38 ms·

I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplane

• Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  Won't the air to ground bombing mission be done mostly by drones? Manned aircraft will be increasingly reserved for special operations and dirty little wars, which is pretty much the Marines' job description. Also, the vertical takeoff capability will be mandatory for a hypothetical future war against a major power. Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heavily armored battleships. In a major war, the only sea launched aircraft will be VTOLs.
  • antubbs 13y ago
    Gotta be careful about history; when the F-35 program started, drone-based warfare was pretty infantile. Drone payloads are still relatively light compared to heavily-laden fighter-bombers (or indeed outright bombers). This will likely evolve over time (the future bomber program requires both manned and unmanned capabilities in some proposals).
  • lmg643 13y ago
    Agree on drones and unmanned aircraft. Manned combat planes are going to be the cavalry of war in a few years (if not already) for the simple fact that a pilot cannot withstand the g-forces that an unmanned plane or missile can. US hasn't realized this yet because we are currently using our military might to pick on folks who are decades if not a century or more behind us technologically but would likely be a different story against a more up to date competitor.
    • caycep 13y ago
      I think there is what the Pentagon "wants" to do, and what will naturally evolve despite whatever direction they throw their money. Drones will probably get good enough to do most air to ground, at 1/10 or 1/100th the cost or whatever figure is being thrown around. Maybe even air-air, although I don't really think anyone has seriously tried this yet. Manned aircraft in the meanwhile will pad a a large number of Pentagon manager's retirements and kid's college educations...
    • jzwinck 13y ago
      One punchline at the end of the article seems to implicitly agree on drones: > Ward said any future warplane should have clear and narrow requirements, as opposed to the F-35's broad, incompatible guidelines. Development timelines should be fast, budgets should be inexpensive, the overall concept should be simple and hardware should be as tiny as possible. The one way we have today to accomplish all those goals together is unmanned aircraft. Simple because no life safety systems. Tiny because no human factors (displays, radios, windscreens). Cheap because no need to get every plane home safe (mission success largely determined by delivery of sufficient quantity of planes to the theatre).
      • caycep 13y ago
        Also, not glamorous enough to attract the attention of Important People in the Pentagon...that's the most important requirement. Let the Designers work in peace!
      • Spooky23 13y ago
        I'd argue that most of the truly successful military aircraft in the US inventory started out as single-purpose aircraft. The F-4 and F-15 were pure fighters. The F-117 and A-10 were pure attack aircraft. The political process drives the insanity of trying to serve multiple purposes with thousands of design engineers strategically located in as many Congressional districts as possible. I think drones should be used for every application that they are appropriate for -- why put people on the line when computers can do the work? But just like the JSF project attempted to serve many masters, assuming drones are the optimal decision for all military aircraft requirements is dumb. The Chinese and Russians are building high performance aircraft for less than $1 Trillion. There's a reason for that. We can too.
  • mehwoot 13y ago
    > Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heavily armored battleships. In a major war, the only sea launched aircraft will be VTOLs. Huh... there isn't a single battleship in service in any navy in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#Modern_times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#Modern_times
    • newbie12 13y ago
      When the carriers are sunk, it is our submarine fleet with its cruise missiles that will carry the day.
    • Daniel_Newby 13y ago
      There will be in a major war. Nothing else can stand up to nukes and lasers.
      • moocowduckquack 13y ago
        The only way a battleship would help against nukes is if it somehow fell on whoever is in charge of the nukes.
        • Daniel_Newby 13y ago
          Battleships can survive close hits by airburst nukes. To defend against this, the opponent must either use massive overkill, or use underwater bursts near their own coasts. Either approach has dreadful economic costs. War is the art of making the opponent's costs exceed their resources. One way to create costs is to make weapons that are unreasonably durable—the battleship is the extreme end of the spectrum.
          • moocowduckquack 13y ago
            There was an airburst test that battleships survived, but the nuke was way off target, even well shielded animals onboard died so if it was crewed it would have been a floating coffin and the nuke was a 20 kiloton device. One single Trident missile holds up to twelve 500 kiloton bombs.
  • greedo 13y ago
    People have been saying the demise of the carrier is upon us for 5 decades. Yet nothing offers the flexibility and power projection capabilities of a CVBG. And guess what submariners call "heavily armored battleships?" Targets... And if you think CVNs are expensive, you should research how much retrofitting an Iowa Class with a STOVL flight deck would cost. And then factor in manning costs for a ship that needs close to 5000 sailors.
    • JackFr 13y ago
      And when (if?) energy weapons and railguns become a reality, all of a sudden a 100MW reactor is not a bad thing to have.
  • Zimahl 13y ago
    Even if we were to face China in a war, we'd own the seas. Once their one (maybe two by now) carrier is sunk, even assuming they sink one of ours, we just bring in one of the other 12. I know people fear China but they are no cold-war Russia. Anything conventional and the US is in the lead by a lot. There's no reason to discuss anything nuclear because everyone loses in that case.
    • dctoedt 13y ago
      > Even if we were to face China in a war, we'd own the seas. Once their one (maybe two by now) carrier is sunk, even assuming they sink one of ours, we just bring in one of the other 12. There have been reports that the Chinese have developed and brought to initial operational status the DF-21D, a medium-range, hypersonic, anti-ship ballistic missile specifically designed to be a carrier-killer [1]. The concern is that our carriers might be chased from the Western Pacific. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_... -- also http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/06/12/why-china-may-limit-carrier-killers-range/ http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/06/12/why-china...
      • mpyne 13y ago
        Maybe there's something I'm missing about the DF-21D, but even assuming it doesn't miss the carrier while traveling at a hypersonic speed, Big Explody Things dropping on top of American carriers during wartime is not exactly a new thing in the annals of warfare. It's one of the reason that warships in general (including carriers) are designed to be compartmentalized, to have redundant backups (and backups to the backups), etc., is because it is expected they might have to survive battle damage. Obviously an ASBM may change the calculus of whether you send carriers in early in the conflict (preferring instead to use submarines with cruise missiles to take out Dong Feng launch sites or whatever you'd have been trying to bomb in the first place). But I don't see how ASBM is a guaranteed single-shot carrier kill by any stretch either.
        • dctoedt 13y ago
  • JackFr 13y ago
    Aircraft carriers on the sea floor? Not if they're refitted with megawatt lasers, railguns, UAVs and USVs.
    • Daniel_Newby 13y ago
      Sea mines and stealth torpedos are still hard to defend against with anything besides a very thick hull. At that point it is a battleship.
• conformal 13y ago
  the F-35 is one of the largest wastes of government money that is publicly known. by the time the aircraft has all the bugs ironed out, it will have cost USD 1 tln and be easily destroyed by much cheaper drones. the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends. trying to argue that we need the F-35 or that it will provide any kind of strategic military value is absurd.
  • mparr4 13y ago
    > the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends ...or, maybe, education?
    • newnewnew 13y ago
      I don't understand. Is education good for killing your enemy? Why would that be the purview of the military?
      • TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
        To be honest, if the US education stays the same, the military and it's contractors will crash and burn. Education is desperately needed there, or else both engineering and strategic capabilities will soon (1 generation) fall short of usefulness.
      • dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Is education good for killing your enemy? Education is good for figuring out how to acheive your goals, including if those goals are "killing your enemy". > Why would that be the purview of the military? Because its a substantial force multiplier.
      • venomsnake 13y ago
        It's the educated people that make all the fun toys that enable modern warfare. And a insurgency with smart engineers and chemists will be one hell to contain.
• nkuttler 13y ago
  > the biggest use of airplanes [...] is air to land bombing But what happens to your bombers when you don't have air superiority?
  • VLM 13y ago
    A solved problem, you launch cheap cruise missiles until you obtain relative superiority.
    • greedo 13y ago
      Cheap? Hardly. A Tomahawk is far north of $1M a shot, and JASSM is above $1M as well.
      • VLM 13y ago
        Yes, dirt cheap. Even if you use Hollywood accounting like "flyaway costs" you can get 100 Tomahawks for the cost of one F-35, and the point of the wargame was you only get roughly one sortie per F-35 unless you have air superiority. So economically its far cheaper to not build one F-35 while buying 100 Tomahawks, then cruise missile every airfield, than to lose your entire stock of F-35 on one sortie. Another way to phrase it, is every sortie you can either lose all your F-35, or "lose" one by not buying it and carpet bomb every single enemy .mil airfield minutes before the F-35 sortie. It seems pretty obvious which is cheaper, even before we get into pilot training costs and the long length of the .mil pilot training pipeline, etc.
        • greedo 13y ago
          You have to include launcher costs: either an SSGN like the modified Tridents, or the SSNs that carry them. Plus, with an aircraft, you can use it multiple times, and often in unique and unexpected ways. A missile, not so much. Plus, TLAM isn't expected to be very survivable in a contested environment, especially around S300/S400 sites. That's the impetus for developing the troubled JASSM.
          • 13y ago
• caycep 13y ago
  That's pretty worrisome considering the costs of a F-22, as well as the costs of an F-35 vs. a Hornet (which can outperform it apparently). From it's specs, it's a terrible bomber compared with the A-6's... Compromised designs are compromised designs.
  • greedo 13y ago
    I love the Intruder, but it simply wouldn't survive in today's environment, especially against S300 etc. It was relatively slow, had a huge radar profile, and was pretty much a single role aircraft. It did pack a huge wallop though, and had great range. What's really sad is comparing the capabilities of today's carrier airwing with what was available in 1991. Then you had F-14D, F/A-18C, S3, A-6. A great array of aircraft that had the range to take the fight to the enemy. Now you have the F/A-18E, F/A-18C, and that's it. No S3 for ASW, no long ranged tactical bomber, an "interceptor" that has short legs, and you've also given up your KA-6D for inflight refueling, relying on buddy tanks off the already shortlegged F-18. sigh...
• turar 13y ago
  >> however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBKvlLzGkvU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBKvlLzGkvU
  • s_q_b 13y ago
    There's also this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/13/olsen_raptor_case_gets_to_court/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/13/olsen_raptor_case_ge... And the fact that the F-22's stealth coatings, even if they work, ablate in rain. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier... And of course the ludicrous idea that the F-35 can replace the A-10 Warthog in combat. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-budget http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-... The A-10 problem bugs me more than the others. The A-10 is a proven warplane that ground troops count on for cover. The F-35 doesn't have the capability to fulfill its role, which could place our troops in greater danger.
    • VladRussian2 13y ago
      >The A-10 problem bugs me more than the others. The A-10 is a proven warplane that ground troops count on for cover. The F-35 doesn't have the capability to fulfill its role, which could place our troops in greater danger. It is hard to beat A-10 in its role, instead i think something new will be developed on the edge of its envelope, specifically on the low end - big RC planes (mid-size VTOL drones carry-able by one Hummer) with Hellfires/etc controlled by the troops who need the cover - that would provide more prompt (though less powerful) air support than calling in for big guys help and waiting for it to appear.
    • spartango 13y ago
      It's strange...I love the A-10, both its rugged design and its crazy anti-tank capability. Keep in mind that retirement plans for the beast are slated for 2028, and all plans to retire it sooner have been shot down. That's 52 years of service, which is a solid service lifetime. But that said, I think there's a decent argument that can be made for phasing it out given current operational needs: The A-10 was originally designed in the Vietnam-era as a close air support(CAS) aircraft for conventional wars, armed with a payload of unguided bombs and shells to destroy tanks. Helicopters at the time couldn't carry these types of anti-armor heavy weapons, and strike aircraft like the A-1, A-6, and F-4 couldn't survive anti-aircraft fire at low enough altitudes to put their bombs on target. In CAS roles, missing the target meant killing friendlies, obviously unacceptable. Thus, the A-10 was built like a beast so that it could survive SAM/AAA fire at the low-altitudes needed to deploy these weapons accurately. Over time, however, CAS munitions have evolved with guidance, from missiles like the AGM-65 and Hellfire, to laser-guided (GBU-27) and GPS-guided (JDAM) bombs. These have longer ranges and thus don't require the carrier aircraft to be nearly as survivable. The A-10s resistance to AAA and small arms fire seems less relevant. This suggests that the A-10 may be less necessary for strike roles, even if it carries them out admirably.
• bradleyjg 13y ago
  In addition to being a crappy fighter the F-35 is also a crappy bomber and close air support aircraft. Not that it's a surprise that a plane designated fighter (or 'strike' or 'fighter/attack') isn't good at these things. We've virtually abandoned A and B line planes because the testosterone blinded fighter mafia in the airforce would rather have fun toys than useful equipment, and the navy is right there with them because heavy planes can't take off from aircraft carriers. It doesn't help that the one bomber the air force begrudgingly agreed to acquire is an obscenely expensive hanger queen, designed for nuclear bombing runs deep into the Soviet Union. If the army wasn't barred from operating fixed wing aircraft by the pernicious Key West agreement, maybe they would operate as a voice of reason. We should be working on a replacement for the AC-130 (1968), the A-10 (1977), and B-52 (1955!). To the extent we actually need more air superiority fighters they can bring back the F-22 line.
  • 650REDHAIR 13y ago
    What? I think you may have missed the B-1 and the enormous focus on UAVs by all of the branches.
    • bradleyjg 13y ago
      The B-1 was an even bigger debacle than the B-2. Its development time and cost overruns were enormous, and involved a curious scandal where the Carter administration tried the kill the project, but the Pentagon illegally kept it alive off budget so that it was still around to be revived by the Reagan administration. When it finally did roll off the production line almost two decades after the RFP went out, its obsolete stealth, engine problems, and initial inability to deploy non-nuclear weapons kept it from being used in the Gulf War. So it was widely deployed in Afghanistan, 35 years after the design phase began and almost 20 years after production. After so long time had passed the stealth technology was no longer particularly effective and so the bombers were deployed after complete air dominance had been achieved, thus negating one of the chief supposed benefits of the plane over the B-52. I am optimistic about UAVs as a relatively inexpensive replacement for a lot of aircraft, but I fear that once their successes start to endanger the justifications for testosterone toys, internal factions within the military as well as politicians in the pockets of defense contractors will hit back hard.
• jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
  "So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task." Because the JSF is a shitty bomb truck too. It doesn't have the range, capacity or loiter time of nearly any other option. And for CAS vs bomb hauling, the JSF simply doesn't have the gun (and again, lacks the loiter time). "As a note he says this will be the 'new mainstay of the air force' however we still have the F-22 as our air superiority fighter which is still believed to be better then anything out there, and indeed in their simulation the only limitation to the F-22 was there were too few of them." We aren't dealing in hypotheticals where we can have any number of planes we want. That's the basic lesson of the RAND study: dollar for dollar you can have so many more SU-3 7 derivatives that even if the F-22's have a perfect kill probability, they quickly exhaust their magazines and have nothing else to do. And that's the outcome of the simulation: the F-22's live, most of the rest of the blue force dies, and red gains air superiority over the straight of Taiwan via the remaining flankers. "It sure beats the Harrier and the F-18." The FA-18 is more capable than the F-35 in both the A2A and A2G missions as a result of its superior capacity, range, and time on station. Comparing the FA-18 to the F-22 is more muddled, and IMHO comes down to an assesment of the relative performance of stealth vs EW. The prevailing attitude among the Russian military designers is that stealth is mitigated by state of the art communicating radars and passive emission detection (they claim detection of the F-22 at 50km on passive IR alone). And of course, as soon as the F-22 takes a shot stealth is no longer a consideration. Thankfully the F-22 is fast enough that it can turn and run. The F-35 can't, which is why they were decimated in the sim.
  • VladRussian2 13y ago
    >the only limitation to the F-22 was there were too few of them. ... >the F-22's live, F-22 is cheaper than F-35 (and btw looks better - weapons look is important for projecting power - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtahqXjFcxU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtahqXjFcxU :), yet F-22 program was closed because of cost while F-35 continues (and still seems to be in R&D stage, though the late stage of R&D). Something bad about F-22 vs. that being good in F-35? Or just government spending logic? Interesting also that there is a ban on export of F-22 (even to good friends like UK/etc) while F-35 is supposed to be available for export.
• thufry 13y ago
  Here's the reason that nobody likes to say: at some point, we're going to have a war with China, and then we'll need air superiority.
  • est 13y ago
    You should have war with your congress, an entity which borrows money from China and make monopoly crap.
    • krichman 13y ago
      Seriously, the US government is a larger thread to US citizens than China is.