The Navy is awarding Boeing a contract to begin integration of the LRASM with the P-8 Poseidon. Given that we already have multiple ways to launch anti-ship missiles (LCS, Burke, F-18 Hornet, Constellation, etc.), why is the Navy doing this? Well, the Navy’s answer is,
The whole goal here, at the broadest level, is to create problems for Chinese military planners. [2]
Hmm … Let’s circle back to that in a bit but, for the moment, let’s review the P-8 concept.
The primary function of the P-8 is anti-submarine warfare (ASW) although, in typical Navy fashion, as documented on the NavAir website, they’ve loaded on broad area maritime surveillance, directing Triton UAVs, maritime and littoral operations, strike warfare, and search and rescue.[6] As we’ve seen, multiple functions dilutes training time/focus and produces less-than-expert operators … woefully less than expert.
 |
| P-8 Poseidon |
Heading into 2020, the Navy had a validated requirement for 138 P-8 Poseidons[1] but halted purchases with an inventory of 128.[2] So, optimistically, on any given day we have 80-100 aircraft available to cover the world’s oceans and operate against Russia, China, Iran, and NKorea, among others. That’s a lot of ocean to cover with not many aircraft!
GAO puts the program unit cost at $200M each in 2012 dollars (program unit cost = $270M each).[3] The combination of limited numbers of aircraft and high cost suggests that the wise commander will very carefully utilize and preserve the aircraft and avoid high risk operations that place the aircraft too near enemy anti-air forces.
The P-8 is capable of carrying torpedoes, Harpoon missiles, and SLAM-ER. The Navy is also looking at adding additional weapons to the aircraft.
NAVAIR states that possible weapons systems to be integrated on the P-8A include “the 500 [pounds] to 2,000 [pounds] class of Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) variants, Mk 62/63/65 Quickstrike mines, the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB II), Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD), Bomb Rack Unit BRU-55, and Universal Armament Interface (UAI).” [4]
So, not only has the Navy loaded the aircraft/crew with multiple functions on top of the primary mission, they now want to turn the aircraft into a multi-mission strike aircraft capable of mining, stand off strike, and close in strike … identical to the F-18 Hornet. Isn’t that kind of multi-faceted strike capability a full time training effort by itself? Where’s the time for ASW and all the other multi-missions?
Does every platform in the military really need to be capable of conducting every type of mission with every possible weapon? Isn’t that how you become incompetent at every mission instead of expert at one?
Just out of curiosity, where will the P-8 get its targeting data (see, "LRASM - A Good Half Of A Weapon System")? Yes, the aircraft carries its own radar but a large, slow, non-stealthy aircraft that is radiating is another way of describing a dead aircraft. If the P-8 is close enough to a target to detect it, it’s close enough to be easily detected and killed by the enemy. Let’s bear in mind that naval targets (meaning ships) are not going to be spotted at a thousand miles. Every ship, today, is stealthy to varying degrees. Chinese ships, in particular, visually appear to be more stealthy than ours and a searching aircraft will have to get quite close to target them. I’m guessing Chinese ships will be detectable at around 30 miles. That puts the P-8 well within the ship’s AAW kill zone. Is this the kind of risk we want to take with our only fixed wing ASW asset and one that is limited in numbers and exorbitant in cost?
Returning to the LRASM issue, the P-8 will likely be able to carry 4 LRASM.
The P-8 has four wing pylons. Each of these stores stations, which are rated at 2,500 pounds, are able to carry standoff cruise missiles, such as AGM-84 Harpoons and SLAM-ERs, and eventually the stealthy Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). [5]
Does the ability to launch a maximum of 4 LRASM justify exposing rare and expensive aircraft to enemy defenses?
So, to sum up, with the P-8 program we have,
- not enough numbers to be effective given the mission load
- an aircraft too expensive to risk
- an aircraft/crew tasked with too many missions to be expert at any of them and the focus/training for the primary mission will be diluted
- an aircraft that cannot self-target without exposing itself to destruction
- a concept that will result in operating a large, slow, non-stealthy aircraft too near enemy defenses
Now, as promised, let’s circle back to the initial bit about how a LRASM missile-armed P-8 will ‘create problems for Chinese military planners’. How will a large, slow, radiating, non-stealthy, non-maneuverable, defenseless aircraft create problems for the Chinese? To the enemy, the P-8 is what is known as a target drone and all the Chinese need is for the aircraft to fly within range so that they can leisurely shoot it down. How is serving up a valuable, rare, expensive target drone on an aerial platter creating a problem for Chinese military planners? Isn’t it far more likely that the Chinese will be sending us thank you notes rather than scratching their heads over the problems we’ve created?
This kind of delusional thinking is how people will get killed when war comes.
What is it with the Navy’s refusal to become outstanding at one task? The belief that a single platform/crew can competently perform dozens of functions is delusional. The dilution of training time, alone, guarantees that this cannot happen.
___________________________________
[1]Forbes website, “US Navy Plans To Stop Buying P-8 Poseidon Sub Hunters Despite Growing Undersea Threat”, Loren Thompson, 2-Dec-2019,
[2]Breaking Defense website, “With missile upgrade, P-8A Poseidon brings capacity, complexity to China fight: Analysts ”, Justin Katz, 2-Dec-2021,
[3]Government Accountability Office, “Defense Acquisitions, Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs”, Mar 2012, p.117
[4]The Diplomat website, “US Navy to Arm P-8A Poseidon With Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile”, Franz-Stefan Gady, 6-Feb-2020,
https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/us-navy-to-arm-p-8a-poseidon-with-long-range-anti-ship-missile/
[5]The Drive website, “The Case For Stripping The P-8 Poseidon Down Into An RB-8 Multi-Role Arsenal Ship”, Tyler Rogoway, 22-Jul-2021,
[6]https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/P-8A-Poseidon
What it does do is force China to deploy an air warfare destroyer to protect any naval assets she choices to forward deploy outside of the first island chain. It limits her options.
ReplyDeleteHarpoon is an old weapon that needs to be replaced, LRASM is an excellent replacement. That said the Anti Ship role is the same as the old P-3, to destroy lone targets of opportunity.
Useful, but not game changing.
If want to do that give the USN a fleet of B-21's.
" force China to deploy an air warfare destroyer to protect any naval assets"
DeleteI'm certain you know this but any naval vessel in a combat zone will have anti-air warfare escorts anyway so this doesn't change anything for the Chinese.
Au contraire, mon brave!
DeleteChina's PL-15 air-to-air missile can go more than twice as far as America's AIM-120. Propelled by novel dual pulse rocket motors and flying on a semi-ballistic trajectory, the nifty PLA-15 missile homes on AWACS and airborne tankers loitering behind battle lines. In 2015 USAF General Herbert Carlisle told Congress, “Look at the PLA-15, at the range of that weapon. How do we counter that?” The general added that the USAF can field two hundred F-22 Raptors carrying six missiles while China’s more numerous fighters carry twelve longer ranged weapons. In 2019, The Air Force canceled its E-8C AWACS recapitalization, explaining that any new non-stealthy airplanes would be easy prey for the PLA-15.
Its smaller sibling, the PLA-10, is no less deadly. Douglas Barrie, ISIS airpower specialist, says the missiles have tipped the balance of power, “For the notional Western combat aircraft pilot, there is no obvious respite to be found in attempting to avoid within visual range threat of the PLA-10 [1] by keeping beyond visual range. In this environment also the PLAAF will be able to mount an increasingly credible challenge and at engagement ranges against some targets that would previously have been considered safe. As one former US Air Force tanker pilot drily noted to this author, “‘That’s aimed right at me.’”
[1] The PLA-10, an air-to-air missile, has a more advanced guidance system and twice the range, speed and payload of the USAF AIM-9.
Godfree, you should go into sales.
DeleteI want to buy those PLA missiles, and I don't even have an airplane!!!!
Lutefisk
"PL-15"
DeleteLet's tap the brakes on the enthusiasm for a moment. The claim of 200-300km range is realistic (if it all) only under a limited set of circumstances. No missile in the world can radar detect a target at 200-300 km. So, either the missile needs mid-course guidance (which leads one to ask, from what?) or it needs a cooperative, unmoving target that will still be there when the missile arrives. The speed (infrared) and height mean the missile would likely be detected fairly well out, allowing for the possibility of evasion.
Let's also note that the Chinese are not above wild exaggerations, either. Their so-called 'carrier killer' anti-ship ballistic missile is useless because there is no such thing as a thousand+ mile targeting sensor and there is no reasonable scenario in which a targeting sensor can get within range of a carrier under wartime conditions.
As we've seen from the extensive documentation on this blog and from DOT&E testing, performance claims are easy. Actual performance is not. Logic suggests that the Chinese systems are every bit as trouble prone as US systems (they copied them from us so why wouldn't they be just as flawed?), They just don't discuss their problems publicly.
The PL-15 is a threat, to be sure, and will result in large, non-stealthy, slow targets (like E-2 Hawkeyes) being forced to operate farther back than desired but before I completely buy into Chinese missile claims, I'd need to see actual test results.
As a reminder, the Soviets claimed all kinds of amazing capabilities but the reality turned out to be that most of their systems suffered from quality, reliability, maintenance, and other issues which rendered them a good deal less capable than claimed. China seems to be going down the same path.
Kind of tangential to this thread, but I would like to see an objective comparison of the P-8 versus the Kawasaki P-1. I know it's hard to assess foreign platform costs accurately, but the P-1 would appear to be cheaper and to retain some ASW functions--such as low level ASW and MAD--that the P-8 dropped. Maybe if you go from the P-3 to a bigger and more expensive ASW patrol aircraft, while taking away some of the ASW capabilities, you need to glom on a bunch of extraneous functions to justify the expenditure.
ReplyDeleteI have no actual data (I've never researched it) but Wiki has this statement:
Delete"Japanese officials have claimed that the P-1 is a more capable, albeit more expensive, aircraft than the Boeing P-8 Poseidon"
So, where did you get the cheaper comparison? Do you have any data?
As far as a comparison between the two, again, I've never researched it but I would not that the fundamental difference is one of operating doctrine (CONOPS). The US has made the switch from up close and personal ASW (meaning low altitude) to high altitude ASW and, perhaps more importantly, the aircraft will be the controller for unmanned drones of various types (Triton being the initial one). The P-1 retains the low altitude ASW focus. Whether the US approach is valid and effective is unknown and, as far as I can tell, untested and unvalidated as is so often the case with US concepts.
Making a wild leap of logic, it appears to me that the P-8 was designed mainly for drone control with ASW relegated to a secondary function. Is that a correct assumption on my part? I don't know.
My day job requires me to stay on top of Chinese defense news, inter alia.
DeleteWould you like me to forward interesting tidbits to you?
"So, where did you get the cheaper comparison? Do you have any data?"
DeleteNote that my post was stated as an inquiry as to whether anyone else had any better information, and acknowledging that comparing costs of foreign systems is difficult at best.
What I have seen are statements like, "The cost of a single Kawasaki P-1 aircraft is between $140.8 million and $167 million."(1) That has been a pretty consistent range for the P-1 from various sources that I have seen. A USN order would presumably mean a longer production line, which should reduce average costs below that range, unless the USN were to pull its usual trick of going in and redesigning everything..
Original estimates I have seen for the P-8 were over $200 million per aircraft, some as high as $250 million. More recent estimates seem to be bringing the costs down to roughly a push.
My bigger concern is the high altitude ASW and drone control, which as you note appear to be untried. The USN does not have a great track record introducing untried systems and CONOPS.
My bottom line is that the costs are probably roughly comparable, but the P-1 has additional ASW capabilities that the P-8 does not, and relies primarily on tested and proved systems and CONOPS. If that is an accurate synopsis, I know which way I would rather go.
(1) http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/kawasaki_p1.htm
"Kawasaki P-1 aircraft is between $140.8 million and $167 million."
DeleteI've seen that statement and I've been unable to track it down to see the source and the basis. As you know, there are various costs ascribed to an aircraft, like flyaway cost, unit cost, unit cost with development, etc. It is unclear which cost that statement refers to.
I've also been unable to ascertain when that statement was made. As best I can tell, those are cost figures from around 2000 which would put the cost at $240-$260M or so, today.
So, without a definition of what the cost includes/excludes, when it was made, and how authoritative it ever was, the cost statement is meaningless in terms of comparing it to the P-8.
"So, without a definition of what the cost includes/excludes, when it was made, and how authoritative it ever was, the cost statement is meaningless in terms of comparing it to the P-8."
DeleteWhich is why I posed my additional post as a request for better information.
The far bigger concern IMO is that the P-8 is built around CONOPS that have not insofar as I know been tested or validated, whereas the P-1 at least retains the ability to do more conventional ASW.
As far as P-8 v. P-1, if we forget about the cost comparison because we really don't have good apples-to-apples data, we are still left with the issue that the P-8 departs from a lot of traditional ASW strategy and tactics in favor of a new CONOPS that, insofar as I know, has not been tested and proved to work. My fear is that one reason we are seeing all these new and extraneous potential missions being floated is that somebody somewhere has figured out that oh, crap, we have spent all this money on something that won't work, so we better come up with something we can use it for.
DeleteThe footnotes of the Japanese Wiki has a multi year buy starting 2015 to 2018 for 20 P1's. The multi year buy was intended to save cost.
DeleteThe total budgeted cost was approximately 381.3 billion yen or 3.3 billion USD. This works out to roughly 165 million USD per aircraft.
Source: https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11488652/www.mod.go.jp/j/procurement/tokutei_chotatsu/pdf/h27_yosan_gaiyo.pdf
Note that not even their fairytale plan involves actually sinking enemy ships, just generically "complicating" things for the enemy.
ReplyDeleteWhat an excellent observation! More and more, the Navy/military thinks less of destruction and more of 'complicating' the enemy's planning. How complicated is it to casually destroy distributed, isolated, defenseless ships or aircraft? I really don't think the Chinese are losing any sleep over some lone P-8 cruising, defenseless, around the sky.
DeleteIt's hard to tell from the picture, but it looks like there might be room for the 30 mm gun from the A-10.
ReplyDeleteAdd tank killing and really give the Chinese a planning puzzle to figure out.
Lutefisk
I hope you're being sarcastic. Adding the GAU-8/A will require extensive redesign to prevent the recoil from tearing the plane apart. Not to mention the gun is short-ranged compared to antiaircaft weapons now commonplace- even Stinger missiles- meaning even the A-10 can no longer safely fly "low and slow" to use the GAU-8/A, meaning the gun is dead weight in turn.
DeleteActually maybe two GAU-8's, because then you could kill two tanks at once.
Delete;)
Lutefisk
Man, to peruse this blog we’re cooked if we have to fight almost anyone. 😯
ReplyDeleteThat is one of the dangers of this blog. It can come across as describing a hopeless situation. What I don't cover is all the failings of China, Russia, etc. They have their own problems and likely more than we do so don't lose hope.
DeleteThat said, it is truly inexplicable the idiocy our naval/military leaders engage in and I don't think anyone would dispute that we have LOTS of problems. The intent of this blog is to bring those issues to light and try to offer solutions and, hopefully, prod the Navy/military to make improvements.
I'm always looking for positives to write about but, honestly, they're few and far between. Do you have any suggestions for a positive topic?
Alternatively, if China's navy does something particularly dumb, reporting on that could have a similar effect.
Delete" if China's navy does something particularly dumb, reporting on that could have a similar effect."
DeleteUnfortunately, China is not very forthcoming about its military so I have almost nothing to work with.
Is there some specific aspect of China's navy that you think would make for a productive and informative topic … and that has enough available information to be even mildly authoritative? If there is, I'd be happy to do a post!
"Is there some specific aspect of China's navy that you think would make for a productive and informative topic … and that has enough available information to be even mildly authoritative?"
DeleteChinese military officers are proving far smarter than ours. As you said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." Theirs know when to shut up; ours don't.
"Theirs know when to shut up; ours don't."
DeleteWell, there's good and bad about that. In our system, faults come to light and are sometimes corrected. For example, the LCS, in general, the Zumwlat gun rounds, and so one were cancelled or truncated due to public knowledge about their failures. Had there been no public information, the Navy would have continued to praise them as perfect weapon systems.
In contrast, there is no negative information allowed about Chinese systems so there is no public pressure to change anything.
Good and bad.
"In contrast, there is no negative information allowed about Chinese systems so there is no public pressure to change anything."
DeletePublic pressure is another thing that is "good and bad." For example, it forced the USAF to keep the A-10 in service long after our peer competitors' air defenses advanced enough to make it dead meat, and the money spent maintaining them would be better spent on either a high-performance fighter-bomber that would NOT be dead meat in the face of a peer competitor's air defenses, or the cheap-to-operate AT-6 that will suffice for the Taliban and other enemies without modern air defenses.
While you're correct, in concept, your specific example is questionable. Too many people think the A-10 was intended to go head-to-head with SAM systems and that's just not the case. It was intended to operate in a very specific, reasonably survivable, set of circumstances and I've seen nothing to indicate that anything about those circumstances have changed. Therefore, I see no reason why the A-10's value has changed.
DeleteBut, again, your point is correct that a bad system could, theoretically, be maintained. I think the good aspects of public kowledged hugely outweighs the bad, though.
"It was intended to operate in a very specific, reasonably survivable, set of circumstances..."
DeleteCircumstances where the enemy will obligingly leave tanks and other high value ground units in the open- no camouflage, no hardened shelters- WITHOUT air defense- including fighters flying combat air patrols to deter enemy ground attack planes- will be increasingly rare, after what Azerbaijan managed to pull off in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. And even if you manage to find an enemy foolish enough to leave their high value ground units without cover from aerial surveillance and air attack, won't it be cheaper to just send some AT-6s to drop Hellfire missiles and/or Small Diameter Bombs, if the F-35's stealth and speed aren't necessary?
I don't know....at this point it is hard to criticize our (undersized 57 mm gun) NAVY for at least trying to add "teeth" where they can.
ReplyDeleteI see two hypothesis's which might explain the US Navy's leadership's proclivity to waste such a gargantuan budget in the formation of such a limpid fleet:
1) They have access to some, not publicly known, detection and tracking system involving secret assets that can sweep the world's oceans of enemy ships not requiring our own ships.
or
2) They are incompetent/They are corrupt.
or (ok, three possibilities)
3) they are controlled assets of foreign enemy powers.
"hard to criticize our (undersized 57 mm gun) NAVY for at least trying to add "teeth" where they can."
DeleteWell, that's not quite correct. What we want to do is not just randomly add 'teeth' anywhere we can but, instead, add teeth where they can be useful. This example of the Poseidon is just going to get rare, expensive aircraft destroyed for no return. I'd rather put that time and money into some other avenue that can actually pay dividends in combat.
So I'm all for adding teeth but only where it can be productive. For example, adding more SeaRAM/CIWS to Burkes and carriers would be a great idea that would enhance the ship's performance in combat rather than increase their chance of destruction like the P-8.
Do we have any combat aircraft that aren't rare and expensive at this point?
DeleteIt seems that we've added so many features to every aircraft that they become expensive, difficult to manufacture, and difficult to maintain. We then purchases fewer of them than planned. As a result, these aircraft then become nonexpendable. Since they are nonexpendable, we then are very protective of where they can be used. Since we're protective, they can't fulfill the mission we need them to. And so on.... it's a vicious cycle.
It all goes back to two key problems:
1) We refuse to recognize the reality that we will take damage and losses. You cannot have equipment that is too important/expensive to lose. We have created far to much of that equipment.
2) Failure to recognize human limits. A person can only be proficient at so many things at one time. This is true in every field, not just the military. Light training in numerous areas might work if you're doing drills, but it's not going to work when you're actually getting shot at.
"Do we have any combat aircraft that aren't rare and expensive at this point?"
DeleteWell, that just cut to the heart of the matter!
"I’m guessing Chinese ships will be detectable at around 30 miles"
ReplyDeleteInformative Millenniun 7 video on the difficulties radar encounters in ability to identify hostile targets at BVR in the fog of war, which supporting your view of short range capability of targeting, in the video context its the F-35 radar but will be applicable to all radars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwUXFDEHtQw&ab_channel=Millennium7%2aHistoryTech
Would mention that the Navy will be installing the new and much larger aperture belly mounted AN/APS-154 on some of the P-8s which would expect to extend range to identify hostile targets, but whether beyond range of the ships AAM/radar/ESM to shoot down a P-8/737 with its very high RCS signature think unlikely, reputed range of SM-6 Blk 1B several hundred miles, assume some of the Chinese and Russian destroyers have similar long range AAMs.
" would expect to extend range to identify hostile targets"
DeleteAlso, bear in mind that aircraft don't operate one-on-one with an enemy ship. Anywhere that enemy ships operate, they'll likely have air support, whether carrier or land based. A P-8, hanging around air space where enemy aircraft are operating will have a very short life. This is one of the problems with large maritime patrol aircraft. These types of aircraft were designed to counter the Soviet sub threat where they could operate over the Atlantic with little threat from Soviet fighters. However, China will be operating largely inside the South and East China Seas and will have large amounts of fighter support. This leads one to ask, what is it that the P-8 will be looking for and where will it be looking. The answers to those questions do not suggest either the need for P-8s or the likelihood that they would be effective and survivable.
Stupid stuff militaries have done thru out history when they haven't been in a peer to peer war. Lots of garbage ideas that won't survive the first day of contact. Those P8s will be sent on one way missions....and everyone under the immediate top leadership knows it.
ReplyDelete"Lots of garbage ideas that won't survive the first day of contact."
DeleteI think that it's easy to have mission creep for a versatile platform like this when the reality check of being shot at isn't part of the calculation.
Lutefisk
"I think that it's easy to have mission creep for a versatile platform like this when the reality check of being shot at isn't part of the calculation."
DeleteTrue. Why haven't our government and military leaders taken this into account? They seem to think potential adversaries will let our units do as we please in THEIR backyards, that our mere presence will cow them into submission instead of goad them into SHOOTING AT OUR SERVICE MEMBERS.
It all starts with someone saying wouldn't it be cool if I could ...
ReplyDeleteThen someone thinks of a corner case where why can't I kill a ship that I detect when doing my BAMS mission (already an extension form ASW).
Then the careerists realize this kind of specious argument can when over the clueless bearucrats and clueless Congress that is sold when you say I will build part of it in your district. And the defense contractors (with their retired Admirals) just smell the money pot and provide the lobbying.
Lastly (maybe the first thing) the Careerist realize that on promotion boards being able to kill a surface ship takes them from the bottom of the Airwings and puts them in contention with the SWOs.
There you have mission creep and careerists objectives wrapped up with a bow.
What if a Sailor could kill a tank, wouldn't that be cool! We could get the Army's anti-tank money.
I think it was the War Zone (the drive) that had a very good article on building EP-8 bombers. No ASW, strictly anti surface and EW warfare. At this point we can never catch up shipbuilding wise with the chicoms. The only hope we we have is to build more numerous airborne attack assets. Use the loyal wingman program to develop some kind of cheap expendable LR survaillence asset for the EP-8s.
ReplyDeleteCorrection on the above, they called it a EB-8, my typo.
ReplyDeleteThe aircraft you're referring to was an EP-3E, the sigint version of the EP-3.
DeleteThe article was about a bomber version of the P-8 with some form of EW built in (wild weasel style). I would refer to it as a PB-8(in Navy use). They also had a good read on the new model of the JSDF amphib. patrol plane that was thought provoking.
Delete@ The case for stripping down the P-8 to an RB-8. The War Zone (July, 22, 2021).
DeleteHere it is:
Deletehttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40859/the-case-for-stripping-the-p-8-poseidon-down-into-an-rb-8-multi-role-arsenal-ship
After reading the article, I think it's a misguided attempt to fill the gap between a C-130 dropping bombs on enemies without modern air defenses, and a B-21 dropping bombs on those with modern air defenses. If you want it done cheaply, why bother with an expensive to buy and operate P-8 variant? If you want it done in the face of serious opposition, why send something that will die the moment the enemy's AWACS inevitably detects and then vectors high-performance fighters to intercept it, before it can deploy its sensors and/or weapons?
I've been wondering about a potential new CONOPS for the P-8. I agree that they probably aren't going to be survivable for long in the waters near China.
ReplyDeleteBut consider. In any extended war with China, we will need to ship vast amounts of equipment, munitions, and fuel for thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean. And, from what I've read, we have essentially NO escorts for those ships.
For most of that distance (except when they get to WestPac near China) the major threat to those ships is submarines. So how about using the P-8's to escort merchant convoys through the majority of the Pacific where submarines are the only real threat. The P-8, while it's expensive for an airplane, is both cheaper and quicker to build than a frigate (or even most corvettes). And this use would of course be playing to the aircraft's strength -- ASW.
That's interesting to ponder. An effective escort would require around five aircraft constantly on station which in turn requires around 20 aircraft to maintain the presence, given transit times and maintenance needs. Assuming there's multiple convoys at any given moment, that might translate to hundreds of required aircraft, in total. I'm not sure the concept is either effective or viable but it's worth someone's time to look at.
DeleteYour comment went to spam for unknown reasons. I see you repeated it several times, presumably in an effort to get it to appear. Rest assured that I check the spam and moderation folders several times per day and any comments will, eventually, appear.
DeleteUsing these to escort convoys across the wide expanses of the Pacific are an interesting idea.
DeleteI question their ability to stay on station however.
Maybe they would simply work to supplement/complement the work of the surface escorts.
That could help make up for the inevitable shortage of those types of ships, and provide a different search ability.
The surface escorts could also provide the persistency on station to prosecute unconfirmed detections that weren't solid enough to have been addressed initially.
I wonder how wide the search path is for the high-altitude acoustic detection technique these use?
Lutefisk
"I'm not sure the concept is either effective or viable but it's worth someone's time to look at."
DeleteWell, I obviously haven't war gamed it (I'm not even close to competent at that), but let's take a very rough look at it. What we in the tech industry used to call a "SWAG" (which is an acronym for "Scientific Wild Ass Guess").
I see about 4 ways to deal with convoy protection in a Pacific war with China:
(1) NO protection (tell the captains to go "fast and quiet).
(2) Aircraft like the P-8
(3) Ships like the Burke or Constellation (or maybe a large corvette)
(4) Combination of ships and aircraft.
Here's my "SWAG" analysis:
(1) No protection. That's what we do now. Personally, I believe it is the worst choice. If we'd done that in World War II, Britain would probably have starved and surrendered and Russia wouldn't be too well off either. I suppose a slight improvement on this might be to add SeaRam or Phalanx to the merchant ships, to at least give them a chance against some cruise missiles. Not sure there's anything that would help them with torpedoes.
(2) Use P-8's. I certainly understand that we need multiple aircraft in the fleet to maintain one on station over a convoy. I'll accept your estimate that the multiple is 4. I'm not sure I understand why 5 aircraft are needed simultaneously on station to escort a single convoy, given that the P-8 is faster than any ship, can reposition quickly, and hence can cover a lot of area. But I'll accept your estimate. So, 20 P-8's per convoy. I've seen multiple cost estimates for the P-8, but as a "SWAG", $200 million per copy (variable cost) probably isn't too far off. So, 20 P-8 at $200 million each is $4 billion for each simultaneous convoy. That is, $4 billion to be able to protect one convoy at a time, $8 billion to be able to protect 2 at a time, and so on.
Note one additional advantage of the P-8 is that we have a hot production line, and airplanes can be built much faster than ships, so we can have protection sooner than with ships.
(continued from previous reply)
Delete(3) Ships. Ships like the Burke or Constellation have the advantage that they can have towed sonar, which is more sensitive than the sonobuoys used by the P-8 so can probably get better detection at long range. Plus, they can also carry SAM's to provide local defense against cruise missiles that might be launched by a submarine. Definitely not nothing.
How many ships would be needed? I have no idea, but I'm going to assume at least 5, since you've stated that 5 P-8's would be needed. Again, you need multiple ships in the fleet to support one on station (in this case, protecting the convoy). I believe the current rule of thumb is that the multiple is 3, that is 3 ships in the fleet to allow one deployed. I assume that in an actual war it would be less, but certainly greater than one. As a SWAG, let's assume 2. So 10 ships in the fleet for each simultaneous convoy to be supported. Currently, those ships would have to be Burkes, since that's basically all we have. We do have a lot of Burkes at the moment, but they're not unlimited and they also have other missions that the navy currently seems to deem more important (like protecting aircraft carriers). So we might need to build more. This mission probably doesn't need the Flight 3 Burke, so more Flight 2A Burkes would cost about $2 billion each. 10 ships times $2 billion gives $20 billion for the capability of escorting each simultaneous convoy. In other words, 5 times the cost of the P-8's with the same capability. Plus, 10 destroyers have far more crew than 20 P-8's.
If we used the Constellation, assuming a cost of $1 billion per copy (I know you believe it will likely be higher, but it's a SWAG and this makes the arithmetic simpler), the cost becomes $10 billion per simultaneous convoy protected. Still much higher than P-8's but still has the other advantages of ships (towed array and SAM's).
If we built a large corvette in the 2000 to 3000 ton range for this specific mission, my SWAG is that we're probably talking roughly $500 million per ship. That would be $5 billion for 10 ships, still more than the P-8's but probably not a significant difference. Note though that many (although probably not all) current corvettes are designed for coastal defense and have comparatively short ranges (2000 miles or so) and probably wouldn't be suitable for this mission. If we have to design a new ship, that could take a long time.
The basic problem with any ship-based approach is that it takes time to start up construction of the first, and then then ships take a long time to build. So a ship-based approach is not a solution in the near term.
(4) A combination of ships and P-8's. Presumably fewer ships and fewer P-8's. So we'd have the advantage of the towed sonar and SAM's from the ships. and the ability of the P-8 to range farther from the convoy than the ship's helicopters. Plus the ability, due to the hot production line and the faster construction time of the P-8, to have SOME protection sooner. I don't believe we can assume that we have 15 years to prepare.
SWAG thoughts:
DeleteI have no fundamental disagreement with the concept of using land based aircraft to help escort convoys. Heck, it's basic common sense to use whatever assets you have!
Here's a few amplifying thoughts for your consideration:
a. Aircraft, as escorts, would always have a few planes transiting to the operating area, a few transiting back to base, and several in maintenance, hence the need for multiple aircraft to support several on station. No dispute about that.
b. The need for multiple aircraft on station stems from the fact that there will always be multiple, widely separated contacts that need to be investigated and prosecuted. In this, the aircraft's speed is almost useless. Trying to verify a contact is a slow, patient, almost motionless game that requires hours or days to definitively resolve. Suspect contacts may be 50-100 miles to either side or out in front. Actual prosecution of an actual sub may require many, many hours to conclude and may require many, many torpedo shots. All of which requires that multiple aircraft be on station. No dispute about that.
c. Ships, in contrast, stay with the convoy from start to finish and, at the conclusion, simply disperse to other assignments or turn around and escort another convoy, as was done in WWII. There is no need for a multiple ships to support one deployed. Deployment models, such as that, are a peacetime construct. Ships in war do not deploy. They conduct missions. Hence, no 3:1 or whatever ratio. If you need 10 escorts (a reasonable number for a convoy) then that's all you need.
d. When we had S-3 Vikings, it was the job of the escort ships to produce possible contacts with their superior towed arrays and then the Vikings would do the up close investigation. Of course, the Vikings could (and did) also lay chevrons of sonobuoys across the groups path, far out in front. Ideally, you'd have escort ships for a convoy, supplemented and supported by land air.
e. In a war, cost is almost immaterial. Only combat effectiveness matters. You worry about the cost after you've won the war.
I've been wondering about a potential new CONOPS for the P-8. I agree that they probably aren't going to be survivable for long in the waters near China.
ReplyDeleteBut consider. In any extended war with China, we will need to ship vast amounts of equipment, munitions, and fuel for thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean. And, from what I've read, we have essentially NO escorts for those ships.
For most of that distance (except when they get to WestPac near China) the major threat to those ships is submarines. So how about using the P-8's to escort merchant convoys through the majority of the Pacific where submarines are the only real threat. The P-8, while it's expensive for an airplane, is both cheaper and quicker to build than a frigate (or even most corvettes). And this use would of course be playing to the aircraft's strength -- ASW.
I've been wondering about a potential new CONOPS for the P-8. I agree that they probably aren't going to be survivable for long in the waters near China.
ReplyDeleteBut consider. In any extended war with China, we will need to ship vast amounts of equipment, munitions, and fuel for thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean. And, from what I've read, we have essentially NO escorts for those ships.
For most of that distance (except when they get to WestPac near China) the major threat to those ships is submarines. So how about using the P-8's to escort merchant convoys through the majority of the Pacific where submarines are the only real threat. The P-8, while it's expensive for an airplane, is both cheaper and quicker to build than a frigate (or even most corvettes). And this use would of course be playing to the aircraft's strength -- ASW.
I've been wondering about a potential new CONOPS for the P-8. I agree that they probably aren't going to be survivable for long in the waters near China.
ReplyDeleteBut consider. In any extended war with China, we will need to ship vast amounts of equipment, munitions, and fuel for thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean. And, from what I've read, we have essentially NO escorts for those ships.
For most of that distance (except when they get to WestPac near China) the major threat to those ships is submarines. So how about using the P-8's to escort merchant convoys through the majority of the Pacific where submarines are the only real threat. The P-8, while it's expensive for an airplane, is both cheaper and quicker to build than a frigate (or even most corvettes). And this use would of course be playing to the aircraft's strength -- ASW.
How exactly are you going to escort a ship that cruises at 10 knots with a plane that cruises at 440 knots?
DeleteFixed wing aircraft have never been ship escorts. Build a bunch of modern blimps for escorts.
"How exactly are you going to escort a ship that cruises at 10 knots with a plane that cruises at 440 knots?"
DeleteYou would do it the same way a 30+ kt ship escorts a 10 kt vessel or the same way the old S-3 Viking provided ASW for carrier groups.
You fly back and forth, laying sonobuoys and circle while listening and analyzing.
We often provided aerial escort for convoys in WWII while they were in range of land based air.
The question is not 'how'; the question is whether it's an effective procedure.
You raise some valid points about its limitations in the ASuW and multi-role regimes. I also agree that as an offensive system has drawbacks. However it can have a legitimate defensive role when used as a combined arms tool.
ReplyDeleteThe US Navy still has to defend its ports from attack. When combined with a proper combined arms operations where USAF/USN fighters provide air cover and AWAC type aircraft, satellites, Burkes/AEGIS ashore, and drones combined provide air and OTH warning and additional missile/air defense. This would give the P-8 the protection to perform ASW around the islands. Our islands, our CONUS bases, our airspace, NOT heavily contested Chinese islands like the foolish missile marines concept. If hit with a long range AA missile it would be emergency landing on our soil, not crashing into hostile waters. That increases the chance of repair and recovery helping to ameliorate the cost.
The financial cost seems high but consider that a new civilian 737 MAX airliner runs at 124million itself. For once the government isn’t paying much more than the civilian sector. The P-8 literally shares a production line with commercial 737’s so if the Navy wanted more ala WWII mass production, this is one of the only airframes you could do that with in a hurry. That would also bring down the unit price. Plus the operating cost is civilian/commercial not fuel and maintenance hungry military operating costs, and the endurance outperforms ASW choppers. Being a commercial airliner airframe also means it can get fuel and airframe/engine maintenance at any airport not just a military base which frees up military resources that can be used on more maintenance heavy aircraft (F-35 etc.)
In this role of homeland protection with a proper CONOP, it could conceivably provide some ASuW/ISR work provided production numbers were higher. As you correctly stated the numbers are too low at the moment, and the priority is ASW.
The escort role discussed earlier is also another defensive role it could be used in. Again provided it was combined arms working with a Destroyer or Frigate and/or fighters to provide AA cover. That is also a role that would be well suited for a new CVE and DE combination but that’s a whole other discussion.
Yes!
DeleteCNO,
ReplyDeleteOn a somewhat related topic, what are your thoughts about the USAF launching JASSMs off of pallets that are air-dropped by cargo aircraft?
It's called "Rapid Dragon"
It's a cheap way to bomb enemies without contemporary air defenses- including high-performance fighters with BVR missiles- and far better than the proposal to develop a bomber variant of the P-8, as detailed at https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40859/the-case-for-stripping-the-p-8-poseidon-down-into-an-rb-8-multi-role-arsenal-ship
DeleteIf you need to bomb an enemy with contemporary air defenses, you must invest in the B-21 or other stealth bombers as the C-130 or a hypothetical bomber variant of the P-8 will be detected on radar and then shot down- by enemy fighters, SAM batteries, the Type 055 or other AEGIS cruiser analogues, it matters not- before those missiles can be launched.
It's another in a growing line of technological gimmicks from the US military.
DeleteIt's heartbreaking no one in uniform has put these gimmicks through REALISTIC war games to see if they can actually ACHIEVE VICTORY using them, before we did as was done with the Airborne Laser, the Zumwalt class and the LCS, the Future Combat Systems, etc., and waste BILLIONS on unreliable systems that would break down long before they reached the battlefield.
DeleteAs for costs, we could have a dozen P-8s for one new destroyer with a quarter of the crew costs. And 70 P-8s for the cost of a new Ford carrier. But like Navy ships, we need fleets of 737 that would include the AWACS 737s now in production and a bomber version.
ReplyDeleteI'd trade one carrier group for a few squadrons of these aircraft worldwide. Or at least trade most of the planned P-8s for some E-737s and B-737s and operate them in task forces. The risk of losing a P-8 is nearly the same as losing an F-35 cost wise. Do we want to risk a few 737 aircraft fighting the Chinese fleet or risk a carrier? I wrote about this years back.
https://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm
"But like Navy ships, we need fleets of 737 that would include the AWACS 737s now in production and a bomber version."
DeleteThe bomber variant is pointless. If you want a cheap bomber for use against those without modern air defenses- SAMs, fighter aircraft, AWACS- use cargo planes. If you want to bomb those with modern air defenses, use a stealth bomber so you'll actually have a chance to drop bombs and/or fire missiles. "Middle of the road" concepts like a hypothetical bomber variant of the P-8 will only become increasingly useless as time passes.
"The risk of losing a P-8 is nearly the same as losing an F-35 cost wise."
The P-8 needs to operate from land bases, which are at risk of ballistic missile bombardment. A carrier's mobility gives her a good chance to avoid being detected and then hit. In war, the P-8 either dies on the ground because its airbase is subjected to ballistic missile attacks, or it never sees the enemy because airbases beyond theater ballistic missile range will also put the enemy beyond the P-8's own range, whereas a carrier can bring enemy bases within range of the F-35 and then sail beyond reach of an enemy counterattack after recovering her fighters.
"Do we want to risk a few 737 aircraft fighting the Chinese fleet or risk a carrier?"
DeleteFirst, fascinating article. Well done!
I'd like to offer a few thoughts for your consideration.
The concept you described is quite similar to the old Soviet naval regimental 'Bear' concept that was developed to counter US carrier groups. The key to these concepts is targeting which you touched on in your article. I would have loved to have seen a more in depth discussion of that aspect.
As you know, having bombers and missiles with infinite range is pointless without targeting. So, the real question becomes whether we can achieve targeting with any assets we have. Satellites are NOT targeting assets. The only long range targeting we have is UAVs or MPA type aircraft and neither are survivable long enough to reliably generate targeting. Submarines might provide some limited targeting but they would be loathe to expose themselves for that purpose. I've discussed the need to develop very long range, stealthy targeting assets and that need only gets more critical as we develop longer and longer range weapons like ballistic missiles, hypersonics, etc.
For the Chinese/Pacific theater, in particular, one of the weaknesses of a bomber approach is the limited number of suitable (10k foot runways and all the associated maintenance and support facilities) air bases. Such bases are well know, fixed, and susceptible to conventional ballistic missile attacks which could, at a stroke, eliminate the entire bomber capability. In this regard, a mobile airfield - meaning a carrier group - is more survivable. I think every military observer in the world has noted the lack of base defenses for US facilities. It's baffling, our lack of focus on base defense.
I'm somewhat less confident that an airborne radar can detect stealthy fighters at sufficient range to prevent successful attack. While you point out that the cruise speeds of fighters and 737s are comparable, the sprint speed of a fighter and its long range missiles vastly exceed the speed of a bomber. Detecting a fighter at, say, one or even two hundred miles (a questionable achievement given modern stealth or even semi-stealth fighters) is likely not enough to prevent a successful intercept. Chinese naval forces are unlikely to operate without air cover so this needs to be factored into bomber tactics.
As with almost every military matter, it is not an exclusive one-or-the-other proposition. There are advantages and disadvantages to every option and the best solution is almost always a combination of options. With that said, I very much like the bomber concept as an addition to carrier/naval forces.
I'd love to see an updated version of your article that addresses:
-targeting in greater detail
-survivability of a limited number of bomber bases
-the impact of modern stealthy and semi-stealthy fighters on detection ranges and bomber survivability
-the impact of modern very long range, very high speed air to air missiles on bomber employment tactics and ranges
-the impact of modern stealthy ships on detection and engagement ranges as compared to the ship's ability to detect and engage bombers at ranges of hundreds of miles
Let me know if you ever opt to explore this further. If you have an interest in doing a post on this, I'd love to host an article from you on this blog although I know you also have your own blog/website.
Thanks for kind comments. A few points.
Delete737s are not that big and can operate from 7000 foot runways with less payload. They can also fly from unpaved runways with a “gravel kit”! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_kit
If our military is trained and equipped, every airfield should have a rapid runway repair team. China can expend a $5 million missile to blow a hole that a team can clean up and fill within an hour with a gravel top if urgent, or four more hours to allow quickcrete to dry. Note 737s can be air refueled too, and some are!
The USAF recently concluded the 737 AWACS (officially the AEW&C) is best to replace its old 707 AWACs, so production will continue. According to wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C
“The radar is capable of simultaneous air and sea search, fighter control and area search, with a maximum range of over 600 km (look-up mode). In addition, the radar antenna array is also doubled as an ELINT array, with a maximum range of over 850 km at 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) altitude.”
This is much greater than fighter aircraft, but as you note it depends of the size of the target. However, stealth only works for a fighter’s frontal view. In addition, AEW&C normally cruise above 40,000 feet to look down, while fighters normally search much lower so their non-stealthy topside can be detected. And if a fighter detects something two hundred miles away, it will not be sure what that is and will probably lack the fuel/range to investigate and target.
Also note that these super long range air-to-air missiles require guidance from the launching aircraft until within 20 miles of target to acquire the target itself. A 737 in a near Mach steep dive can quickly dip below the curvature of the Earth to break a radar track. And all this assumes they will operate without friendly fighter support or a surface destroyer nearby.
So far as targeting, I assume this is the Marines’ plan. Place 100 small radar systems with ten man teams on every island, hilltop, or rock in a region. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2021/06/02/us-marines-request-more-missiles-radars-in-fy22-wish-list/
Or maybe the Navy will send a lone frigate forth at top speed to locate the enemy with 737s loitering behind. It will try to lure out the enemy then call the cavalry and hope to survive.
Why can't the USAF develop a modern SR-71? That oldie could shoot across large areas at Mach 3 to outrun any fighters or missiles. Can we have some today, that can maybe dash at Mach 5? Dash across the Taiwan strait at Mach 5 from Tokyo/Yokota to Singapore and broadcast all it sees!
Anyway, feel free to repost any or all of that link for a comment post, and feel free to place your comments within it.
Carlton
G2m,
DeleteInteresting article of yours. I'm only halfway, but it's a good read. I opened the link to Australia buying cruise missiles. Interestingly, the article was from 2004, and it says that the cruise missiles must be because of concerns about Indonesia.
Haha!
Ahh...how innocent we were back then, and how quickly the world changed in 18 years.
Andrew
"Or maybe the Navy will send a lone frigate forth at top speed to locate the enemy with 737s loitering behind. It will try to lure out the enemy then call the cavalry and hope to survive."
DeleteThis is exactly the kind of tactic that we should be wargaming and experimenting with. Whether it works or not is immaterial. It's the exploration of tactics and doctrine that's important.
Our wargames, such as they are, seem geared towards justifying equipment acquisitions rather than developing tactics and doctrine in an unconstrained exercise.
I love this kind of thinking and only wish the military would engage in it.
Aren't the Chinese also using their MPAs as missile platforms?
ReplyDelete"Aren't the Chinese also using their MPAs as missile platforms?"
DeleteEVERYONE DOES. Our own P-3s and P-8s carry the Harpoon missile.
Alright, so if that's the case, then I don't understand why this is such a bad idea?
Delete"why this is such a bad idea?"
DeleteBecause it has no combat value worth the risk and we have many other platforms that are far better suited for the task. It also takes the aircraft away from its primary mission.
I don't care what everyone else does. As my mother used to say, if everyone walks off a cliff are you going to do the same? I'm focused on what makes combat-sense for the US Navy/military and I want my rare, $200M ASW aircraft doing ASW not trolling around in high risk areas hoping to stumble across a lone, unarmed, enemy ship.