Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/05/2025 8:14:50 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The U.S. Navy and the Pentagon are locked in a public struggle over the F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter, a program the DoD moved to defund in favor of the Air Force's F-47. The Navy argues the F/A-XX is essential to overcome the critical range limitations of its current F/A-18 and F-35 air wing, keeping its aircraft carriers viable against long-range Chinese "carrier killer" missiles.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I suspect the development of laser AA will be the more likely determinant. Of course, detection and guidance against stealth gliders will be right up there too (a smart bomb with wings).
Logic dictates that at some it will be impossible to protect these massive targets.
Super sonic stealth cruise missiles come to mind, couple get through and game over.
Yep too slow, too vulnerable.
That is the same discussion we had when I was in the Navy during Vietnam. The F-4 was replaced by the F-16, but the F-15, which I believe is a better aircraft, was the main fighter on Aircraft Carriers when they replaced the F-4s. There were over 4600 F16s made, but 1600 F-15s made. They were maintained separately, but effectively. I think mistakes are made when an aircraft is tasked with multiple tasks instead of designated ones. They become the ‘Jack of all, but Master of none’.
Arsenal ships with highly capable and dense weapon loading are more feasible for high level conflicts. These can be maintained with small crews and on virtually anything that floats. Imagine an Aegis class vessel matrixed to four of these missile barges That's a lot of bang for a low cost.
Build airframes with large fuel tanks for long range that can use two F-35 engines and F-35 avionics and have a cockpit like that of an F-35.
That will cut out a lot of development and training costs.
It will also cut development time.
The plane might be in service in less than a year.
Though we have been operating ACs for over 100 years, they are not obsolete. However, we need several new design types to keep up with technological innovations.
1. UAV drone carriers. Lots of potential here. A human pilot may command several drone aircraft as “wing men”, flying along side. Drone “swarms” can make a formidable defense for an entire carrier group. etc., etc.
2. UUV (undersea unmanned vehicles) carrier, for a range of missions. These include the large Orca XLUUV from Boeing, the Manta Ray from Northrop Grumman, and smaller AUVs like the REMUS 300. These drones are designed to operate autonomously for extended periods, performing tasks such as intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, mine countermeasures, and potentially even offensive operations.
“An LNG tanker costs about $260 million per vessel. South Korean shipbuilders dominate the global LNG carrier market, having built about 700 of the 750 LNG carriers now in service.”
“South Korea is home to major global shipbuilders – HD Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering Co., Hanwha Ocean Co. and Samsung Heavy Industries Co.”
“Demand for very large crude carriers (VLCCs) with a deadweight tonnage (DWT) capacity of 160,000–320,000 tons is also growing.”
“Norwegian shipowner Hunter Group ASA said it needs more than 150 VLCCs by next year. A VLCC costs about $129 million per unit.”
https://www.kedglobal.com/shipping-shipbuilding/newsView/ked202502170003
They are big, have a low profile and are cheap by US Navy procurement standards.
It’s the old Air Force vs the Navy thing again we’ve been hearing since the cold war, why even have a Navy? all we need is a super-duper Air force, aircraft carriers are obsolete.
Imagine being on an airbase, or an Army post ... which is ALWAYS in the same place. You are more vulnerable to these sorts of attacks than a CAG which can move 200 miles overnight, and is protected by a multilayer defense.
Don’t believe the doomsayers.
Wanna try that again? F-15s were never a carrier aircraft. F-14s, A-D yes. But not the F-15.
:-)
Existing aircraft with radar might be accompanied by a new stealth aircraft.
Once a bandit has been found, the existing aircraft would fly to safety and the stealth aircraft would move in for the kill.
F-15 Eagles are ONLY a USAF aircraft.
Did you mean F-18s?
Navy carrier-based fighters from the 70s onward:
F-14 Tom Cat
AV-8B Harrier II
F/A-18 Hornet
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
F-35B & C Lightning II
Yeah l guess but it just seems like at some point those defenses fall short. I keep think 2 missiles just 2 get through snd it’s over.
Same is true for an airbase. Yes, they are not as concentrated, but certainly out of the fight.
A land base cannot project power the way a CAG can. the CAG can maintain a sortie rate than a landbase cannot (thinking PACOM here) due to the length of flight for airbases in theater.
It’s true the offense always has the advantage over the defense, meaning a force attacking a CAG can control the order of battle before the defense (CAG) can adjust. Of course they are at risk. But hardly obsolete.
The greatest risk of course is fighting THE only near-peer enemy out there - China. The rest of the world is the Navy’s oyster.
Yes. I am old and never saw anything on a AC except F-4. That is what we trained at the Naval Air station early 1970s.
The matter is about to become important again.
The reason for the large US Navy evolved to be protection of oil flow. Until about 2010 and zero interest rates enabled shale fracking economy, we were in a desperate oil consumption vs production situation. We were importing well over 10 million bpd — and those tankers were vulnerable.
Hence, the enormous Navy. America’s civilizational lifeblood, oil, depended on those tankers being at no risk.
And so, big Navy. Evolved over decades.
The Permian guys are sounding a quiet alarm that fracking has peaked in Texas and the growth in US oil production is flattening to zero and will then decline unless there are miracle discoveries (shale was not one of these, it was always known about). . . maybe in Alaska.
Regardless, if US output is peaking, the right side of the peak will be steep downward because of the nature of legacy shale wells and their rapid decline stats. The Navy’s purpose will return to prominence.
I did see the F-14s, and I forgot about them. They were not in use in most of my time but were being switched over from F-4s. My pilots really liked the F-14. Sorry, I am old and that was a long time ago. I was in a transport Squadron, so we admired them from afar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.