In praise of the F-35B! The future of carrier aviation.

Thanks for the heads up on these two articles Phil!

Despite all the manufactured nonsense regarding the stealth characteristics of the F-35, it appears that some military thinkers are looking at things rationally, sensibly and with an eye toward future conflicts/roles/functions.

The articles are from The Early Warning Blog and Danger Room.

Read both articles in their entirety but here's a tidbit.  First from The Early Warning Blog.

Pity poor Britain, which decided to cancel its acquisition of the F-35B in favor of the conventional carrier variant. An equally good aircraft, the F-35C requires a full deck carrier. The British are building two, one to use and one to mothball. But because the Cameron government has decided to retire the British Harriers, the two existing carriers will only operate helicopters until such time as they are decommissioned.
So today it is the Italian navy that is providing responsive air assets for the Libyan campaign using Harriers launched from its aircraft carrier. Britain is forced to fly Tornado and Typhoon jets from Italian airbases with all the refueling that requires and the wear and tear on pilots and aircraft. This conflict signals the end of Great Britain as a naval power. It also underscores the value to NATO and its members of having a weapons system as flexible as the F-35B in future conflicts.

This is the argument that Sharkey Ward over at the Phoenix Think Tank has been putting forward.  The Royal Navy is in decline and will suffer an extended period of incalculable risk because of the decision to retire its Harriers.  The issue for the UK isn't simply an inter service battle however.  Its more important than that.  It exposes a risk to that nation.  An unacceptable one in my eyes. 

The next article is from the Danger Room.  This one should cause fear in the ward rooms of every Super Carrier at sea.  The real threat to our flat tops isn't 'ballistic anti-carrier missiles'....it isn't SSK's....it isn't hyper sonic cruise missiles.  Its the threat that LHD sized carriers will be proven to be just as efficient, cheaper and more economical to run and maintain.  If the X-47 is ever able to operate off LHD's then stick a fork in the super carrier.

“Moving away from highly expensive and vulnerable supercarriers toward smaller, light carriers would bring the additional benefit of increasing our nation’s engagement potential.” It would also spread out U.S. naval air power instead of concentrating it in just a few places, where it can be more easily knocked out.
Hendrix’s controversial argument is the subject of my first piece for AOL’s new military website.

To be clear: no one, including Hendrix, is claiming big carriers will become totally obsolete overnight. Besides the U.S., Britain, India and especially China are all building brand-new large carriers, though none quite as big as America’s 11 Nimitz- and Enterprise-class ships, each displacing around 100,000 tons. Hendrix insists the Navy keep some of its nuclear supercarriers as a “heavy surge force” capable of steaming into action during a major crisis.
Outgoing secretary of defense Robert Gates echoed that sentiment in a speech last year.
But for routine patrols, the Navy should have a larger number of smaller flattops. Hendrix doesn’t propose a specific number, but he does point out that three, 40,000-ton light carriers could be had for the price of one supercarrier.
A light carrier is viable because of a shift in the way air power is used. During the Cold War, the Navy’s focus was generating at many fighter sorties as possible within the first few days of a full-scale conflict. After all, big shooting wars weren’t expected to last very long. Supercarriers are optimized for that kind of “big and fast” fighting.
Today, conflicts tend to be drawn-out, low-intensity affairs requiring fewer but longer sorties by sea-launched planes. Carriers don’t need to embark as many fighters, or launch them as often. That’s why a smaller carrier is possible, according to Hendrix.

Imagine a fleet of 33 USS America sized carriers operating F-35's from their decks.  That would be beyond impressive.  That would be a sea control force that would terrorize our enemies.

The F-35's haters thought that they would start a storm that would raise doubts about the F-35 with Sweetman's article earlier this week.


Now it not only looks better than ever but it would appear that those of us that believed in the potential of this system are seeing converts to our position.

Life is good.