The Navy really needs to get over the trauma from the A-12 Avenger II, it's getting old. The A-X program which began after the A-12 was cancelled was also going to feature a high degree of stealth.
The F-35 was built with mission requirements in mind, although primarily the requirements of the USAF and USMC. Mind boggling cost? When was the last program that resulted in over 2,000 fighters? We haven't done something on this scale for decades now and we can't keep procrastinating forever.
That said, lets look at the F-35C specifically. The Navy's involvement began when A/F-X was cancelled and they joined the JAST program which would eventually lead to JSF. The characteristics ideal for carrier operations aren't the same as those shared by the common STOVL and CTOL design that the program wished to develop. Nor did the capabilities of the JSF match what the Navy probably hoped to achieve with A/F-X. Yet despite this it was decided to go ahead with a JSF carrier variant.
Why? From the procurement point of view many figured "the bigger the better" was true for the JSF program. Commonality would (in theory) keep costs low. Also back then the Super Hornet program wasn't doing to well. It was being attacked by critics over all sorts of issues. Price estimates and timelines made the JSF a valid option to replace the Navy's "basic" F/A-18s. There are also some who think that these days the Navy cannot justify a standalone carrier fighter or attack aircraft development program. To achieve success it will have to be part of a larger program or plan simply due to the costs involved.
Things have changed a lot since the early days of the JSF program, but the Navy isn't in an ideal spot no matter how you look at it. It will be a uphill battle for the Navy to get the funding and support necessary for a new fighter of their own design. And who could they hope to interest in a joint effort? The USAF wanted more F-22s and is fully invested in the F-35. Theoretically if the F-22 production had not ceased this program could share engines and avionics with an improved "F-22C".
There are some promising developments in the works like the ADVENT program and the major aerospace companies have all shown their concepts for "6th generation" designs but these remain just concepts. The F-35 is currently the military's priority fighter program and the only one getting the sort of money needed to make real progress.
So what is the Navy to do? Well for the time being they are sticking with the F-35C which has the lowest priority of all the variants and thus won't enter operational service until 2020 or so. In the meantime they'll likely argue for Super Hornet upgrades. If the opportunity arises they would ditch the F-35C in favor of a new program but they know this is an unlikely scenario in the current financial and political environment.
Even if the Navy dropped the F-35C, and congress allowed and AND stared funding a 5th gen Tomcat today, it wouldn't come into service before 2025.
Modern aircraft development times are just too long.
Plus, looking at the USN's surface warship procurement debacle(s), I wouldn't have high hopes of them being competent enough to design and develop a 5th gen Tomcat type jet.
The least time the USN and other branches could have realistically pull out of the F-35 was in 2010.
i've read everything you've written with great interest. the basic problem though is that you believe that stealth in the form of shaping and composites (or whatever the aircraft skin is made of) is the solution when i think the Navy is onboard the electronic countermeasure path.
this is a matter of doctrine and institutions disagreeing on the future of aerial warfare.
the Navy is pushing forward with high performance attack UAVs. the USAF is dithering. the Navy is maintaining the electronic countermeasure mission, the USAF has all but abandoned it.
this isn't a case of being stuck on the A-12 failure, its a case of looking at stealth and not believing the hype. the crazy thing is that someone in the Pentagon knows the truth but is simply pushing this program for monetary and not strategic reasons.
oh and as far as the USMC is concerned, all the wing wants is a supersonic STOVL, i don't think they give a damn about it being stealth or not.
the problem with ECM systems is that they have to emit something to work.
If you are emitting, you can be tracked and targeted.
Home-on-Jam AAMs and SAMs exist.
Even if you managed to blind an air launched missile with a jammer, I doubt a jamming pod carried by a fighter has the juice to take out a modern ground based radar system.
Or if it does, you turn on another one.
If it blinds that, you launch hone-on-jam SAMs at it.
Personally I wish the Navy could dump the F-35C, use the Super Hornet to replace the "classic" Hornet, and field a new 5th generation multi-role fighter more suited to their needs. But there is no denying the level of capability this fighter should have will be quite costly. Outstanding performance in the air superiority mission, a strike capability matching that of the latest F/A-18s but with greater range, room for future growth and potential new weapons like an advanced long-ranged air-to-air missile.
Regarding stealth, I think it is necessary to look at it as a fundamental aspect of an aircraft's design, to be considered along with everything else like speed, range, payload, agility, etc. It shouldn't be this "stealth OR electronic warfare" choice that some present it as. These capabilities can and should complement each other. The USAF really should have some dedicated jammer aircraft of their own, yet if relying on the Navy for that support means more funding for other programs they'll continue to do it.
In truth the F-35C doesn't offer much over the F/A-18E besides for VLO stealth, and without some serious modification it isn't suitable to be a jammer aircraft like the EA-18G. Yet it looks to me like the Navy will end up with some number of F-35Cs despite it not being what they'd really want. Can they put them to good use? Yes. Yet in the long-term the Navy will need more than either the F/A-18 or F-35 can provide in my opinion.
The Navy does seem to have invested more in UCAVs than the USAF although the latter certainly has some "black" UAV programs. That said, it looks to me like both services are experiencing some uncertainty over what they want from these UCAVs. How large or small should they be? How much stealth? What level of air-to-air capability? Subsonic or supersonic. At first the Navy seemed interested in a relatively large very stealthy UCAV for long-range strike. The proposed X-47C is a good example of this. Yet now I'm not certain what they are looking for from the UCLASS program.
Great article Sol. The analogy of camouflages reminds me the fights between Ninjas vs Samurais. The F-35 intend to be a sort of Ninja, the only problem is that is overweight, slow, with not enough weapons,gadgets, with a knife and not that invisible, on top of it charges a lot for it's services. In the other side you have a Super Hornet, sort of Samurai expert in the use of the Katana, Spear, Long range Bow and Arrow, expert rider, it charges a predictable price and it's able to detect the ninjas at long distance thanks to the growlers and the IRST. I would prefer to have a big army of Samurais than few incompetent Ninjas.
The Navy really needs to get over the trauma from the A-12 Avenger II, it's getting old. The A-X program which began after the A-12 was cancelled was also going to feature a high degree of stealth.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 was built with mission requirements in mind, although primarily the requirements of the USAF and USMC. Mind boggling cost? When was the last program that resulted in over 2,000 fighters? We haven't done something on this scale for decades now and we can't keep procrastinating forever.
That said, lets look at the F-35C specifically. The Navy's involvement began when A/F-X was cancelled and they joined the JAST program which would eventually lead to JSF. The characteristics ideal for carrier operations aren't the same as those shared by the common STOVL and CTOL design that the program wished to develop. Nor did the capabilities of the JSF match what the Navy probably hoped to achieve with A/F-X. Yet despite this it was decided to go ahead with a JSF carrier variant.
Why? From the procurement point of view many figured "the bigger the better" was true for the JSF program. Commonality would (in theory) keep costs low. Also back then the Super Hornet program wasn't doing to well. It was being attacked by critics over all sorts of issues. Price estimates and timelines made the JSF a valid option to replace the Navy's "basic" F/A-18s. There are also some who think that these days the Navy cannot justify a standalone carrier fighter or attack aircraft development program. To achieve success it will have to be part of a larger program or plan simply due to the costs involved.
Things have changed a lot since the early days of the JSF program, but the Navy isn't in an ideal spot no matter how you look at it. It will be a uphill battle for the Navy to get the funding and support necessary for a new fighter of their own design. And who could they hope to interest in a joint effort? The USAF wanted more F-22s and is fully invested in the F-35. Theoretically if the F-22 production had not ceased this program could share engines and avionics with an improved "F-22C".
There are some promising developments in the works like the ADVENT program and the major aerospace companies have all shown their concepts for "6th generation" designs but these remain just concepts. The F-35 is currently the military's priority fighter program and the only one getting the sort of money needed to make real progress.
So what is the Navy to do? Well for the time being they are sticking with the F-35C which has the lowest priority of all the variants and thus won't enter operational service until 2020 or so. In the meantime they'll likely argue for Super Hornet upgrades. If the opportunity arises they would ditch the F-35C in favor of a new program but they know this is an unlikely scenario in the current financial and political environment.
Even if the Navy dropped the F-35C, and congress allowed and AND stared funding a 5th gen Tomcat today, it wouldn't come into service before 2025.
DeleteModern aircraft development times are just too long.
Plus, looking at the USN's surface warship procurement debacle(s), I wouldn't have high hopes of them being competent enough to design and develop a 5th gen Tomcat type jet.
The least time the USN and other branches could have realistically pull out of the F-35 was in 2010.
i've read everything you've written with great interest. the basic problem though is that you believe that stealth in the form of shaping and composites (or whatever the aircraft skin is made of) is the solution when i think the Navy is onboard the electronic countermeasure path.
ReplyDeletethis is a matter of doctrine and institutions disagreeing on the future of aerial warfare.
the Navy is pushing forward with high performance attack UAVs. the USAF is dithering. the Navy is maintaining the electronic countermeasure mission, the USAF has all but abandoned it.
this isn't a case of being stuck on the A-12 failure, its a case of looking at stealth and not believing the hype. the crazy thing is that someone in the Pentagon knows the truth but is simply pushing this program for monetary and not strategic reasons.
oh and as far as the USMC is concerned, all the wing wants is a supersonic STOVL, i don't think they give a damn about it being stealth or not.
the problem with ECM systems is that they have to emit something to work.
DeleteIf you are emitting, you can be tracked and targeted.
Home-on-Jam AAMs and SAMs exist.
Even if you managed to blind an air launched missile with a jammer, I doubt a jamming pod carried by a fighter has the juice to take out a modern ground based radar system.
Or if it does, you turn on another one.
If it blinds that, you launch hone-on-jam SAMs at it.
Personally I wish the Navy could dump the F-35C, use the Super Hornet to replace the "classic" Hornet, and field a new 5th generation multi-role fighter more suited to their needs. But there is no denying the level of capability this fighter should have will be quite costly. Outstanding performance in the air superiority mission, a strike capability matching that of the latest F/A-18s but with greater range, room for future growth and potential new weapons like an advanced long-ranged air-to-air missile.
ReplyDeleteThat 5th gen jet won't be ready until 2025 at the earliest.
DeleteAnd it won't be cheap.
Regarding stealth, I think it is necessary to look at it as a fundamental aspect of an aircraft's design, to be considered along with everything else like speed, range, payload, agility, etc. It shouldn't be this "stealth OR electronic warfare" choice that some present it as. These capabilities can and should complement each other. The USAF really should have some dedicated jammer aircraft of their own, yet if relying on the Navy for that support means more funding for other programs they'll continue to do it.
ReplyDeleteIn truth the F-35C doesn't offer much over the F/A-18E besides for VLO stealth, and without some serious modification it isn't suitable to be a jammer aircraft like the EA-18G. Yet it looks to me like the Navy will end up with some number of F-35Cs despite it not being what they'd really want. Can they put them to good use? Yes. Yet in the long-term the Navy will need more than either the F/A-18 or F-35 can provide in my opinion.
The Navy does seem to have invested more in UCAVs than the USAF although the latter certainly has some "black" UAV programs. That said, it looks to me like both services are experiencing some uncertainty over what they want from these UCAVs. How large or small should they be? How much stealth? What level of air-to-air capability? Subsonic or supersonic. At first the Navy seemed interested in a relatively large very stealthy UCAV for long-range strike. The proposed X-47C is a good example of this. Yet now I'm not certain what they are looking for from the UCLASS program.
Great article Sol. The analogy of camouflages reminds me the fights between Ninjas vs Samurais.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 intend to be a sort of Ninja, the only problem is that is overweight, slow, with not enough weapons,gadgets, with a knife and not that invisible, on top of it charges a lot for it's services. In the other side you have a Super Hornet, sort of Samurai expert in the use of the Katana, Spear, Long range Bow and Arrow, expert rider, it charges a predictable price and it's able to detect the ninjas at long distance thanks to the growlers and the IRST. I would prefer to have a big army of Samurais than few incompetent Ninjas.