The Navy, as it often does, has flip-flopped in just a year or so on the viability of the F-18 Super Hornet.
The Navy announced in its Fiscal Year 2021 budget submission that it would stop buying Super Hornets after that budget year, despite prior plans to buy more of the fighters in a multi-year procurement from FY 2022 to FY 2024. (1)
Now, you’re probably expecting ComNavOps to embark on a rant about the stupidity of Navy leadership, once again. Well, I happen to agree with this move and, more surprisingly, I agree with some of the rationale and contingencies noted by the Navy.
RAdm. Andrew Loiselle (Director, Air Warfare Division, OPNAV N98) described the rationale this way,
Super Hornets are, “a 30-year airframe at 10,000 hours. So that takes us out to about 2055. And there isn’t a lot of analysis out there that supports fourth-generation viability against any threat in that timeframe. (1)
ComNavOps agrees completely with this. The Hornet, in any of its guises, is a compromised aircraft that is optimized for nothing and sub-optimal is a good way of dying on the battlefield, current or future. Terminating the Hornet production line is mandatory. Of course, one can legitimately ask why, just a couple of years ago, the Navy thought that the Hornet could meet the future combat needs but now, suddenly, it cannot. Well, that’s just more routine Navy incompetence. But, I digress …
As you recall, the Hornet, in a misguided concept of epic proportions, was designed not with combat as the primary design requirement but with reduced operating costs as the primary driver. This unavoidably led to a compromised design. We’ve gotten away with it for several decades because there was no significant threat but that has now changed in a major way with the emergence of an expansionistic China. We can no longer afford to depend on a sub-optimal aircraft whose distinguishing characteristic is reduced operating costs. We need a true, optimized air superiority fighter aircraft.
Of course, this leads immediately to consideration of the next generation aircraft for the Navy and we have no idea when that will be ready for squadron service. What do we do for aircraft in the meantime? We have to have something, right? Well, here’s a couple of answers:
1. We absolutely cannot depend on the F-35 to be our future combat aircraft for the many reasons we’ve thoroughly covered in previous posts. Any money spent on the F-35 from this day forward is money being poured down a black hole of uselessness. Why spend money on an aircraft that is clearly not the answer to our future combat needs?
2. We have a grace period of perhaps 5-10 years before the threat of a war with China becomes imminent. It’s a risk, but we can bridge that gap with existing F-18 aircraft and the few F-35’s already on order while we develop the next generation aircraft. Of course, that assumes that we don’t take 20+ years to develop the next generation aircraft and I’ve described how to field a suitable aircraft in just 5 years (see, “How To Build A Better Aircraft”).
RAdm. Andrew Loiselle (Director, Air Warfare Division, OPNAV N98) describes how to manage the gap years and potential aircraft shortages by adjusting the F-18 Hornet Service Life Modification (SLM) program,
Loiselle argued that investing in Service Life Modification upgrades for aircraft already in service provides the capability and flight hours the Navy needs, noting the service can pay for three upgrades for the same amount of money it would cost to buy one new fighter. If the Navy does need more Super Hornets in the future, Loiselle said he can add more aircraft into the SLM update program. (1)
RAdm. Loiselle is spot on. The Navy has plenty of Hornets that have reached – or soon will - the end of their normal life spans but that can be revitalized to serve several additional years, if necessary. Using the SLM program this way is prudent and wise. Of course, this depends on being able to process Hornets through the SLM program expeditiously and that is by no means a given.
As we noted, all of the above depends on the next generation aircraft (Next Generation Air Dominance – NGAD) development to be timely, affordable, and combat focused. So, what do we know about the NGAD program direction? Not much! Here’s what the USNI News article had to say,
The NGAD program is classified, so service officials have provided little details. But NGAD is slated to be a family of manned and unmanned systems that will work in conjunction with a fighter jet, also known as the F/A-XX, as the nucleus. (1)
It would seem the Navy is already heading off the rails. What is needed is a very long range, air superiority fighter and, instead, the Navy is looking towards a multi-role (note the F/A designation which automatically means compromise) aircraft whose primary purpose is to hop aboard the unmanned, distributed fantasy train.
So, while I agree with and applaud some of the Navy’s decisions regarding the future of the F-18, I have to reserve a huge amount of caution because the Navy seems to already be screwing up the NGAD program. This fixation with ‘families of families’, ‘systems of systems’, and unmanned is wholly (unholy?) without any analytical or empirical foundation and yet the Navy is betting the future of the country on it. This is reckless, in the extreme.
Why has the Navy opted for this highly risky course of development? Well, I don’t claim to be privy to the Navy’s innermost thoughts but it seems pretty obvious that much, if not all, of the motivation comes from budget considerations and the Navy has decided that ‘unmanned’ is the answer to out of control costs. The rest of us would look at poor designs, horrific program management, reduced industrial capacity, and similar reasons for the out of control costs but self-blame and self-control is not the Navy way so Navy leadership merely rails against high costs with no acknowledgement that they, themselves, are the reason for the high costs.
Unfortunately, we have no Navy leaders who have ever experienced peer combat or even participated in complex, realistic exercises so they have no concept of what’s required. Hmm … I said I wasn’t going to rant and yet … Sorry about that.
So, the Navy is half right and half incredibly wrong. They’re right about the need to terminate F-18 production but they’re incredibly wrong about the future of naval aviation.
_____________________________________
(1)USNI News website, “Navy Questions Future Viability of Super Hornets; Recommends Against New Buy”, Mallory Shelbourne, 3-Aug-2021,
Once again, the Navy does an about face with a decision. The Stupid Hornet is nothing to write home about, let alone intimidate any adversary. The F-35 is not what it is cracked-up to be. The Navy has a major issue to figure out. Stealth is nice but it comes at a hefty price or two: limited internal fuel capacity and weapons load out (yet they stick external hard points on them to bolster payload which defeats the purpose of being stealthy). Circling back around to the F/A-18 issue at hand. Instead of tossing another few hundred million or so at a dozen F/A-18s, why not invest that funding into reviving our MCM and ASW capabilities. A dozen more F/A-18's is not going to give us air superiority or fleet air defense. Like almost every other domain, Naval aviation is a shadow of its former self.
ReplyDeleteOf the not good options left to the navy moving on to F-35 is the right idea. I doubt F-35 will hold up well by 2055 either, but it will fair better than F-18. They need to design and deploy fast. Not a fan of the Air Force calling their development a new century series, but they need to focus on how to design successfully, faster. The process is as much the enemy as anything else. And yes, they should drop the F/A designation if only to think about how they don't want to repeat a compromise design.
ReplyDelete"The process is as much the enemy as anything else."
DeleteGreat statement. That summed up so much that's wrong!
You hit the nail on the head. Until NavAir goes back to the proper use of aircraft designators (F means primarily a fighter mission, with attack as a secondary mission; and A means primarily attack mission), there is no hope for a new airplane that is not performance compromised from the start. NavAir needs to push for 2 SEPARATE aircraft each optimized for their PRIMARY mission.
ReplyDeleteYou got it!
Delete"NavAir needs to push for 2 SEPARATE aircraft each optimized for their PRIMARY mission."
DeleteThe problem is "attack" can encompass two or more very different targets, for which two or more very different flight profiles are needed, which then needs two or more very different wing and airframe designs.
Example 1: Attacking enemy coastal defenses (tanks, artillery, dug-in troops) and/or clearing waters of landing craft approaching the coast. That requires a plane to go "low and slow," making it extremely vulnerable to enemy air defenses- the reason the USAF wants to retire the A-10 in favor of the F-16, which flies high and fast enough to make it invulnerable to many antiaircraft guns and missiles, forcing the enemy to invest in more powerful (and EXPENSIVE) air defenses to deter it, which then limits the amount of coverage such defenses provide, due to the expense. The tradeoff letting attack plane survive flying "low and slow," means limiting its range and/or payload- you have to make allowances for armor, a built-in gun and its ammo- which then threatens to put any carrier these planes launch from, within reach of enemy coastal defenses.
Example 2: Attacking enemy warships. Not only can these warships carry powerful air defense radars, antiaircraft guns and missiles, they're also MOBILE, meaning they can simply sail beyond reach of your attack planes. That requires a plane to go fast, to reach the targets before they escape- low (sea-skimming) and fast to prevent the warship's built-in radar from detecting it before it can launch antiship missiles, or high and fast so its kinematics can let its missiles launch from a greater "standoff range," I'll leave that to military planners. Anyways, that means the attack plane can share many components with a fighter, which flies a similar profile- compare the F-15 Eagle to the F-15E Strike Eagle, or the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker to the Su-34 Fullback. It also means you have forget about flying "low and slow," as you must maximize the plane's range and payload- long-range missiles are HUGE- meaning you must sacrifice the armor necessary to let a plane survive flying "low and slow."
It's understandably tempting to simply have one plane serve as a fighter and an attack plane for Example 2- we did it with the F/A-18 Hornet, the French are doing it with the Dassault Rafale, the Chinese are doing it with the Shenyang J-15- but the impossibility of also letting such a plane fly the "low and slow" profile necessary for Example 1, as well as the sheer expense of designing any warplane, makes many government and military leaders decide to do without.
"That requires a plane to go "low and slow,"
DeleteMost certainly not!
With the advent of better aircraft 'fire control', better sensors, precision guided weapons, missiles, IR and radar homing missiles, optically guided weapons, etc., there is no requirement to attack low and slow and that tactic has largely been abandoned.
Thus, there is NOT a requirement for two types of attack aircraft.
I have no idea where you got the idea we need two types of attack aircraft. Even decades ago, the A-6 was equally effective low or high and was the only attack aircraft we needed.
"requires a plane to go fast, to reach the targets before they escape"
A ship cannot 'escape' an aircraft. The 20-30kt speed of a ship is, for practical purposes, zero compared to the 300-500 mph speed of an aircraft. A ship that has been detected cannot sail out of range of an aircraft, especially with the advent of tanking.
Anti-ship mission attack profiles are going to ultimately involve a high altitude attack, either a pop up or straight high altitude cruise and launch. Aircraft won't directly attack ships. It will be a purely missile exercise. An aircraft might approach at low altitude to avoid radar detection but that isn't an attack, it's just a low, leisurely cruise. The weapons release will still be at altitude after a pop up.
What differentiates an attack aircraft from a fighter is sensors that are optimized for air-to-ground detection and tracking rather than air-to-air, large payloads, long range, stable weapons release flight characteristics, and fuel efficient flight characteristics (engines optimized for range and fuel economy rather than power). These are not the characteristics of an optimized fighter.
"We need a true, optimized air superiority fighter aircraft."
ReplyDeleteThe way you wrote this post makes me feel like you came so close to recommending a modernized F-14 for the fleet defense and long-range air cover missions. Are you still in favour of bringing back a modernized F-14 then? How about telling us your position on the (un)viability of swing-wings on a modern naval aircraft too?
"F-14"
DeleteNo. Maybe conceptually but not an actual modernized F-14. I'm more in favor of an F-22-ish aircraft that embraces the F-14 concept. That means a fairly large, very long range fighter with great maneuverability and a large A2A payload. It needs great all-aspect stealth and super dogfighting skills because stealth-on-stealth air combat is going to devolve into a dogfight rather than missile fight.
So there would be a need of a fighter in the SU-30/34 class regarding size/weight/range/weapons loadout, and it should be navalized. It seems the chinese are on this path with their Sukhoi derivates that will shortly become Catobar fighters.
DeleteThe F-14 A2A payload was 6-8 missiles correct?
DeleteThen updating the F-35C with sidekick which allows 2 AMRAAM's on each of the internal outboard stations giving a total of 6 AMRAAM's internally plus the 2 wingtip AIM-9 stations should match the F-14 at least with A2M loads.
Not sure how much the wingtip AIM-9's decrease the stealth profile since I have only read Wikipedia, blogs and LM promo material which all give different answers from no stealth degradation to negligible degradation (what ever negligible means in this case)
Pivot wing aircraft have been completely discredited. The weight penalty and inability to transition during air combat have proven this to be a wasted experiment. Now a primary mission fighter as the F-14 was designated is what is needed. But NO PIVOT Wing.
ReplyDeleteVariable-Geometry or Variable-Sweep Wing to be precise.
DeleteWasn't the point of variable-geometry wings to make low speed landings and low speed handling easier?
DeleteEspecially with how many accidents so many of the early supersonic cable jets had due to handling at low speeds?
It's not needed with modern fly-by-wire jets because the computer handles all the minute adjustments
"Pivot wing aircraft have been completely discredited."
DeletePerhaps in the same sense that biplanes have been discredited. Discredited implies some sort of failure when, in reality, what it actually means is that they were necessary and successful in their time but we have now learned other methods to achieve the same or better performance and have moved on.
Swing wing was useful and successful, in its time, but we can now accomplish the same performance using other techniques.
Semantics aside, the F-111, B-1, F-14, Backfire bomber, and Tornado are not considered top performing aircraft even against their peers. The missile system of the F-14 is what people loved and what made it superior as a stand off weapon system, not its fighter capabilities. The trade off of increased weight to get lower landing speed was a bust and, as has been pointed out, is no longer needed. Let the F-14 rest in peace, if we continue to mention it as the last ideal optimized fighter the Navy needs, some technical weenie will resurrect the concept. NavAir can't even drop the F/A designator, that is the level of people we are dealing with and some words have to be carefully avoided or it will be like saying squirrel around a pack of dogs.
DeleteIf a team cannot do good jobs on F-35, how could expect they can deliver good NAGD?
ReplyDelete"a war with China becomes imminent"
During Cold War, there was no direct war between US and Soviet Union, thanks to nuclear weapons. Although China still has far less nuke warheads than US, it has enough to destroy all major cities in the nation.
NGAD 1.0 should be an evolved F-35C with a variable cycle engine, Sidekick AAMs, and a GaN APG-81. If the engine delivers, this pushes the A2A radius up over 900nmi.
ReplyDeleteDo you expect same team which screwed up F-35C will suddenly become competent?
DeleteYeah, I really don't see USN wanting some "upgraded" F35C. They going to want a new airframe.
DeleteAn F-35, however upgraded, simply doesn't have the internal weapons space. We're going to want around 12+ missiles. I think the F-15EX offers a glimpse at the weapons capacity path the AF is on.
DeleteAir Force has learned that they need a combination - a stealthy fighter capable to penetrate enemy line to destroy their sensors (radar, etc.) and a heavy fighter which fly fast and carry lots of weapons to do attack, F-15EX plays this role.
Delete"Do you expect same team which screwed up F-35C will suddenly become competent?"
DeleteDo "I" expect it? You seem to. Somehow NGAD is going to avoid this fate? At least F-35C IS an operational aircraft.
"Yeah, I really don't see USN wanting some "upgraded" F35C. They going to want a new airframe."
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
NGAD 2.0 can be their fantasy aircraft. While it struggles from PowerPoint to production, the F-35C can pick up the mission.
"An F-35, however upgraded, simply doesn't have the internal weapons space. We're going to want around 12+ missiles."
It could. Sidekick allows two missiles on each door for four. Peregrine or CUDA mini missiles on the main station add eight more.
It's not clear any fighter has enough fuel to make use of this many missiles on a regular basis. It'll go bingo before it goes winchester.
"It could. Sidekick allows two missiles on each door for four. Peregrine or CUDA mini missiles on the main station add eight more."
DeleteThis is pure fantasy, at the moment. CUDA has been around since around 2010 and here we are, a decade or so later and nothing has actually been produced or even officially tested, as far as I know. It appears to be a dead end if it ever was more than a theoretical notion.
Peregrine is the same. The claims for Peregrine performance are ludicrous. Range equal or better than AMRAAM, multi-sensor, hit-to-kill and warhead, 100% lethality, and all in a package half the size of existing missiles. That's not believable.
If/when one of these paper missiles becomes a reality we'll re-evaluate. Until then, the F-35 simply lacks the internal weapons carry for high end combat and is entirely unsuited as a basis for NGAD.
" It'll go bingo before it goes winchester."
The F-35C can't actually go 'winchester'! I don't know whether the gun pod has been approved for use and I don't know whether any pods have been procured.
"If/when one of these paper missiles becomes a reality we'll re-evaluate. Until then, the F-35 simply lacks the internal weapons carry for high end combat and is entirely unsuited as a basis for NGAD"
DeleteNGAD is vaporware. F-35C is an operational aircraft. Sidekick gets the missile count up to 6. More would obviously be better, but real fighters flying off the decks of carriers count infinitely more in "high end combat" than fantasy programs that take a decade to see the first aircraft.
F-35C can be a stepping stone to NGAD 2.0 (whatever that ends up being, whenever it actually arrives).
"Winchester" is a generic term for out of weapons.
"NGAD is vaporware. F-35C is an operational aircraft."
DeleteCorrect. You, however, made the statement,
"NGAD 1.0 should be an evolved F-35C"
Based on weapons carry alone, the F-35 is unsuited to be the basis for an NGAD 1.0 design. Stealth, maneuverability, range, and other factors also make the F-35 unsuited.
F-35 and F-18 are, of course, the interim aircraft until the NGAD, however, no one but you has suggested otherwise and that was not your statement. To repeat, your statement was,
"NGAD 1.0 should be an evolved F-35C"
And, clearly, it should not.
"Winchester" is a generic term for out of weapons."
No, it is a term for 'out of missiles and only guns left', hence the term 'winchester' which is a rifle/gun.
My point in calling it "NGAD 1.0" was to distinguish it as an interim capability to replace the F/A-18E, which is the current air defense aircraft. An evolved F-35C is clearly a generation ahead of the Super Hornet.
DeleteNGAD 2.0 is the objective capability. Apologies if that was unclear.
https://www.f-16.net/glossary-W.html
Winchester
Term used to report expenditure of all ordnance of a particular type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiservice_tactical_brevity_code
Winchester
No ordnance remaining, can be used to refer to specific types ordnance or all ordnance.
There is no planned interim NGAD aircraft and, as far as I know, there has never been any reference to a NGAD 1.0 and 2.0.
DeleteYou offered an opinion on what the NGAD ought to be based on. It was probably not a well thought out statement but you're entitled to your opinion. Own it and move on.
From military terminology list,
"Winchester means the pilot is down to his guns only. If the term is used together with a specific weapon mentioned, then it can possibly mean he's out of a particular weapon (as in, "Winchester on rockets", and similar types of phrases). Guns dry would mean he's out gun ammo, as well (time to return to base for a reload)."
I'm clearly owning it. Waiting for a mystical, magical NGAD with 12+ missiles (which nobody but you has called for), while a next generation aircraft is already flying off the decks of carriers, is foolish. But you're entitled to your opinion.
DeleteNo one but you has even hinted at getting rid of Hornets/F-35 while we wait for NGAD. You're trying to create an argument out of nothing. That's enough of this discussion.
DeleteOne thing to remember is that a long range aircraft does not have to be overly large. It is the fuel fraction that gives an aircraft range not the overall weight. So keep the airframe down in weight and carry more fuel and you get increased range/duration. In other words stop packing everything, including the kitchen sink, into the airframe so you can carry more fuel to get increased range. Remember history and look at the YF-16, it had more range than any other aircraft at the time.
ReplyDelete"fuel fraction"
DeleteYou make a good reminder. Of course, engine fuel efficiency (and airframe drag/efficiency) are also factors, as you know.
The other determinant of aircraft size is payload. For a very long range, air superiority fighter, the number of missiles carried will be important and go a long ways towards determining aircraft size. With stealth vs. stealth, many missiles are going to be expended with little result. Thus, aircraft will need large missile payloads. I would think 8 A2A missiles would be a minimum and 12 would be desirable. If those are going to be internal carry, that's suggests a fairly large airframe just due to missile payload. Add in the fuel and you're likely looking at a fairly large airframe, I'm afraid.
I think you are on target CNO on the payload. My guess USN wants at least 12 A2A missiles. We all know USAF has done Red Flags with all LO fighters and probably also F117s, no official results BUT it is interesting to note how USAF now wants "missile trucks" so my guess is you're right, in LO vs LO dog fight or long range engagement, everyone starts firing and lots of missiles miss. There's just no way you can do this with a small airframe with all that fuel you need....you'll probably need something at least the size category of F14. I dont know if I would bother making it super maneuverable, would prefer more super cruise or range. Let the missiles do most of the manoevring.
Delete" I dont know if I would bother making it super maneuverable"
DeleteAbsolutely, yes! In stealth vs. stealth, no one will be able to get a missile lock and any missiles fired will likely miss. Air combat will devolve into visual range dogfighting so maneuverability is a must.
If all we do is launch volleys of missiles (what are we going to launch at since we can't get a lock against a stealth aircraft?), we'll get inconclusive results, at best. The Air Force has not thought this through.
"long range engagement"
DeleteYou can't have a long range engagement between stealth aircraft because you can't see them. All the AF's public descriptions of the F-22 in air combat suggest that the enemy can't detect it until visual range. That rules out long range engagements.
A missile 'truck' will be effective against 4th gen aircraft to some extent but is unusable against stealth aircraft.
I still expect to see some long range engagements since LO isn't perfect, we don't know how well our radar compares to China radar detection of LO and encounters won't always be head on perfect LO to LO, some might be more "slanted" off bore sight, maybe RAM will be suffering degradation, maybe use IRST for long range shots,etc etc so some long range shots will happen, certainly not always but will occur IMO. Or at least, we shouldn't assume they will never happen....
DeleteAs for maneuverability or super-maneuvrabilty, I see as age old engineering problem: you have a couple of variables and they all influence each other: payload/range, LO, maneuverability. Plus you have to operate in out of a carrier so my guess would be more to favor long range with max A2A missiles, excellent LO with decent maneuverability. Pretty much the old F14, which was excellent in payload range, obviously no LO but you would need LO today and was decent in the dog fight when well flown. Could we make something to be also excellent in dog fight today, maybe but I'm afraid we would have to give up some range payload to have a smaller airframe, then we back to more of an F18 size fighter. I just don't think we can get all 3 to be excellent, its always going to be a blend and how one wants the blend to be...
I see it as deciding if we want something larger SIZE of an F14 or something smaller SIZE of an F18?
The above payload discussion brings up a good point. Just how good are missiles? Aa someone pointed out the AF wants missile trucks because there is a high miss rate. Long Range guided missiles require large diameter radar dishes which increases the size and weight of the fuselage. In addition, any peer will have RAW gear to tell them they have been locked onto and need to start deploying countermeasures and maneuvering. I realize all of the data is classified, but someone we can trust needs to do a real bottoms up effectiveness from a tactics, performance, and cost perspective. Given the 2019 cost of an AMRAAM is $1M then pretty soon the miss rate is going to cost more than the aircraft you are trying to kill. Lastly a large payload drives a large aircraft which reduces performance and duration. Having worked on A/C Fire Control systems I have heard all of the hype, and yet people produce the F-35.
Delete"Lastly a large payload drives a large aircraft which reduces performance and duration."
DeleteYes and no. Holding all else constant, a larger payload will reduce performance and duration, however, if appropriate design adjustments are made then the aircraft can retain performance and endurance appropriate for the mission.
For example, the A-3 Skywarrior had a payload of 13,000 lb and a combat radius of 900+ nm (range = 1800+ nm) and a cruise speed of 600+ mph. If the mission is 'missile truck', this would, potentially, be quite useful.
Similarly, the A-6 had a weapons payload of 18,000 lb and a combat radius of 878 nm with max payload. Again, for a missile truck, this is sufficient.
Those examples were attack aircraft, of course, so swap, conceptually, swap out A2A missiles for bombs and it illustrates that a large payload can still result in sufficient performance. A pure A2A fighter would, of course, need far superior maneuverability. Interestingly, the F-22 air superiority fighter is 8ft longer than the A-6 and manages to retain unrivaled maneuverability. It's all about what you design for.
The F-22 carries 8 A2A missiles. It's fun to imagine what the F-22 concept would look like if, say, 12-16 missiles were a design requirement.
Here is another major issue with the F-35B and F-35C versions as explained in this issue of Popular Mechanics:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a32701605/f-35-supersonic-flight-speed-limit/
This article is from last year and details the number of flaws that were still ongoing with the F-35.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30718538/f-35-flaws/
The following two AAM's in development may improve the lethality and employment of the F-35.
The AIM-260 which is currently in development is basically the product of a taking the AMRAAM and mating it with the AIM-54C Phoenix and then there is Peregrine AAM also in development.
https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/capabilities/products/peregrine-missile
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28636/meet-the-aim-260-the-air-force-and-navys-future-long-range-air-to-air-missile
“Unfortunately, we have no Navy leaders who have ever experienced peer combat or even participated in complex, realistic exercises so they have no concept of what’s required.”
ReplyDeleteThis may be our biggest problem, with respect to both ships and aircraft, and quite frankly anything else. I think we badly need something like the old 1920s-1930s Fleet Problems, or perhaps the Royal Navy’s Springtrains, on an annual basis to give the Navy at least something approaching a realistic idea of what combat involves and requires. The Fleet Problems didn’t prepare us for Pearl Harbor, but that was mostly an intel failure. But they did have us pretty ready for Coral Sea and Midway shortly thereafter, and the island-hopping that followed. And Sandy Woodward took a bunch of ships directly from Springtrain to the Falklands, where their readiness helped carry the day in what was truly a very close-run thing (with AEW and CIWS, it wouldn’t have been nearly so close, but those are the kinds of things that proper fleet exercises would identify, and proper procurement decisions should address).
So, what aircraft does the Navy need? Seems to me the following, each of which should be unique:
1) First and foremost, as you suggest, “a very long range, air superiority fighter,” with no compromises.
2) In lesser numbers, some sort of attack aircraft. I am okay with Aim9snake’s differentiation between an airplane to attack ships and an airplane to attack coastal defenses. Maybe a modern A-6 could do both. The latter could be the “Marine A-10” that has been discussed often. It might even be something like a Tucano.
3) A carrier-based ASW/patrol aircraft, either updated S-3s or a replacement for the S-3.
4) A carrier-based AEW aircraft, the E-2 for now, but a replacement needs to be in the pipeline.
5) A tanker. Perhaps the S-3s could be brought back from the boneyard and modified for this purpose. Maybe augment with the drones that the Navy is playing with, but a real tanker needs to hold more fuel than the drones do.
6) An EW aircraft. I wonder if the F35C could be adapted to fill this bill. It’s already pretty advanced electronically. Put a second seat in the space where the lift fan goes on the F35Bs for an EW operator, since the pilot is going to be plenty busy, and fill the bomb bay with more electronics and additional fuel, to get long enough legs for the job.
That’s six (or seven) different aircraft. There is some room for possible commonality among things like power plants and electronics, but they need to be very different airplanes.
I know the bean counters don’t like having that many different aircraft, but back in my day we had F-4s, A-4s, F-8s, A-7s, A-6s, S-3s, E-2s, KA-3s, EA-6s, and KA-6s, and we managed just fine.
As an aside, reflecting on that list reminds me of just what a good airplane the A-6 was. Not the prettiest or most streamlined, looked like a pregnant guppy, but it was a workhorse that could do a remarkable number of things amazingly well.
"The Fleet Problems didn’t prepare us for Pearl Harbor"
DeleteThey most certainly did! Fleet Problem V and Grand Joint Exercise 4 (GJE4) EXACTLY recreated the attack on Pearl Harbor down to smallest detail, years before it happened!!!! We knew exactly how it would occur and, eerily, even what day of the week it would occur on.
The only question is why, when war with Japan was imminent, we didn't act on what we had exercised? That will forever remain a mystery.
"The only question is why, when war with Japan was imminent, we didn't act on what we had exercised?"
DeleteBecause a Pearl Harbor was needed to persuade the general population to go to war.
On the day, we were not prepared. Maybe bad intel, maybe political, we don't know. The FPV and GJE4 certainly had us prepared in the abstract, but not on the day it happened. That was my only point.
Delete"On the day, we were not prepared."
DeleteYour statement was that the Fleet Problems did not prepare us for Pearl Harbor. They most certainly did. We were 100% forewarned and prepared. You cannot, however, prepare against stupidity which is what Pearl Harbor was. We had ample, timely, and multiple warnings about impending Japanese attacks and yet the local commanders at Pearl Harbor inexplicably opted to do nothing about it. Stupidity trumps preparation every time.
Then nothing can prepare us for stupidity.
DeleteWhat are NGAD going to be? As we don't know, so every one adds his wishful thinking with fantasy that it will come out soon to solve all deficiencies of current Navy aviation.
ReplyDeleteTo qualify as next generation fighter jet, it must have certain ability(ies) that current fighters can never match, even after upgrade. For instance, 5th generation fighters are stealthy, mostly from its shape (radar absorbances contribute less than 20%). This is something which current 4th generation fighters cannot achieve through upgrade.
Realistically, we need to see some technologies become mature first. For instance, if we see a reliable scramjet engine.
The F-22 seems to carry many of the characteristics that the F-14 had, but with stealth, improved dogfighting, and modern avionics.
ReplyDeleteTop Speed
F-14 2.34 mach
F-22 2.25 mach
Range
F-14 1600 nmi
F-22 1600 nmi
Combat Range
F-14 500 nmi
F-22 460 nmi clean, 590 nmi clean subsonic
Service Ceiling
F-14 53,000 ft
F-22 65,000 ft
G-limits
F-14 +7.5
F-22 +9.0/-3.0
Thrust/Weight
F-14 0.92
F-22 1.08
Length
F-14 62'9"
F-22 62'1"
Wingspan
F-14 38'2.5" to 64'1.5"
F-22 44'6"
Height
F-14 16'
F-22 16'8"
Gross Weight
F-14 61,000 lbs
F-22 64,840 lbs
Max take-off weight
F-14 74,350 lbs
F-22 83,500 lbs
Guns
F-14 20mm Vulcan 675 rds
F-22 20mm Vulcan 480 rds
A2A missiles
F-14 6 to 8 combination of AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM 54 Phoenix
F-22 6 AIM 120 AMRAAM, 2 AIM 9 Sidewinder
I'm amazed at the similarity.
How much performance would the F-22 lose being navalized? Probably not a significant amount.
The navy should already have these in their carrier air wings.
Lutefisk
Lutefisk
I read your post on how to develop a new aircraft. I do have one concern.
ReplyDeleteOne major point was "pick an existing airframe design". And you said you like the F22 and the Rafale. I agree. Especially since the F22 is the only truly stealthy airframe (other than the F35 itself) available in the West. Well, except of course for bombers or reconnaissance aircraft which wouldn't match the maneuverability or speed requirements. Here's my concern:
Given the airframe, you've predefined most of the major factors that go into determining the range. Especially since we'll also be using existing engines (probably the F119 if we choose the F22). The engine choice determines fuel economy. The airframe shape determines drag. And the airframe also determines the internal volume, which determines (at least approximately) the fuel volume. Obviously we could look for ways to adjust weight, but it sounds like we've already determined most of the factors in range.
Yet the range of the F22 is relatively short (according to Wikipedia, combat range -- I believe they mean radius -- of 590 nm), somewhat less than the F35. Which I believe is less than the requirement.
So, here's the question. Could we make a modification to the airframe (perhaps to stretch the fuselage to hold more internal fuel) and still achieve most of the cycle time advantage (maybe go from 5 years to 6)? Or would that be like designing a whole new airframe?
"Yet the range of the F22 is relatively short (according to Wikipedia, combat range -- I believe they mean radius -- of 590 nm), somewhat less than the F35."
DeleteIf you're looking at Wiki for F-35 range information, it's ridiculously overstated. Wiki states the range is 1500 nm, however, the actual Air Force site puts the range at 1200 nm. Every reputable source I've read about F-35 combat radius is much less than what is listed in Wiki. Someone has been editing Wiki to try to make the F-35 look good.
"existing airframe"
You missed a key aspect of the build concept. Yes, you pick an existing airframe to avoid the years of development and billions of dollars, however, that doesn't mean that you'll find an airframe that is the ideal, perfect design. Quite likely, you won't. What you do is take the best available, build the MINIMUM quantity you need for IMMEDIATE NEEDS and start an R&D effort to design and perfect the airframe you'd really like to have. What you don't do is commit to a new design airframe while you concurrently try to enter production.
After a few years, while you've built some pretty good and pretty affordable aircraft, you'll mature your prototype design and then you can switch to it once it's been proven.
I've also discussed that the WWII model where manufacturers build prototypes on their own is viable if they know that they'll have a reasonable chance to get contracts. We need to go back to having multiple aircraft instead of this nonsense of just one massive uber aircraft program where one and only one manufacturer wins. It's no wonder that manufacturers won't develop prototypes on their own anymore!
So, the process I described may not get you the ultimate, perfect aircraft on the first iteration but it will produce a very good one while you develop better designs. R&D ought to be a never-ending effort which continually produces new and improved designs as requirements evolve.
So sounds like you're saying we could take the F22 with its current range, build and use some, even though the range isn't really enough for the full requirement, then build a new version with longer range in R&D and then go into production with it when ready. Right? Seems reasonable. I guess the shorter ranged ones would still be a big improvement over what we have now !!
DeleteSo sounds like you're saying we could take the F22 with its current range, build and use some, even though the range isn't really enough for the full requirement, then build a new version with longer range in R&D and then go into production with it when ready. Right? Seems reasonable. I guess the shorter ranged ones would still be a big improvement over what we have now !!
Delete