNavy acquiring 26 F-16s drawn from Air Force and Air National Guard stocks, 20 F16C's and 6 F-16D's Block 32 and will update them to Air Force Block 40 standards?, Navy currently operates 15 F-16's at Fallon mainly for "Top Gun" training.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40846/navy-details-its-plans-to-add-ex-air-force-f-16s-to-its-fleet
I wonder if these moves are due to someone in the Navy brass realizing that they're going to need these planes to fight a war by 2025. That's assuming that they're replacing that missing F-35 squadron in the CVW with a Super Hornet squadron, of course.
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone in leadership finally found two brain cells to squeeze together?
What war in 2025?
DeleteSo my understanding is that they will cherry pick less corroded aircraft first to run through the refit program in order to accelerate the output timeframe to support the 2025 numbers goal. But it also sounded as if some would not make the program and would be retired (??) Did I get that right?? To me it seems like the 18mos (even the year) is a long time for an aircraft to be refit. I understand that it cant be exactly assembly line work, since each plane will have specific repair needs but Im picturing pallets of money changing hands to cover the "rent" on the space an aircraft will occupy for a year...
ReplyDeleteWhen the F-35 first came out, everyone said that its was impossibly expensive and would crowd everything else out of the budget. They were correct, it did. This House committee is just quantifying this and indicating that the Navy is trying to hide this unpleasant fact by downsizing all of its air units and hoping that "no one notices". The F-35s needs to be cancelled ASAP and replaced by something affordable to reverse this trend. If not, next budget cycle there will be further Navy cuts to pay for their short-ranged, underarmed F-35s.
ReplyDelete"something affordable"
DeleteNothing procured by Pentagon will be affordable. Their project to make something affordable always end as unaffordable. Unless you shed these unnecessary parasites from the food chain, nothing through them will be affordable.
How many squadrons could be set up in case of conflict drawing people and planes from the FRS?
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge, there are two Hornet FRS, one on each coast, and a single F-35 FRS. So, you could commandeer 3 squadrons but, of course, you'd then have no way of training any more pilots or mechanics and that would never be done so the real answer is, no squadrons could be formed.
DeleteDo we have anybody in charge who has freaking clue of what he/she is supposed to be doing?
ReplyDeleteIf we do, I'm not seeing it.
Delete"Do we have anybody in charge who has freaking clue of what he/she is supposed to be doing?"
DeleteThat's a rhetorical question, right?
Shortfall in F-18 numbers
ReplyDeleteRemember reading several years ago that ~30% of F-18's 'missions' were as buddy tankers, putting the max stress on airframe and engines taking off at MTOW.
My understanding the Admirals aim was to keep fewer types of a/c on carrier, thinking wearing out the expensive F-18's was the better option than keeping the KA-6D in service or bringing the KS-3 online. As a result Navy having to fund many more a/c through the F-18 SLEP due to their hard life, expensive as SLEP one third of the cost of a new a/c, expect total $billions. Now doing a U turn and funding the MQ-25 tanker with approx. half the payload of a KS-3.
I really don't understand the thinking here. I suppose the thinking is to keep the supply chain simpler. But that's bean counter thinking, not operational thinking. When I was in Ranger back when Moby Dick was a minnow, we had multiple aircraft types (F-4, A-4, A-5, even A-1, E-2, S-2 later S-3, F-8, A-7) and more total aircraft (~90) on a smaller carrier, and supply chain just wasn't that big an issue. With the advent of 3-D printing, supply chain should be even less of an issue. I really fail to see what serious problem they are solving, but I do see what serious problems they are causing.
Delete"But that's bean counter thinking, not operational thinking."
DeletePrecisely.
And that's the kind of thinking that has been rewarded since the "peace dividend" at least.
I have wondered why they have never developed a oiler/small carrier that could handle the KC-130. A small flat top with 6 KC-130's would allow for some high volume refueling (compared to buddy refueling).
DeleteIf the design was simple and inexpensive, which it should be without catapults or arresting gear, a carrier group could have multiple oilers/small carriers that could be positioned in multiple different vectors from the carrier group to support refueling in any flight vector. Multiple oiler/small carriers could also be used for emergency landing sites if arresting gear was added.
Since the KC-130's are already in service it is about building a ship. Building the ships would likely be faster than building new tanker aircraft.
Seperate tanker carrier is an interesting concept. KC-130 as tanker aircraft makes sense. Possibly going to need some sort of catapult as assist to get fully loaded KC-130s into the air, maybe not. If a catapult is needed that doesn't mean steam power for thewhole ship, an auxilliary steam plant to generate steam for the catapult should be enough (sortie generation rate isn't a huge issue here, we need to get ONE big plane into the air intermittently, not launch a deck load strike). JATO bottles could also be an option (and a good one considering limited number of sorties, since sorties would be limited to the ship's aviation fuel supply anyway). Support enough strikes / sorties to empy the small carrier and then it detaches from the strike group and is replaced with another (it returns to port to refuel). That means procuring 2 tanker carriers per CVN. Interesting idea, and I think it has merit. Therefore the navy will never actually consider it.
Delete"A small flat top with 6 KC-130's"
DeleteTake a look at the videos of the C-130 trials aboard the USS Forrestal. While it proved that a C-130 could land and take off from a carrier, the video clearly shows that it requires nearly a full size carrier to operate a single C-130 due to the amount of deck space a single aircraft 'consumes' during takeoff and landing. At best, a full size carrier MIGHT be able to operate two such aircraft.
Writeups of the trials also confirmed that the max payload would be reduced and that the operational safety margins would be reduced.
Some top Navy generals are not happy with F-35C's abilities and performances. One said publicly against purchase more new aircrafts in favor of prolonging lives of F/A-18 which cost ~1/3. He wants to spend money in new aircraft development, for instance NAGD, etc.
ReplyDeleteThrough my experiences in commercial world, people fail in first product R&D tend to fail again. Unless military R&D leadership is changed, more competent technical people are recruited, chance for NAGD's success is low.
To maintain its stealthy, F-35 can only carry weapons in its two weapon bays in which can only carry very limited amount. If it loads under wings, then, no longer stealthy. Furthermore, unlike F/A-18, F-35C didn't consider too much in its aerodynamic design on hanging weapons under wings thus despite it can carry a lot, it would become very dull if loaded a lot under wings. Also, by nature, Navy like twin engine fighters more than single engine ones.