The U.S. Navy is starting to realize that it is facing the prospect of taking an obsolete carrier air wing to war.
The Super Hornet won't be up for emerging threats in the Pacific.
The Navy states that the solution against anti-access threats will not depend on just one weapon. The problem is that as far as fighter aircraft off of carriers, they do not have even one weapon to take on such threats.
It gets worse. The F-35 is in no way up for the challenge. By virtue of its operational document drawn up in the 1990's to determine a design need, it was assumed that there would be hundreds of F-22s to take on the high-end threats.
Finally, what the Navy will not say publicly is that the Super Hornet beats the F-35 in every relevant operational metric.
Unless the Just So Failed can someday actually prove otherwise.
And, at what cost?
1 comment:
With respect to hypothetical solutions to counter anti-access threats (and by that I'd argue it should be stressed more so in the context of a retaliatory counter-strike capability, and as a deterrence and not as a pre-emptive offensive role which can be undesirably perceived as provocative), I'm curious if the RIM-174 (SM-6) could be modified as an air-launched multi-mission stand-off munition?
It would probably have an effective A2G or Air to surface range of at least 350nm? An Air to air variant might have an effective range of at least 200nm? At least 2 different seeker variants could be employed for different specialized roles?
A system (or equivalent) such as that could give a Super Hornet substantial force-multiplying capability, deterrence and operational flexibility in the medium term as a stopgap measure.
Post a Comment