Good reads all.
However consider the following.
UCAVs like the UCAS-N still have a lot of proof to go before we can depend on them. Carrier ops with manned aircraft are not trivial matters. Another thing that is not trivial are UAV mishap rates vs manned aircraft.
In thin budget times.
The author of the paper brings up the F-35C and broadly mentions that it is troubled, then goes on and gives it credit for a 690 mile radius. Not good because this program has been watering down on capability from the start. Anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations.
The F-35 project is still riddled with problems. There is no known operational empty weight (also a UCAS-N issue). There is no operational testing with a final go-to-war aircraft …um that is where the operational empty weight comes from (also a UCAS-N issue). There is no carrier qualification (also a UCAS-N issue). There is no OPEVAL; pencil-whipped or otherwise (also a UCAS-N issue).
One can hope for many things but in bad fiscal times where the boss of the USN fear-mongers over the budget, parks carriers, retires carrier air wings, then states cutting the F-35C would be "detrimental" , doesn’t match up to the reality that the jet depends on numbers to keep acquisition prices low. No mention of an F-35C cost per flying hour which at the minimum could be in the high $30k to $40k region.
Then the USN boss fails to address numerous loony USN programs on the table that don’t bring anything to seapower.
Great work sir.
There are options. Not great options, but options. I am not offering salvation; only the better of two evils.
Let us re-examine the Super Hornet. Against non-anti-access threats it can do the following better/cheaper than the F-35C.
The Super E/F:
-Always leaves the deck with a gun.
-Can buddy refuel
-Can carry a recon pod
-Has Blue Force Tracker, ROVER, a better field of view with its ATFLIR than the EOTS on the F-35, 2 crew-member options which make it superior for close air support than the F-35C.
-Can carry external fuel tanks as needed. The F-35 had this requirement pulled in 2006 due to risks.
-More options for munitions carry. Example: HARM, SLAM-ER, Harpoon.
-Has an established cost, sortie rate and excellent safety record for carrier ops, including being able to trap with one engine at idle.
-Has better balanced survivability with a fused on-board wide aspect defensive jammer, a towed decoy of the pedigree credited with saves in Operation:ALLIED FORCE. Then ALE-50. Now ALE-55.
- JSOW and JDAM negate most legacy defences and get to the target. I can touch you, but you can’t touch me. These two weapons already fly off of the Super Hornet.
There is more, but that is enough for now.
Also in relations to the above mentioned PDF with strike range from the carrier: again, not perfect, but look at USAF tankers and long Super Hornet missions to Afghanistan and back.
As an aside, bombing mainland China is most likely out of the picture. I can’t see an ROE set that would allow that unless nukes are involved.
For anti-access threats, neither the Super nor the F-35C is up for the challenge.
If the Navy would reconsider and finish up the testing, the Super could already have a front-aspect X-band resistant weapon that probably has better low-observable qualities than the F-35C.
That is the JASSM with a properly certified Super Hornet. The J in JASSM is of course "Joint". Years ago, Navy backed out of JASSM for lack of funds and stated SLAM-ER would be good enough for now thank you very much.
(JASSM captive carry tests on a Super Hornet)
The JASSM (or JA$$M) has had some trouble. In the past it hasn't been a happy place. Its' past trouble is nowhere near as much as the F-35. Since the F-35 will suck at close air support, including a prohibitive cost per flying hour, that leaves interdiction and deep strike for the its' fan club (you can forget fleet air defense).
The Navy already has Tomahawk. It may have some survivability issues against emerging anti-access threats. So will the JASSM but it should be a bit more survivable.
Tomahawk and JASSM from the carrier battle group, are better than Tomahawk alone. Combined, with the USAF long range bomber JASSM shooters, you have something which is beats nothing for deep anti-access strike work.
Yes there is always caution needed with cruise missiles. BDA and the number you throw at a target can be a question mark.
And the USMC and STOVL? This has been covered already.
I see no need for the F-35C in Navy service.
Today, the only thing "detrimental" is the limited thinking going on with the Navy tac-air roadmap.
The F-35C won’t stop the rot. It will make it worse. The Navy, like it or not, is doing a future enemy’s work: by being on-track toward fielding an obsolete-to-the-threat carrier air wing.
2 comments:
Personally, my gut feeling is that the future US Navy UCAV systems -- and they are coming do not doubt that for a second -- will not be feasible Carrier-operated air vehicles for at least another 20 years.
Indeed, there's so much more to be developed and matured in this potential field, until such a concept can truly be proven as reliable and viable.
In the interim, it's much more valid and justified, as a future USN doctrine, to procure and operate such UCAV air systems from land.
I'd personally ponder a potential requirement for a future ground-based UCAV derivative, to include internal carriage capacity for 3x JASSM-ER or LRASM class munitions + 4 MALD. That, and ability for in-flight refueling by Super Hornet buddy-tankers of course.
When is the U.S. Navy going to move away from it's obsession with bomb-trucks? They already have the ability to launch an ungodly number of Tomahawks from the ships themselves, along with the attack abilities of the Hornets and (maybe) the F-35.
Whatever happened to fleet defence? There's still that gaping F-14 shaped hole in their inventory that neither the Super Hornet nor the F-35 quite plug up.
Post a Comment