ComNavOps has often stated that we’ve forgotten what war is
and just how much of everything is required to wage it. One glaring example is the shrinkage of our
carrier air wings from a WWII high of 90+ combat aircraft to a Cold War level
of 90+ total aircraft (including non-direct-combat helos, tankers, etc.) to the
current level of around 35-40 direct-combat aircraft.
The just concluded US strike by seven B-2 bombers on Iranian
nuclear sites gives us a brief reminder of what’s required for a single strike. The strike ultimately delivered 14 GBU-57
Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) across two targets as well as dozens of
missiles at other targets.[1] However,
many more assets were involved in the delivery than just the B-2s.
All for a single strike against an essentially undefended target and with complete control of the sky. The following gives us a reminder of the types of actions required to support a strike.
Recall WWII carrier raids which, later in the war, involved hundreds of aircraft per strike.
We need to remember the scale of war and begin planning and
training accordingly.
__________________________________
… involved more than 125 US aircraft, “dozens” of aerial refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine and firing approximately 75 precision guided weapons.[1]
All for a single strike against an essentially undefended target and with complete control of the sky. The following gives us a reminder of the types of actions required to support a strike.
“As the Operation Midnight Hammer strike package entered Iranian airspace, the US employed several deception tactics, including decoys, as the fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft pushed out in front of the strike package at high altitude and high speed, sweeping in front of the package for enemy fighters and surface to air missile threats,” Caine [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs] explained.[1]
Recall WWII carrier raids which, later in the war, involved hundreds of aircraft per strike.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/operation-midnight-hammer-how-the-us-conducted-surprise-strikes-on-iran/
With the continual drawdown of combat squadrons over the last 35 years, these kinds of operations will become a rarity. The active duty and reserve forces are a shadow of themselves, worn down during the peace dividend and the GWOT. We should be accelerating production of fighters and rebuilding the size of our squadrons, but instead it's just budget cut after budget cut.
ReplyDeleteIt's not budget cuts, it's where they're applied. We could apply budget cuts to admiral's and their staffs, diversity programs, and so much more and see nothing but benefits.
DeleteThe New Transformationalists believe drones and CCAs will provide the mass, at least for the AF. Andruil plans to build
ReplyDeleteon scale of 1000s instead of a couple hundred.
A thousand combat canoes are still useless despite the numbers. I have yet to see either a drone with useful combat capabilities or a CONOPS to effectively utilize them. Until then, they're just combat canoes and we're just deluding ourselves.
DeleteThe advantage of drones seems to be to be primarily about not risking human pilots on very high risk missions.
DeleteAs I believe I have seen on this blog, in order to be useful and survivable in contested environments, modern combat aircraft must have range, stealth, advanced sensors, etc. Therefore, drones will have to be about as expensive as manned aircraft to be as capable as manned aircraft.
The best way to efficiently purchase modern combat aircraft is to buy specialized aircraft in large lots with predictable contracts that aren't prone to cancelation or order reduction and buy only what you need. We don't need a stealth jump jet for the Marines, and we certainly don't need to bloat/gimp the Air Force's strike fighter design by requiring it to be essentially the same platform as the jump jet.
"The best way to efficiently purchase modern combat aircraft is to buy specialized aircraft in large lots"
DeleteIncorrect or only partially correct. Yes, buying single function aircraft is best. No, large lots are NOT a smart approach. Large lots invite eventual cuts, as we've seen repeatedly. Large lots cause stagnation and prevent technology development because all the time and effort goes into solving concurrency problems. Small lots allow rapid insertion of new tech or total abandonment for a different approach as circumstances dictate. The poster child for not doing large lots is the F-35.
Let me rephrase, I meant buying a sufficient number of aircraft each year to achieve meaningful economies of scale and to spread R&D over a larger number of units. Agree that large orders placed before the design is fully worked out is a very bad idea.
DeleteDuring WWII, US' industrial productions were phenomenal. Despite US entered war with fewer carriers than Japan, in a short time, US surpassed Japan. This was through decades of industry buildup before entering the war. Sadly, today, that industry production giant is not US but China.
ReplyDeleteThe US had much more effective pilot training system
Deletethan the Japanese. The US produced more pilots to
a higher standard than the Japanese. Sometimes
you can have quality and quantity.
One needs to be careful when making a broad comparison of industrial capacities. For example, the ability to make tens of thousands of simple toys represents a large industrial capacity but in terms of potential impact on a war, may not mean much since a simple toy production facility cannot be quickly and easily converted to wartime production of something useful. In other words, not all industries are equal and not all industries can contribute to war needs. Here's a passage from a Japanese business website that highlights some of this:
Delete"According to the United Nations Statistics Division, in 2022, China accounted for approximately 30% of global manufacturing, while the U.S. contributed around 16%. China’s manufacturing output exceeded $4.8 trillion, whereas the U.S. trailed behind with about $2.8 trillion.
However, the U.S. still leads in high-value, technologically sophisticated industries such as aerospace, medical devices, and semiconductor production. American companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Intel, and Tesla remain global leaders in their respective fields. In contrast, China dominates mass production and heavy industries, with Foxconn, BYD, CATL, and SAIC Motor playing crucial roles in global supply chains."
This is not to downplay China's industrial capacity but it's not quite as massive an advantage as the gross statistics would seem to indicate. The real question is not what are the two countries' total industrial capacities but what are the capacities for rapid industrial conversion to war needs.
Of course, there is no definitive answer to that. This is just a bit of more nuanced perspective.
Oops. Forgot to include the website reference: nipponbusiness.com
Delete"China doesn't just produce"
DeleteThat point was already covered. Comment deleted as duplicative.
Looking at the current volume of industrial production we have versus China, the hard truth is that while we have the advantage today, that gap is narrowing every year.
ReplyDeleteIn twenty years, we'll be fighting the Pacific war in reverse: this time we're the Japanese, with our exquisite aircraft and ships, and China is America, with mass production of good enough aircraft and warships, who have the greater industrial base who are better able to ramp up wartime production and regenerate their combat losses.
Off Topic : The E3 AWACS is old & as of 2022 the AF wanted the E7 wedgetail to begin replacing it. Now however the DOD has put a pause on this acquision. SecDef Hegswith has stated that this platform is not survivable in the modern battefield. He has suggested that space based satellites may be a better option but is willing to explore more
ReplyDeletehttps://theaviationist.com/2025/06/13/usaf-e-7-wedgetail-at-risk/
So we have E7 wedgetail technology right now but space based satellites are mature ISR tecnology ? ( With regard to the navy, how about develop a stealthy ISR aircraft to replace the E2 Hawkeye ? Some AF generals want the E7
I agree with Hegseth's assessment of the E-3/7. If you've been following the blog for even a short while, you know that I've been saying the E-2 is non-survivable or ineffective on the modern aerial battlefield. This would apply to the E-3/7, as well. Large, slow, non-stealthy, radiating aircraft are now known as target drones.
DeleteI disagree that space is the answer. The function of the E-3/7 or E-2 is not just to be an aerial radar but to be an aerial battle management asset. I have no idea how you perform that function using a satellite.
My solution, which I've posted about, is for a B-21 based 'Hawkeye' and/or a stealthy, passive 'Hawkeye'. See, Hawkeye and be sure to follow the links within the article.
Just as we've added bomb bays to 737's, seems like one could take the B-21 and place the battlefield management personnel into the "bomb bay" - amortizing the development costs over a larger production quantity - presuming the overall scale of the aircraft is similar enough to avoid starting from scratch.
Delete"place the battlefield management personnel into the "bomb bay"
DeleteWhat would that accomplish? The AF, and SecDef, have said that large aircraft are not survivable. If all we want is a non-survivable stopgap aircraft, we already have the fully functional E-2 Hawkeye that the AF could buy.
As you've noted in your B-21 Hawkeye post, a B-21 based AEW platform will still require a crew for battle management. This is one of the weaknesses of the E-2: it carries a significantly smaller battle management crew than an E-3. (In practice this is less of an issue for the Navy because the carrier wings are so small.)
DeleteE-7's biggest problems are unimpressive spec. and very high price tag.
DeleteCurrent E-7 program is based on export version E-7 with some upgrades. With not so impressive upgrades, price tag rises significantly. E-7 was sold to Japan ~400 millions but now cost 1.3 billion. Its radar is not even a disc!
Before a high-performance yet cost effective version is developed, use E-2D may be best choice for now.
"E-7's biggest problems"
DeleteNo, E-7's biggest problem is that it has no viable, survivable CONOPS.
Just out of curiosity, what does radar being a disc have to do with anything?
The problem is that the E-7 is being cancelled in favor of something that is not proven. We do not even have a proof of concept for satellite AEW.
DeleteWe’re always looking for the next magical leap in technology instead of perfecting what we already have.
DeleteTim here. I don’t understand why Israel (in for penny, in for pound) doesn’t tac-nuke these facilities and finishes the job. We always talked about WW2 European air war where US lost two divisions worth of airmen, contrast that with 2 B29 bombers ended the Pacific War in a blink; that should be the take away lesson when one side has no existential repercussion. Now that prelim BDA seems to indicate the job is not done, and Iran likely won’t let go given a 2nd chance, Iran is on its own… Israel needs to finish the job, nuke if must.
ReplyDeleteI'll try to minimize politics here, but I can imagine America would really like to avoid having Israel or any of its allies engage in first use of tactical nuclear weapons. It would create a modern precedent for their use and would likely encourage further proliferation.
Delete"don’t understand why Israel "
DeleteBecause it sets a precedent that Israel couldn't survive. The result would be tactica nukes being exploded all over Israel. China, Russia, NK, Pakistan, etc. would be more than happy to supply the nukes to whatever terrorist group wants bragging rights.
I don't think that using nukes, tactical or otherwise, is a genie that could be stuffed back in the bottle. Honestly when I heard the evacuation suggestion for Tehran, I had a small fear that was what was coming. Tiring of decades of "proportional ", I can see where the idea has merit. But I dont think any nation, even if there's no nuclear response, could survive using them- they'd become an international pariah and be economically cut off on a level that makes Iran's rather long status and treatment seem tame by comparison. The only opportunity to use nukes in modern times that mightve gotten a pass IMHO, was if Bin Laden had been found shortly after 9/11, and we used one. The world was outraged, and sentiment would've at least partially supported such an overdone "non-proportional" response. Even then, over time the outcry and political backlash would've been massive. The potential perk being that today, China and others would be much more wary of us. But again, the downside being that the taboo of using them had been cast aside.
DeleteI can't imagine a worse country to be allowed into the nuclear club than Iran. They've been the source of most Middle East problems for decades, and frankly I'm glad to see them getting their just attention, rather than the proxies for a change. But, using nukes to stop them from having them is too much. Israel can clearly "handle" Iran with conventional means, and keep that genie where it belongs.
"a genie that could be stuffed back in the bottle"
DeleteAs a general statement, I agree. However, let me pose a question to you. Do you have the slightest doubt that if Iran develop nuclear bombs, they'd use them or give them to their various proxies to use? If you believe that to be a certainty, as I do, would you still rule out a preemptive nuclear use if it would absolutely end their nuclear ambitions? If you still say no to preemptive nuclear use then you'd be condemning untold numbers of people to death.
Hmm ... not quite as straightforward an issue as simply saying no to the genie, is it?
A good point and tough question. While I generally do feel that a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian leadership would be used, I also do have some doubts. Are they truly suicidal? Would they launch one into Israel? Or smuggle it in, or maybe into the US? Knowing that they'd get a response in kind, and likely beyond... knowing that they and their nation would generally cease to exist? Does their ideology surpass their preservation instinct, or is the propaganda they spew just for the masses, and the leaders are actually rational and sane?? Maybe, maybe not. And also, using nuclear weapons based on Intel that frankly today I often question... a tough call. Don't misunderstand, I'm not minimizing the level of threat Iran poses, and would have happily watched Israel continue pounding them til Iran wasn't a threat to a Girl Scout troop. I guess I'm saying that yes, I'd use the nukes preemptively, but I'd have to be VERY convinced Iran would use them, and not being President with access to the real Intel right now, just "the feeling" is a pretty iffy basis to pull the nuclear trigger.
DeleteIn retrospect- that didn't really answer a thing. But... if you showed me concrete evidence they have a functional weapon, and plans to utilize it, then yes. If it took a nuclear strike to eliminate it, (and conventional means wouldn't do the job) then yes, I wouldn't hesitate.
Delete"do have some doubts. Are they truly suicidal?"
DeleteEven if you think Iran, itself, wouldn't use a nuclear weapon, do you have the same confidence that they wouldn't give a weapon to Hamas, Hezbollah, the new Osama Bin Laden (whoever and wherever he is), al-Qaeda, or any of a number of other 'death to America' terrorists and that those people wouldn't use it? You saw what Hamas did to Israel with conventional weapons. Do you think they'd hesitate to use a nuclear weapon?
Even if Iran wouldn't use it and wouldn't distribute it, do you think they'd hesitate to use it for nuclear blackmail?
Well, you did eventually answer the question so good that you've now thought it through.
Just as Hitler could have been stopped at the very beginning of his rise, so too the world had many opportunities to stop the Iranian nuclear program in its infancy when it wouldn't have required nuclear weapons or massive conventional strikes. We failed because we were too fearful (of escalation with Iran??!!!) and lacked the courage to make the hard choice and do the dirty work. War is not the worst thing that can happen and the risk of war is often the preferred choice. It just requires fortitude and courage. Had we squashed ISIS at the beginning, how many fewer people would they have killed in their reign of terror? And so on. Besides, war keeps the military sharp!
War is horrible but we can't be so frightened of it that we allow evil to grow.
I'd assume that any organization given a weapon by Iran absolutely would use it, so that was also generically lumped in with "Iran using one". You're right, this nuclear weapon problem, and Iran in general, should've been dealt with long ago. And I do mean militarily. Ive thought for a long time that eliminating their govt and every bit of military capability they have is needed and long overdue. I'm not frightened of war or waging it when needed (and understand, I have two kids in uniform, one attatched to the HM squadron with a detatchment already in the ME, so I don't take my faux Presidential decisions lightly!!), but, nuclear weapons use preemptively is somthing that would not come easy to me... I'd have to be absolutely confident in the intel first. If it was credible, and there was no conventional option, then I'd use them.
DeleteIran's motivation for nuclear weapons is almost certainly the same as everyone else's, namely the ability to threaten overwhelming force if key national interests are at stake (e.g. in Iran's case, regime survival). America's adversaries who have nukes (Putin, Xi, Kim Jong Un) are still in power today, many of our adversaries who did not (Gadaffi, Hussein, Assad) are not. Likewise, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and was later invaded by Russia.
DeleteWhat is the motivation for Iran to give nuclear weapons to its proxies? To do so, it would lose control over when and how they are used. There's no reason for the Iranians to think that Israel wouldn't hold them accountable for a nuclear attack on Israel. Israel has an extremely aggressive and competent military, has nuclear capability, and we can look at recent photos of Gaza to see what Israel is willing to do to its enemies in cases were nuclear weapons were not used. It also has the backing of the United States, a massive continental nuclear power which would require hundreds of successful nuclear strikes to largely destroy it (and Iran would not be a winner in a full nuclear exchange with the US).
Iran uses harsh "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" rhetoric, but that's almost certainly for internal consumption. When we assassinated their renowned general or dropped bunker busters on their nuclear program, they politely call us up and tell us where the face-saving symbolic strike will occur to minimize actual damage. It's clear that the Iranian regime has strong survival instincts, fearful of even powerful conventional attacks. They may despise Israel, but Israel has a nuclear deterrent. Iran cannot destroy Israel without Israel destroying Iran.
"Iran's motivation for nuclear weapons is almost certainly the same as everyone else's"
DeleteYou could not be more wrong! The US' motivation is self-preservation. Iran's motivation is eradication of Israel and the US. Even though Iran is not currently in a position to do anything substantial about it, they are still doing everything they can towards those goals by funding every anti-Israel and anti-US terrorist group around as well as providing weapons.
"America's adversaries who have nukes (Putin, Xi, Kim Jong Un)"
None of those parties have directly threatened the US or its allies with genocide. That's why they're still around - in addition to having their own nuclear weapons.
"What is the motivation for Iran to give nuclear weapons to its proxies?"
The same motivation that prompts their genocidal hatred of Israel and the US. I don't think anyone has the slightest doubt that Iran knew about, funded, equipped, and gave the go-ahead for the Hamas attack on Israel that led to the current Gaza conflict. That's just pure genocidal hatred.
"To do so, it would lose control over when and how they are used."
No, they would retain the same power they have over the various terror groups now: the purse strings. They control the groups by controlling the funding.
"Iran uses harsh "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" rhetoric, but that's almost certainly for internal consumption."
No, they believe in their genocidal mission. They're just not yet in a position to do much about it. Sanctioning the Hamas attack and atrocities on Israel was not the reasoning of a rational people. It's not an internal propaganda ploy. It's a core belief.
"No, they believe in their genocidal mission."
Delete'Just Another Opinion' makes a fairly solid point. Without being able to read the minds of Iranian leadership, we honestly don't 100% know their true intentions. Nobody does. Perhaps they'd never use the weapons, keeping them only as a deterrent against Israel for self preservation. Perhaps none of them believe the nonsense they spout, but only use it to keep the support of hardliners and as a unifying boogeyman to keep attention focused outwards rather than inwards to maintain power. Rabid nationalism can keep a host of internal issues at bay, or at least off the front page. Now having said that, they've still painted themselves into a corner with their rhetoric and actions, because no matter how much they might try to claim self-defense or any other benign position, nobody will believe it. All we have is past behavior and rhetoric, which puts them into the crosshairs easilly, and we can't afford to give them benefit of the doubt with nuclear capability. 'Just Another Opinion ' could be absolutely correct, but unfortunately for Iran, history makes it almost irrelevant, and we can't allow Iran to continue their actions under even a defensive nuclear umbrella.
"Without being able to read the minds of Iranian leadership, we honestly don't 100% know their true intentions."
DeleteSet aside their words, you're overlooking the pattern in their actions. That pattern is how you 'read' their minds. If, as you suggest, they're only interested in deterring Israel and preserving themselves, they'd just sit back and not antagonize Israel. If I'm afraid someone is going to beat me, I don't keep poking them with a stick. Without dispute, Iran has funded every anti-Israel terror group out there, they approved the horrific Hamas attack on Israel, they supply weapons for the Houthis to lob missiles at Israel, and so on. That goes far beyond deterrence and self-preservation. The pattern is that they mean what they say about wiping out Israel and they practice it to the extent they're capable of.
Their minds are easily readable by their actions and, to be fair, you even acknowledge this although you stop just short of actually drawing the proper conclusion.
We, in the US/West, have a nasty tendency to bend over backward trying to see the best in every bad actor and bad country out there. On a more local scale, we do this same thing with criminals when we try to excuse their actions by blaming their actions on misunderstandings or an unhappy childhood. This tendency blinds us to the evil that exists in the world and causes us to refrain from taking action when we should.
Tim here. Aren’t we talking six and half-dozen difference? We tried to tomb-seal a nuke enrichment and storage facility by blowing it up with a conventional warhead. If done successfully, wouldn’t the after fact be same as an underground ‘nuke strike’ with nuke fuel scattered all over inside the tomb, mini-Chernobyl like (not the tomb, but fuel scatter) ? If we were prepared to accept such consequence, why not nuke-tipped GBU57 to ensure absolute destruction, not English word play of ‘obliteration’? One other take away from WW2, 2 bombs and Japan turned out great (and we’re not nuking Iranian people here). Iran regime needs a reality check to reset its mind, and this is about as close an opportunity to do so.
Delete‘China, Russia ….. etc. would be more than happy to supply the nukes to whatever terrorist group…’
ReplyDeleteDo you mean that comment seriously or is it intended as satire?
NO!
DeleteNo nuclear nation wants any new member to enter the club. Russia and China have no difference. If a nation, through people united together, gone through hardship, and make nuke bomb, this will set an example for others. One day, one of their neighbors will go nuke.
Biggest problem between Iran and Israel is that Iran insists to end Israel's existence. Worse, they bind this to their religion.
The US bombing raid on Iran is extremely impressive, even if not on the scale of WWII, even if it has been prepared by air defense suppression by Israel, and beyond the capability of any other country.
ReplyDeleteBut the bombing was not really massive : only 1 raid of 7 B2 / 14 GBU57 - the facilities at Fordow are dug very deeply, and Iran, although apparently taken by surprise by Israel, had ample time to move / hide some of the equipment / material.
Damage assessment, though not final, are not enthusiastic and it may well be that Iran has only stepped back a few months. If it's true it can only be considered as a fiasco !
This lead to the question : Given the risk of a fiasco, was the US decision to conduct this raid sound and rational ?
"Given the risk of a fiasco"
DeleteEVERYTHING in combat is a risk. Risk, alone, cannot stop a mission. The risk/reward balance may stop a mission but not risk, alone. We, as a society and as naval observers, have forgotten that lesson of war. Everything is a risk.
" was the US decision to conduct this raid sound and rational ?"
If you tell me exactly what information the US had in their possession at the moment of decision then I'll tell you whether the decision was good or bad. Since we'll never know what information they had, we can never answer the question.
Regardless, the mission appears to have, at the very least, put a severe hurt on the Iranian nuclear program and that's a good outcome even if not the perfect outcome. This is another lesson we've forgotten. The enemy gets a vote and rarely does a mission have a perfect outcome.
I would also point out that no one other than the leadership of Israel, Iran, and the US know for sure the extent of damage inflicted. ALL the news reports are speculation and, as we've come to see over the years, the media is extremely inaccurate in general and even more so when it comes to reporting on anything Trump related.
"Damage assessment, though not final, are not enthusiastic"
DeleteReports are that Israel has assessed the strike as having done catastrophic damage to Iran's nuclear efforts. Other reports suggest that the initial reports of the lack of success were fake or preliminary and unconfirmed and being used as propaganda against Trump.
What's the truth? Who knows? Of a certainty, it's never what the initial reports claim, good or bad.
Drawing any conclusions at this point is just irresponsible and uninformed speculation.
"the facilities at Fordow are dug very deeply,"
DeleteThe latest reports now indicate that the bombs were dropped down ventilation shafts to facilitate the depth of their penetration. If true, this shows the foolishness of a cursory assessment such as 'dug deeply'. This also shows the foolishness of leaping to initial conclusions without waiting for later, more accurate reporting.
All in all, the original comment was poor quality and irresponsible.
“Regime change “
ReplyDeleteComment deleted. We’ll skip the political commentary.
The posts above are interesting about a stealthy B21" Hawkeye" ( With a proper CONOPS of course. ) Now we have the P8 maritime patrol plane , it too would need a stealth aircraft design ?
ReplyDelete"P8 maritime patrol plane , it too would need a stealth aircraft design ?"
DeleteWhat do you think? Can a large, slow, non-stealthy, defenseless aircraft survive to get close enough to the areas of concern to be effective?
Alternatively, can a large, slow, non-stealthy, defenseless aircraft be effective operating only in safe airspace around the periphery of any area of interest?
I do think that the P8 can be survivable in a safe airspace, but in a situation where the P8s effectiveness may wane is near contested areas. A stealth design should allow the aircraft to be more effective. The P8 in peacetime could surveil the seas. Also the reported range of the B21 is greater than the P8.
DeletePB
Combat Range: The P-8 has a combat radius of 1,383 miles (2,225 km) with 4 hours on station for anti-submarine warfare missions. B21 is expected to be substatially longer.
Also the P8 is designed for ASW with some antisurface capability. So a B21 conversion would need to have these capabilties
DeletePB
"P8 is designed ... with some antisurface capability.
DeleteAnalyze that statement. Do you think a large, slow, non-stealthy, non-maneuverable, defenseless aircraft can survive long enough to approach, say, a Chinese warship close enough to get a shot off? If you don't think so, then what is the anti-surface capability aimed at and is it worth the modification?
I mentioned the P8s waning efficiency in contested airspace. Reportedly the P8 is armed with harpoons, & torpedoes for ASW. First we do not know what anti air capabilities the Chinese warship will have onboard but lets asume it is modern. "While the Harpoon's design makes it challenging to detect, it can still be vulnerable to countermeasures like chaff and jamming, especially when flying at lower altitudes and during the terminal phase when its radar is active" and then we have EW as a coutermeasure ?
DeleteLet me give you the correct answers. We do know, in fair detail, what the various Chinese warship radar and anti-air capabilities. They're essentially identical to ours.
DeleteThe issue is not the Harpoon missile, it's the aircraft's survivability long enough to get targeting data and reach a weapon release point. That means getting within around 60 miles of the target (assuming a semi-stealth ship can be detected by a P-8 at that range - not a sure thing). Can you imagine a large, slow, non-stealthy, non-maneuverable, defenseless aircraft flying within 60 miles of an Aegis Burke and surviving? I can't. That leaves the low end of warships such as corvettes and patrol boats as potentially viable targets. Is the chance to sink a corvette or patrol boat worth the risk to a high value unit like a P-8? That's debatable.
Add to all that the fact that a single P-8 would only carry, perhaps, two missiles. It's highly unlikely that two missiles can get through a frigate or better warship's defenses so that would make the attempt a pointless risk, if not suicide mission.
What all that means is that the so-called anti-surface capability is useless unless the aircraft just happens to stumble across a lone enemy corvette or patrol boat. Is it worth the added drag and reduction in speed and endurance of the P-8 for that remote possibility of a lone, small vessel being encountered?