Thread: Independent Air Forces - Were they ever a good idea?

Originally Posted by HKDan

I've been reading this with much interest, but the below is a very poor statement.

Not cutting edge? Inferior? Please explain. There have been a lot of people on this board over the years who have tried to make the same point. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. Exactly how and why is the Superhornet inferior to any opponenet it can reasonably expect to face? I have never read anything, anywhere that would indicate that the Navy is less than thrilled with the performance of the Superhornet.

The F-22 is cutting edge, the Super Hornet isn't. The difference is between Air Superiority or Air Domnance, a difference measured in the coffins of US pilots and the ground or naval forces that they are protecting.

Yes, you are correct that the F-22 is the most cutting edge fighter in the world at this point. It would only prove me an idiot to argue against that. But I think that the Superhornet is also a cutting edge aircraft in its own right. The Superhornet/Growler combination is the most advanced combination of mulitrole aircraft ever flown off aircraft carriers. There are also a couple of advantages that they might have over a theoretical "Naval F-22" if one were to exist. The F-22 as it is today has a significantly greater maintenance requirement than the Superbug, that would be a major disadvantage in carrier operations. More importantly though, the Superhornet showed up on time and at the right cost. It would have been a disaster if the Navy had run into a similar development issues as the AF did with the F-22. They were smart to kill the A-12 and NATF when they did. Imagine the USN with only 187 new fighters to complement the older Hornets. What would they do? I submit that THAT would be a greater threat to the capabilities of the USN than the fact that the Superhornet is not the greatest air to air fighter ever flown.

The Navy and the Air Force do different things, so they have different tools. Both services have been fortunate enough to be able to buy the tools they need for their different requirements. Superhornet is not the equal of the F-22 in air to air combat, but in its own right it is a very successful and cutting edge fighter.

HK Dan,

The first point that I would make is that the Navy cancelled NAFT (according to what I read), but Dick Cheney cancelled the A-12 against Navy wishes. I don't know the full details of the Navy's NAFT decision, but I can't imagine that they wouldn't have wanted an F-22 equivalent ... perhaps they just looked at the funding that they were going to be given and said "well ... that's not going to happen no matter how much we want it".

Congress also cancelled the Super Tomcat, which was supposed to replace both the original F-14's and the A-6 and was the Navy's minimum requirement. The Super Hornet is an inferior compromise. Note that in the meantime the USAF has been happily buying F-15E's and upgrading the F-15C's with AESA.

As for the Navy having different requirements, what is different between a TARCAP being flown by Navy versus Airforce aircraft? They are both going to face the same enemy, except the Navy is the service that can deploy it's fighters in a wider variety of circumstances. Surely that justifies a full capability?

BTW, I'm sure that the USN would appreciate having 187 F-22 equivalents as a silver bullet force to complement it's Super Tomcats. That is a squadron per carrier and some left over for training. Sounds like a good way to prioritise overall US tacair funding to me.

The first point that I would make is that the Navy cancelled NAFT (according to what I read), but Dick Cheney cancelled the A-12 against Navy wishes. I don't know the full details of the Navy's NAFT decision, but I can't imagine that they wouldn't have wanted an F-22 equivalent ... perhaps they just looked at the funding that they were going to be given and said "well ... that's not going to happen no matter how much we want it".

You are correct that it was Cheney who was responsible for the A-12. I happen to think he was right on this occasion despite being a person I generally don't care for. It was going to be a tremendously expensive aircraft that would essentially be a one trick pony. That might have been OK for the Air Force, but I think that going in the direction of multirole aircraft for the Carrier Air Wing was a good one. I think your suggestion about the Navy and NAFT is probably pretty accurate. They probably took a good look at the projected costs and realized that it was a bad idea.

Congress also cancelled the Super Tomcat, which was supposed to replace both the original F-14's and the A-6 and was the Navy's minimum requirement. The Super Hornet is an inferior compromise. Note that in the meantime the USAF has been happily buying F-15E's and upgrading the F-15C's with AESA.

As for the Navy having different requirements, what is different between a TARCAP being flown by Navy versus Airforce aircraft? They are both going to face the same enemy, except the Navy is the service that can deploy it's fighters in a wider variety of circumstances. Surely that justifies a full capability?

I still disagree that the Superhornet is an inferior compromise. It carries a wide variety of the most advanced air to air and air to ground weapons available. It is not limited to weapons that can fit in an internal bay in order to preserve stealth. It has the most advanced sensors available and a proven track record of upgrades. With the limited amount of space available on a carrier, I support the use of multirole aircraft in order to maximize the potential of the carrier air wing. The constraint of operating off carriers is why the Navy and Air Force have different requirements. I believe that the Superhornet is the only US fighter program in recent years to come in on time and budget. They were able to leverage its relatively low cost and painless development into a new EA aircraft, bringing more capability to the carrier air wing. This has allowed the USN to maintain ten Carrier Air Wings. THAT is capability.

When Congress canceled the Super Tomcat, I believe it was on cost grounds. That leads me to speculate that the possibility of it going down the same road as the F-22 with increased costs resulting in smaller buys may have come to pass.

You mentioned the Air Force and F-15s. I think there is a point to be made there. After all the time and money sunk into the F-22, it was so expensive that the AF wasn't able to buy enough of them to maintain the force structure that they would like. Now they are scrambling to upgrade older fighters to avoid massively shrinking the number of fighters. I like the F-15, but those Golden Eagles are not new airframes.

BTW, I'm sure that the USN would appreciate having 187 F-22 equivalents as a silver bullet force to complement it's Super Tomcats. That is a squadron per carrier and some left over for training. Sounds like a good way to prioritise overall US tacair funding to me.

...and they would have two hangar queens and a fighter gap like you wouldn't believe. Also, if Im not misinformed, the Super Tomcat was meant to be instead of the NATF, not as a complement. There isn't a chance in hell that the USN could afford or maintain both.

Originally Posted by HKDan

I still disagree that the Superhornet is an inferior compromise. It carries a wide variety of the most advanced air to air and air to ground weapons available. It is not limited to weapons that can fit in an internal bay in order to preserve stealth. It has the most advanced sensors available and a proven track record of upgrades. With the limited amount of space available on a carrier, I support the use of multirole aircraft in order to maximize the potential of the carrier air wing. The constraint of operating off carriers is why the Navy and Air Force have different requirements. I believe that the Superhornet is the only US fighter program in recent years to come in on time and budget. They were able to leverage its relatively low cost and painless development into a new EA aircraft, bringing more capability to the carrier air wing. This has allowed the USN to maintain ten Carrier Air Wings. THAT is capability.

They previously had 15 carrier air wings of specialised types like the A-6 and F-14 with superior range, warload and (in the case of the F-14) aerodynamic performance. Had they replaced both with the Super Tomcat they would have had multi-roles, which you approve of, but it would have been a much better overall capability. One could also reasonably expect that being based on an existing type, as is the Super Hornet, that it would have also come in on time and on budget. It is undoubtedly a drop in overall capability.

The loss of the A-12 based on the fact that the precision strike mission can be conducted by Tomahawks may be ultimately justified, but the failure to at least replace the range/payload/performance capabilities of the A-6 and F-14 cannot.

Originally Posted by HKDan

When Congress canceled the Super Tomcat, I believe it was on cost grounds. That leads me to speculate that the possibility of it going down the same road as the F-22 with increased costs resulting in smaller buys may have come to pass.

You mentioned the Air Force and F-15s. I think there is a point to be made there. After all the time and money sunk into the F-22, it was so expensive that the AF wasn't able to buy enough of them to maintain the force structure that they would like. Now they are scrambling to upgrade older fighters to avoid massively shrinking the number of fighters. I like the F-15, but those Golden Eagles are not new airframes.

I still think overall they are in better shape than the Navy is. Deploying a wing of F-22's, if they can find the base to do it from, pretty much nullifies any opposition that the US is likely to face at the moment. You can't say the same if five CBG's have to face 400 SU-30's with their Hornets and Super Hornets. That is far more of an even match than the modern US military currently has a taste for.

..and they would have two hangar queens and a fighter gap like you wouldn't believe. Also, if Im not misinformed, the Super Tomcat was meant to be instead of the NATF, not as a complement. There isn't a chance in hell that the USN could afford or maintain both.

OK, so with NAFT and a cheaper fighter such as the Super Hornet or just Super Tomcats, I think they would be happier than they are now. Either way, a solution like that should have been prioritised. If it meant taking Airforce funding to do so, so be it.

In a bit of a rush, so with apologies I will just address one point and try to get back about the rest later.

I still think overall they are in better shape than the Navy is. Deploying a wing of F-22's, if they can find the base to do it from, pretty much nullifies any opposition that the US is likely to face at the moment. You can't say the same if five CBG's have to face 400 SU-30's with their Hornets and Super Hornets. That is far more of an even match than the modern US military currently has a taste for.

This, to me, really gets at the meat of the discussion. The Navy, being naval centric, would approach this scenario in a different manner than the Air Force would. An admiral pondering the question of how to deal with this hypothetical opponent might center his response around using submarine launched cruise missiles to attack the enemy's airfields. The Air Force looks at things in a different way. If you give them both the same pile of money to address the threat, the Navy will almost certainly put fighters lower on the priorities list than the Air Force will. An independent Air Force is how you get to an F-22 in my opinion, a Navy with a bigger budget might not have gone down the same road.

Originally Posted by Chunder

The Key word is certain, of course there are always platforms that do not make sence to operate from Navy assets. Certainly I don't deny that. But Congress should have a clear eye on reigning in 'mission creep' where these services cross so far into capabilities also offered by the other that funding priorities can so easily be lost.

In Every major conflict since the Second World War - it has been the aircraft carrier and by extension capabilities offered by the USMC that is the US's always available asset. Everytime the USAF is involved, many hundreds of millions, even billions of blackmail payments and subversive funding must occur to allow the USAF to operate from foreign tarmac. In the present, to some extent I think the F-35 will help re-balance the priorities, but I think funding for a Future F-22 Replacement outside of Navy Funding is an extension of this creep. I think the current KC-X comp is a classic example of creep just entrenched in airforce thinking. We're all intelligent enough with memories long enough to remember the massive blow out in funding the F-22 cost (let alone the F-35). The end result is that it was in reality fundamentally damaging to U.S interests - because of politics. This isn't a complimentary scenario it's a classic UK MoD moment in U.S politics where Congress plays the treasury...

I would argue that the Navy's mission is the one that's creeped. The Air Force, since day one, has been tasked with strategic strikes and the tactical engagements that make such attacks possible.

The aircraft carrier's role is and always has been power projection (and countering adversary navies). Rapid deployment and response, and as an outright demonstration of American power. Immediate military force on tap. Immediate. Not sustained. Not indefinite. And not immune to any of the problems you attribute to the Air Force. Without basing rights, the AF is out of the game. Without overflight rights, the Navy and Marine Corps are in the same situation. There are pros and cons to each side, that's why we have both. But there's still no reason to prioritize naval aviation. They don't have the mission scope or specialization to make up for the inherent shortfalls.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Boom or not you need to refuel navy aircraft, the airforce hasn't been doing that adequately. It is one of the things the Airforce could be doing really well, and could have been a real force enabler. It is one of the fundamental things it has not done in any satisfactory form. Allied aircraft can refuel two USN aircraft (and in future 3) at any one time at a flow rate of 1600 litres per minute.

I don't know what your source of this info is, but the USAF is refueling USN assets every day in CENTCOM. Often this means there is a dedicated KC-135 that's launched simply for our friends in blue camo and the occasional allied Harrier/Mirage.

Originally Posted by HKDan

In a bit of a rush, so with apologies I will just address one point and try to get back about the rest later.

This, to me, really gets at the meat of the discussion. The Navy, being naval centric, would approach this scenario in a different manner than the Air Force would. An admiral pondering the question of how to deal with this hypothetical opponent might center his response around using submarine launched cruise missiles to attack the enemy's airfields. The Air Force looks at things in a different way. If you give them both the same pile of money to address the threat, the Navy will almost certainly put fighters lower on the priorities list than the Air Force will. An independent Air Force is how you get to an F-22 in my opinion, a Navy with a bigger budget might not have gone down the same road.

I guess we will never know for sure, but historically the side is on the Navy investing in top end fighters when they can afford to do so i.e. the F-14 was the most expensive fighter ever built in it's day.

BTW, He would have to fire a hell of a lot of cruise missiles to destroy all the airfields within range that might be housing those SU-30's, remembering of course that he isn't necessarily going to know for sure which airfields house what aircraft (especially in these days of ASAT systems). I doubt that there would be enough SLCM's in a taskforce to do the trick, which means that surface vessels would need to get in range and would need to be defended by the carrier fighters. All the more reason to have the best.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

I would argue that the Navy's mission is the one that's creeped. The Air Force, since day one, has been tasked with strategic strikes and the tactical engagements that make such attacks possible.

The aircraft carrier's role is and always has been power projection (and countering adversary navies). Rapid deployment and response, and as an outright demonstration of American power. Immediate military force on tap. Immediate. Not sustained. Not indefinite. And not immune to any of the problems you attribute to the Air Force. Without basing rights, the AF is out of the game. Without overflight rights, the Navy and Marine Corps are in the same situation. There are pros and cons to each side, that's why we have both. But there's still no reason to prioritize naval aviation. They don't have the mission scope or specialization to make up for the inherent shortfalls.

The USAF is just as affected by overflight rights as is the USN, it can't accuratly be presented as only a problem for the later.

Anyway, the fundamental point is that there have been very significant examples of where the USAAF and the USAF would have been useless without the support of the USN and USMC air arims. The entire Pacific campaign (including the strategic strikes on Tokyo from the Hornet) and the 1986 strike against Libya are the stand-out examples. What's more, there are many future scenarios where the same could happen. Like it or not, the Navy is a key enabler for many Airforce operations and if it isn't competitive, those operations don't go ahead.

The reverse isn't the case. The worst that can happen if USAF capabilities are reduced in order to ensure that the USN and USMC have access, is that the overall throw weight of a force that already outstrips anything else in the World is reduced somewhat, but not significantly enough to make a difference to the outcome on any operation. Seriously, what do you think is realistically going to happen if, as a hypothetical example, the USAF had 800 F-16's instead of 1200 and if the F-22's were not in service but replaced by a Navy equivalent? Do you think the US would be losing any wars because of that? I don't, but I can see you losing wars because you can't get access to the AO.