5 ms·

> The Air Force and Navy both need (or want) a light, stealthy fighter-bomber. Historically, there's no good reason not to just make the Air Force use the same

by paulmd 9y ago

> The Air Force and Navy both need (or want) a light, stealthy fighter-bomber. Historically, there's no good reason not to just make the Air Force use the same planes the Navy does. This is not actually true. The Navy needs a heavy chassis that can withstand repeated 4G+ carrier takeoffs and landings, the Air Force wants a lighter chassis that leaves more room for payload and allows more maneuverability. The Navy wants dual-engine configurations for reliability for over-water flight, the Air Force prefers single-engine for greater simplicity and weight efficiency. You can make something like the Tomcat or Hornet work, but it's not as agile as a dedicated interceptor, can't carry as much weight as a dedicated strike aircraft, and is heavier than a dedicated light-multirole aircraft. It's also more maintenance-intensive and has higher fuel consumption/shorter range than all of these. Money is no object for the US military, we get the best aircraft for the role, period. You can disagree about whether that should be the policy, but it is. The Marines' STOVL requirement is a third set of requirements that is totally disjoint to the other services, agreed. I don't know enough about it other than a general sense that it's possibly the complex task to engineer out of all of these. Airplanes go forward, not up and down. From a financial perspective, we might be better off just telling the Marines to fly helos instead and operate light strike aircraft off improved strips once we have a beachhead, but again, money is noobject, so they get a rube-goldberg airplane that can go up and down and land on their pipsqueak carriers.

philwelch 9y ago
That’s the theory, but are the differences between, for instance, the F-16 and F/A-18 really enough to make any difference in any conceivable threat environment? It’s already a hard sell having dedicated fighters in the first place, since the US military hasn’t operated without air supremacy since the first weeks of the Gulf War. Is there a realistic threat model where the increased maneuverability of a single-engine light fighter provides any benefit whatsoever?
- forapurpose 9y ago
  The U.S. military publicly agreed with your argument until a few years ago. To bomb primitive foes like ISIL or the Taliban, they don't even need F-16s; low-end planes or drones can do the job. Sec Def Bob Gates canceled several high-end weapons programs planned in the Cold War for that reason. But now the U.S. military expects to compete with 'near-peer' enemies such as China and Russia, and that is what they are preparing for. In that threat environment, any advantage or disadvantage can be significant.
  - philwelch 9y ago
    Direct, conventional war between the US and another major nuclear power isn’t a likely threat model. As soon as one side starts losing, the nukes are gonna come out and conventional forces become irrelevant. So it doesn’t matter if the USAF can go toe-to-toe with the Russian Air Force or the Chinese. What does matter is whether Ukraine or Poland or Turkey or Japan or Korea can effectively resist Russian or Chinese conventional warfare. As long as they can, then we only have to worry about being able to stomp countries like Iran, and in that environment, Super Hornets are plenty.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > Direct, conventional war between the US and another major nuclear power isn’t a likely threat model. As soon as one side starts losing, the nukes are gonna come out and conventional forces become irrelevant. A few thoughts: 1. You may be correct. 2. But 'not likely' isn't sufficient odds when it comes to survival of the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. has to be prepared for unlikely and even very unlikely threats when they are existential. 3. The U.S. government believes it must prepare for near-peer warfare; it's unchallenged consensus in national security circles AFAICT. That doesn't make it correct, but that does have some weight. 4. The Russians explicitly disagree. Look up their 'escalate to de-escalate' tactics, which includes use of nuclear weapons in limited warfare. 5. Some hawks in China believe they can, through a fast, aggressive strike, drive the U.S. out of certain strategic areas and intimidate the U.S. into substantially withdrawing from East Asia. 6. Strong conventional forces can deter Russian and Chinese hawks from doing something crazy.
      - philwelch 9y ago
        OK, those are some fair points. I'm still not convinced that the marginal difference between specialized naval and terrestrial fighter-bombers is the most cost-effective way to move the needle, though. Even against near-peer adversaries, the US and its allies have substantial naval and air superiority. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on pressing those advantages? (Of course, we kind of foreclosed on that by shutting down the F-22 and doubling down on the F-35...)

by paulmd 9y ago

philwelch 9y ago

That’s the theory, but are the differences between, for instance, the F-16 and F/A-18 really enough to make any difference in any conceivable threat environment? It’s already a hard sell having dedicated fighters in the first place, since the US military hasn’t operated without air supremacy since the first weeks of the Gulf War. Is there a realistic threat model where the increased maneuverability of a single-engine light fighter provides any benefit whatsoever?

forapurpose 9y ago
The U.S. military publicly agreed with your argument until a few years ago. To bomb primitive foes like ISIL or the Taliban, they don't even need F-16s; low-end planes or drones can do the job. Sec Def Bob Gates canceled several high-end weapons programs planned in the Cold War for that reason. But now the U.S. military expects to compete with 'near-peer' enemies such as China and Russia, and that is what they are preparing for. In that threat environment, any advantage or disadvantage can be significant.
- philwelch 9y ago
  Direct, conventional war between the US and another major nuclear power isn’t a likely threat model. As soon as one side starts losing, the nukes are gonna come out and conventional forces become irrelevant. So it doesn’t matter if the USAF can go toe-to-toe with the Russian Air Force or the Chinese. What does matter is whether Ukraine or Poland or Turkey or Japan or Korea can effectively resist Russian or Chinese conventional warfare. As long as they can, then we only have to worry about being able to stomp countries like Iran, and in that environment, Super Hornets are plenty.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > Direct, conventional war between the US and another major nuclear power isn’t a likely threat model. As soon as one side starts losing, the nukes are gonna come out and conventional forces become irrelevant. A few thoughts: 1. You may be correct. 2. But 'not likely' isn't sufficient odds when it comes to survival of the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. has to be prepared for unlikely and even very unlikely threats when they are existential. 3. The U.S. government believes it must prepare for near-peer warfare; it's unchallenged consensus in national security circles AFAICT. That doesn't make it correct, but that does have some weight. 4. The Russians explicitly disagree. Look up their 'escalate to de-escalate' tactics, which includes use of nuclear weapons in limited warfare. 5. Some hawks in China believe they can, through a fast, aggressive strike, drive the U.S. out of certain strategic areas and intimidate the U.S. into substantially withdrawing from East Asia. 6. Strong conventional forces can deter Russian and Chinese hawks from doing something crazy.
    - philwelch 9y ago
      OK, those are some fair points. I'm still not convinced that the marginal difference between specialized naval and terrestrial fighter-bombers is the most cost-effective way to move the needle, though. Even against near-peer adversaries, the US and its allies have substantial naval and air superiority. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on pressing those advantages? (Of course, we kind of foreclosed on that by shutting down the F-22 and doubling down on the F-35...)