Or so the author would like you to believe.
It is in essence an F-35 hit piece. Read the whole thing but check this out.
Until I see a US Navy CVW with a fixed wing ASW platform or a legitimate carrier based tanker capability tested and fielded, I am going to find it very difficult to take the naval aviation community seriously when all threat analysis from every corner of the globe highlights submarines as the fastest growing threat to the maritime domain, and the tyranny of range as the greatest threat to naval forces in the Pacific. The Navy is spending about $50 million more on the JSF than the F-18 to get less range with a moderate increase in stealth. And the CVW will still be left with no fixed wing ASW and no organic tanking.First. Dude is wrong about the F-18 having better range than the F-35. But he doesn't care because he's following the talking points of others who would play with numbers and juice such important details. He talks about the F-35 having moderate stealth? Exactly how the fuck did he arrive at that?
Second, he slams the carriers by stating that they're vulnerable to subs. But if a carriers helicopter ASW's won't help out and he demands fixed wing ASW from carriers then his vaunted cruisers and destroyers are just as vulnerable.
Overall its a real hot debate the way that he framed it but it fails in so many areas its not even funny. But this part has me scratching my head.
And btw, you'll still need the 4 major surface combatants to protect the carrier, just so the Navy can hit targets at greater cost and at a slower pace.Don't they realize in that shop that if cruisers become the next capital ship then they'll be the ships in the fleet that need protecting.
Again, read the whole thing. This is gonna be fun to watch...and laugh at.
Not a big fan of the F35 project myself, but the arguements raised against it there, beyond the opening one*, are pretty weak.
ReplyDelete*I still remain convinced a 20,000t flat top carrying nothing but long ranged missiles is the key to winning fleet battles in the future.
500 launched against a CBG would be devestating, simply because it would lack the capacity to shoot them all down, even if it could shoot them down individualy.
But for anything else, you need aircraft.
If Guns and Rockets cant replace fast air in Afghanistan, how the hell are they going to do it a high end war against a near peer?
great point and not being a fan of the F-35 doesn't label you a bad guy. my complaint is that just like you observed, the argument that he makes just isn't convincing.
ReplyDeletethis is a debate that will soon make it into the main stream media and thats when the fun will begin.
I think the f35 will be an outstanding platform, once it matures, but buying it now would be a mistake.
ReplyDeletethis is what we should do, as brits.
buy the superhornet now, for delivery as quickly as possible, also buy the growler & posideon, this combination wouldn't cost much more than proposed buy of f-35B's, but filling a gaping hole left by the scrapping of nimrod.
the superhornet can launch without cats, with a reasonable warload, then being buddy tanked once in the air, remember the cvf will have an angled ramp!!
this would have two unintended benifits scrapping the shitty Tornado GR4/GR4A, and trimming the need to integrate anything more than auster ground attack capabilities on the eurofighter.
give money to converteam to develop their emals, install this in the late 2020's
buy a few airgroups of f-35C's in the eartly 2030's, once the kinks have been worked out, and the price has dropped
so let me know if i am missing something but they say there is lacking "legitimate carrier based tanker capability tested and fielded", so a three pronged test, (1) legitimate, (2) tested, (3) fielded, so lets look at legitimate, the F18 E/F has one 330 gallon tank below center line, and 4 x 480 gallon on wing pylons, with total of 2,250 gallons (note that wikipedia says in one area it can carry 5 x 480 gallon fuel tanks, below it has the center-line being a 330 gallon tank, we will be generous to the author and give the lower 330 gallon for inflight refueling because its the 330 gallon one that is specifically mentioned in the inflight refueling capabilities), A-6 intruder which was primary refueling in the past had 4 x 330 gallon tanks (Wikipedia says it has a center line hard point, so lets be generous and also allow it a 330 gallon tank under it center line for extra fuel), thats 1,650 gallons of fuel. The S-3 viking also can do inflight refueling but it only has 2 x 300 gallon external hard points, wikipedia says it has 4 internal hard points but i dont see them having fuel pods internally, so we will only allow it a 600 gallon fuel capacity for refueling. Again i am being generous and not counting internal fuel which could be used for refueling i would guess but we will say thats reserved for the aircraft itself.
ReplyDeleteWe have established legitimacy, now tested, well Boeing did this, http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_990414o.htm, and this is from 1999, 13 years ago which means there has been HUGE strides in perfecting this since then.
So the last is fielded, well this is without a doubt, the navy has 500 planes, well Wikipedia doesn't cite it but says 96 prowlers have been built (and i am guessing can be fielded rapidly if necessary those that might be for training, testing or finalization in building), so lets be generous and say this number of F 18 E/F is 404, that still leaves 400 aircraft for inflight refueling capabilities.
So having established all three requirements given by the authors, is he just a dumbass or am i missing something?
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
Joe
The essential problem is that until aircraft become obsolete you need airfields. As long as aircraft are central to warfare a mobile carrier is a required tool of force projection. If the carrier group is lacking in asw then increase that capability. The whole lacking in carrier based asw and tankers means carriers aren't viable is absurd; moreover, it's a silly platform based argument.
ReplyDeleteYes it's too bad the S-3's were retired without replacement. That doesn't mean the carrier group doesn't have significant helicopters and various sensors supported by a myriad of other platforms.
As an aside Sol, I recently read the USN wants the UCAS-D (X-47B) to recognize hand signals from the deck crew instead of remotely moving them around with a joystick. So don't worry they're thinking seriously about how to integrate UCAS aboard the carriers.
Frankly if the program succeeds we may see more than the planned 4 to 6 per carrier. That's a large increase in carrier borne ISR and long range strike.