Naval analysis provided by ComNavOps, Commander - Naval Opinions
Pages
▼
Friday, March 1, 2024
P-8 Contract
The Navy has awarded Boeing a $3.4 billion dollar contract to produce 17 P-8 Poseidon aircraft.[1]That’s $200M each!Yikes! Hmm … What does that price tag do to the aircraft’s Concept
of Operations (CONOPS)?Is anyone really
going to risk a $200M airplane anywhere near the battlefield … you know, where
it would actually do some good? Has the cost priced the P-8 out of the realm useful
contributions? Given the cost-risk, will we relegate the P-8 to peripheral
scouting, well away from any danger?If
so, couldn’t we make do with a much cheaper aircraft? In a similar vein, does anyone really think we’ll risk a
$20B Ford (yeah, that’s a lot closer to the real cost than the Navy’s
fraudulent $12B cost cap claim) where it can be sunk? Cost impacts operations and tactics.It’s unavoidable. With $3B destroyers, $20B carriers, $177M F-35 unit costs[2],
$200M P-8, and $1.1B frigates, among other examples, are we pricing ourselves
out of viable combat operations and tactics? Should a ‘combat-riskable’ cost point be a design criterion
for future ships and aircraft?
Figure a P-8 and B-21 are probably similar empty weights. P-8 will be a fraction the cos of B-21 pound per pound. What I've seen is the unmanned options get us more platforms in the air, but its really a similar cost per pound. If you think a ship can do the work that can also start to get more per pound. Primary benefit seems to be gaining endurance.
Another reference point was the P-3 was ~$100 million in today's dollars near the end of its production run in the 1980s.
I think it gets back to the CONOPS where their purpose for these aircraft was hunting Russian Boomers or chasing down subs in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap in friendly airspace.
There are still Russian nuclear subs out there, but they no longer number in the hundreds. And the Chinese threat is mostly diesel electric subs, though they do have a small but growing nuclear sub fleet.
I'd say the P-8 is a decent value for the classic deep water maritime patrol role, but maybe not a good fit for hunting diesel submarines in the shallow waters around China. Though I have no idea how many we really need for the deep water patrol, or if we have enough assets like low frequency sonars to effectively track diesel subs in shallow waters.
Back in 'bagphes' (battleship battlegroup with airship in lieu of E-2) day I was no fan, but, today we could use new tech LTA in lieu of TAGOS and MPA in some areas. With LTA, the mission still needing to be covered could be answered with a smaller aircraft. Wrong turn with the P-8. Similarly, I full expect the day is coming when we'll deeply regret eliminating the VS community as well.
Assuming LTA stands for 'lighter than air' and you're referring to some sort of balloon/dirigible-ish asset, we've pretty covered the problems with that. It's not really a viable option. You might want to review old posts, comments, and discussions.
A better value is the 737 based airborne radar that Australia, Turkey, and S. Korea bought and the USAF is buying. It is called the E-7 Wedgetail and is developed and proven. So cut the P-8 purchase in half and buy some E-7s. Then a pair of these can make long range patrols (the 737 can fly from CONUS to Hawaii) to screen for enemy threats, with P-8 flying low looking from small ships and subs while the E-7 provides overwatch. It has much longer range radar than fighters so can detect them first and the pair and turn away before detection. If a fighter is "stealthy" it won't matter because the E-7s can detect radar emissions and track the source. If it detects a long-range incoming missile it can shut its radar and dive to avoid its radar seeker.
Ukraine recently shot its second Russian AEW&C A-50 using an old S-200 (SA-5) long range missile that dates back 60 years though very common in the Soviet Block countries during the 80's and 90's. The A-50 was 210km / 130 miles behind the front line.
Makes you question the survivability of these large and very expensive aircraft and as a consequence the USAF has launched a new stealthy tanker program (Next-Generation Air-Refueling System (NGAS)) which undoubtably will be more expensive again leading to fewer aircraft as the costs skyrocket, what is the answer?
This isn't a new thing. As far back as Allied Force, long range SAMs were already able to threaten AEW and ISR aircraft, forcing them to stay in suboptimal orbits far beyond the battlespace.
An S-200 will be just as affective at shooting down any non stealth jet fighter or attack aircraft.
Look at the number of non stealth aircraft lost in Vietnam or even the 1991 Gulf War where the US lost 28 fixed wing aircraft in little over a month and that's with dedicated SEAD and EW aircraft which existed because of lessons learned in Vietnam and now retired because of the origina; plans to go all stealth.
@Nick maybe masses of cheap drones for targeting and then mass cruise missile barrages from ships.
Are manned aircraft really worth it anymore as costs rise and the modern risk averse populous?
Really the Tomahawk needs a stealthy longer range replacement and we need either lots of cheap expendable targeting drones or stealthy targeting drones to find the targets.
The old send masses of manned aircraft to fight doesn't work when each aircraft costs $100 million+.
Except that the two aircraft do not perform the same functions. The P-8 fills the ASW role whereas the E-7 fills the AEW role. The P-8 uses an APY-10 surface search radar rather than an air search radar. The E-7 radar is primarily an air search radar although it has a look-down surface search capability although the degree of effectiveness in that mode is unknown (periscope detection, small craft, etc.).
While any land based surveillance that can be brought to bear will be helpful, the fact is that unless one is willing to dedicate several aircraft to maintaining one on station, the degree of coverage will be limited. Surface groups require constant surveillance, start to finish, which suggests an organic surveillance capability is more practical.
"Makes you question the survivability of these large and very expensive aircraft"
I did a fictional story on exactly this issue.
The Air Force has already acknowledged the issue by publicly stating that large UAVs are not survivable over the battlefield and they've scaled back their use.
I've done multiple posts on the lack of survivability of large aircraft such as the E-2 and offered some alternatives.
" US lost 28 fixed wing aircraft in little over a month"
If your point is to highlight the effectiveness of long range SAM systems, this doesn't do it.
The aircraft lost in the Gulf war were around 1/3 due to SAMs, 1/3 due to MANPADS, and 1/3 due to anti-air artillery. So, only around 1/3 of the losses were to longer ranged SAMs.
Further, the losses occurred while executing over a hundred thousand sorties. The loss rate was miniscule.
The key point for getting some E-7s is who wants to send P-8s flying in the eastern Pacific with no escort? It could end up with fighter aircraft on its tail. China may develop very long range 737 size patrol aircraft with radar and anti-air missiles to target transports, bombers, and patrol aircraft. The Navy could add some missiles to the E-7 to make it one too, not to engage fighters, but whatever it stumbles upon.
Any aircraft that could be a threat to an E-7 is not going to be detected in time to engage from a distance unless the E-7 has the undocumented (and un-hinted) ability to detect stealth aircraft from great distances. Remember, the E-7 is going to spotted from a galaxy away both because of its non-stealthy, immense size and because of its powerful active emissions. The Chinese have anti-air missiles (VLRAAM) with ranges of 250-300 hundred of miles and a speed of Mach 6+ (see, "Stealth Air to Air Combat". An E-7 would be shot down long before it detects the threat.
That only leaves the incredibly unlikely chance of stumbling across its Chinese counterpart. However, since both sides would keep their high value aircraft well back from the front lines, that's unlikely, bordering on impossible. Is it worth loading an aircraft with additional weight, complexity, cost, drag, and reduced range for an incredibly unlikely occurrence?
Chinese fighters can't detect other aircraft unless they broadcast their location by using radar. And stealth only works when the fighter knows to fly directly at the target. If flying much lower or at an angle the stealth doesn't work. It could remain stealthy using IR targeting, but that only ranges up to 100 miles.
My point is that without an E-7 escort, it will be foolish for P-8s to operate near any combat zone against a peer. An E-7s at least provides them with a chance to dive and escape. Note that if an aircraft dives, very long-range missiles will lose radar track due to the curvature of the earth.
"Chinese fighters can't detect other aircraft unless they broadcast their location by using radar."
Come on, now. Chinese fighters are equipped with IR/EO sensors. The old F-14 Tomcat was able to detect large, bomber size aircraft at 100+ miles and I'm sure sensitivity of the sensors has greatly improved in the meantime.
More importantly, an E-7 would be broadcasting its location by using active radar thereby pinpointing its location for enemy fighters who wouldn't have to use radar at all. Detection of an E-7 without needing to use active radar is a given.
"Note that if an aircraft dives, very long-range missiles will lose radar track due to the curvature of the earth."
Two aircraft (an E-7 and an enemy fighter), both at, say, 35,000 ft altitude would have a radar horizon of 290 miles. An E-7 is not going to detect a stealthy or semi-stealthy fighter at that distance and is not going to detect a missile with a cross section of 20 inches or so at anything approaching that distance. By the time an E-7 detects an incoming missile at Mach 6+ (77 miles/min), it will be far too late to escape. Detection of a missile at, say, 50 miles will allow just 39 seconds to recognize the nature of the threat and evade. A lumbering E-7 is not going to evade a Mach 6+ missile in 39 seconds.
If we want to operate an E-7 anywhere near combat, we have to provide it with a fighter escort hundreds of miles out in front to screen against enemy fighters. There's a reason AWACS aircraft stay well back from the aerial battlefield.
I doubt the claim that Chinese air to air missiles can travel that far at Mach 6. The skin heating problem is too great as well as fuel consumption. It might have a final dash speed but for long-range it must cruise at less than Mach 2.
I agree such aircraft should never be in range of Chinese fighters, but in the fog of war with moving aircraft carriers and possible armed long range patrol aircraft, no one will want to risk P-8s flying blind. And while losing a E-7 is bad, if it ran into an unknown Chinese carrier force in the central pacific, the loss was worth it. Is it better to send a pair of $3 billion destroyers with crews to screen for an enemy fleet or a pair of $200 million aircraft that can see three times further?
If radar and electromagnetic emissions are a worry, our aircraft carriers are beacons that can be found at thousands of miles. I'd rather a have a P-8/E-7 pair encounter a unknown Chinese fleet first rather than surface ships. I've never heard how China's long-range ballistic missiles target ships. Is it IR, or radar seeking?
"if it ran into an unknown Chinese carrier force in the central pacific"
While anything is theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely that a carrier group could makes it way into the central pacific (or anywhere too far from the first island chain) undetected. We would have dozens of SSNs monitoring Chinese navy egress points from the E/S China Seas and SOSUS type arrays listening to the entire Pacific. Satellites (the survival and usefulness of satellites in a peer war is one of the great unknowns) may offer additional monitoring.
Just as in WWII where we generally knew where Japanese naval forces were at all times, it is likely that we'll have a pretty good general idea where Chinese forces are. The challenge is to then do something about it.
What's needed is a CHEAP, no-frills (which is how you achieve cheapness) surveillance UAV. For example, the Navy's MQ-4C Triton is a bloated UAV with all kinds of networking, communications, data fusion, etc. capabilities that serve no combat purpose and just increase the cost. We need a scaled down, dumbed down, Triton whose only function is to fly to a point and look around with a sensor and report back if it sees anything.
According to Wiki, the first ten RQ-4 Global Hawks had a flyaway cost of $10M in 1994 ($21M in 2024). We need to return to that and then we can affordably send large numbers of UAVs to conduct surveillance instead of risking expensive, impossible to replace, high value aircraft conducting searches for very unlikely scenarios.
One issue is that satellites are fairly simple to shoot down since they fly on a known orbit. I've considered the need for a suborbital spaceplane, like the SR-71 that did Mach 3. I'd have jet engines but also a rocket booster that could launch in Alaska and overfly WestPac at Mach 6 at over 100,000 feet to take photos and use sensors to locate ships, then land in Australia or maybe the Middle East. Regular anti-air missiles can't hit that cause its soars into air so thin their control fins don't work, you need those space missile type jets for guidance. And it moves too fast too.
Total cost of ownership is not a stated requirement on any program that I know of. If it were a requirement it would be gamed and ingnored by the services anyway. It would be nice if Congress (because the services don't have a fiscal backbone) would specify it. Although they do have the Nunn-McCurdy limits that are driven right though with hestiating.
A planning requirement for the services should be to have X battalions/squadrons/ships for Y TCO. It is the number of fighting units that matter, not % GDP spent.
"Total cost of ownership is not a stated requirement on any program"
If you're responding to the question whether cost should be a design criterion, the point was to consider the point at which cost impacts operational and tactical usefulness. I've often stated that cost is nearly irrelevant UNTIL IT IMPACTS THE RISK-USEFULNESS BALANCE. At that point, it becomes vitally important.
If you wait until the end of production to worry about cost it is too late. Look at the MV-22, the O&M is breaking Marine Air. We spend more on Defense than ever and more than the next 10 countries combined and we cannot afford the systems we accept (that mostly do not work as advertised). Time to start limiting what we spend in an intelligent manner and that requires considering the TCO up front.
First there are the capital costs and then the cost of maintaining the thing in operational condition, and then the costs of the infrastructure on the ground needed to operate the damn thing (the Czech Republic is budgeting 1.8 billion € for 24 F35A as an example, I believe the P8 is cheaper on that front due to the fact that it is based on a commercial design and doesn't have any stealth requirement) ....
I find the infrastructure costs for the F35 quite amazing, if this is the price for 24 HAS, test equipment and tools that's rather high, maybe these weren't to NATO standard before, I can only speculate. I couldn't find the cost of the infrastructure work at RAF Kinloss for the P8 acquisition by the RAF to have and idea of theses were for the P8. It seems to me me that those costs for all programmes are running out of control as well. Did you find some information that would confirm that ?
The nation is no longer the USA during WWII which could mass produce then high tech weapons at low costs. Sadly, today, it is China which can mass produce high tech weapons at low costs.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, we have no idea what the true costs of Chinese military equipment is but it's certainly much higher than claimed due to extensive government subsidies.
Another consideration is that China is actually making the effort to quickly produce weapon systems whereas we're not even trying. That makes any comparison a case of apples versus oranges. If China was outproducing us at the current rate while we were trying, that would be extremely disturbing.
"The nation is no longer the USA during WWII which could mass produce then high tech weapons at low costs"
Err what makes you think US high tech production in WW2 was low cost? So the fly away cost of the F-15X and or the various F-35s range depending on source and day from 90 million to over 100 million. Accounting for things pentagon is arcane but assume flyaway includes all the government stuff added.
But the high tech equivalent of WW2 was hardly cheap. In current dollars the unit price was ~14,710,000. But that is for nearly 4000 units built. take it down to F-35 numbers at 1000 and you are looking at some ~50 million per unit and mind you the B-29 crashed on its own rather more than the F-35 does.
Also China is ridiculously opaque. Economist have jump through hoops to figure out how much they overstate the economic numbers what makes you think anyone in an open source environment can speak to the cost of Chinese equipment? Or its quality.
Also
ENIAC cost over 8 billion in current dollars to build I think you will agree Aurora at 500 million (number 2 on the top 500 super computing list) is a bargain in comparison
"what makes you think US high tech production in WW2 was low cost?"
The actual costs make me think that. I've presented the inflation adjusted costs of Essex class carriers and they're absurdly low compared to a Nimitz/Ford.
The Navy's front line carrier aircraft, the F6F Hellcat cost somewhere around $50,000 in 1945 which is $0.9M in 2024 dollars compared to a F-18 or F-35 which are in the realm of $80M-$100M.
Similarly, the standard US tank, the Sherman, cost around $50,000 (again, $0.9M today) compared to an M1 Abrams which costs $5M-$10M each depending on what is included in the cost.
So, yeah, WWII production costs were much lower than today on an inflation adjusted basis.
You are voiding the argument I was making. I sure the unit cost of a Russian refurbished T-64 is quite affordable
"The Navy's front line carrier aircraft, the F6F Hellcat cost somewhere around $50,000 in 1945 which is $0.9M in 2024 dollars compared to a F-18 or F-35 which are in the realm of $80M-$100M."
That is a nonsensical comparison. The only viable one would be a EMB 314 Super Tucano at 200-300 million. And once you add the Tucano's modern avionics and targeting and pods to the Hellcat I imagine you have the same price point. Unless of course you are suggesting 100 hellcats aboard the USS Ford will be deterring China in their 1945 configuration.
I would not the Corsair comes in more expensive and again you are looking at a production run of over 12,000 Hellcats how do thay cost at 1000 number run? Or the 260 run of Super Tucanos
Quite the contrary. It compares the cost of the front line carrier aircraft of WWII to the cost of the front line carrier aircraft today. Perfectly appropriate and highly enlightening, apples to apples comparison.
You stated, "But the high tech equivalent of WW2 was hardly cheap." I just offered proof that the high tech equivalent was extremely cheap.
To me, it seems as if we don't necessarily need shore-based ASW aircraft. While finding and hunting ANY enemy sub, anywhere, is potentially useful, isnt ensuring the safety of a CVBG the primary purpose? If so, then carrier based is what we need a retutn to. Bringing back the S-3 in original, or quickly-copied-new-model form seems like a way to get decent ASW capability back to the fleet. Paired up with some stealthy overwatch passive-sensing F-35s and operating towards max range might be effective.
The challenge of long range SAMs is a threat in a forward operating theater. But what about domestic and low threat arenas. For example CONUS, and the Caribbean protecting merchant shipping closer to our shores. We lost plenty of our ships just off the coast in WW2. But they would be under the umbrella of US Air Defense and if we let a surface fleet close enough to Florida to be a SAM threat, we have pretty much lost the war.
Sorry, somehow lost two entire blocks of text. That's what I get for typing on a cell phone.
What I was speaking on was specifically the use of the P-8 for ASW work for CONUS and US territories. Since the main problem for the P-8 is vulnerability to SAMs, I was trying to suggest that it could full fill it's mission stateside protecting our own coasts from subs while the surface fleet handles the sub threat outside the EEZ. If used to protect our shores, they would not have to worry about the threat of SAMs. My mention of WW2 was to emphasize that in a war with a major power, enemy subs are a threat to shipping off our coasts, but it would take an enemy fleet to threaten our airspace.
I hope that clarifies things as I do want to know your opinion on it. After all, as you reminded us in today's post, we go to war with what we've got. We've got P-8's lets not waste them while we wait for ASW drone. We don't need as many if we are just doing coastal ASW though.
I'm not sure what you want an opinion about. Patrolling one's coastal waters is just standard procedure.
You might bear in mind the incredible area that needs to be covered off both coasts. The US has something in the wild vicinity of 6000 miles of coast. If you patrol, say, 1000 miles out, that gives 6M sq.mi. of ocean to cover. The Navy has around 120 P-8s and must not only patrol the US coasts but the entire world. Do you think we have enough?
"Is anyone really going to risk a $200M airplane anywhere near the battlefield … you know, where it would actually do some good?"
Yes, if nothing else because that's all the US has available. As things are right now, those are "normal" prices for the US military: 100M+ planes, 2-3B+ destroyers, 1B+ for "smaller" surface ships, etc.
In peacetime that won't be a huge deal unless the government's policy of Printing All The Money Forever really blows the country up, anyway.
In wartime (assuming there's a peer war anytime soon), well, it'll be the usual show: initial embarrassments, military fiascos, heads that roll, and then we'll see whether America still "got it". If not, then enjoy the CCP ruling the world.
"Yes, if nothing else because that's all the US has available."
You're missing a key consideration that invalidates your conclusion. In WWII, we made mistakes early on, adjusted, fired flawed leaders, and moved on. What allowed us to do that was the knowledge that we could replace anything we lost while learning how to fight a war. Today, however, we can't replace much of anything. There won't be new carriers coming in any useful time frame. There won't be replacement destroyers. And so on.
We won't risk anything because we'll know we can't replace anything.
Arguably, in the short term, both us and China are just as limited by new construction rates. Like Ike said, we'll fight the war with what we have - and for now, in a fight in the South China Sea, we have more than China. (The calculus worsens significantly for us in a fight in and around Taiwan.)
If we trade evenly with China, in the short term, they're just as weakened as us. The problem is in the next 10, 20 years after the conflict. China has more shipbuilding industry, more weapons industry, than we have. They'll be able to regenerate their losses and build back faster than we can. We don't have enough cruise missiles to hit both Chinese Navy tactical targets AND Chinese industrial strategic targets (short of nuking them). They get to rebuild, rearm, and come back for round 2, prepared and blooded, the rust of peacetime burnt away in the fire of a war.
"both us and China are just as limited by new construction rates"
To a degree, yes. Note, however, that at any given moment China has 3-4 times as many ships on the ways so they'll hold a short term 3-4x replacement advantage over us. They also appear to have 3-4x the shipbuilding capacity we do so if a war drags on, they'll hold a 3-4x advantage. Thus, we need to inflict a 3-4x greater loss rate on them to achieve a break even result.
Of course, like us, China has certain raw material vulnerabilities which may impact their shipbuilding. I just don't know the details and extent of that impact.
"in a fight in the South China Sea, we have more than China."
How do you figure that? China has already achieved overall numerical superiority, their forces are more modern (younger), and ALL of China's military assets are concentrated in the E/S China Sea region whereas ours are spread over the globe.
"How do you figure that? China has already achieved overall numerical superiority, their forces are more modern (younger), and ALL of China's military assets are concentrated in the E/S China Sea region whereas ours are spread over the globe."
The south china sea is further from the east Sea. They have difficulty pushing tactical air and AEW out that far, and can only reach there with their frigates and destroyers. Their atoll airbases have limited aircraft that can be supported. We still have a fighting chance in the South China Sea, especially if we can draw the fighting further south.
It's a different matter in the East Sea and the Yellow Sea, which is in reach of land-based air and where they have no range limitations, allowing them to leverage their corvettes and missile boats.
"They have difficulty pushing tactical air and AEW out that far"
The South China Sea touches the shore of China! You can't get any closer than that. Possibly the largest Chinese base is at Hainan. The SCS is the backyard pond of the Chinese. It's like the Gulf of Mexico for the US. Would we have trouble getting ships and aircraft to the Gulf of Mexico if we needed to?
The entire SCS is in reach of land based air!
They can flood the area with submarines.
You need to come up to speed on Chinese military capabilities.
"Today, however, we can't replace much of anything. There won't be new carriers coming in any useful time frame. There won't be replacement destroyers. And so on.
We won't risk anything because we'll know we can't replace anything."
That's not impossible, but that's called surrendering or simply not fighting at all. (A path the US "leadership" might very well choose, but I digress.)
Besides, China will have the same problem. So, if one side figures out how to replace their fancy stuff faster, they win. Otherwise... second look at WWII era tech?
#ComNavOps why don't we use a Sea-plane for MPA ? like we had PBY Catalina during WW2. Could you write a blogpost on use of Sea-planes in a modern Pacific Theater its Advantages, Disadvantages and how does it fit into CONOPS
Seaplanes have only one unique characteristic: they can land on water. You tell me, where and under what circumstances would need a water-landing aircraft? Answer that and you'll answer your own question.
A 737-800 costs $100 million. That ain't cheap either but it puts the P-8's price in perspective.
ReplyDeleteSo, a sheet metal fuselage with a bunch of seats in it costs $100M and adding a radar and some computers costs another $100M? Yikes!
DeletePickup trucks are mostly air behind the cab and look at how much they cost these days!
DeleteHardpoints, extra tankage, buoy launcher, torpedo bomb bay, extra de-icing gear, decoys, then the radar and other systems.
DeleteCables, computers, work stations, wheels ... what are we doing?
DeleteFigure a P-8 and B-21 are probably similar empty weights. P-8 will be a fraction the cos of B-21 pound per pound. What I've seen is the unmanned options get us more platforms in the air, but its really a similar cost per pound. If you think a ship can do the work that can also start to get more per pound. Primary benefit seems to be gaining endurance.
DeleteWiki lists the empty weight of a P-8 as 138,000 lbs
DeleteWiki lists the empty weight of a B-21 as 70,000 lbs
Another reference point was the P-3 was ~$100 million in today's dollars near the end of its production run in the 1980s.
ReplyDeleteI think it gets back to the CONOPS where their purpose for these aircraft was hunting Russian Boomers or chasing down subs in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap in friendly airspace.
There are still Russian nuclear subs out there, but they no longer number in the hundreds. And the Chinese threat is mostly diesel electric subs, though they do have a small but growing nuclear sub fleet.
I'd say the P-8 is a decent value for the classic deep water maritime patrol role, but maybe not a good fit for hunting diesel submarines in the shallow waters around China. Though I have no idea how many we really need for the deep water patrol, or if we have enough assets like low frequency sonars to effectively track diesel subs in shallow waters.
Considering German WW2 era diesel subs operated near worldwide I'm not sure why modern diesel subs can't.
DeleteThey operated mostly on the surface and then via snorkel.
Delete"They operated mostly on the surface and then via snorkel."
DeleteAnd they submerged when they had to and they docked in port. What are we doing?
Back in 'bagphes' (battleship battlegroup with airship in lieu of E-2) day I was no fan, but, today we could use new tech LTA in lieu of TAGOS and MPA in some areas. With LTA, the mission still needing to be covered could be answered with a smaller aircraft.
ReplyDeleteWrong turn with the P-8.
Similarly, I full expect the day is coming when we'll deeply regret eliminating the VS community as well.
"LTA"
DeleteAssuming LTA stands for 'lighter than air' and you're referring to some sort of balloon/dirigible-ish asset, we've pretty covered the problems with that. It's not really a viable option. You might want to review old posts, comments, and discussions.
A better value is the 737 based airborne radar that Australia, Turkey, and S. Korea bought and the USAF is buying. It is called the E-7 Wedgetail and is developed and proven. So cut the P-8 purchase in half and buy some E-7s. Then a pair of these can make long range patrols (the 737 can fly from CONUS to Hawaii) to screen for enemy threats, with P-8 flying low looking from small ships and subs while the E-7 provides overwatch. It has much longer range radar than fighters so can detect them first and the pair and turn away before detection. If a fighter is "stealthy" it won't matter because the E-7s can detect radar emissions and track the source. If it detects a long-range incoming missile it can shut its radar and dive to avoid its radar seeker.
ReplyDeleteUSAF will be buying E-7 Wedgetails as an interim replacement for the aged-out E-3 Sentry fleet.
DeleteNavy has no interest in E-7 as an AEW platform because it already has E-2D Hawkeye in carrier decks.
Ukraine recently shot its second Russian AEW&C A-50 using an old S-200 (SA-5) long range missile that dates back 60 years though very common in the Soviet Block countries during the 80's and 90's. The A-50 was 210km / 130 miles behind the front line.
DeleteMakes you question the survivability of these large and very expensive aircraft and as a consequence the USAF has launched a new stealthy tanker program (Next-Generation Air-Refueling System (NGAS)) which undoubtably will be more expensive again leading to fewer aircraft as the costs skyrocket, what is the answer?
This isn't a new thing. As far back as Allied Force, long range SAMs were already able to threaten AEW and ISR aircraft, forcing them to stay in suboptimal orbits far beyond the battlespace.
DeleteAn S-200 will be just as affective at shooting down any non stealth jet fighter or attack aircraft.
DeleteLook at the number of non stealth aircraft lost in Vietnam or even the 1991 Gulf War where the US lost 28 fixed wing aircraft in little over a month and that's with dedicated SEAD and EW aircraft which existed because of lessons learned in Vietnam and now retired because of the origina; plans to go all stealth.
@Nick maybe masses of cheap drones for targeting and then mass cruise missile barrages from ships.
DeleteAre manned aircraft really worth it anymore as costs rise and the modern risk averse populous?
Really the Tomahawk needs a stealthy longer range replacement and we need either lots of cheap expendable targeting drones or stealthy targeting drones to find the targets.
The old send masses of manned aircraft to fight doesn't work when each aircraft costs $100 million+.
"cut the P-8 purchase in half and buy some E-7s."
DeleteExcept that the two aircraft do not perform the same functions. The P-8 fills the ASW role whereas the E-7 fills the AEW role. The P-8 uses an APY-10 surface search radar rather than an air search radar. The E-7 radar is primarily an air search radar although it has a look-down surface search capability although the degree of effectiveness in that mode is unknown (periscope detection, small craft, etc.).
While any land based surveillance that can be brought to bear will be helpful, the fact is that unless one is willing to dedicate several aircraft to maintaining one on station, the degree of coverage will be limited. Surface groups require constant surveillance, start to finish, which suggests an organic surveillance capability is more practical.
"Navy has no interest in E-7 as an AEW platform because it already has E-2D Hawkeye in carrier decks."
DeleteThe Navy's interest extends beyond just the carrier group. Surface groups and convoys, for example, require some type of surveillance support.
"Makes you question the survivability of these large and very expensive aircraft"
DeleteI did a fictional story on exactly this issue.
The Air Force has already acknowledged the issue by publicly stating that large UAVs are not survivable over the battlefield and they've scaled back their use.
I've done multiple posts on the lack of survivability of large aircraft such as the E-2 and offered some alternatives.
"long range SAMs were already able to threaten AEW and ISR aircraft, forcing them to stay in suboptimal orbits far beyond the battlespace."
DeleteThis is also an argument against the use of E-2s and AWACS as 'scouts' as so many people want to suggest.
" US lost 28 fixed wing aircraft in little over a month"
DeleteIf your point is to highlight the effectiveness of long range SAM systems, this doesn't do it.
The aircraft lost in the Gulf war were around 1/3 due to SAMs, 1/3 due to MANPADS, and 1/3 due to anti-air artillery. So, only around 1/3 of the losses were to longer ranged SAMs.
Further, the losses occurred while executing over a hundred thousand sorties. The loss rate was miniscule.
The key point for getting some E-7s is who wants to send P-8s flying in the eastern Pacific with no escort? It could end up with fighter aircraft on its tail. China may develop very long range 737 size patrol aircraft with radar and anti-air missiles to target transports, bombers, and patrol aircraft. The Navy could add some missiles to the E-7 to make it one too, not to engage fighters, but whatever it stumbles upon.
Delete" The Navy could add some missiles to the E-7"
DeleteAny aircraft that could be a threat to an E-7 is not going to be detected in time to engage from a distance unless the E-7 has the undocumented (and un-hinted) ability to detect stealth aircraft from great distances. Remember, the E-7 is going to spotted from a galaxy away both because of its non-stealthy, immense size and because of its powerful active emissions. The Chinese have anti-air missiles (VLRAAM) with ranges of 250-300 hundred of miles and a speed of Mach 6+ (see, "Stealth Air to Air Combat". An E-7 would be shot down long before it detects the threat.
That only leaves the incredibly unlikely chance of stumbling across its Chinese counterpart. However, since both sides would keep their high value aircraft well back from the front lines, that's unlikely, bordering on impossible. Is it worth loading an aircraft with additional weight, complexity, cost, drag, and reduced range for an incredibly unlikely occurrence?
Chinese fighters can't detect other aircraft unless they broadcast their location by using radar. And stealth only works when the fighter knows to fly directly at the target. If flying much lower or at an angle the stealth doesn't work. It could remain stealthy using IR targeting, but that only ranges up to 100 miles.
DeleteMy point is that without an E-7 escort, it will be foolish for P-8s to operate near any combat zone against a peer. An E-7s at least provides them with a chance to dive and escape. Note that if an aircraft dives, very long-range missiles will lose radar track due to the curvature of the earth.
"Chinese fighters can't detect other aircraft unless they broadcast their location by using radar."
DeleteCome on, now. Chinese fighters are equipped with IR/EO sensors. The old F-14 Tomcat was able to detect large, bomber size aircraft at 100+ miles and I'm sure sensitivity of the sensors has greatly improved in the meantime.
More importantly, an E-7 would be broadcasting its location by using active radar thereby pinpointing its location for enemy fighters who wouldn't have to use radar at all. Detection of an E-7 without needing to use active radar is a given.
"Note that if an aircraft dives, very long-range missiles will lose radar track due to the curvature of the earth."
Two aircraft (an E-7 and an enemy fighter), both at, say, 35,000 ft altitude would have a radar horizon of 290 miles. An E-7 is not going to detect a stealthy or semi-stealthy fighter at that distance and is not going to detect a missile with a cross section of 20 inches or so at anything approaching that distance. By the time an E-7 detects an incoming missile at Mach 6+ (77 miles/min), it will be far too late to escape. Detection of a missile at, say, 50 miles will allow just 39 seconds to recognize the nature of the threat and evade. A lumbering E-7 is not going to evade a Mach 6+ missile in 39 seconds.
If we want to operate an E-7 anywhere near combat, we have to provide it with a fighter escort hundreds of miles out in front to screen against enemy fighters. There's a reason AWACS aircraft stay well back from the aerial battlefield.
I doubt the claim that Chinese air to air missiles can travel that far at Mach 6. The skin heating problem is too great as well as fuel consumption. It might have a final dash speed but for long-range it must cruise at less than Mach 2.
DeleteI agree such aircraft should never be in range of Chinese fighters, but in the fog of war with moving aircraft carriers and possible armed long range patrol aircraft, no one will want to risk P-8s flying blind. And while losing a E-7 is bad, if it ran into an unknown Chinese carrier force in the central pacific, the loss was worth it. Is it better to send a pair of $3 billion destroyers with crews to screen for an enemy fleet or a pair of $200 million aircraft that can see three times further?
If radar and electromagnetic emissions are a worry, our aircraft carriers are beacons that can be found at thousands of miles. I'd rather a have a P-8/E-7 pair encounter a unknown Chinese fleet first rather than surface ships. I've never heard how China's long-range ballistic missiles target ships. Is it IR, or radar seeking?
"if it ran into an unknown Chinese carrier force in the central pacific"
DeleteWhile anything is theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely that a carrier group could makes it way into the central pacific (or anywhere too far from the first island chain) undetected. We would have dozens of SSNs monitoring Chinese navy egress points from the E/S China Seas and SOSUS type arrays listening to the entire Pacific. Satellites (the survival and usefulness of satellites in a peer war is one of the great unknowns) may offer additional monitoring.
Just as in WWII where we generally knew where Japanese naval forces were at all times, it is likely that we'll have a pretty good general idea where Chinese forces are. The challenge is to then do something about it.
What's needed is a CHEAP, no-frills (which is how you achieve cheapness) surveillance UAV. For example, the Navy's MQ-4C Triton is a bloated UAV with all kinds of networking, communications, data fusion, etc. capabilities that serve no combat purpose and just increase the cost. We need a scaled down, dumbed down, Triton whose only function is to fly to a point and look around with a sensor and report back if it sees anything.
According to Wiki, the first ten RQ-4 Global Hawks had a flyaway cost of $10M in 1994 ($21M in 2024). We need to return to that and then we can affordably send large numbers of UAVs to conduct surveillance instead of risking expensive, impossible to replace, high value aircraft conducting searches for very unlikely scenarios.
One issue is that satellites are fairly simple to shoot down since they fly on a known orbit. I've considered the need for a suborbital spaceplane, like the SR-71 that did Mach 3. I'd have jet engines but also a rocket booster that could launch in Alaska and overfly WestPac at Mach 6 at over 100,000 feet to take photos and use sensors to locate ships, then land in Australia or maybe the Middle East. Regular anti-air missiles can't hit that cause its soars into air so thin their control fins don't work, you need those space missile type jets for guidance. And it moves too fast too.
DeleteTotal cost of ownership is not a stated requirement on any program that I know of. If it were a requirement it would be gamed and ingnored by the services anyway. It would be nice if Congress (because the services don't have a fiscal backbone) would specify it. Although they do have the Nunn-McCurdy limits that are driven right though with hestiating.
ReplyDeleteA planning requirement for the services should be to have X battalions/squadrons/ships for Y TCO. It is the number of fighting units that matter, not % GDP spent.
"Total cost of ownership is not a stated requirement on any program"
DeleteIf you're responding to the question whether cost should be a design criterion, the point was to consider the point at which cost impacts operational and tactical usefulness. I've often stated that cost is nearly irrelevant UNTIL IT IMPACTS THE RISK-USEFULNESS BALANCE. At that point, it becomes vitally important.
If you wait until the end of production to worry about cost it is too late. Look at the MV-22, the O&M is breaking Marine Air. We spend more on Defense than ever and more than the next 10 countries combined and we cannot afford the systems we accept (that mostly do not work as advertised). Time to start limiting what we spend in an intelligent manner and that requires considering the TCO up front.
DeleteYes, TCO is an important consideration but it's completely separate from the cost versus tactical risk issue.
DeleteOh BTW read Spinney's reports on Defense Facts of Life this probalem has been documented since 1980 and ignored ever since.
ReplyDeleteFirst there are the capital costs and then the cost of maintaining the thing in operational condition, and then the costs of the infrastructure on the ground needed to operate the damn thing (the Czech Republic is budgeting 1.8 billion € for 24 F35A as an example, I believe the P8 is cheaper on that front due to the fact that it is based on a commercial design and doesn't have any stealth requirement) ....
ReplyDeleteAll equipment has purchase costs and operating costs. What point are you trying to make?
DeleteI find the infrastructure costs for the F35 quite amazing, if this is the price for 24 HAS, test equipment and tools that's rather high, maybe these weren't to NATO standard before, I can only speculate. I couldn't find the cost of the infrastructure work at RAF Kinloss for the P8 acquisition by the RAF to have and idea of theses were for the P8. It seems to me me that those costs for all programmes are running out of control as well. Did you find some information that would confirm that ?
DeleteThe nation is no longer the USA during WWII which could mass produce then high tech weapons at low costs. Sadly, today, it is China which can mass produce high tech weapons at low costs.
ReplyDeleteAs I've repeatedly pointed out, we have no idea what the true costs of Chinese military equipment is but it's certainly much higher than claimed due to extensive government subsidies.
DeleteAnother consideration is that China is actually making the effort to quickly produce weapon systems whereas we're not even trying. That makes any comparison a case of apples versus oranges. If China was outproducing us at the current rate while we were trying, that would be extremely disturbing.
"The nation is no longer the USA during WWII which could mass produce then high tech weapons at low costs"
DeleteErr what makes you think US high tech production in WW2 was low cost? So the fly away cost of the F-15X and or the various F-35s range depending on source and day from 90 million to over 100 million. Accounting for things pentagon is arcane but assume flyaway includes all the government stuff added.
But the high tech equivalent of WW2 was hardly cheap. In current dollars the unit price was ~14,710,000. But that is for nearly 4000 units built. take it down to F-35 numbers at 1000 and you are looking at some ~50 million per unit and mind you the B-29 crashed on its own rather more than the F-35 does.
Also China is ridiculously opaque. Economist have jump through hoops to figure out how much they overstate the economic numbers what makes you think anyone in an open source environment can speak to the cost of Chinese equipment? Or its quality.
Also
ENIAC cost over 8 billion in current dollars to build I think you will agree Aurora at 500 million (number 2 on the top 500 super computing list) is a bargain in comparison
" the unit price was ~14,710,000"
DeleteUnit price of what?
"what makes you think US high tech production in WW2 was low cost?"
The actual costs make me think that. I've presented the inflation adjusted costs of Essex class carriers and they're absurdly low compared to a Nimitz/Ford.
The Navy's front line carrier aircraft, the F6F Hellcat cost somewhere around $50,000 in 1945 which is $0.9M in 2024 dollars compared to a F-18 or F-35 which are in the realm of $80M-$100M.
Similarly, the standard US tank, the Sherman, cost around $50,000 (again, $0.9M today) compared to an M1 Abrams which costs $5M-$10M each depending on what is included in the cost.
So, yeah, WWII production costs were much lower than today on an inflation adjusted basis.
You are voiding the argument I was making. I sure the unit cost of a Russian refurbished T-64 is quite affordable
Delete"The Navy's front line carrier aircraft, the F6F Hellcat cost somewhere around $50,000 in 1945 which is $0.9M in 2024 dollars compared to a F-18 or F-35 which are in the realm of $80M-$100M."
That is a nonsensical comparison. The only viable one would be a EMB 314 Super Tucano at 200-300 million. And once you add the Tucano's modern avionics and targeting and pods to the Hellcat I imagine you have the same price point. Unless of course you are suggesting 100 hellcats aboard the USS Ford will be deterring China in their 1945 configuration.
I would not the Corsair comes in more expensive and again you are looking at a production run of over 12,000 Hellcats how do thay cost at 1000 number run? Or the 260 run of Super Tucanos
"That is a nonsensical comparison."
DeleteQuite the contrary. It compares the cost of the front line carrier aircraft of WWII to the cost of the front line carrier aircraft today. Perfectly appropriate and highly enlightening, apples to apples comparison.
You stated, "But the high tech equivalent of WW2 was hardly cheap." I just offered proof that the high tech equivalent was extremely cheap.
To me, it seems as if we don't necessarily need shore-based ASW aircraft. While finding and hunting ANY enemy sub, anywhere, is potentially useful, isnt ensuring the safety of a CVBG the primary purpose? If so, then carrier based is what we need a retutn to. Bringing back the S-3 in original, or quickly-copied-new-model form seems like a way to get decent ASW capability back to the fleet. Paired up with some stealthy overwatch passive-sensing F-35s and operating towards max range might be effective.
ReplyDeleteThe challenge of long range SAMs is a threat in a forward operating theater.
ReplyDeleteBut what about domestic and low threat arenas. For example CONUS, and the Caribbean protecting merchant shipping closer to our shores. We lost plenty of our ships just off the coast in WW2. But they would be under the umbrella of US Air Defense and if we let a surface fleet close enough to Florida to be a SAM threat, we have pretty much lost the war.
???? You seem to be conflating WWII submarine attacks with SAM threats??? I'm missing whatever point you're trying to make. Try again.
DeleteSorry, somehow lost two entire blocks of text. That's what I get for typing on a cell phone.
DeleteWhat I was speaking on was specifically the use of the P-8 for ASW work for CONUS and US territories. Since the main problem for the P-8 is vulnerability to SAMs, I was trying to suggest that it could full fill it's mission stateside protecting our own coasts from subs while the surface fleet handles the sub threat outside the EEZ. If used to protect our shores, they would not have to worry about the threat of SAMs. My mention of WW2 was to emphasize that in a war with a major power, enemy subs are a threat to shipping off our coasts, but it would take an enemy fleet to threaten our airspace.
I hope that clarifies things as I do want to know your opinion on it. After all, as you reminded us in today's post, we go to war with what we've got. We've got P-8's lets not waste them while we wait for ASW drone. We don't need as many if we are just doing coastal ASW though.
" want to know your opinion on it."
DeleteI'm not sure what you want an opinion about. Patrolling one's coastal waters is just standard procedure.
You might bear in mind the incredible area that needs to be covered off both coasts. The US has something in the wild vicinity of 6000 miles of coast. If you patrol, say, 1000 miles out, that gives 6M sq.mi. of ocean to cover. The Navy has around 120 P-8s and must not only patrol the US coasts but the entire world. Do you think we have enough?
"Is anyone really going to risk a $200M airplane anywhere near the battlefield … you know, where it would actually do some good?"
ReplyDeleteYes, if nothing else because that's all the US has available.
As things are right now, those are "normal" prices for the US military: 100M+ planes, 2-3B+ destroyers, 1B+ for "smaller" surface ships, etc.
In peacetime that won't be a huge deal unless the government's policy of Printing All The Money Forever really blows the country up, anyway.
In wartime (assuming there's a peer war anytime soon), well, it'll be the usual show: initial embarrassments, military fiascos, heads that roll, and then we'll see whether America still "got it".
If not, then enjoy the CCP ruling the world.
"Yes, if nothing else because that's all the US has available."
DeleteYou're missing a key consideration that invalidates your conclusion. In WWII, we made mistakes early on, adjusted, fired flawed leaders, and moved on. What allowed us to do that was the knowledge that we could replace anything we lost while learning how to fight a war.
Today, however, we can't replace much of anything. There won't be new carriers coming in any useful time frame. There won't be replacement destroyers. And so on.
We won't risk anything because we'll know we can't replace anything.
Arguably, in the short term, both us and China are just as limited by new construction rates. Like Ike said, we'll fight the war with what we have - and for now, in a fight in the South China Sea, we have more than China. (The calculus worsens significantly for us in a fight in and around Taiwan.)
DeleteIf we trade evenly with China, in the short term, they're just as weakened as us. The problem is in the next 10, 20 years after the conflict. China has more shipbuilding industry, more weapons industry, than we have. They'll be able to regenerate their losses and build back faster than we can. We don't have enough cruise missiles to hit both Chinese Navy tactical targets AND Chinese industrial strategic targets (short of nuking them). They get to rebuild, rearm, and come back for round 2, prepared and blooded, the rust of peacetime burnt away in the fire of a war.
"both us and China are just as limited by new construction rates"
DeleteTo a degree, yes. Note, however, that at any given moment China has 3-4 times as many ships on the ways so they'll hold a short term 3-4x replacement advantage over us. They also appear to have 3-4x the shipbuilding capacity we do so if a war drags on, they'll hold a 3-4x advantage. Thus, we need to inflict a 3-4x greater loss rate on them to achieve a break even result.
Of course, like us, China has certain raw material vulnerabilities which may impact their shipbuilding. I just don't know the details and extent of that impact.
"in a fight in the South China Sea, we have more than China."
How do you figure that? China has already achieved overall numerical superiority, their forces are more modern (younger), and ALL of China's military assets are concentrated in the E/S China Sea region whereas ours are spread over the globe.
"How do you figure that? China has already achieved overall numerical superiority, their forces are more modern (younger), and ALL of China's military assets are concentrated in the E/S China Sea region whereas ours are spread over the globe."
DeleteThe south china sea is further from the east Sea. They have difficulty pushing tactical air and AEW out that far, and can only reach there with their frigates and destroyers. Their atoll airbases have limited aircraft that can be supported. We still have a fighting chance in the South China Sea, especially if we can draw the fighting further south.
It's a different matter in the East Sea and the Yellow Sea, which is in reach of land-based air and where they have no range limitations, allowing them to leverage their corvettes and missile boats.
"They have difficulty pushing tactical air and AEW out that far"
DeleteThe South China Sea touches the shore of China! You can't get any closer than that. Possibly the largest Chinese base is at Hainan. The SCS is the backyard pond of the Chinese. It's like the Gulf of Mexico for the US. Would we have trouble getting ships and aircraft to the Gulf of Mexico if we needed to?
The entire SCS is in reach of land based air!
They can flood the area with submarines.
You need to come up to speed on Chinese military capabilities.
"Today, however, we can't replace much of anything. There won't be new carriers coming in any useful time frame. There won't be replacement destroyers. And so on.
DeleteWe won't risk anything because we'll know we can't replace anything."
That's not impossible, but that's called surrendering or simply not fighting at all. (A path the US "leadership" might very well choose, but I digress.)
Besides, China will have the same problem.
So, if one side figures out how to replace their fancy stuff faster, they win. Otherwise... second look at WWII era tech?
#ComNavOps why don't we use a Sea-plane for MPA ? like we had PBY Catalina during WW2.
ReplyDeleteCould you write a blogpost on use of Sea-planes in a modern Pacific Theater
its Advantages, Disadvantages and how does it fit into CONOPS
Seaplanes have only one unique characteristic: they can land on water. You tell me, where and under what circumstances would need a water-landing aircraft? Answer that and you'll answer your own question.
DeleteInteresting
ReplyDelete