ComNavOps has, on many occasions, opined that carrier aircraft strike is no longer viable against a peer defended target. Instead, the strike weapon of the Navy is now the long range cruise missile and the role of the carrier and its air wing is to act as an escort for the cruise missile shooters (Tomahawk configured Burkes) (see, “Navy Strike Doctrine” and “Striking Power of the Fleet”) . This role requires a long range, pure fighter aircraft instead of the Navy’s misguided strike/fighter Hornets and F-35s. Needless to say, the concept has not been received with unanimous agreement among readers who still cling to the outmoded carrier strike concept.
Well, here’s some real world experience and lessons from the Ukraine-Russia war that directly support ComNavOps’ contention. A Newsmax article discusses exactly this concept (applied to land based aircraft and missiles instead of carrier/naval assets, of course).
"What worries most is whether Ukraine is going to be able to keep the Russian air force out of the war," he [Norwegian Chief of Defence Eirik Kristoffersen] said, adding that they have been able to so far "thanks to Ukrainian anti-aircraft defences".
And now, here’s the million dollar prize statement:
The bulk of Russian strikes in recent months have been carried out by long-range missiles.[1]
There you have it. Russia has found that aircraft have been unable to operate effectively and survivably against a peer defense. Instead, they’ve switched to the use of missiles as their main long range strike weapon.
Of course, as I’ve repeatedly stated, any information coming from, or about, the Ukraine conflict must be viewed skeptically and any lessons need to be very carefully considered and evaluated because the conflict is so atypical. That said, this information and conclusion seem to be supported by every source I’ve come across so I’m inclined to believe it. Plus, the conclusion is simple logic regardless of the Ukraine setting.
Carriers are now escorts for the cruise missile shooters.
The Navy needs to adjust its thinking and its carrier/aircraft design requirements.
_______________________________________
[1]Newsmax website, “Russia Has 180,000 Dead or Wounded in Ukraine: Norwegian Army”, 23-Jan-2023
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-180-000/2023/01/22/id/1105440/
Simply: No argument!!
ReplyDeleteNow the question is, when will we get a proper, fast, survivable new missile?? And no not a hypersonic, which is in many cases unnecessasary and excessively expensive, at least for now. And another question: until we get the aforementioned new missile, how do we pull off escorting those waves of slow Tomahawks until we get a plane with somthing resembling decent range?? Is it even doable?? Is anyone in the Navy thinking about this, or is it locked in the clutches of Senior Aviator Flags who might be trying to perpetuate aviation as the strike force??
A comment full of excellent questions for which no good answers exist, unfortunately.
DeleteRussia lacks stealth, strong SEAD/DEAD capabilities, and PGMs (in useful numbers). Plus they just aren't that good at airpower in general.
ReplyDeleteOf course the USN isn't exactly brimming with stealth either.
Delete"Russia lacks stealth, strong ... "
DeleteAnd Ukraine lacks top of the line, modern air defense systems so it balances out. The conclusion is still valid.
"Of course the USN isn't exactly brimming with stealth either."
DeleteOr tankers or very long range aircraft or optimized strike aircraft so why would anyone think carrier strike is a viable idea? Hence, the post.
"And Ukraine lacks top of the line, modern air defense systems"
DeleteUK seems to have every SAM system built since I-Hawk
except Patriot currently in use. Imagine planning SEAD
against that.
I'm in the skeptical camp.
DeleteVLS missile shooters just can't make up the volume of fire of airpower over time. There are less than 10,000 VLS cells in our entire inventory. Figure at least half of those carry SAMs. 5,000 land attack missiles in our entire fleet is barely a pinprick to a large country like China. And the reload cycle of VLS is on the order of weeks. If this is all the Navy can muster, then it just isn't worth it.
Fighters carrying cruise missiles at least can fly sortie after sortie, day after day, and replenishment ships can reload the carrier's stocks. Plus there's the option to use less expensive PGMs when the threat is lower.
I just don't think the carrier air wing is set up for this right now. Too much time spent fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq where there was little air threat. A CVW with just F-35s and X-47s would be much better positioned to perform strikes against high end IADs.
So really neither the CVW nor VLS missile shooters are the primary strikers. That job is for the bomber fleet.
"VLS missile shooters just can't make up the volume of fire of airpower over time."
DeleteYou lack a grasp of the uses of air and naval air power. Naval air is not intended to stand in one place and launch wave after wave of strikes - whether missiles or aircraft - for months or years on end as you seem to envision ("sortie after sortie, day after day"). Naval strike is intended to execute a single mission and then retire. For that, they have more than enough VLS capacity.
You also seem to have no grasp of the realities of air power. Bombers can't launch "sortie after sortie, day after day", either. Our bomber fleet would be hard down for extended maintenance after a couple of sorties. The maintenance time per flight hour is enormous and will only drastically increase as combat wear and tear accumulates. We would be doing well to launch two sorties per week for a few weeks and then we'd be dooing well to launch one sortie per week after that.
We currently have, perhaps, 15 flyable B-2 bombers (likely less based on GAO readiness reports) and the AF website lists a current active inventory of 62 B-1 with, perhaps, half of those flyable based on GAO readiness reports.
"Fighters carrying cruise missiles at least can fly sortie after sortie, day after day, and replenishment ships can reload the carrier's stocks."
You fail to grasp the limits, both magazine and logistics, of carrier air strike. A carrier has a very limited magazine capacity - enough for a couple of full strikes, at best, probably less if we're talking pure missiles as opposed to dumb bombs - and then it has to retire far away from any combat area to replenish. Your notion of a carrier standing in one place, launching "sortie after sortie, day after day" is a relic of Vietnam days where there was no counter-threat. Even there, carriers could only stay on station for a few days before having to rotate out for replenishment. "Sortie after sortie, day after day" is an unrealistic fantasy.
"5,000 land attack missiles in our entire fleet is barely a pinprick to a large country like China."
Speaking of inventory, whether delivered by bomber or ship, our cruise missile inventory will be exhausted in about a week of combat so, again, the idea of "sortie after sortie, day after day" is unrealistic and not applicable.
"Figure at least half of those carry SAMs."
Again, you fail to understand how VLS works. The VLS cells on a ship can be filled with whatever we wish. If strike was the mission, a more logical approach would be to nearly completely fill however many ships with cruise missiles as are needed for the mission and then provide dedicated AAW Burke/carrier escort for their protection. For example, four Burkes configured for strike could carry around 360 missiles. It would require 15 bombers to equal that, assuming they carry 24 missiles each. That's our entire B-2 fleet to accomplish what four ships could. The comparison gets worse if we consider SSGNs where only two subs could launch over 300 missiles.
I think a lot of commenters still picture carrier operations that we can all remember: on station for months, conducting daily (routine?) attacks, with the only real threat being from local air defenses against the strike packages.
DeleteThat's not a peer conflict. People need to think more of the first half of WW2 when carriers were at risk. They dashed in for an attack, then dashed out before the counterstrike. That's how carriers will need to operate against our peer opponent China.
And the point ComNavOps is making is that our carriers can't even conduct those operations well! The aircraft don't have the range to attack without the carriers putting themselves at risk. Even if you chose to risk the carriers, you would also risk our few, precious F-35s (with their poor reliability/availability making them feel even more scarce than they are.) And they would deliver less ordinance than stand-off missiles could. All of this speaks to missiles being the tool of choice for attacking China (vs. carrier air).
There is still a role for carriers - defending the missile shooters, and even escorting the missiles to their targets. We can do this now, but we could do this better if we planned for this and structured the fleet around this strategy.
I don't understand how this is controversial, unless people think that carriers can safely operate <500 miles off the coast of China.
" our carriers can't even conduct those operations well! The aircraft don't have the range to attack without the carriers putting themselves at risk."
DeleteExcellent comment. Very well summarized. I should let you write the blog !
The missile inventories on both sides will be exhausted in a week, and we'll be back to JDAM/LGBs from bombers and fighters.
DeleteThe OFFENSIVE, expensive missiles will be exhausted quickly but the DEFENSIVE AAW weapons will remain plentiful since, as a general statement, they're cheaper and acquired in larger numbers.
Delete"we'll be back to JDAM/LGBs"
You need to learn to think operationally. If we reach a point of 'back to JDAM/LGBs', we'll be flying aircraft pretty much on top of the target and enemy air defenses and fighter aircraft will wipe us out in short order. Worse, for carrier strikes, that would force the carrier to approach the target much closer to compensate for the short range of our aircraft. That puts the carrier at much greater risk from ballistic missiles, land based anti-ship missiles, land based air attack, submarines, and surface forces. Think operationally!
Think logistically. We have something like 200,000 JDAM kits vs 7,000 JASSMs and only 4,000 TLAMs.
DeleteIf expend all of our cruise missiles, then our only offensive strike combat power will be bombs. If we want to stay in the fight, we'll use them. Otherwise we might as well just go home.
We know how to do SEAD/DEAD and OCA. We have stealth.
"If we want to stay in the fight, we'll use them."
DeleteNo, the US generally doesn't favor suicide strikes.
Plus, if we're down to attacking peer defended targets using point blank munitions, that means only stealth aircraft and that means internal weapons carry only and that means very few weapons per sortie which makes the effort inefficient and ineffective when compared to the inevitable attrition rate. Stealth is not magic. The loss rate would be prohibitively high. We know how to do Vietnam era SEAD. We do not know how to do modern SEAD and we do not know whether it's even possible. For example, our only EW aircraft is a short legged, non-stealthy Growler which is not going to have a very long life near a peer defended target. Again, you need to think operationally.
When we run out of long range munitions, the answer is not suicide missions directly over a peer defended target. The answer is massively increased production - and simplification! - of the long range weapons. That's something we should be gearing up for now.
CNO Gilday announced at January SNA2023 that the new fighter is the top priority, then the gold plated DDG(X) with procurement starting in 2030? and finally the SSN(X) five years later, for the necessary $billions in funding
ReplyDeleteThe Navy NGAD is classified so even its current funding is not disclosed let alone its CONOPS, though have seen hints its not primarily a fighter but an attack aircraft in the mode of F-18, so don't hold out much hope for a your CONOPS for the new Navy NGAD.
"so don't hold out much hope for a your CONOPS for the new Navy NGAD."
DeleteOh I have no hope that the Navy will be wise enough to adapt to changing times! This is a Navy that is still building 1970's era Burkes (and are proud of it) because they're not capable of thinking of anything better or adapting to changing times.
History rhymes again. The German V1 & V2 campaigns showed the way to avoid huge aircraft and crew losses. The Allies never had to actually confront the shortage of Aircraft resources. They did increase the number of missions requirement to address crew shortages, but that was a bandais while they merely flew away and lost thousands of aircraft and crewmembers.
ReplyDelete"German V1 & V2 campaigns showed the way to avoid huge aircraft and crew losses."
DeleteOooh, good example! Of course, in a war, aircraft and crew losses are not the primary objective (though they are a very important consideration!), combat/destructive effectiveness is and that's the basis for my view. Manned aircraft simply can't combat-effectively accomplish the mission whereas cruise missiles can.
"Manned aircraft simply can't combat-effectively accomplish the mission whereas cruise missiles can."
DeleteI wonder about that.
Sure, current aircraft can't but the current land attack missile is the Tomahawk and that'd be little more a target drone for Chinese defences, so we're back to square one.
Just speculating, of course, but I think a modern, long-range attack aircraft with serious stealth and no jack-of-all-trades mindset would be more effective than ship-launched missile while being "reusable" as well.
Of course, cost would be an issue.
"I wonder about that."
DeleteAbsolutely cruise missiles can combat-effectively accomplish the mission. You simply need to send more missiles than the enemy can shoot down. Now, whether that's cost-effective is another issue!
The Air Force has the AGM-158 low observable cruise missile which ought to be far more effective than the Navy's Tomahawk. The Navy needs to acquire the same or a similar missile. The LRASM was a partial step in that direction although it has had lots of problems, as hinted at in DOT&E reports. Also, the LRASM does not seem to have an air-to-ground mode although I don't know why it couldn't.
"Absolutely cruise missiles can combat-effectively accomplish the mission. You simply need to send more missiles than the enemy can shoot down. Now, whether that's cost-effective is another issue!"
DeleteThis is technically correct, there would be a range penalty compared to a carrier strike (unless perhaps one used a sub) but the new version of the AGM-158 is reported to have a suitable range for this kind of concept.
Sounds like it'd deplete the missile inventory even faster, though, and that's going to be a big issue in a peer war.
For the price of an F-18 you can buy 65 $1M missiles or 205 for the cost of an F-22. And that does not factor in the $ cost of the pilot (training, years of experience, etc.) or the life cost of losing service members or worse having them captured. For the cost of one aircraft even with a 50% mission attrition rate I could knock out an airfield for at least a day (the Germans got VERY good at repairing bomb damage), maybe longer. Not to mention any aircraft or aircrews or repair facilities located there. Seems VERY cost effective to me.
DeleteProceedings article this month discussing how the carrier could be the better missile shooter. I partially agree, but I am more inclined to think about SpaceX and reusability. We need cruise missiles that can act as aircraft, reload cheap ordnance and be used again. The advantage of the carrier is that plane dropping cheap bombs over time justifies itself. That paradigm is being challenged, but can also be restored and even enhanced. The big question remains should that many eggs be in one basket. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/january/launch-big-missiles-big-ships
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting article although the author ignores several major problems.
Delete-These are aircraft size missiles. Carriers, while quite large, have extremely limited space to store, move, and operate aircraft. Every missile will eliminate an equivalent aircraft from the air wing despite the author's suggestion that missiles can be just 'stacked' wherever there's a free corner.
-Every warhead would eliminate a munition from the carrier's aircraft munitions magazine.
-"this larger missile concept would be assembled, armed, and fueled just prior to launch." Open deck fueling???? That's what sank several carriers in WWII. Where is the fuel going to be stored?
-How will the very large missile components be moved prior to, and after, assembly? Moving large objects through the ship and across the hangar and flight deck means that aircraft have to be eliminated to make room for the movement. There is very little free, open space on a carrier with a full air wing. The authors seem not to know that.
With those criticisms (and others) of the concept, the idea might still have some merit but only for a carrier designed from the ground up for the concept so that storage, movement, fueling, assembly, etc. can take place safely, logically, and in a dedicated manner.
Considering all of the above, it's an interesting idea but a much better way to go about it is with a dedicated arsenal ship missile barge. That way, the carrier retains full capability and a relatively inexpensive missile barge can be optimized for the concept instead of a bastardized carrier.
"advantage of the carrier is that plane dropping cheap bombs over time justifies itself."
DeleteIt does! ... but ONLY IF WE'RE DROPPING CHEAP, DUMB BOMBS IN LOW THREAT SCENARIOS. Today's peer war won't allow for that. Sophisticated defenses preclude the kind of repetitive air strikes that justify a carrier strike air wing.
The USN experimentally mounted A-6 Intruder attack aircraft with the Tomahawk missile, as seen in the photo at https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-convairgeneral-dynamics-tomahawk-70067004.html -I don't know if the planes air-launched the missiles- so why can't the USN certify the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet and F-35C Lightning II to launch the Tomahawk and its replacement, to extend carrier-borne strike aircraft's reach? We know Russia has attacked Ukraine with Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missiles.
ReplyDelete" why can't the USN certify the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet and F-35C Lightning II to launch the Tomahawk"
DeleteI don't think the F-35 weapons bay can fit a Tomahawk. I don't know whether the F-35 wing/pylon is structurally adequate for a 3000 lb missile. Maybe someone out there knows?
Similarly, I don't know whether the Hornet is structurally rated to carry a twenty foot long, 3000 lb weapon.
inner hard points on F35 are rated for 5000lb, but who knows if you can safely drop something like that. I know the fuel tanks for those pylons if ever bought are designed specific for the air stream around that section of the aircraft. F-18 would be stretching it, but we have LRASM/JASSM. The plane gets the missile halfway there, then its a LO missile. It also sounds like an even greater range version is coming.
Delete"Similarly, I don't know whether the Hornet is structurally rated to carry a twenty foot long, 3000 lb weapon."
DeleteAccording to Wikipedia, the Super Hornet, in tanker mode, can carry up to four 480 gallon drop tanks. A 480 gallon drop tank weighs a little more than 3000 pounds, since petroleum based fuels weigh between 6 and 7 pounds per gallon (depending on which fuel). So it should work from a weight point of view. I don't know the dimensions of the 480 gallon drop tank so I don't know if the Tomahawk would fit dimensionally, or whether the back might drag on the deck when the plane tilts at takeoff or landing.
The idea of using carriers for escort rather than directly for strike is the kind of paradigm shift that would help us prepare to fight the next war, rather than the last one (previous ones).
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to have a navalized F-22 right now. They're expensive, so the navy wouldn't be able to have all they want all at once.
But if you could add 12 aircraft squadrons to the carrier air wings you could have 12 then 24 for each carrier as they became available.
And since the F-18 isn't going away anytime soon, their dual capability could serve as an asset.
They could provide the second layer of air defense, behind the F-22s.
And they could strike low value targets that have limited air defense protection, saving the missiles for the high value missions.
Lutefisk
"navalized F-22"
DeleteActually, I'd want a navalized hybrid of the F-22 and F-15. The F-22's stealth and ACM capability combined with the F-15's amazing range (apparently over 1000 miles!) would make for a pretty good air superiority fighter while we work on a truly optimized air superiority fighter.
CNO, you needn't the navalized F-22 when you have F-24
DeleteThat would be an awesome aircraft.
ReplyDeleteI assume that the superb performance of the F-22 engines is what sucks down the fuel.
I wonder if there are any technology breakthroughs to get past that?
Lutefisk
A better question is what gives the F-15 its range? Whatever it is, apply it to the F-22.
DeleteRemember, the F-22 is 1980's to early 1990's technology and the F-15 dates back to the 1970's! Surely we can improve on their performance with the technologies we have today.
If we couldn't lengthen the legs, it would be nice to have an X-47 type of stealthy refueling drone as a forward gas station.
DeleteLutefisk
DeleteF-15C entered service with CFT capability.Initially known as FAST packs (Fuel And Sensor Tactical),[each unit carried an additional 750 US gallons (2,839.1 L) of fuel, while retaining hard points four AIM-7F Sparrow missiles or bombs, some on the FAST packs They were first tested on the F-15B in 1974. All U.S. F-15Es, and Strike Eagle export variants such as the Israeli and Singapore models, are fitted with CFTs under the wing outside the engine intake and require modification to fly without them The FAST pack was originally intended to carry a navigational and targeting infrared sensor system (thus "Fuel And Sensor");
Pro's:
CFTs have a reduced aerodynamic penalty compared to external drop tanks, and do not significantly increase an aircraft's radar cross-section. Another advantage CFTs provide is that they do not occupy ordnance hard points drop tanks, allowing the aircraft to carry its full payload.
Cons:
Conformal fuel tanks have the disadvantage that, unlike drop tanks, they cannot be discarded in flight, because they are plumbed into the aircraft and so can only be removed on the ground. As a result, they will impose a slight drag-penalty and minor weight gain on the aircraft even when the tanks are empty, without any benefit. They can also impose slight g-load limits, although not always an absolute issue: the CFTs on the F-15E actually allow the same maneuverability without g-limitations.
Look up the F-15EX Eagle II. Strike Eagle on 'Roids.
NATF-22 Sea Raptor story:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/sea-raptor-navy%E2%80%99s-sweep-wing-f-22-wasn%E2%80%99t-be-174563
Aircraft do not carry Tomahawks. Here is why:
The MRASM (Medium-Range Air-to-Surface Missile) was based on the AGM-109 "Tomahawk". In the late 1970s both the US Navy and the US Air Force had plans for a tactical air-launched medium-range cruise missile. By 1978 it had become clear that the Navy and Air Force would have to agree on a common missile, and in March 1980 General Dynamics was awarded a development contract.
The MRASM was planned in several different versions for both Navy and Air Force. The Air Force variants were very similar in general arrangement to the BGM-109 SLCM missile family, except that the F107 turbofan engine was replaced by a much cheaper Teledyne CAE J402-CA-401 turbojet. Due to size and weight restrictions by ammunition elevators on US aircraft carriers and the maximum safe return weight of the A-6E aircraft, the Navy variants were significantly shorter and lighter the USAF MRASMs.
The MRASM program was in trouble almost from the beginning, because the services were not very enthusiastic about it, fearing an expensive missile and one that would not be an ideal fit for their mission requirements.
The whole MRASM program was cancelled in 1984, without any versions having been built.
(Sources: HMdb.org, The National Interest, Raytheon)
Excellent information. Thanks!
DeleteWould you like to offer an informal username so as to give credit?
Sorry Com, I'm having issues signing in. TomcatTweaker63A
DeleteMaybe one reason for the F-15's performance is it wasn't designed for carrier operations. Modifying it to handle carrier operations would add 3,000 pounds to the plane. Modifying it to use the Phoenix missile would add 10,000 pounds.
Deletehttps://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/explained-why-f-15-never-took-navy-aircraft-carriers-185821
I love both the F-14 and F-15. Now, as to what could be accomplished if we built a ground-up replacements for the F-14 and A-6 with modern technology? I hope some experts chime in.
TomcatTweaker63A, thank you very much for your post. I now know a lot more about the proposed navalized F-22 than I did before.
If I recall correctly, the AIM-54A/C could only be utilized with the AWG-9 which was taken from the miserable F-111B as well as the crappy P & W TF-30-P-412A's engine.(later the APG-71). Correct with the F-15 not being carrier capable (they proposed the F-15N Sea Eagle, I recall). The F-15 would need to have its landing gear/area redesigned, its excess vertical speed would collapse the landing gear. The F-15 had a tailhook, but that was intended for use with a longer-roll, lower-G, land-based emergency arresting gear. Phil, you are correct about the F-15 losing some of its air-to-air prowess from the added weight.
DeleteI was practically raised on the F-14 (Grumman Mafia). I love F-22. The AWG-9/APG-71 was one hell of a fire-control radar. There were proposals such as the ASF-14, Super Tomcat 21 (ST-21), and F-14D Quickstrike. Incidentally, the RIO's display was 12" x 12",(WSO in F-15E only had a 8" x 8" display).
Final comment (I promise). The Navy wanted the navalized F-22.
Damn, I went off on another one of my Tomcat tangents.
The operation of carrier based fixed wing ASW aircraft should also be considered an essential mission for our carrier fleet, but we have had zero capability in this department for 14 years now.
ReplyDeleteOn another note it appears another nail has been added to the coffin of the navy’s submarine maintenance. https://news.usni.org/2023/01/27/navy-closes-4-puget-sound-submarine-dry-docks-following-earthquake-risk-study
Read thru this, and wow, what fantastic timing. While I do understand the concerns (I live in the PNW), the idea of closing so much maintenance capability, right in the middle of an absurdly large backlog, based on "what-ifs" is absolute insanity!!!! Every region has its potential natural disasters and weather challenges, and none of this is a new revelation....!!!
DeleteTo emphasize your point how vulnerable attack aircraft are to AA missiles the US recently asked Israel to ship its Hawk missiles to Ukraine, Israel retired its Hawks ten years ago, its a '60's gen 30 mile range missile that US supplied to Israel in their hundreds. Israel point blank refused as it would break its de-facto truce with Russia that allows the Israeli Air Force to operate over Syria attacking Iranian and Hezbollah forces without being targeted by the Russian AA missiles, S300 etc from their Syrian bases.
ReplyDeleteAnother point re the Air Force NGAD it would appear to be designing a very large long range air superiority fighter aircraft able to operate in Pacific, does anyone know what is the maximum size aircraft the carriers can operate, what the lift size? presuming it would not constrain size of aircraft necessary for long range.
I am guessing Ford's lifts although different in shape, have the same basic size. I think the old ones were specifically designed for the A-5. Stats on the big ones attached.
Deletehttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sdhDXFChsSy_APGWBstIp8htQLSx0iCaib0_WiBnjs4/edit?usp=sharing
The A-3 Skywarrior was another big one.
DeleteFrom what threat could pure fighters protect the missile-carriers?
ReplyDeleteFrom search/targeting aircraft, anti-ship missiles, aircraft, UAVs. Is this a trick question or was this really not obvious to you?
DeleteIf the Navy would re-acquire a fixed wing ASW aircraft then the ASW threat, also.
Off topic here, but what are your preliminary opinions on the SSN(X). It's very early on in development but the Navy have made clear what direction they want to go in. Also what are your opinions on the big three - DDG(X), F/A XX, or SNN(X). I don't agree with your lack of faith in carrier strike, but I do agree strongly with a need for a cheap ASW corvette/frigate type hull. Something capped at 250 Million. After the legend class cutter line is finished there would be a sizable workforce that could get on that pronto. Just a thought. Anyway please indulge my questions above!
DeleteDepends on what you think an ASW corvette/frigate should have, but if it looks like something with a helo and a Captas-4 its not going to be under $600 million given inflation. The real cost of the first 2 OPCs is $535m.
DeleteCNO, do you consider this a threat analogous to what the F-14 Tomcat and AIM-54 Phoenix were intended to counter?
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6
Quote:
Xian H-6D – (Maritime-Strike Bomber) Anti-ship missile carrier introduced in early 1980s, armed with two air-launched C-601 (Silkworm) missiles, one mounted under each wing; fitted with larger radome under the nose and various improved systems. Later upgraded to either two C-301 supersonic anti-ship missiles, or four C-101 supersonic anti-ship missiles. An upgraded version, capable of carrying four YJ-8 (C-801) anti-ship missiles is currently under development.[28] Initially designated H-6IV.[1]
"do you consider this a threat analogous to what the F-14 Tomcat and AIM-54 Phoenix were intended to counter?"
DeleteAnalogous? It's the exact threat the F-14 was built for! The H-6 is the Chinese license built copy of the Soviet Tu-16 Badger.