The Navy is only marginally interested in the F-35 and, to their credit, they have never really gotten on board with that aircraft. All indications are that they have been forced to accept the ones they’re purchasing. Current plans call for only one squadron of F-35 aircraft per air wing. It appears that the Navy is viewing the F-35 as a stopgap while they await the next generation fighter. If true, this is a rare case of wisdom being demonstrated by the Navy.
ComNavOps has repeatedly stated that the primary mission of the carrier, today, is to escort Tomahawk shooters and Air Force bombers and to establish localized air superiority in support of other operations (see, “Aircraft Carrier – What Future?”). Thus, the main function of the air wing is aerial combat and the main asset should be a very long range air superiority fighter.
Long range strike is no longer a carrier mission because it can be better performed by cruise missiles. Of course, this calls for a stealthy, supersonic, Tomahawk replacement but that’s another topic. Carrier strike should be limited to short range, lower threat scenarios.
So, with that understanding of what the carrier’s proper role is, we can now begin to visualize the proper, future air wing as shown in the table below.
|
Type |
No. of Squadrons |
Squadron Size |
Total Aircraft |
|
Fighters |
5 |
12 |
60 |
|
Strike |
1 |
14 |
14 |
|
EW |
1 |
10 |
10 |
|
Tanker |
1 |
10 |
10 |
|
AEW |
1 |
4 |
4 |
|
ASW |
1 |
10 |
10 |
|
Total Air Wing = |
108 |
||
The air wing is heavy on fighters since that is its role. The strike aircraft are there for those occasions when a small, low threat strike opportunity arises. Of course, the air wing composition could be adjusted, as needed, to fit the mission, and would likely consist of all fighters (72) most of the time. Thus, a proper carrier group of four carriers could muster a fighter complement of 240-288 aircraft which compares favorably to WWII assemblies and is a vast improvement over today’s air wings of 40 or less semi-fighters for a 4-carrier group strength of around 140 semi-fighters.
It is also noteworthy that the proposed air wing has no helos. The only use for a helo on a carrier is for the very rare search and rescue (SAR) of a downed pilot and SAR helos can come from the escort ships or a dedicated ASW/helo carrier (more on that below).
As noted, the WWII air wing of 90+ combat aircraft dwarfs today’s air wings of 40 or less combat aircraft and even surpasses the proposed air wing of 72 combat aircraft that we just discussed. One of the problems is that the number of non-combat aircraft has increased from zero in WWII to near half the air wing, today. Of course, when I say non-combat I mean non-direct combat. Electronic warfare, AEW, and the like are vital supporters and enablers of the combat aircraft but the fact is that they take up precious space on the carrier. What can be done about this?
Beefing up the air superiority numbers on a carrier cries out for transferring some of the non-combat aircraft to a dedicated ASW/helo carrier. This would be a smaller carrier dedicated to ASW and helo operations. This carrier would accompany the fleet carriers or any group that needed additional, intensive, ASW support. It could also form the basis of an ASW hunter-killer group.
There you have it. The future air wing composition is easily seen, as is the design of the future fighter. It remains simply to build them (see, “How To Build A Better Aircraft”).
Well while not good news about today's USN it's also not bad news.
ReplyDeleteHonestly when I saw the post title my immediate thought was 'what dumb thing has the USN done now'.
Based on the change from 2 to 1 F-35C squadron I expected an official 2022 onwards airwing size change to
1 F-35 squadron - 14 aircraft
2 F-18E/F squadron - 12 aircraft
Since the original intent I believe was to have the 2 F-35 10 plane squadrons replace 2, 12 plane F-18E/F squadrons correct?
At least another downsizing isn't happening yet.
So, of all the tools the Navy needs, the only one listed there actually existing is... the EW plane, and I guess the Hawkeye although it's a big fat target.
ReplyDeleteNo good fighter, no ASW, no strike aircraft...
Everything else is literally nonexistent, including a modern supersonic cruise missile since the Tomahawks are old.
Well, at least they've got the flattops, except that they managed to mess that up too with the Ford.
Heckuva job, Navy.
"So, of all the tools the Navy needs, the only one listed there actually existing is... the EW plane, and I guess the Hawkeye"
DeleteActually, we don't have the E-2 Hawkeye that's needed. As you'll recall, in a previous post I described a stealth Hawkeye based on the B-21.
I doubt an AEW can be stealthy, as it must constantly transmit radar beams in all directions to perform its role of finding enemy aircraft and missiles, as well as find its own side's aircraft to better direct them. A stealthy airframe can be useful in enhancing the AEW radar's own performance, by minimizing interference from the platform the radar is mounted on.
Delete"As you'll recall, in a previous post I described a stealth Hawkeye based on the B-21"
DeleteI think I missed that one and cant seem to find it. Sorry, but can you put up the link?? Thanks!!
"I doubt an AEW can be stealthy"
Delete"I think I missed that one"
Read this: B-21 Hawkeye
There is a way to make both E-2 and E-21 seems like a good designation) more survivable, use bi/multi-static radar. Design a drone to be the emitter for the radar. It only needs to fly the track that it's commanded and emit as needed. So no fancy programming is needed as far sensing the enemy and no need for constant communications between the transmitter and the AEW aircraft. The receiving A/C doesn't need to emit high powered RF to get sensor range so the main target for the enemy is a drone.
DeleteWhen the transmitter drones aren't available the E-2/ E-21's can revert to the modes of use you already described. The biggest downside I see is that each drone represents more A/C the carriers have to carry.
Also, while carriers are really underutilized nowadays, wouldn't the planes you proposed be pretty large?
ReplyDeleteYou might need to drop a fighter squadron to fit them on a Nimitz.
No, I don't think size is an issue. If you recall, the old air wings used to have the hulking A-3 Skywarrior and the Tomcat and others were quite large.
DeleteThe A-6 Intruder demonstrated that long range aircraft don't have to be overly large and that was with inefficient engines by today's standards!
I like the post's ideas, but it will be expensive to do.
ReplyDeleteJudging by the cost of the F-22, a 12 plane squadron would cost over $2 billion.
It would be nice if the navy had been doing something...anything...over the last 20 or so years to put an effective force together.
It's really expensive to play catch-up.
Lutefisk
"Judging by the cost of the F-22"
DeleteNo, no, no, no, no, no, no! I've thoroughly explained how to produce a state of the art aircraft for a reasonable cost. See the link at the end of the post.
The F-22 is a badly flawed model to base the cost on. Without a doubt, the Navy is going to turn the Next Generation aircraft into a $200M ea budget buster BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. That's what the Navy needs to somehow understand. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. I've described how to do it.
Don't fall into the trap of accepting broken models as normal.
CNO, I just got a chance to read the post about "How to build a better aircraft."
DeleteIn your opinion, what is driving the $187+ million unit cost for the F-22?
Is it the R&D costs that are being compensated to the designer/builder?
Lutefisk
"In your opinion, what is driving the $187+ million unit cost for the F-22?"
DeleteNo one outside the program knows the answer to that, however, it is safe to say that one of the major cost drivers was the fact that almost every aspect of the aircraft and program was new. Stealth, at that time, was in its infancy and we were developing production methods, coatings, etc. as we went. Add in supercruise, advanced sensors, advanced composite materials, etc. and the costs were doomed to balloon. As we've seen with every program that has attempted it, trying to incorporate non-existent technologies into design and production is guaranteed to trigger runaway costs. Wiki sums it up nicely:
"The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays."
We've seen this same phenomenon in the Ford, Zumwalt, F-35, LCS, and others.
Also, the total buy was being cut even before production began so that also caused prices to rise.
" I just got a chance to read the post about "How to build a better aircraft."
Delete!!!!!! What??? You should have read the entire archives twice through by now!
I'll try to do better. ;)
DeleteLutefisk
At least now we know what you'll be doing this weekend!
DeleteQ, are the fighters and or strikers intended for missile defence ala F-14 ?
ReplyDeleteThe helo carriers DDH Hayler or Hyuga class ?
The fighters are long range air superiority aircraft. That is not the same role as the F-14 though there is overlap.
DeleteThe F-14 was an interceptor, not a dogfighter. These aircraft are 'dogfighters'. They are very similar to the F-22 and, indeed, at the moment, the F-22 would be the best basis for this aircraft.
If it were up to me, I'd navalize the F-22, right now, while simultaneously developing a prototype 'ideal' long range air superiority fighter airframe.
"The helo carriers DDH Hayler or Hyuga class ?"
DeleteNo, the helo carriers would carry the current fleet carrier helo load which is around a dozen helos. With the added ASW responsibility, that might increase the helo load to two dozen or so.
The DDH carries only around 4 helos.
I'm not sure how much difficulty navalizing the F-22 would require. A big problem would be corrosion, and I don't know what materials the F-22 is made of. I know the Brits had major issues with corrosion of the RAF Harriers that they took to the Falklands.
DeleteAgain, don't get me wrong. I really, really like the concept of navalizing the F-22 as the best short term answer for the Navy. I'm just not sure of the degree of difficulty.
"I know the Brits had major issues with corrosion of the RAF Harriers that they took to the Falklands."
DeleteI'm not talking about taking existing F-22s and putting them on carriers. That's not going to be successful although for a very short time period like five years to develop a new fighter it might work.
I'm talking about taking the F-22 DESIGN, navalizing it, and then building new F-22(Navy) aircraft with all the proper seals and materials built in from day one. I see no problem with that approach.
Of course, if we would follow my blueprint for how to develop a new aircraft, we wouldn't even need an interim F-22(Navy); we could have a new fighter in five years. But, since we won't do that, an interim F-22(Navy) is the next best stopgap measure.
Are you really going to be able to get 108 aircraft on a carrier? We carried about 90 on Ranger, and I realize that a Nimitz or Ford is somewhat bigger, but to get the longer legs you need, won't the aircraft have to be a bit bigger too? Don't get me wrong, I'm overjoyed if we can make that number work, I'm just not sure there's room.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking more in terms of
Delete4x12=48 fighters
1x12=12 strike
1x12=12 S-3/equivalent (6 as ASW/patrol, 5 as tankers, 1 as COD)
1x10=10 EW
1x4=4 AEW
Total 86 plus up to 5 unmanned tankers and 4 helos, total 95.
As I said, don't get me wrong, if 108 can be done, then by all means do it. I'm just skeptical whether that many will work.
"Are you really going to be able to get 108 aircraft on a carrier?"
DeleteUntil we get actual aircraft designs and footprints, that's an unknown. The old pre-Nimitz carriers were designed for near 100 aircraft and the Nimitz class is bigger and the Ford bigger still, so, yes, I think it's plausible to believe that.
Worst case, I'd drop the useless strike squadron and then we'd have plenty of room and wouldn't lose a thing as far as the main air wing mission is concerned.
"I have been thinking more in terms of"
DeleteThat's because you're still focused on strike as being the carrier's mission. Cruise missiles have rendered that moot. As I've laid out, the carrier's mission is escort and air superiority, not strike.
Just as the WWII carrier aircraft took over strike mission from the battleship, so too has the cruise missile taken over the strike mission from the aircraft. Just like the battleship admirals, some carrier proponents will continue to cling to the strike mission but it is clear that the day of carrier strike is over other than for very low end, low threat scenarios which I've already stated requires a low end strike aircraft and even lower end carrier.
You really need to think through how you think a carrier strike will successfully function in a China war. Hint: it won't!
Until you do that, your fleet concepts will continue to be based on a flawed assumption.
Aren't we going to need persistent reconnaissance to find the targets for these strike missiles? Won't some of those targets be cheap, time sensitive targets of opportunity needing a cheaper munition? Tomahawk gets us 900nm range. To stealth it up we need smaller warhead or larger cells of a fewer number. How few targets are we willing to say is enough to get the job done? What about when they need precision greater than the large warhead of a cruise missile? I'm pretty sure we can nurse further range from a strike aircraft or strike aircraft with LRASN/JASSM-ER when required.
Delete"How few targets are we willing to say is enough to get the job done?"
Delete????? I'm completely missing the point of your comment. Try again?
He means the design compromises necessary to make cruise missile stealthy- either make it bigger, or shrink the warhead so it'll fit in preexisting missile tubes- mean our warships must either carry fewer missiles (if they're bigger than their non-stealthy counterparts), or more must be fired to achieve the same effects as firing non-stealthy missiles (if the warheads are shrunk), meaning we won't be able to hit some targets, due to a lack of missiles.
Delete"design compromises necessary to make cruise missile stealthy"
Delete????? Cruise missiles are easily made stealthy: the LRASM, for example. It's just body shaping. I'm still completely missing the point.
"That's because you're still focused on strike as being the carrier's mission. Cruise missiles have rendered that moot. As I've laid out, the carrier's mission is escort and air superiority, not strike."
DeleteFirst, I've got fewer strike aircraft in my notional air wing than you do in yours. The big difference between us is that I'm looking at 90-95 aircraft in an air wing versus your 108.
I see the strike mission as belonging to, first SSGNs, second VPMs, third surface ships, and fourth carriers. I would hardly call that focus on strike as the carrier's mission.
You've got 48 fighters compared to my 60-72 so, proportionally, you have far more strike and because of that you've significantly decreased the capacity of the main mission which is air superiority.
DeleteMy ratio of fighters to strike is 4:1. Yours is 4.3:1. I don't see that as statistically significant. I thought of going to 10 strike, which would make my ratio 4.8:1. The big difference is that I'm putting only 95 in my air wing because I'm skeptical about the ability to get 108 onboard.
Delete48 vs. 60-72
DeleteIf 108 won't work, I drop the strike and it's still 48 vs. 60. If you were focused on the main mission and not the 4th place mission, you'd maximize the number of fighters. 48 vs. 60-72
Forget not, each carrier also needs a few helicopters for various missions - rescue, transportation, ... etc.
DeleteAnd I can do the same thing and have 60 v. 60.
DeleteYou've somehow gotten this idea that I'm going crazy with the carrier strike mission, and that's simply not the case. We both posted our concept of a notional carrier air wing. Yours is 13% strike, mine is 12.6% strike. You don't get much closer than that. That's not where the differences lie.
Delete"And I can do the same thing and have 60 v. 60."
DeleteBut … you didn't. 48 vs. 60-72
Despite claiming that strike is your 4th choice or so, you chose to reduce fighters not strike. It's clear where your priority lies.
I have four times as many fighters as strike. Yes, it is clear where my priority lies. Enough.
Delete48 vs. 60-72 Enough!
DeleteLRASM/JASSM-ER is stealthy and is air launched, half the warheard, quarter to half the range. There aren't good comparisons, but the Mk 41 cell size is a real constraint. The lesson here is JASSM-ER on a fighter can outrange the Tomahawk. The Tomahawk can launch from a simpler, cheaper ship. Both still have value. I certainly think a naval strike tomahawk is way better to launch from a 2 billion dollar surface combatant than is NSM. NSM has a place on smaller patrol ships in littoral chokepoints and as a force multiplier on MH-60. The ships need to launch from true stand off ranges.
DeleteThe carrier itself needs to get cheaper while keeping the same general abilities. I'd suggest a CV-67 size ship with 1 of the current reactors or 2 reactors loosely based on Columbia's. Supplement it with MT30 gensets high in the ship. Threshold is a ship 10% cheaper, objective 15%. Use the parts bin available and keep new ideas elsewhere, in the future, and designed to be integrated into, not designed around.
Now that we can afford the aircraft. You only get your numbers up via the size of the carrier and spot factor. Unmanned will help. That said, Gulf 1 was the height of our modern carrier system and even then the most any ship carrier were 78 fixed wing assets. So I kept this in mind. I also keep total weight in mind as the aircraft and gear is a lot of weight high in the ship and a design constraint. I'd also say the mission is to control and exploit airspace where needed. That could be right overhead or down range. Plus I'd say only send a carrier if you can send 2 or ideally 3. So with that in mind I think some of the overhead airframes are worth it.
2 x 14 or 3 x 10 - The manned fighter. 2 engines, 2 man, focus on dogfight, electronic attack, managing unmanned assets.
3 x 10 - Penetrating strike and ISR, potential to tank, subsonic, single engine, similar to MQ-45B. Electronic attack can be integrated.
1 x 8 - Sea Guardian, Sea Avenger, or Stingray for ASW, ISR, Light Attack. Tanker if Stingray selected.
1 x 5 E2-D - Until we can get this covered in a UAV with more uses and longer endurance.
1 x 3 CV-22B - For lack of something else more practical. I count these as fixed wing.
1 x 6 MH-60S - SAR and logistics only.
"I see the strike mission as belonging to, first SSGNs, second VPMs, third surface ships, and fourth carriers."
DeleteSo, if you recognize that, why would you want to dedicate precious space to strike aircraft? I offer a strike squadron as an occasional use in a low threat scenario. Most of the time it would not be present so as to maximize the fighter capacity … the carrier's primary mission.
Why do you insist on a 4th level capability at the expense of more 1st level fighters? That's inconsistent logic.
OK, let me try one more time. The biggest difference between our notional wings is the number of total aircraft. I really thought that's where you would go criticizing me, not nit-picking about strike aircraft.
DeleteI really figured if you were going to nit-pick, it would be that I have fewer ASW/patrol, or that I am using a mix of S-3 types and unmanned tankers, or that I ave 4 helos. But no, you picked strike aircraft, where I have fewer (12) than you do (14), and a lower percentage of my total air wing (12.6% to 13%).
Look at it this way, if you can get 108 onboard and operating efficiently, then I add 12 fighters and have exactly the same 60 or 72 (depending on whether I carry any strike aircraft) as you do. I really don't understand your obsession with how many strike aircraft I have proposed in a paper exercise that is basically meaningless, because nobody in power is thinking this way.
"Beefing up the air superiority numbers on a carrier cries out for transferring some of the non-combat aircraft to a dedicated ASW/helo carrier."
ReplyDeleteThat's one way to make the otherwise useless LHA and LHDs useful, until a proper ASW carrier- one able to keep up with the attack carrier- is commissioned (amphibious assault ships tend to be designed for a top speed of 20 or fewer knots, compared to a carrier's 30+).
If a carrier is designed to embark an airwing that has anywhere from 80-95 aircraft in it, then why do we only embark 50-60 aircraft? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having supercarriers? I would equate that to having one VLS on a DDG (to go with the single 5-inch gun). If air defense is a major concern, why not increase the number of escorts.. oh wait.. we can't, we're decommissioning more than commissioning.
ReplyDeleteIf it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Does air superiority have to mutually exclude a strike package on the same aircraft? Historical use of F-15 would suggest that a good air superiority fighter can also perform limited strike missions. The problem with the F-18 and F-35 is the designs were for a multi-role aircraft that made too many compromises in the design and aren't great at any of the missions.
ReplyDeleteI would advocate for a great stealth naval air superiority fighter with a large combat radius that would also have a limited strike capability. Design for air superiority and see what kind of strike package you can come up with after the design is done similar to the way the F-15 role was expanded to include strike.
MW
We've covered this many, many times. If the threat is low then, yes, a fighter with a secondary strike capability might be possible. However, in a high threat scenario (would there be any other kind in a peer war?) a fighter with a secondary, add-on strike capability would be largely unsuccessful in the strike role since it wouldn't be optimized for the role.
DeleteGiven modern AAW and AA defenses, would you want to use an unoptimized aircraft? It wouldn't survive and, if it did, it wouldn't be effective.
You an use any aircraft if the threat level is low enough. For a peer level threat you want only the very best, optimized strike aircraft.
That aside, we've also demonstrated that strike aircraft are obsolete. Cruise missiles can do the same mission with zero human risk, cheaper, greater range, and more successfully. Risk a $100M strike aircraft and crew or a $1M cruise missile … why would you want a strike aircraft?
How's the math work when the strike aircraft is unmanned? There is still a balance out there to be had. Get the fighter right and the rest falls into place.
DeleteWe have had unmanned strike aircraft for decades already, they're called missiles.
DeleteDon't mind at all if USN decided cruise missiles become it's primary strike option,actually think it would be good to announce it and make it the clear option BUT USN would then have to order 100s if not 1000s of cruise missiles and develop a whole new family of them: slow but plentiful,fast hyper sonic, different warheads, different guidance systems, etc.....
Delete"if USN decided cruise missiles become it's primary strike option"
DeleteThey already have! Recall the last several punitive strikes the US has conducted. They were all done with cruise missiles.
"develop a whole new family of them"
To an extent, we already have done that with the Tomahawks. There are several warhead versions including some non-lethal ones (recall Desert Storm and the Iraqi power plant attacks). We also had - and are re-developing - an anti-ship version. Tomahawk can be ship or air launched. So, we already done that although more versions with additional functions could still be developed.
Has anyone even remotely "implied", much less explicitly stated that they expect the programming for unmanned aircraft to be any "better" than that used for cruise missiles? That they would be any more effective doing the more complicated tasks of pilots/weapons officers than the simple tasks of weapons targeting?
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, maybe the best use for the Ford CVNs is really as a troop carrier, not as an aircraft carrier. Pack it full of thousands of Marines and use it for a 30+ knot mobile "secret base". It would combine the best features of the CV ("unsinkability"), the LAW ("invisibility"), and the Missile Marines ("silliness") and would have to be a GAME CHANGER. It would also solve the problem of how to perform hanger maintenance on F-35s from a "secret base".
See article https://news.usni.org/2021/09/28/moving-marines-across-the-pacific-could-be-littoral-combat-ships-next-mission for related proposals.
I agree with you completely. The defenses of our primary adversary, China, have developed to the point that conventional carrier-borne strike missions would be suicidal. I think the future of naval strike has to be overwhelming defenses with numbers. That isn't going to be done with manned craft, so it is foolish to invest much in manned carrier strike capability. Swarms of cruise missiles, likely those with stealth capability, will have to be our primary mode of strike if we want to have any likelihood of success.
ReplyDelete"I think the future of naval strike has to be overwhelming defenses with numbers."
Delete!!!!! You've nicely summed up the entire concept! I'm nominating you for SecNav!
Having grasped that central concept, all the rest just automatically falls into place: fleet size, missile inventories, escorts, role of the Navy in a war, and so on.
One of the things that does NOT automatically derive from the central concept is unmanned vessels - at least, not as the Navy envisions them.
I really don't see the point of unmanned vessels, at least not large ones. Ships are complex and a lot of things can go wrong, particularly in combat conditions. You need people onboard to fix problems. Navies typically haven't had an issue with manpower. Where manpower limitations typically have their greatest impact is in ground forces and when you're losing highly trained personnel (e.g. pilots). It would make far more sense for the army to look into more unmanned vehicles than the navy.
DeleteIf you are interesting on Chinese weapons, search web on Zhuhai Air Show which has just started on Monday. China displays weapons for sale internationally.
DeleteSometimes, hostile nations may purchase some of these weapons and cause problems.
Based on standard F/A-18C sized "spots", the largest air wing on this list https://www.navysite.de/cvn/cvw.htm was the 1981 air wing, at 87.66 spots, 92 aircraft.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.imgur.com/J3wXLWC.png
Assuming this is the max practical on a Nimitz/Ford class, here are two variants of the CNO CVW that stay within that limit.
https://i.imgur.com/BIDa6cR.png
The first assumes an F-35C-sized fighter. The second assumes a wingtip folding F-22N (~2m narrower than F-22A). Both assume an S-3B-sized ASW aircraft.
Spot factors from https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CVW_Report_Web_1.pdf#page=162
"the largest air wing on this list was the 1981 air wing, at 87.66 spots, 92 aircraft."
DeleteMinor correction … the 1981 air wing was 90-96. The 'additional' aircraft need to be included (1x EA-3, 3x RF-8G). That adds an additional (2.38 + 3x0.79 = 4.75) to the SF total.
I'm unaware that the Nimitz aircraft capacity was ever reached in practice. I have no idea what the Ford capacity is.
Even assuming those additional aircraft, it seems unlikely you could fit 60 F-22Ns, unless you found room somewhere else. Maybe around 40.
DeleteIf you want 60 fighters, they'll have to be closer to F-35C-sized.
"F-22Ns"
DeleteJust to note, nowhere in the post did I call for actual F-22Ns.
"spots"
By the way, have you seen anything listing the maximum number of spots on various carrier classes? Since no embarked modern air wing has ever max'ed out the carrier aircraft capacity, as far as I know, using the 1980's as a max standard is likely invalid. For example, I note in the CSBA report,
"The maximum number of spots available in a Nimitz-class CVN is about 98 to 104"
I haven't seen a deck and hangar area square footage comparison but the Ford appears to have more area than the Nimitz so, presumably, even more spots.
You didn't mention it in the post, but did in the comments section above.
Delete"The F-14 was an interceptor, not a dogfighter. These aircraft are 'dogfighters'. They are very similar to the F-22 and, indeed, at the moment, the F-22 would be the best basis for this aircraft.
If it were up to me, I'd navalize the F-22, right now, while simultaneously developing a prototype 'ideal' long range air superiority fighter airframe."
Regardless whether it's actual F-22Ns or just F-22N-sized aircraft, it still seems improbable.
60 F-22N-sized aircraft would jump the spot requirement up to 124.
I'm not going to debate a non-existent wing fold and spot factor for a non-existent aircraft for an unknown maximum carrier aircraft capacity. This is the very definition of pointless and unproductive.
DeletePerhaps you'd instead like to comment on future carrier roles, aircraft missions and requirements, carrier design, strike requirements, strike alternatives, or any of the many discussion worthy aspects of the post?
I agree that future air wings should emphasize offensive air superiority. They'll also perform the traditional, "eyes of the fleet" role. I don't think we have to give up multi-role to get there. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
DeleteUse cruise missiles en mass to blunt initial Chinese moves, and then more surgically to soften up difficult targets. IMHO, this means we need an order of magnitude more cruise missiles, and ships to carry them. We might want to have the credible capability to hit 10-20,000 targets on day 1.
Even so, we'll quickly run out of missiles. If a war with China lasts more than a couple weeks (and doesn't go nuclear), we could be looking at striking many tens or hundreds of thousands of aimpoints. If it lasts longer than that, millions. At some point, JDAMs and LGBs have to take over, or at least supplement cruise missiles.
I agree we need new cruise missiles. I proposed three different types,
https://interestedamateur.blogspot.com/2020/08/iafm-next-generation-cruise-missile-ngcm.html
https://interestedamateur.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-case-for-quad-packed-cruise-missile.html
https://interestedamateur.blogspot.com/2019/07/mocm-massive-ordinance-cruise-missile.html
I also proposed a family of large surface combatants, including an arsenal ship, to carry them.
https://interestedamateur.blogspot.com/2020/10/iafm-fleet-architecture.html#:~:text=for%20ASW%20training.-,Large%20Combatants,-The%20IAFM%27s%20three
I need to do an updated architecture post, given the likely new budget top line, but I'd like to see some of the new, Navy-sponsored studies.
"Even so, we'll quickly run out of missiles"
DeleteAs you astutely note, this is one of the issues that modern militaries with their dependence (addiction?) on precision guided weapons has failed to address. WWII demonstrated that a global war - or even a large regional war - will consume almost inconceivably vast amounts of ordnance. We have neither the budget nor manufacturing capacity to produce the required quantities.
One of the ways to address this is to re-introduce 'dumb' munitions that can be mass produced quickly and cheaply. Another approach is to beef up our manufacturing capacity which, admittedly, is difficult to do in peacetime when there is no demand unless we want to engage in stockpiling. Yet another partial approach is to emphasize cluster munitions to try to get more 'bang for the buck'. Large caliber naval guns would help although the applicable target set would, initially, be limited due to range and defenses.
All of this strongly suggests that we should be wargaming how to engage in a multi-year conflict from a munitions logistics perspective.
We've produced hundreds of thousands of JDAM kits and lots of LGB kits. They're our next option, but the require expensive aircraft to carry them.
DeleteI've toyed around with the idea of a "reusable cruise missile" that might look something like the Boeing Loyal Wingman or XQ-58A Valkyrie. Just capable enough to take off, fly its preprogrammed route, drop a JDAM or LGB and return. Just not sure how far down you can drive the price.
Don't know if true dumb munitions are coming back. They usually still require an expensive system get them to their target (e.g. naval warship, aircraft). In general, it's better to make sure they hit what they're aiming at than waste a mission while risking the asset.
The cost of simple guidance systems (JDAM, LGB, PGK) is within an order of magnitude or so of the dumb munition cost, and may continue to decline.
Just MHO.
As an aside, 4th gen fighters have decent dumb bombing capability with their CCIP/CCRP systems. I've wondered how accurate UAV/UCAVs with such a system might be. Could a "reusable cruise missile" that is otherwise rather cheap be augmented with CCIP/CCRP to the point where dumb munitions could be used successfully? Not sure. While it may be more attrition tolerant, it's still not cheap. It's probably still smarter and more cost effective to drop a JDAM.
"We've produced hundreds of thousands of JDAM kits and lots of LGB kits"
DeleteWhich, unfortunately, are not terribly useful against a peer level defense since they require the delivering aircraft to fly right over the defended target relative to the range of modern SAMs. Use of such weapons would result in very high attrition rates in the delivery aircraft. This is yet another reason why I don't think carrier aircraft strike is a viable mission anymore. These kinds of munitions are useful only in low threat scenarios. Even if delivered by a UAV, they would cost far more than a cruise missile when the cost of the UAV (and UAV losses) is factored in.
"dumb munitions"
When I talk about dumb munitions, I'm talking not about aircraft delivered dumb munitions (for the reason cited above) but artillery (land and naval) fired munitions.
We're far too caught up in deep strike technology. When war comes, we'll have all we can do to deal with close strike. This fixation on deep strike is leading us down a false path. When a Chinese armored division is rolling us up, deep strike is going to be the last priority.
Instead of trying to make uber-intelligent, mid-flight reprogrammable, networked, cruise missiles that will cost ten times what a 'dumb' cruise missile costs, let's just make cheap (on a relative basis), basic, 'dumb' cruise missiles. Is anyone really going to launch a cruise missile and have a F-35 redirect it in mid flight and then pass the control to a private in a squad in the jungle? That's just mental technological masturbation (apologies for the crudity). We need cruise missiles that fly to waypoints and that's it.
"I've wondered how accurate UAV/UCAVs with such a system might be. "
The problem is that it doesn't matter whether the strike aircraft is manned or unmanned, it will cost the same to get the same performance. If you want a UAV that is carrier capable, stealthy, has long range, carries advanced radars and sensors, etc. then it's going to cost the same, or more, as an F-35 or whatever aircraft you're emulating. The incremental cost of the pilot is almost nothing and any potential savings is offset by additional comms/controls/automation. People think that 'UAV' automatically means cheap and that's just not true. As the Air Force has stated, unmanned aircraft require MORE pilots and personnel to operate than manned!
There are plenty of ways to handle SAM sites. We know how to do this. And the enemy doesn't have infinite numbers of high end SAMs any more than we have infinite numbers of cruise missiles.
DeleteWhere are we going to face these Chinese armored divisions?
"Instead of trying to make uber-intelligent, mid-flight reprogrammable, networked, cruise missiles that will cost ten times what a 'dumb' cruise missile costs,"
Tomahawks are already networked and reprogrammable. A reusable cruise missile doesn't have to be much smarter than this. It just has to know how to land. If it only costs 10 times what a Tomahawk costs, it's a bargain. Unlike a Tomahawk, a reusable cruise missile can fly its mission and return (hopefully most of the time). It can drop a $10k JDAM and bring the expensive parts back, and do it again and again. We still have to be careful with them, but not as careful as with a B-21 or F-35.
"The problem is that it doesn't matter whether the strike aircraft is manned or unmanned, it will cost the same to get the same performance. "
I'm not asking for the same performance or capability as an F-35. I'm asking for the same flight performance as a JASSM (with more range). Subsonic, stealthy, able to follow waypoints. It doesn't need an F-35s sensors or communications, it could get by with a JASSM's sensors and communications, though an EO/IR/laser capability to guide LBGs would be useful, if it could lock on to and lase its target on its own. Now before you think i'm asking for fancy automatic target recognition, I'm not. Cruise missiles today have image sensors that can guide them to precise aimpoints on their static, pre-defined targets. I'm just calling for an EO/IR/laser turret that can lase an LGB to the same types of static, pre-defined targets (e.g. buildings, bridges). This could be a "block II" capability. Just dropping a JDAM or SDBs at the correct point might be fine for "block I".
XQ-58A Valkyrie or Boeing's Loyal Wingman are about the closest I've seen to this. Valkyrie has an empty weight of around 2,500lbs. It's too small to carry the munitions I'd like (Mk84/BLU-109/BLU-137), but such an aircraft would still weigh a fraction of an F-35.
Current unmanned aircraft require a lot of personnel because of their mission, not because they are unmanned. They fly for long periods and require pilot rotations. They are primarily ISR, which requires humans to interpret and direct them.
A Tomahawk (or JASSM) requires a flight plan and someone to push the launch button. Now obviously a reusable cruise missile would require deck crews in the same way any other aircraft or UAV would, but once in the air it could be fully autonomous, just like a Tomahawk.
"There are plenty of ways to handle SAM sites."
DeleteAnd if a few SAM sites were the extent of the problem, we'd be fine. However, against a peer, we have to contend not just with whatever defenses are immediately adjacent to the target but all the radars, SAMs, AND AIRCRAFT along the way to and from the target. Cruise missiles will suffer significant attrition (as would manned aircraft).
My first reaction to this reusable cruise missile is that it doesn't make sense but I'm sufficiently intrigued to discuss it.
Once it becomes reusable, the cruise missile loses half its range. That takes the Tomahawk from a thousand miles standoff to half that (optimistically assuming a straight line flight path which would likely never happen). Is 300-500 miles sufficient range to be operationally useful?
I'm assuming a cruise missile would only be capable of carrying a single bomb. Is the effort of a 300-500 mile cruise missile worth it to deliver a single bomb especially factoring in the attrition rate since the cruise missiles will have to overfly the target as well as run the gauntlet coming and going?
Recovered cruise missiles will need full maintenance crews to refuel, maintain engines, conduct repairs, etc. as well as handle, move, store, etc. the missiles. In other words, it would require a 'carrier' of some sort to launch, recover, and maintain the missiles. What sort of 'carrier' do you envision? How do you envision the recovery mechanism? Are you factoring in the cost and manning of a 'carrier'? Again, is all that worth the effort and cost?
You say that we know how to handle SAMs but how will cruise missiles handle SAMs? Will some be one-way 'HARMs'? Do you envision some sort of electronic attack cruise missile?
How do you envision a cruise missile carrying a bomb? If external, the drag would greatly decrease the range. If internal, somehow, how would it fit?
A cruise missile without the maneuvering capabilities, sensors, and defensive capabilities of an aircraft is what is known as a target drone. What degree of attrition do you expect for target drones overflying a peer-defended target? I'm thinking 50% or more!
Cruise missiles are subject to aircraft intercept and attack. What, if anything, do you anticipate doing about that since that could be a significant source of attrition?
You're giving up a 1000 lb warhead for the ability to drop a ?250 lb? bomb and have a possibility (minus attrition) to recover the delivery vehicle. Does that seem worthwhile from an explosive effects perspective?
I'm seeing a whole lot of problems and not a lot of benefits compared to a standard, one-way cruise missile but, as I said, go ahead and address the points I've raised and let's see if it makes sense.
"A reusable cruise missile doesn't have to be much smarter than this. It just has to know how to land. If it only costs 10 times what a Tomahawk costs, it's a bargain. Unlike a Tomahawk, a reusable cruise missile can fly its mission and return (hopefully most of the time). It can drop a $10k JDAM and bring the expensive parts back, and do it again and again. "
DeleteReusable "missiles" that drop bombs already exist.
They're called bombers.
I would aim for a reusable cruise missile (ReCM) that could carry a 2,000lb bomb (Mk84, BLU-109/137) to at least a 1,000nmi radius, preferably 1,500nmi. So it would be considerably larger than a Tomahawk. Boeing's Loyal Wingman is 11.6m long, compared to a Tomahawk, which is only 5.6m.
DeleteThe weapon's survivability would come first from stealth, in the same way JASSM is stealthy. It doesn't need to be B-21 stealthy. Medium to high altitude to stay out of the SHORADs envelope. Wing kit weapons (JDAM-ER, SDB) will allow it to drop weapons dozens of miles from the target. Likely out of range of hostile radar detections. I could see some acting as jammers, either carrying ECM themselves or MALD-Js to fire ahead of the flight.
Conventional cruise missiles and other systems may still be needed to soften up the enemy, knocking out early warning radars and opening up safe corridors.
The point here is that rather than risking a $500+M B-21 or $100M F-35s, we can risk a few $10M ReCMs. It's a lot less painful if we lose some than losing a bomber or fighter. If each can survive 5-6 sorties, then they paid for themselves vs a cruise missile. If it's more like $30M like a Reaper, then obviously it has to survive more sorties. But it's still much cheaper than an F-35 or B-21.
"Reusable "missiles" that drop bombs already exist.
DeleteThey're called bombers."
B-21s are expected to cost a half billion each. Not exactly attrition-tolerant. Also the unfortunate fact that you lose two crewmembers when one is shot down. But other than that, sure, they're exactly like a reusable cruise missile. 🙄
"will allow it to drop weapons dozens of miles from the target. Likely out of range of hostile radar detections."
DeleteYou may be oversimplifying the matter. An attacking aircraft, whether manned, unmanned, reusable, or whatever, has to penetrate not just the target's immediate defenses but the (presumably) hundreds (thousands?) of miles of A2/AD defenses and sensors. To expect any aircraft (B-2/B-21, F-35, or whatever) to do that undetected is optimistic in the extreme. China has enough assets and sensors that someone, somewhere along the path, is going to detect the aircraft.
Your concept seems to hinge on the idea that these reusable cruise missiles will be able to penetrate, deliver, and return with only minimal attrition. If you're correct then the concept is potentially viable (setting aside some of the other currently non-existent capabilities you've called for like 1000-1500 mile range and the airframe itself!). On the other hand, if you're wrong about the degree of attrition then the concept is not viable. For the moment, no way to know which case is more likely.
By the way, have you seen any indication of the payload for a loyal wingman type aircraft? My vague impression is that it isn't much. I noted in one description from Boeing that they reference a 'storage volume' (meaning payload?) of 1.5 cu.m. which doesn't seem like much.
Regarding cost, I saw that Australia signed a $115M contract for three loyal wingman aircraft. I don't know what, if anything, was included in that contract beyond the aircraft itself.
Just a reminder, you haven't really addressed the need for a 'carrier' of some sort and what that cost would be. The 'carrier' and crew have to be factored into the overall cost evaluation.
Since many of the stealth designs do not have rudders there may be options to stack planes on top of each other with a lift system. similar to the garage lifts that let you place two cars in a single car garage.
ReplyDeleteMW
I really see that with any UAV you can launch like ordinance. Either keep them in the magazine or hang them like fuel tanks. I think the future will be blending the cruise missile and UAV even more than has already occurred.
Delete