Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US naval aviation back on the rise
Flight Global ^ | 04/04/2011

Posted on 04/04/2011 8:15:39 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

US naval aviation back on the rise

© Northrop Grumman

How Northrop Grumman sees the carrier deck of 2020

Retired Vice Adm Robert Dunn remembers being called to the Secretary of the Navy's office. It was 1989 and the US Navy was still at the peak of its Cold War, 600-ship glory. Defence spending, however, was already in decline and the navy's top civilian, Henry Garrett, had a tough decision to make. As deputy chief of naval operations for aviation, Dunn's portfolio included two projects for a carrier-based, long-range strike aircraft - a re-engined Grumman A-6E Intruder called the A-6F - and a far more ambitious project called the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II.

"We can't afford the A-12 and the A-6F," Garrett told Dunn. "Which one do you want?" "I think we better go with the A-12 because that is going to be a more capable aircraft," Dunn said. Almost 22 years on, however, Dunn says: "In retrospect, I don't know if it was good advice or not." In fairness, there were few options. An era of naval aviation was coming to a close. In 1989, navy leaders could choose between two projects for a long-range strike aircraft; by the end of the next decade there were no such projects in development or anything similar in service.

On 7 January 1991, Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney cancelled the A-12, citing design shortfalls and cost overruns. Six years later, the navy retired the last A-6E with no true replacement. The navy was changing in 1989 and the future became about limiting schedule delays, cost overruns and high operating costs. At the time of Dunn's meeting with Garrett, however, it still seemed right to advocate for a revolutionary aircraft. "There was a time when the navy was pushing the envelope much more," says Eric Wertheim, author of the US Naval Institute's "Combat Fleets of the World". If there was any doubting the shift in strategy, in December 1992 the navy awarded Boeing a $3.72 billion contract to develop the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which meant abandoning the Grumman F-14 contract. "The basic problem with the F-14 - not that it wasn't a good aircraft, it was a superb aircraft - but the cost per hour of the F-14 was twice that of the F-18 and at that time, with the budgets coming down, it was a matter of affordability," Dunn says.

SUPER HORNET

"No question about it," says Norman Polmar, a naval consultant and author. "The F-14 in its time was one of the most versatile and capable fighter aircraft in the world. They proceeded with the Super Hornet at the direction of the Department of Defense in order to save maintenance money. I can assure you the F-14 was the preferred aircraft." Norman Friedman, another author and naval strategist, notes that the F-14 decision was in step with the navy's new operational vision, which implied a shift in emphasis from deep attack to littoral warfare.

"The key issue at the time was money - it often is," Friedman says. "There was also a conscious choice that the navy would not be doing heavy-duty deep strikes; those would be left to the air force, with Tomahawks doing the precision strikes. On that basis, the shorter-range F/A-18 was very attractive."

A major element in naval aviation identity to emerge after the early 1990s was a grudging reliance on other branches of the US military.

"Today the navy is content to depend on land-based tankers, whether they are air force or allied to do their work in Afghanistan or Iraq," Dunn says. "But we wanted to be self-contained in those days. [Aircraft] like the A-16, A-12 and F-14 were very attractive because they were long range. They didn't require as much refuelling as the [Vietnam-era Ling-Temco-Vought] A-7s and later the F-18s.

© US Navy

Carrier deck circa 1991

"More and more, with the kind of missions popping up around the world today, there's a dependency on land-based tankers. Somewhere along the way we have to work with our sister services. We can't be self-contained all the time." With the retirement of the last F-14D in 2006, the F/A-18A-D Hornet and the F/A-18E/F became the only tactical fighters on carrier decks fulfilling the key roles - air superiority and attack. The consolidation of the carrier deck was not limited to fighters. The retirement of the A-6 also meant the loss of the KA-6, the tanker variant that dramatically extended the range of carrier-based air attacks.

Some still think the navy's consolidation went too far, especially when the Lockheed S-3B Viking was retired and replaced by helicopters for anti-submarine warfare and maritime patrol missions. "NAVAIR and the navy have made a significant effort to reduce their logistics chains on carrier decks," Wertheim says, but retiring the Vikings "takes away a capability that you just don't replace. You can't argue that you aren't losing capability." Dunn, however, thinks the navy made the right decisions about consolidation. "I've been in favour of reducing the number of types of aircraft because it so simplifies the logistics and maintenance support, which in many ways are the long poles in the tent," Dunn says.

He also stresses that the S-3B's capabilities were not only replaced by helicopters. "Don't forget the satellites that we're depending upon," Dunn says. "As far as [anti-submarine warfare], they're depending more and more on [attack submarines] that are part of the battle group." It is a lesson that epitomises a slogan of modern management - do more with less. By contrast, the US Air Force took an entirely different approach in the early 1990s - it launched the F-22 programme.

A 2005 study by Rand's project air force analysed the results of these two approaches.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 introduced a fighter that combined stealth, supercruise and integrated avionics, including all-new airframe, structural materials, engine, radar and cockpit systems. The F/A-18E/F was based on an existing airframe, engine and avionics. While the F-22's development cost was $7.2 billion over budget, the F/A-18E/F was delivered on cost, the Rand report concludes.

"If you were to go back in time to 1990 and say this is how your acquisition strategy is going to end up in 2011, how are you going to feel about it? My feeling is the air force would really be rethinking it," Wertheim says.

"The navy invested in EA-18 Growlers instead of just putting all their investment in stealth," he adds. "The navy waited for that technology to mature somewhat. You're seeing some of the issues you're having with the F-22 with their reliability because of the maintenance requirement. Their reliability is not what they hoped for." Not everyone is convinced the navy's approach was the right one. Polmar says the F/A-18E/F strategy worked but it helps that the navy has not faced a more capable adversary. "So far we've not met any opponents that have been able to beat a formation of F-18s," he says.

LONG-RANGE BOMBER

That situation seems to be changing rapidly. In December, the US military acknowledged China had fielded an anti-ship ballistic missile. Both Russia and China have also revealed prototypes for fifth-generation fighters to compete with the F-22 and Lockheed Martin F-35. Meanwhile, US navy and air force strategies on next-generation combat aircraft seem to be going in opposite directions. The air force is developing a new long-range bomber, while the navy plans to introduce the F-35C on carrier decks by the end of the decade, along with a possibly revolutionary system called the unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) system. The navy may also replace the F/A-18E/F with the FA-XX in the mid-2020s. If the navy eventually combines the F-35C, UCLASS and FA-XX on to a single carrier deck, the capabilities of such a force would probably be recognisable to the fleet Dunn envisaged when he sealed the fate of the A-6F in Garrett's office in 1989.

"That's what it's all about," Dunn says. "Any thinking naval aviator will say the air force has the punch and the stay-ability if they have the bases. They don't often have the bases, so that's why the navy has to be ready."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; aircraftcarrier; bhodod; defensespending; navair; navy; northropgrumman; usn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last
To: Vanders9

That’s the American technology experience talking. My point was not that some better, more high tech UAV that costs $30m will come around eventually, but that some ingenious nation will build a massive air armada of cheap as dirt, off the shelf UAVs with current or even mostly obsolete technology, that will jump them to the head of the pack militarily.

Let’s leave the US out of the equation, to get over the psychological obstacle. Pick two theoretical nations, one of which has a 50 quality fighter aircraft advantage, the other of which is too poor to afford more than just a few fighter aircraft. So the poorer nation decides to do a UAV sneak attack, with each of 100 UAVs carrying a 1,000lb bomb, and another 100 in reserve.

The first indication that anything is up happens when 100 aircraft appear on the first countries radar. Even if they have an ‘alert’ squadron of a dozen fighter aircraft ready to respond, which they probably won’t, by the time they get to intercept altitude, 1,000 lb bombs will be raining down on their airfields and other major military and civilian targets.

Their more than 50 advanced fighters will mostly be blown up on the ground, or have nowhere to land. Just the few fighters kept by the aggressor will become air superiority.


41 posted on 04/05/2011 2:10:31 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn; yefragetuwrabrumuy

I don’t entirely agree, Steve. WWII, Germany had some very high-quality equipment, particularly armor. The main method of defeating Panzers by both the Americans and Soviets was just to pour more of their own armor into fighting the German tanks than the Germans could handle.


42 posted on 04/05/2011 2:21:27 PM PDT by tarawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tarawa; yefragetuwrabrumuy; Vanders9
That is all true but when winter came the Blitzkrieg attack became stagnant and vulnerable. The Russians were equipped for the winter and took advantage of their maneuverability over the Germans in the winter.

If the Germans were able to hold out the winter they would have won in the spring.
In other words the Germans were not equipped for the winter conditions and the Russians were. Very simply the German armor got stuck in the mud and the Russians main attack units didn't.

43 posted on 04/05/2011 3:31:11 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tarawa

But if you are referring to after the push into Russia about 1943 and on then yes just about anything could win at that point. The Germans lost over a million troops and equipment they could never fully recover from their losses.


44 posted on 04/05/2011 3:50:46 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Then there are still tons of things that could take place in your scenario. For example: Pearl harbor the Japanese didn't evade the Island and take advantage of their devastation of the bases.

in other words very poor strategy made them lose in the end.

45 posted on 04/05/2011 3:55:26 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

What saved our bacon at Pearl Harbor was that our carriers weren’t in port. When Yamamoto realized they weren’t there, he knew he was screwed.


46 posted on 04/05/2011 3:56:55 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Hitler should have placed more importance on taking Moscow, for the psychological implications, and the fact that Stalin may very well would have been deposed if Moscow fell, and perhaps the entire Communist apparatus collapsed along with him.


47 posted on 04/05/2011 3:59:37 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

yeah but Yamamoto never even took troops with him to take the island it was a huge strategic blunder


48 posted on 04/05/2011 4:23:07 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I'm not american.

I know what your point is, but I think my point still stands. The fact is that the current "low-cost off-the-shelf UAV's will not be able to overcome a modern hi tech air force, no matter how many there are, because they simply do not have the capabilities that you fear.

However, I happen to sort of agree with your point, which seems to concern the balance of quality vs quantity. Quality is better, obviously, but quantity has a quality all of its own. At some stage UAV technology will advance to the point where although they will not be as effective as manned fighter planes, they will become more cost-effective. This is the point where your hypothetical scenario becomes true (and very frightening).

But, take heart! The USA is not only at the forefront in the development of UAV's, but the people its closest competitors in this field happen to be its closest allies! Because of this, the US is particularly well-placed to judge when that "tipping point" of UAV cost-effectiveness will come about, and take steps accordingly.

For what its worth, I am of the opinion that the US military, and in fact western forces in general, are becoming over-reliant on high technology solutions. I think we would be better off with "more and simpler" rather than "few and powerful", and not just in aircraft either.

49 posted on 04/06/2011 9:42:18 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson