Air Superiority in the Navy

[SnowballsChance]

So my brother has been doing his senior project (economics) with his professor who has many connections with and primarily interested in the Deparment of Defense. As such his project was the funding descions surrounding the F-22 and the need for air superiority.

I'm reading through the sources and seeing how the next generation MiGs and Su-(Particularly the 35) have a leading edge now over the previous legacy (F-15/16) fighters. A recent simulation that accounted for a counterpart of the AAMRAM AIM-120 armed with these aircraft gave the F-15Cs 1 to 1.3 favor against the eagles and the Rafaels and EF-2000s a minimal edge if any at all. The new F-22 stood a 10 to 1 chance in an arieal fight, however, these numbers started to make me wonder.

With the Tomcat going out the door, does the Navy have any plans to pursue another Air to Air platform aircraft? I know that the new JSFs and Superhornets are very powerful and capable machines, but has the interest in a naval air supremecy fighter finally ceased?

The fact that there was no mention of Naval forces in the air supremacy simulations makes me wonder about the future of Naval Aviation. Just curious on some thoughts and not trying to make a point one way or another.

And I will try to get links to the sources sometime this week.

 

[scoober78]

Insert standard opsec warning here... _________________________________________________________________


In all seriousness...sounds like a good topic.

 

[pourts]

So I don't know anything about anything, but since nobody posted anything yet and I like the topic I will add a few thoughts.
1) In the medium to long term manned fighters will probably be a thing of the past. If I remember correctly the F-35 is supposed to be the last manned fighter according to somebody's propaganda. I doubt there's even a remote possibility of money for an air superiority fighter for the Navy-- that's all going towards the F-35.
2) How stealthy are these new MiGs and Sukhoi's? That might be more important for the next generation of aircraft than anything else.

 

[Brett327]

Please, please do not let this degenerate into a "which fighter is better" debate.

While the OP poses a valid question, there's no good way to answer it. Simulations may be interesting, but they don't take into account the most important and most frequently ignored factor of aircraft performance - the aircrew. The type and quantity of training that US aircrews enjoy is orders of magnitude above what the next closest competitor nation gets. The departure of the F-14 does not impact the Navy's ability to conduct A/A or air supremacy, as the F-18 class of fighters are very capable in that regard.

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

.... Simulations may be interesting, but they don't take into account the most important and most frequently ignored factor of aircraft performance - the aircrew. ...

Absolutely ... it's always been that way ... it's never been any different since air-to-air kill #1.

And it never will .... not in our lifetimes.

 

[SteveG75]

Air superiority is only a means to an end. The AF has finally learned that and the F-22 is now the F/A-22 with the capability to drop bombs. The Tomcat was much more effective as a strike fighter than as a pure A-A machine. In USN service, the Tomcat has only 5 kills (4 Libyans and an Iraqi helicopter in the first Gulf War). The mission today is power projection.

To sum it up:

The Mission - Attack​

1. The mission of the aircraft carrier is to put ordnance on target. Everything else such as Indian Country, unreps, "the grid", SSC, and anything else starting with F- is simply support for the attack mission. There have been CV's, CVE's, CVL's, CVA's, CVAN, CVS's, CVN's; there will never be a CVF.

2. You win the war by killing the bastards by the thousands, not one at a time at twenty thousand feet.

3. In peacetime, DCM is something the attack pilot uses to rejoin off the range.

4. In wartime, DCM is something the attack pilot uses to turn and shoot some asshole in the face who's trying to stop the attack pilot before he destroys his high value target.

5. There is no such thing as "defensive" DCM. I become offended when someone jumps me enroute to my target, and much offense is intended when I have to take the time to blow his ass off.

6. Concerning the tally of Medal of Honor winners in southeast Asia, the score tells it all: Attack - 5, Fighter - 0.

7. In wartime, our POW's were not released because the enemy sent representatives to sit smugly at "peace talks". They were not released because domestic antiwar groups unwittingly played into the hands of the enemy, and tied the hands of their countrymen at arms. They were not released because the enemy lost five aircraft to a select few called "aces". They were released because brave men took their bombers downtown and spoke personally to their captors in the only language the enemy understands: Iron bombs raining down on their heads.

8. These lessons have been forged in blood and steel by all those attack pilots and bombadiers who have gone before you; back when happiness was flying Spads; back when jets were hard-lightin' and mean, and only quiche-eatin' airline pukes flew fans; back when Spads roamed valleys and spit death to those who would try to stop them; in an earlier time when the biggest cadillac in town was called BUFF and when men took pride in decorating their leather flight jackets with "I've been there" patches, and the enemy hid every 1 + 45 because he knew the next cycle of the attack carrier was headed his way. Times change, technology changes, but the men in the cockpit must be the same brave warriors every age has counted upon in time of peril.

9. Finally, and this is the bottom line, real men fly attack because they understand the most fundamental law of wartime negotiations; you negotiate with the enemy with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat.


We may call them strike fighters, F/A, etc but the reality is that the mission is attack. Bombs on target, pure and simple.

 

[A4sForever]

The Mission - Attack

.....this is the bottom line..... Bombs on target, pure and simple.

Well said .... Hoooyah!!!

 

[phrogdriver]

6. Concerning the tally of Medal of Honor winners in southeast Asia, the score tells it all: Attack - 5, Fighter - 0.

Wasn't disgraced former Congressman and F-4 pilot Randy Cunningham awarded one for his air-to-air work?

 

[scoober78]

Great post Steve. Your general conclusions about the attack mission seem right on the money...and have been since this whole game started. Giulio Douhet said this much in the aftermath of WWI, and in my mind nothing much has changed it.

One question I do have though is...What makes you say that the Tomcat was more effective as a strike fighter than as an air superiority fighter? Simply saying that the F-14 only had x number of kills doesn't prove your point. What that suggests to me is that the Navy doesn't have as much need for a dedicated air superiority fighter as we thought. This I wholeheartedly agree with, but it says nothing about the effectivenss of the F-14 in an air-to-air environment. Please share if you have more info here...(serious question)

Finally, it does seem that the F/A-18, especially the combination of legacy Hornets and Superhornets really accurately meet the balance of capabilites that the Navy requires. My only question here...and I'm sure some of you Hornet guys can speak to this, is how long and in the face of what future aircraft developments can the platform maintain its edge? Are there platforms coming down the pipe that we will be at a technical disadvantage to in the Hornet? How long are this platform's legs? (In the longevity sense)

 

[scoober78]

Pretty sure it was a Navy Cross...

Wonder if they let him keep it when he went to jail? Not to take anything else away from the man but wow...what a disgraceful end.

 

[SteveG75]

Great post Steve. Your general conclusions about the attack mission seem right on the money...and have been since this whole game started. Giulio Douhet said this much in the aftermath of WWI, and in my mind nothing much has changed it.

One question I do have though is...What makes you say that the Tomcat was more effective as a strike fighter than as an air superiority fighter? Simply saying that the F-14 only had x number of kills doesn't prove your point. What that suggests to me is that the Navy doesn't have as much need for a dedicated air superiority fighter as we thought. This I wholeheartedly agree with, but it says nothing about the effectivenss of the F-14 in an air-to-air environment. Please share if you have more info here...(serious question)

Finally, it does seem that the F/A-18, especially the combination of legacy Hornets and Superhornets really accurately meet the balance of capabilites that the Navy requires. My only question here...and I'm sure some of you Hornet guys can speak to this, is how long and in the face of what future aircraft developments can the platform maintain its edge? Are there platforms coming down the pipe that we will be at a technical disadvantage to in the Hornet? How long are this platform's legs? (In the longevity sense)

I guess I need to clarify. The Tomcat was a great air-superiority platform, one of the best. Recent research has shown that the Iranians used their's to great effectiveness in the Iran-Iraq war. However, in USN service, it was a single purpose machine whose main efforts were to turn jet fuel into noise and heat. With the addition of the LANTIRN pod, the Tomcat was turned into a truly multifacted long range strike fighter. IMHO, the Tomcat met the requirements for a self escort strike fighter much better than than legacy Hornet and on par with the super Hornet. The only aircraft truly as capable as the Tomcat was, when it left the fleet, is the F-15E Strike Eagle.

P.S - Duke Cunningham and Willie Driscoll (his RIO) were awarded the Navy Cross.

 

[pourts]

Great posts, esp. Steve G75. I understand and agree that the mission of the carrier is to drop ordinance. Yet, I think the issue of air superiority is a valid one as asked in the first post for 2 reasons: to protect the carrier and protect the ground troops.

The first (protecting the carrier) can perhaps be carried out by the cruiser. The second I believe requires air superiority. Imagine if the North Vietnamese or Iraqi's had the capability to attack our ground forces from the air. At this point nobody can challenge the US with our current aircraft and well trained pilots, granted. But, that doesn't mean that the air superiority edge we have had since Korea with better trained pilots and better aircraft will last indefinitely.

For instance, imagine a scenario where a fleet of landing craft and a zillion fighters and attack aircraft approach Taiwan. I don't know much about the F/A-18 though, so maybe it (and later the F-35) is good enough as a fighter to do the job for the forseable future.

 

[scoober78]

No.

P.S - Duke Cunningham and Willie Driscoll (his RIO) were awarded the Navy Cross.

Pretty sure it was a Navy Cross...

Yeah...we got it...way to keep up...

 

[scoober78]

For instance, imagine a scenario where a fleet of landing craft and a zillion fighters and attack aircraft approach Taiwan.

Definitely a zillion? Maybe we really should get the Raptor. Yeah...definitely if there are a zillion...

This is where A4s post a picture we all know and love...

 

[Brett327]

Yet, I think the issue of air superiority... protect the ground troops.

That's not really the purpose of air superiority/supremacy, although the ground forces might benefit in an incidental way. It's about being able to conduct an offensive air campaign without interference from the enemy, not the prevention of an enemy to conduct defensive operations against your advancing ground forces.

Brett