Hornet vs F35

[Flash]

The CVN is just as vulnerable as an LHD/A in this day and age against a peer adversary, hence the range problem. But it would be hypocritical of me to assert that, and I admit there may gaps in my knowledge. I’ll willfully admit that, unlike some others in this forum when the shoe is on the other foot.

This isn’t true at all.

Well if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be revealed in how commanders are currently making risk decisions. It’s very telling with the amount of escorts a CVN requires, and how the chess pieces get moved.

Carriers are not anywhere near as vulnerable as an LHD/A, but that also doesn't mean they are invulnerable. Very big difference.

The amount of people sitting here in their own little echo chamber about the next fight and not thinking through an honest assessment of what you could face is astounding. Let’s keep building/doing the same shit! I mean what’s another $14B and 5k people’s lives? This is the attitude that develops when a service hasn’t been in a major peer conflict in 70 years.

There are folks on here that are well aware of the threats we face now and in the near future from our peer and near-peer adversaries, don't make the mistake thinking that you are alone in knowing about them here.

 

[Hotdogs]

Carriers are not anywhere near as vulnerable as an LHD/A, but that also doesn't mean they are invulnerable. Very big difference.



There are folks on here that are well aware of the threats we face now and in the near future from our peer and near-peer adversaries, don't make the mistake thinking that you are alone in knowing about them here.

Fair point on #1, but marginal at the distances we’re talking about, and commanders aren’t making planning decisions that make the difference useful.

The problem is that there have been zero doctrinal changes that have driven any follow on DOTMLPF actions in how the Navy fights. We’re largely improving the same practices and processes from the Cold War. We’re at the top of the competition S-curve, and the latest CVNs being built are essentially the same as Apple’s iPhone program. Incrementally better, but the same shit. Any attempts in the past to change things, gets crushed by the carrier mafia who are consumed with their perfect little ship.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I think it’s glaringly obvious we’re investing too much in these large capital ships.

 

[Swanee]

It has other unique design advantages over the other variants besides landing on boats (in addition to the compromises).

Yeah, I understand a bit of that. The C is a bigger airplane with more gas than the A. It's also more expensive and complicated to maintain. The internal gun and the 9 vs 7.5g are probably just red herrings.

I still don't think it's necessarily prudent to fly airplanes that are designed for the boat not on the boat. I guess Canada and Switzerland didn't get that memo. Though I think F-15s would have been better for them.

I also think the USMC should have bought F-15Es over D model hornets. But there is no way that plan would have made it through the Navy or Congress.

I can still here Dog Davis, "If it doesn't come off of a boat, so we don't want it!"

 

[Fins Out]

Cool picture. You could buy 15 of the top ship for one of the bottom. The top one could carry 5 of the bottom, in terms of weight of cargo. Comes with indoor sports arena (empty tank).

View attachment 41843

And every Handler would still complain about the lack of flight deck and hangar space with the top one.

 

[Hotdogs]

I also think the USMC should have bought F-15Es over D model hornets. But there is no way that plan would have made it through the Navy or Congress.

I can still here Dog Davis, "If it doesn't come off of a boat, so we don't want it!"

Rational thought for sure, but it had to conform to our EAF capability and runway length/airfield footprint. That could’ve been a deciding factor. Not to mention obvious supply chain/commonality with the rest of the fleet.

 

[Python]

Yeah, I understand a bit of that. The C is a bigger airplane with more gas than the A. It's also more expensive and complicated to maintain. The internal gun and the 9 vs 7.5g are probably just red herrings.

I still don't think it's necessarily prudent to fly airplanes that are designed for the boat not on the boat. I guess Canada and Switzerland didn't get that memo. Though I think F-15s would have been better for them.

I also think the USMC should have bought F-15Es over D model hornets. But there is no way that plan would have made it through the Navy or Congress.

I can still here Dog Davis, "If it doesn't come off of a boat, so we don't want it!"

More gas, better wing (and all the performance benefits that come with that), better glide performance, etc. etc.

 

[Swanee]

More gas, better wing (and all the performance benefits that come with that), better glide performance, etc. etc.

And I assume the fuel performance numbers that come with it.

Also important in a single engine airplane.

 

[BigRed389]

Fair point on #1, but marginal at the distances we’re talking about, and commanders aren’t making planning decisions that make the difference useful.

The problem is that there have been zero doctrinal changes that have driven any follow on DOTMLPF actions in how the Navy fights. We’re largely improving the same practices and processes from the Cold War. We’re at the top of the competition S-curve, and the latest CVNs being built are essentially the same as Apple’s iPhone program. Incrementally better, but the same shit. Any attempts in the past to change things, gets crushed by the carrier mafia who are consumed with their perfect little ship.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I think it’s glaringly obvious we’re investing too much in these large capital ships.

A CVN actually contributes actively to its own defense, because the air wing is actually quite capable of complementing the escorts to defeat many threat categories before the DDGs have to do anything about it…or in some cases, let the DDGs fight better.

The LHD/LHA does not really add the same kind of force multiplier to enable its defense, and its direct defensive capability from the MAW is very limited compared to a CVW.

That aside, I actually generally agree with you that we are probably over invested into the major capital ships. As someone who couldn’t care less about the carrier mafia, I’m down for whatever works. However, addressing that means either we shift assets to the Space/Air Force and concede forward presence (including probably MAGTFs), or figure out a way for smaller and cheaper ships to contribute the same kind of overall capability as a CVN. Maybe we really do just need to DOGE it. At a minimum, I think the crew numbers are probably insane for the 21st century, and have likely not been revisited substantially since CVN-65

 

[Random8145]

Yeah, I understand a bit of that. The C is a bigger airplane with more gas than the A. It's also more expensive and complicated to maintain. The internal gun and the 9 vs 7.5g are probably just red herrings.

I still don't think it's necessarily prudent to fly airplanes that are designed for the boat not on the boat. I guess Canada and Switzerland didn't get that memo. Though I think F-15s would have been better for them.

I don't know about Canada and Switzerland, but I've read one reason why the Finns chose the F-18 is because being a carrier plane, it has stronger landing gear, and part of Finland's defense planning incorporates being able to set up makeshift air fields.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I don't know about Canada and Switzerland, but I've read one reason why the Finns chose the F-18 is because being a carrier plane, it has stronger landing gear, and part of Finland's defense planning incorporates being able to set up makeshift air fields.

I could see them being interested in it's ability to fly a carrier style approach with pretty high precision in terms of where you touch down on the ground, with those makeshift road runways not always being super long. I have no idea at all if that is true, but it seems reasonable to me. F-15 and F-16 both had a HUD with an accurate velocity vector, but in the end, you still "flare" and then aerobrake them, which makes them more conventional in the touchdown point accuracy contest. Then again, I don't remember ever "floating" an F-16 any significant distance, just more than an F/A-18, so who knows. It also had a bit of a weakness in that if you flew fully on speed and flared from that AoA, if you allowed any excessive sink rate to develop, you could drag the bottom speed brakes on the runway, or worse yet, bang the tailpipe. I always started the flare from a half fast AoA (a couple units/degrees less), which kinda helped avoid this, and I also didn't fan the speed brakes out fully until I was stabilized in the aerobrake (10 deg pitch attitude IIRC) and I knew I wouldn't scrape them. And most of that is neither here nor there with respect to this topic

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

We’re at the top of the competition S-curve, and the latest CVNs being built are essentially the same as Apple’s iPhone program. Incrementally better, but the same shit.

I don't mean this flipantly but you should group this under "many gaps in my knowledge". Ford class has 4 (5 in the right room) revolutionary technologies incorporated in Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, Advanced Arresting Gear, Dual-Band RADAR, and Advanced Weapons Elevator. Every single one of these technologies is driving next gen aircraft and TTP development.

 

[BigRed389]

I don't mean this flipantly but you should group this under "many gaps in my knowledge". Ford class has 4 (5 in the right room) revolutionary technologies incorporated in Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, Advanced Arresting Gear, Dual-Band RADAR, and Advanced Weapons Elevator. Every single one of these technologies is driving next gen aircraft and TTP development.

Eh…I wouldn’t say anything good about Dual Band Radar. Though it’s one of the least impactful things to this discussion.

 

[hscs]

SPY6 will take over for DBR in the rest of the class.

 

[Hotdogs]

I don't mean this flipantly but you should group this under "many gaps in my knowledge". Ford class has 4 (5 in the right room) revolutionary technologies incorporated in Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, Advanced Arresting Gear, Dual-Band RADAR, and Advanced Weapons Elevator. Every single one of these technologies is driving next gen aircraft and TTP development.

Honestly, it’s quite the opposite. All of things you mention are Exhibit A in my overall point. The Navy (and by extension, the Marines) need to rethink how to fight a conflict given rapid advancement and proliferation of several new technologies throughout the world. Not necessarily the technology itself, but the democratization of it amongst players across the globe. I.e. It is way more accessible than previous generations.

Andrew Krepinvich’s “Origins of Victory” followed by “7 Seconds to Die” by John Antal are great book primers. They are both well read in the Marines after FD2030 came out. It doesn’t take much analytical thought to see how these examples extend to our current way of fighting at sea.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Navy jet community: pissed

Do they still have jump jet training spots up on the Pendleton coast?

Me: “Never should have given Miramar to the Marines!”

USN: “Shut the fuck up, new guy!”

Me: “Ok. See ya.”