Stealth: Too Much Of A Good Thing?

     Stealth. Since the development of Northrop's Have Blue prototype in the 70s the Air Force has fallen in love with the concept, and has bought 4 types of stealth bomers and fighters since. But at what cost to capabilities? Stealth is an extremely valuable resource, but today and for the next 10 years we will be fighting an asymmetric war against third world terrorists, rather than large conventional wars on the plains of central Europe. The question I ask, has stealth destroyed the Air Force and naval aviation?

     Exhibit 1: The A-12. The A-12 Avenger II was supposed to be a stealth bomber successor to the tried and true A-6 Intruder. The A-12 was canceled in 1991 due to cost and weight overruns, and problems with the radar system. Because the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6 , the Navy canceled the A-6F Intruder II which would have had new engines, electronics, and 2 extra hardpoints for carrying ordnance. However, since the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6, the Navy turned Grumman's proposal down. Then when the A-12 was canceled in 1991 the Navy was left without a tanker aircraft and bomb truck.  And because the Navy placed all it's bets on the A-12, it was forced to use the F-14 as an attack aircraft, and purchase the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet, while an excellent fighter, is acceptable in the attack role, but is not meant for it. Conclusion: Because the Navy relied too much on new technologies (read A-12) that had kinks to be worked out, lost their deep strike and tanker capability. 

    Exhibit 2: The F-22 Raptor. The F-22 Raptor has become darling of the Air Force, as it  can enter a dogfight with any type of aircraft and come out on top. However, in recent months the F-22 has had problems with it's oxygen system resulting in one pilot killed and a six month grounding for all F-22s. That does not include it extreme cost at 350 million dollars each, which has only been surpassed by that of the B-2 Spirit at 2.1 billion dollars. The damage to the Air Force done by the F-22 is not as obvious. And rather than manifest itself in loss of capability, it shows itself in quantity. With only 187 combat aircraft produced, the Air Force is forced to rely on a small number of extremely capable platforms. Not only that, but the Air force will be reluctant to risk a 350 million dollar piece of equipment in hostile airspace, simply because of it's cost and the technical secrets which the enemy would obtain. Conclusion: Because the Air Force was set on buying the newest, coolest airplane, they lost several good legacy fighters for each F-22, rather than buy better, new build fighter fighter like the F-16E of F-15SE.

     Exhibit 3: The F-35 Lightning II. The F-35 is the latest and greatest of Air Force programs, and is the planned replacement of the F-16, F/A-18, and A-10. The problem here is the number of F-35s to be purchased. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are planning to to buy ~2400 F-35s of all types. I agree with many that the F-35 is a good fighter, but we simply cannot afford to buy enough to cover all the services. The Air Force has stated that they alone need 2200 fighters of all types, subtracting the 187 F-22s that leaves 2013 fighters that the Air Force needs. Subtracting the 680 F-35Bs and Cs the Marine Corps and Navy are buying, the Air Force is only buying 1233 F-35As, leaving a shortfall of 800 fighters. And the idea that the F-35 will replace the A-10 in the CAS role is a pipe dream (see example here, point made?), simply because the F-35 cannot absorb the punishment or carry the ordnance an A-10 can. Conclusion: The F-35 is a good bird, but at the moment it is not what we need, as it is too expensive, and it's mission can be performed by new legacy fighters. However, that does not mean it should be canceled, rather it should shelved for the moment until a need arises.

     The other issue that hasn't been mentioned, is that are we willing to deploy stealth fighters into hostile airspace? The F-22, and F-35 are cutting edge fighters with some of the newest technologies in the West on board, and if lost would hand a technical goldmine over to enemy forces. Back in 1999 an F-117 was shot down, and it is almost certain those stealth materials fell into enemy hands. While obsolete by our standards, the F-117 is cutting edge for the rest of the world. Frankly, the Air Force or Navy would probably not risk stealth aircraft in hostile airspace like Iran, simply because of the rick of valuable technical secrets being lost.

     Stealth is here to stay, that is a fact. However, in our current fiscal condition we cannot afford the number of stealth fighters or bombers we need to maintain our commitments worldwide. We also must be willing to risk our stealth aircraft in hostile airspace, even if that risks technical secrets falling into enemy hands. Even if we are willing to risk stealth aircraft in enemy airspace, we still don't have the money to afford enough stealth fighters. To answer the question posed at the beginning of this post, yes, stealth has destroyed the Air force and naval aviation.

     The solution? The F-16E/F and F-15SE. The F-16E/F is the latest version of the venerable F-16, and is already in production. The F-15SE is a stealthier version of the F-15E, with conformal weapons bays (CWBs) rather than the conformal fuel tanks (CFTs). Both types are cheaper than the F-35 at around 80 and 100 million each. They are not the most advanced fighters in the sky today, but have two advantages. 

We can afford them in the numbers we need, and they are proven in CAS and air-to-air combat. As to the Navy and Marines, the Marines would have to keep flying AV-8 Harriers off of helicopter carriers, and use F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for land-based aircraft. The Navy is another story, the A-6F needs to be resurrected, and a new cheap naval based fighter developed.

    The problem for so many years has been that aviators across the board (with the possible exception of the Marine Corps) have become fixated on buying new aircraft. The "if its new, if its high-tech, we need it" mantra has killed the Air Force and Navy at a time when tried and true beats new and unproven. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

    

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy and USAF

Yet Another Example Of Media Hype Over Nothing

     Fox news reports:

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii –  The commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet said Monday the Navy will be sending its most advanced vessels and aircraft to the Asia-Pacific region as it builds up its presence by assigning most of its fleet there.

Adm. Cecil Haney said a policy recently outlined by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to deploy 60 percent of the Navy's ships fleet to the Pacific by 2020 is about capabilities as well as quantity.

"It's not just numbers -- it's also what those platforms, what those units, bring to the table," Haney told The Associated Press in an interview at his headquarters in Pearl Harbor.

Haney cited as an example the Littoral Combat Ship which can operate in shallower waters than other vessels. The U.S. plans to begin deploying one of the ships to Singapore next year.

The EA-18G plane -- which can jam enemy air defenses and fly faster than the speed of sound -- is another. Haney said squadrons of these aircraft would be coming through the region.

There's also the Navy's most advanced submarine -- the Virginia-class. Several of these subs are based at Pearl Harbor.

"Yes, it's about having numbers in that 60-40 split, but also about having the right capability," he said.

The policy offers further details to the Obama administration's announcement earlier this year of a new defense strategy that places greater emphasis on a U.S. military presence in the region in response to Asia's growing economic importance and China's rise as a military power.

The Navy now has about 285 ships about evenly divided among the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The total number of ships will decline in coming years as some vessels are retired and not replaced.

It has 11 aircraft carriers. A majority -- six -- are already assigned to the Pacific.

The policy is an extension of a 2006 Bush Administration-era policy that had the Navy base 60 percent of its submarines in the Pacific.

The service had for years split its submarines evenly between the Atlantic and Pacific. During the Cold War, the Navy kept 60 percent of its subs in the Atlantic as a deterrent to the Soviet Union.

     This article is making a big deal over the fact that Navy is moving most of it's ships to the Pacific, when that has been underway for the last 6-7 years. The other areas this article blows things up are when the writer mentions the LCS, and the E/A-18G. 

Haney cited as an example the Littoral Combat Ship which can operate in shallower waters than other vessels. The U.S. plans to begin deploying one of the ships to Singapore next year.

The ability to operate in shallow water does not make a ship advanced. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can operate in waters as shallow as 9.5m, and the Perry-class frigates can operate in water up to 7m deep. Just because the LCS can operate in a swimming pool does not make it advanced (both classes have a draft of about 4.5m). The LCS may have an advanced electronics suite, but it's only weapon is it's wake and sheer speed. Until the LCS can carry a real anti-ship missile, it is under-armed and is little more than a large patrol boat.

The EA-18G plane -- which can jam enemy air defenses and fly faster than the speed of sound -- is another. Haney said squadrons of these aircraft would be coming through the region.

     Yes, the E/A-18G Growler is an advanced aircraft, and arguably the best ECM aircraft in the world. However, if the best selling point the Navy can come up with is the fact that it's supersonic, they might want to spend a little more time thinking about what they want to say, before talking to the press.

     Basically, much ado about nothing. 

Photo Credit: US Navy

Sunday Funnies

Photo Credit: Aviation Humor