The Navy has never appeared to be very enthused about the
F-35. They’ve gone deep into fantasy
land to rave about the wonders of the LCS, the Ford, the Zumwalt, and many
other programs but the F-35 praise has been very muted. The actual procurement numbers of F-35s has
been minimal, to put it mildly.
Now, however, with a war with China looming on the horizon
(by the Navy’s own public statements), has the Navy’s enthusiasm for the F-35
increased? Is the Navy requesting more
F-35s, possible on a crash basis to prepare for the coming war? Let’s check the 2025 defense spending bill.
Congress is in the process of finalizing the 2025 defense
spending bill. Currently, there are
various versions of the bill floating around as the various groups put forth
their own versions and attempt to reconcile the various versions. The various actors and their budget versions
are shown below.[1]
- President’s budget: $849.8 billion for the Defense Department
- House NDAA: $849.8 billion for the Defense Department
- House defense appropriations: Includes $833 billion in defense spending
- Senate Armed Services Committee: $878.4 billion for the Defense Department
- Senate Appropriations Committee: $852.2 billion defense spending
That’s interesting but let’s look, specifically, at the F-35 requests in the budget.
The 2024 NDAA granted the Navy relief from the Title 10 requirement to stand up a 10th CVW by October 1, 2025 pending SECNAV submission of a report to congress analyzing potential approaches to the manning, operation, and deployment of a 10th CVW.[2]
Thus, Congress is complicit in the Navy’s air wing and aircraft shortfall.
By 2025, the Navy will have solved its strike fighter shortfall in part by changing how it will field the F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter. Instead of two squadrons per air wing with 10 tails, the Navy will now field a single squadron with 14 tails, Rear Adm. Andrew Loiselle, director of the Air Warfare Division (OPNAV/N98), told the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces on Tuesday. testified it was reducing F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fight from two to one squadron per air wing.[3]How reducing two 10-aircraft squadrons with 20 total aircraft to one squadron with 14 total aircraft alleviates the shortfall is an arithmetic miracle beyond understanding. Nevertheless, it’s what the Navy is doing. This further demonstrates the Navy’s lukewarm view of the value of the F-35.
http://breakingdefense.com/2024/09/f-35s-frigates-and-fra-woes-here-are-the-issues-facing-congress-in-upcoming-fy25-budget-process/
https://news.usni.org/2021/07/14/navy-adjusts-f-35c-squadron-size-to-end-fighter-shortfall-by-2025
If an Air-Wing has four squadrons on a carrier, three F-18 and one F-35 this math is a slight increase in the total number of aircraft I believe. Is the Navy also proposing fewer squadrons on each ship?
ReplyDeleteThe statements are unclear but my interpretation is that they are going from 2x F-18 squadrons (of 12 planes each) + 2x F-35 squadrons (of 10 planes each) to 2x F-18 squadrons (of 12 planes each) + 1x F-35 squadron (of 14 planes) which would be a net decrease from 44 aircraft to 38.
DeleteAlternatively, it could mean 3x F-18 squadrons + 1x F-35 squadron (of 14 planes) which, if they hold the F-18 squadrons constant, would be a net increase of 6 aircraft.
Of course, the F-35 count would still be a net DECREASE of 6 aircraft. In other words, we'd achieve a net increase of numbers of aircraft at the cost of a net decrease in combat capability assuming you believe the F-35 to be a more capable aircraft than the F-18.
Is this possibly because they want to make space for MQ25 Stingrays and the F35s are unreliable so they are easier to give up than F18s?
DeleteThis could be an increase in aircraft availability for combat if they don’t have to give up F18s for buddy tanking if they use Stingrays
Is there functionally enough room on these ships to add both the Stingrays and an additional squadron of either F-18's or F-35's? I know carriers used to have more planes on them, but weren't they generally smaller aircraft with exceptions?
Delete"weren't they generally smaller aircraft"
DeleteNo.
Do you think the Navy has been unintentionally fortunate in procuring a limited number IOC aircraft and holding off a larger buy till the TR3/Block 4 FOC aircraft becomes available, currently forecast by the GAO to be available in five years, 2029. The Block 4 will include the ability to carry long range missiles and more sensors, powerful data fusion, increased interoperability with other platforms and an advanced EW, in total 80 new capabilities planned, Block 4 budgeted at $16.5 billion.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/08/30/new-f-35s-can-fly-combat-training-as-dod-holds-millions-from-lockheed
ReplyDelete"New F-35s can fly combat training as DOD holds millions from Lockheed. " The newest F-35 Joint Strike Fighters are now able to carry out more elaborate training missions, but the government is withholding millions of dollars in payment to Lockheed Martin until the jets can fight in combat."
This article mentions that sometime in 2025, has been projected that the TR3 upgrade will enable combat ready jets ! It has been reported here that readiness of the current F35 is another problem. The DOD & the contractor have had this software problem for quite sometime.
PB
"sometime in 2025, has been projected that the TR3 upgrade will enable combat ready jets"
DeleteTR3 does not enable full combat capabilities. It enables the loading of Block 4 which is what provides the full combat capability and Block 4 is still years away from being ready. The current forecast for Block 4 is somewhere around 2030 and, given the software history, that's probably exceedingly optimistic!
F35 full combat capability is the aircraft version of Tesla FSD - paid for but always next year will
DeleteI don't think the program record has changed much AFAIK, it's still:
ReplyDelete1.USN F35C= 260 + USMC=80
2. USMC F35B = 340
TOTAL= about 680
It was never a huge buy really from the start. Let's compare to legacy F18 and SH/F-18, these are the best numbers I could research and find:
1.USN F/A-18A/B=380
2.USN+USMC? F/A18C/D= 200?
3.USN SH = 600+
So combined, USN + USMC bought around 1200 F18A/B/C/D and SH which is significant bigger buy than F35C and B combined, funny how F18/SH wasn't super popular in terms of performance but had a far bigger order books than LMT F35.
I would say the last 2 fighters USN have bought haven't had the best performance or really that wanted by the USN, they can't go 3 for 3 on under performing or too expensive on the next fighter....they need to get this next one right!
Forgive me if I gave the impression that the Navy's lack of interest was something new. It's not. They've never been excited about the F-35.
DeleteConsider the 260 aircraft buy in terms of a war. How long do you think 260 aircraft will last? As a point of comparison, the F6F Hellcat, alone, had a production run of over 12,000. 260? It better be a very short war! Like about a week or we're going to run out of planes!
Been trying to find production runs/orders by USN for last couple of decades and just not finding the numbers, for some, my best approximate guess is :
DeleteF-8: +1100
F-4 (USN+USMC): 1200?
F-14: 600
A-4 (USN+USMC): +1200?
A-5 VIGILANTE: 137 (1961-1970)
A-6: 693
A-7: 1200?
Just quick research and some from memory but I think it's safe to say you have to go back to the Vigilante which was really a nuclear bomber at origin then turned into a REC plane to find some such a small production like the F35C. I didn't go further back to jets in the 50s which were really weird......
Yes, the USN was luck warm from the beginning, in a earlier more "honest" era, this would have been a A-35 really.
Seems to me that the Navy has pushed the F35c onto the Marines either for commonality with the USMC’s F35b or to make Marines carry the bulk of the risk instead of the Navy.
ReplyDeleteOriginally the USMC's plans were to replace all F-18s and AV-8s with the F-35B, but somewhere along the way that seems to have shifted to replacing F-18s with F-35Cs, and potentially returning Marine squadrons to Navy airwings. It used to be most airwings would have a USMC Hornet squadron, but the Marines shifted their hornets to be purely land based fighters due to fatigue issues making them no longer able to safely trap on CVNs.
DeleteI think the Navy is still recovering from the F-111B quagmire. Usually tri-service programs don't fair very well. Honestly, I think the Air Force managed to convince the Navy to buy into the F-35 program to share in the costs. If the Navy was truly on board with the F-35, the C variant would have been designed with an internally mounted Gatling gun like its Air Force F-35A counterpart.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy has been very reluctant/hesitant/apprehensive about fully committing to F-35 program, certainly not getting "more bang" for a lot more bucks.
If the truly wanted stealth, the A-12 Avenger program would have been handled in a much better manner.
(Speaking of the venerable F-6F Hellcat, in 20 months over 12,000 Hellkitties were produced, 605 in March 1945 alone....)
$850B authorized and we are discussing the limited number of aircraft we can have in a squadron? How ridiculous is this? I am all for strong defense but means putting tropps in uniform, ships in the water, weapons systems that work, etc. Pathetic that the highly educated senior military officers cannot do any better than this. Pigs at the trough is the best image to describe this travesty.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, it seems as if the Navy only wants to be a part of the defense plan going forward as an afterthought. this slight of hand with fighter #s is a disgrace, call it what it is. You have to assume that losses in a protracted war- and it will be protracted- are going to be large, and not 5% of the air fleet. We can't build this type of jet fast enough to just replace them as they are lost, everyone knows that. If anything they should be now in urgency mode to build alot more with the next gen fighter underfunded and put off for more years, another classic let's sit on it Navy issue till it's a crises (Air Force no better with its geriatric squadron problems). These carriers can hold alot more birds, fill them up. at this stage maybe they can buy retired F16's from the AF and landbase them in the pacific, and while at it, buy some of the mothballed b1 fleet and load them up with Jassm and it's anti ship equivalents, because it doesn't look so good for the Navy (half kidding, only half kidding).
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of a naval patrol bomber is a fab idea. particulaly so if it could be the B-21. I'd trade an aircraft carrier [or 2] for a modest fleet of B-21 patrol bombers - say 2 squadrons of 12.
DeleteThinking is still stuck in World War II, when flying from Los Angeles to Hawaii was a feat. Jumbo jet airlines now fly from New York to Singapore non-stop! B-21s would be nice but 737s would suffice.
Deletehttps://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm
Such talk is heresy in the US Navy!
"737"
DeleteI've read your article several times and it's very interesting. There are some aspects that warrant additional analysis.
As a general observation, the approach you describe, of 737-search aircraft leading the way for a flight of missile carrying 737-attack aircraft is identical to the old Soviet approach of Tu-95 Bears leading the way for missile launching bomber regiments. We believed we knew how to defeat such an attack by using long range, F-14 fighters to find and kill Bears. Kill the search aircraft and the bombers have no target. Presumably, the enemy would use that same defensive tactic.
I note that you envision the use of thousand mile, anti-ship cruise missiles - and well you should! - however, we have no such missiles outside of a dozen or so LRASMs and the Navy has no enthusiasm for obtaining more, it seems. Thus, the approach falters if we have to use Harpoons or Naval Strike Missiles or some other relatively short range missile.
It might be interesting to re-examine your approach in light of current realities and limitations. Would it still be feasible? What would have to be modified? How does the existence of very long range, hypersonic, air-to-air missiles change the approach? How do we deal with the enemy's "F-14" threat to the 737-search aircraft (simply turning away isn't defeating the threat, it's a mission kill)? How do we make a 737-search aircraft survivable if it has to radiate - thus, exposing itself (giving away its location and making it vulnerable to radar homing air-to-air missiles - to find a target?
What do you think?
I feel I should point out that we already have a 737-based MPA, in the.form of the P-8...
DeleteSorry, bit off topic. Do Marine Pilots have different training / expertise to Navy? EG close support of troops on the ground against Long range anti-ship missions. If not why are they on a carrier?
ReplyDeleteYeah, the Navy has never seemed very excited about F-35. They've learned that purpose built aircraft were better suited for carriers. What they really want is a two engine, big, go fast, go far with a lot of stuff, beast. Kinda like....an F-14?
ReplyDelete"What they really want"
DeleteHonesty, I don't think the Navy knows what they want and that's the major problem they face. Should they go unmanned? Manned/unmanned combination with loyal wingman? Strikefighter? Long range air supremacy?
They have no idea and that means they have no idea what to develop or procure. I think it's why they've slowed the next generation aircraft. They just don't know what they want it to be!
In a world where aircraft can literally circumnavigate the earth (with tanker support), I’m finding carrier based naval aviation harder to justify. I know that’s probably a simple minded assertion, but we’re being told dogfighting is a thing of the past. So, what do short range tactical aircraft offer that purpose built long range pseudo tactical aircraft can’t? I’m picturing a new F-111 style land based aircraft.
ReplyDeleteEd
I'm glad that you're thinking about this and asking the question. However, you're overlooking a number of considerations that would likely change your conclusion. I could write a book on this but, instead, I'll offer a few brief thoughts for you to investigate further.
Delete-While it is theoretically possible to conduct global missions, the logistics and complications are enormous and include MASSIVE tanker support, air space and overflight permissions and politics, incredible coordination and timing of all the support elements, global protections for the various support aircraft, and so on. For a good example, read the Wiki writeup on Operation El Dorado Canyon, the strike against Libya. Note the denied overflight permissions and subsequent reconfiguration and replanning of the mission.
-When other countries' permissions are required, operational security is ruined. It's very difficult to keep a secret in our country and spreading the mission notice around several countries while maintaining secrecy and security is impossible.
-Yes, an aircraft can fly a global mission but the subsequent maintenance hit is horrendous. A B-2 bomber can fly, at most, two sorties a week and, more likely, only one. In war, even that minimal sortie rate would decrease as parts quickly become unavailable and combat damage accumulates.
-Remember that crew fatigue quickly becomes a limiting factor. For a large bomber with multiple pilots and the ability to move around and/or nap, that's doable. For a single seat aircraft, a mission over a few hours quickly becomes unfeasible without seriously degrading pilot effectiveness.
There are very good reasons to embrace globe spanning missions OF THE RIGHT TYPE (such as crisis response) but tactical combat is not one of those.
Research these considerations and keep analyzing!
Note, also, that the aircraft you're envisioning, a F-111 style, is NOT a globe spanning aircraft. The F-111 had a one-way ferry range of some 3000 miles which would give it a combat loaded, combat radius of something on the order of 800-1000 miles, depending on mission profile and payload. That wouldn't even be sufficient to conduct a sortie from Guam to the South China Sea without heavy tanker support.
For sea control you are correct. Let the subs, naval bombers, land based attack aircraft, and land based missiles fight for control. It's foolish to send a huge $14 billion carrier with 6000 souls into such a battle. (Carriers can linger far away and send their aircraft back and forth to forward air bases)
DeleteBut once the seas are mostly cleared, carriers are needed to escort and support sea blockades, mine clearing, and ground forces ashore, i.e. support amphibious ops. Despite what some think, political leaders still expect our military to invade nations at times.
"Let the subs, naval bombers, land based attack aircraft, and land based missiles fight for control."
DeleteI have a different view of this. There is no better way to establish sea control than to first establish air control and a carrier is best equipped for this. Now, if a land airbase happens to be within easy range of the operating area then, sure, get them involved but in the Pacific we have few useful bases within operationally viable range of the likely operating areas (South China Sea, Taiwan, and the like). Thus, only carriers can provide the SUSTAINED presence that air control requires.
For example, establishing local air superiority eliminates half the enemy's ASW assets (air and surface assets) which allows our subs to operate much more effectively and with much less risk.
This is why I constantly call for a very long range air superiority fighter for our air wings. With those, the carrier can stand off several hundred miles and minimize the risk while establishing air control.
Our navy has been unable to maintain a sustained carrier presence off Yemen. For the South China sea, our logistics base at Sasebo will be blasted and worthless. Yokosuka will have its troubles too. Guam will be blasted. We only have distant Hawaii so I doubt more than two carriers can be sustained there, even after six months of prep. We really need a naval magazine in the Marshall Islands or eastern Australia and pull the logistics vessels and supplies from Sasebo back to these areas too.
Delete"Our navy has been unable to maintain a sustained carrier presence off Yemen"
DeleteWe have to be careful with a statement like that. First, there is no evidence that the Navy even wants to sustain a carrier presence. We don't seem to have any coherent strategy for the area so it's not surprising that we wouldn't know whether we want a sustained carrier presence or not.
If it's important enough to warrant a carrier then, presumably, it would be important enough to have a serious combat plan and, clearly, we don't so ...
"Guam will be blasted. We only have distant Hawaii"
Well, this goes back to having a plan. If Guam (or anywhere else) is important enough then we need to plan on defending it which means serious missile defense, hardened facilities, robust repair capability, and, above all, a determination to hit the attacker hard, before they can attack us. Sitting there and just trying to fight off wave after wave of attacks is idiotic and doomed to failure. The best base defense is to strike the enemy's attack capabilities and strike hard. If we do all that then we can sustain a forward base. Thus far, we show no signs of being willing to fight for Guam so, yes, that means retreating back to Hawaii.
We lack a War Plan China version of War Plan Orange. We desperately need a plan for fighting China and we don't have one. EVERYTHING flows from the strategy/war plan and, since we don't have a plan, everything seems disjointed, uncoordinated, and haphazard ... because it is!
As I read, Navy doesn't like single engine fighter. To make vertical take off/landing for Marine, F-35 has to be single engine base on available technological capabilities.
ReplyDeleteAt the end, Marine is happy with F-35B (much better than AV-8) but Navy is not satisfied F-35C.
Biggest mistake made by Rumsfeld (SOD under Bush Jr.), etc. was insisting one F-35 fit all.
Maintenance and keeping the mission readiness up will be a nightmare. I believe that before the Navy basically ordered better numbers the SH was reporting somthing on the order of 40% readiness rather than the current (reported) 80%.
ReplyDeleteSee, You WILL Comply
Deleteand, The Real Readiness Rates
Now $311 million a copy.
ReplyDeleteItaly to Buy 25 Additional F-35s for Over $7 Billion
https://thedefensepost.com/2024/09/18/italy-buy-f-35s/
Just to be clear, that price includes much more than just the cost of the aircraft. From the article you cite,
Delete"Also included is the purchase of engines, equipment and logistics support until 2035"
Of course, if you can't operate the aircraft without those extras - and you can't! - then it's a legitimate cost of the aircraft.