Malaysia Plans to Induct Su-57 Fighter Jets by 2035

 

Despite mixed reviews of the Russian Su-57 Felon fighter jet, there is noticeable international interest in its purchase. According to local media outlet Twentytwo13, Malaysia is considering adding the Su-57 to the Royal Malaysian Air Force's (RMAF) fleet by 2035. Unnamed sources report that Malaysia could receive its first Su-57 Felon towards the end of its 14th Plan, which involves procuring one squadron initially with an option for a second.

The sources also mention that Malaysia intends to acquire another type of fighter jet, likely the American-made F/A-18C/D Hornets from Kuwait. Additionally, Malaysia plans to upgrade its current fleet of 18 Sukhoi Su-30MKM jets to the Super Flanker standard.

Malaysia's interest in the Su-57 and the South Korean KF-21 Boramae is due to their modern, operational status. Initially, Malaysia considered several options, including the Eurofighter Typhoon, French Dassault Rafale, Swedish Saab JAS-39 Gripen, and American Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. However, these aircraft are classified as 4.5 generation and have been in service for about two decades. The Super Hornet, for instance, is nearing its 25th year in operation, with Boeing planning to end production by 2025. Experts believe this generation of aircraft has nearly reached its developmental potential.

Meanwhile, Russia continues to equip its fighter squadrons with the Su-57 Felon in a cautious low-rate initial production phase.

The Su-57 Felon, developed by Russia’s Sukhoi company, is designed for air combat and strike missions. It features stealth, supermaneuverability, and the latest avionics, and is set to replace older aircraft like the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the Russian Air Force. The Su-57 is 66 feet long, 46 feet wide, and 15 feet tall, enabling it to carry a variety of weapons and sensors while remaining hard to detect on radar. It uses two Saturn AL-41F1 engines that help it reach speeds of up to Mach 2 and fly at supersonic speeds without afterburners, conserving fuel.

The unique wing design combines trapezoidal and swept wings with two widely spaced engines, improving lift, reducing drag, and enhancing stability and control. The Su-57's movable horizontal and vertical stabilizers enhance agility, stability, and control during various flight phases. The aircraft is built with alloys, including 40.5-44.5% aluminum and 18.6% titanium, and composites, which make up 22-26% of its weight and about 70% of its outer surface.

The Su-57 features the N036 Byelka radar system, which uses AESA technology to electronically steer its beam, allowing quicker target spotting and tracking. This radar enhances the Su-57’s situational awareness and combat effectiveness. It can detect and follow multiple targets simultaneously and has advanced electronic warfare capabilities, including jamming enemy radars and communications and gathering intelligence from enemy signals. The radar’s low probability of intercept (LPI) capability makes its signals hard for enemies to detect, reducing the chance of the Su-57 being tracked or targeted.

The Su-57 is armed with the R-77 missile (AA-12 Adder), R-73 missile (AA-11 Archer), and R-37M missile (AA-13 Arrow) for long-range engagements. It also carries air-to-ground weapons like the Kh-38 missile and Kh-59MK2 cruise missile, which is designed for high-value targets with low radar visibility and precision. The Su-57 can deploy guided bombs such as the KAB-250 and KAB-500, making it effective for close air support and strategic bombing. Additionally, it has a 30mm GSh-30-1 autocannon for close-range air combat and ground target strafing, adding to its versatility and lethality.

India’s Struggle to Modernize its Fighter Fleet: The Challenges and Choices Ahead

 India's plan to procure 114 Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA), a highly anticipated defense deal, remains uncertain. The Indian Air Force (IAF) currently operates 31 fighter squadrons, well below the authorized 42, and needs more to face its two major adversaries.

The IAF has ordered nearly 200 Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk1 and Mk1A variants and has committed to 200 LCA Mk2s. However, nine years after the first IAF LCA squadrons were formed, only about 40 LCA aircraft are in service. Even with increased production to 24 aircraft per year, it will take time to meet the required numbers. India's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) is still over a decade away, and the aging MiG 21s are still in use. The Jaguars and Mirage 2000 fleets need to retire by around 2030. Despite the push for self-reliance, India will need to induct the 114 MRFA to bridge the gap.

The initial Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) process was limited to 36 Rafale jets due to technical reasons. The IAF has specified the operational requirements for these 114 aircraft.

A recent report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence highlighted delays in delivering the initial 40 LCAs to the IAF and suggested exploring the purchase of fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

MRFA Competition

India issued a Request for Information (RFI) in April 2018 for the 114 MRFA. Responses from contenders were received later in 2018. The Indian Navy was also asked to consider new fighter jets alongside this program. The Navy needs a twin-engine fighter, focusing on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale-M, likely opting for 26 Rafale-Ms.

Eight aircraft are competing for the IAF’s MRFA: Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Boeing F-15EX Eagle II, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-21 (a variant of the F-16V customized for India), Mikoyan MiG-35, Saab JAS-39 Gripen E/F, and Sukhoi Su-35.

The next step involves the Defence Acquisition Council's (DAC) Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) and issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP). Even if the RFP is issued today, it could take over five years for the aircraft to be inducted. India's security establishment must make an early decision on the 114 aircraft import.

Big Ticket Assessment

Russia has proposed two aircraft: the MiG-35, which did not qualify in the earlier MMRCA selection, and the new Su-35. The Su-35, part of the Su-27/30 family, is not a viable option due to India's already significant fleet of similar aircraft and planned upgrades. The Russian industry is also preoccupied with domestic demands due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

If the Indian Navy selects the Rafale-M, the interest in the F/A-18 Super Hornet will decline. India has invested in the Rafale infrastructure and modifications, suggesting that acquiring more Rafale jets, potentially making 140 (114+26) in India, is logical.

The Saab JAS-39 Gripen E/F and Eurofighter Typhoon are strong contenders. The Gripen, with its GE 414 engine, and Eurofighter, with its extensive global presence, offer good options, although geopolitical factors and technology transfer levels will influence the decision.

US Influence in India's Aircraft Ecosystem

India has already integrated several US aircraft, including the Boeing P8I, Lockheed C-130J, and others. The upcoming purchase of General Atomics MQ-9B Predator Drones further solidifies US involvement. Evaluating the F-15EX and F-21 (an advanced F-16 variant) is essential.

The F-15EX, with its impressive payload and advanced features, is a heavy, costly option, adding complexity to India’s diverse fleet. The F-21, an advanced F-16, offers in-country production potential but faces public perception challenges due to Pakistan's use of F-16s.

Conclusion

India must make a one-time purchase of 114 aircraft, ideally the same type for the IAF and Navy, with significant technology transfer and in-country production. The US is eager to integrate into India’s fighter aircraft ecosystem, reflecting geopolitical closeness. Ideally, the US should offer the F-35, addressing technical barriers like the S-400 linkage.

Balancing India's aircraft mix to reduce dependence on Russian and Western suppliers while increasing indigenous production is crucial for long-term strategic autonomy.

Russian Military Aircraft Breach Finnish Airspace

 On June 10, the Finnish Ministry of Defense reported a suspected incursion into Finnish airspace by a Russian military aircraft near Loviisa, a town less than 100 km from Helsinki. This day saw significant Russian air activity, including flights by several Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers, escorted by Su-30SM, Su-27, and Su-33 fighters over the Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea, and Baltic Sea.

Additionally, German Eurofighter EF-2000 jets stationed in NATO's Latvia were dispatched to intercept two Su-27 fighters and an Il-20 Coot electronic reconnaissance aircraft operating near the Baltic states without prior flight plans or active transponders.

According to the Finnish Ministry of Defense, the Russian aircraft reportedly penetrated 2.5 km (1.55 miles) into Finnish territory before turning back, with the incursion lasting around two minutes. Finnish Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen emphasized the seriousness of any suspected territorial violation, noting that preliminary investigations are conducted in such cases.

Four days later, the investigation revealed the situation was more serious than initially thought. The Finnish Border Guard Agency, under the Ministry's jurisdiction, discovered that at least three additional aircraft were involved in the breach, totaling four aircraft: two bombers and two fighters. The investigation continues, and final results will be shared upon completion.

Interestingly, the Finnish Air Force, despite deploying four F/A-18 Hornets in Romania under NATO, did not initially respond to this incident. This was not addressed in the Ministry of Defense's first press release. However, back in August 2022, one of their fighter jets intercepted two MiG-31s that briefly entered Finnish airspace, coinciding with Russia's nuclear exercises with Belarus.

Historical Context:

Finland, once part of the Kingdom of Sweden for over 600 years, was ceded to the Russian Empire in 1809, gaining a special autonomous status as a grand duchy. After the Russian Empire's collapse in 1917, Finland declared independence. The Winter War of 1940 tested Finland's independence, with the Soviet Union annexing parts of the country despite Finland's strong defense. This left lasting concerns about potential future conflicts with Russia.

During the Cold War, Finland maintained its independence but could not strongly oppose the Soviet Union, a period known as "Finlandization." After the Soviet Union's fall, Finland joined the European Union and NATO, achieving full political freedom.

Finland has since prepared for potential conflict with Russia, evident in its defense strategy, which includes remote highways set up for fighter jets. This allows for quick mobilization of its air force, assuming regular air bases might be initial targets in a conflict. Finland's "total defense" strategy, according to the Financial Times, showcases a robust Finnish Air Force, currently operating F/A-18 fighter jets soon to be upgraded to advanced F-35 Lightning IIs.

Brazil Considers F-16 Purchase Amid Economic Constraints on Expanding Gripen Fleet

 Brazil is in discussions with the U.S. to potentially acquire 24 Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcons, following Argentina's recent deal for used F-16 fighters. A top Brazilian official informed Janes in June that the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) aims to make a decision by the end of 2024. While this has not been confirmed by BulgarianMilitary.com, it aligns with the FAB’s strategy to replace its aging aircraft.

This development is unexpected, given Brazil’s 2014 agreement with Swedish company Saab for 36 Gripen E/F fighters, valued at $5.04 billion, with deliveries expected by 2027. This contract was expanded in 2022 to include four additional jets, bringing the total to 40.

Defense Minister José Múcio, speaking at the LAAD Defense and Security event in Rio de Janeiro, mentioned that the FAB needs more Gripen fighters and is considering this option. However, economic constraints are pushing the FAB to look for more cost-effective alternatives to replace its old Mirage and AMX jets. The FAB originally planned to nearly double its Gripen fleet but is now considering cheaper options due to financial limitations.

With the AMX fleet scheduled to retire by the end of 2025 and not enough Gripens to cover the gap, the FAB is exploring the acquisition of used F-16s. Brazil previously attempted to buy F-16s from the U.S. in the early 2000s, but the deal fell through. In 2002, the U.S. offered Brazil advanced F-16s along with AMRAAM medium-range air-to-air missiles, the first such offer to a Latin American country.

At that time, the Pentagon’s policy was to avoid introducing advanced technology to the region to prevent military imbalances and arms races. However, the offer was made in response to Peru acquiring Russian BVRAAMs. Brazil, looking to update its Mirage III jets, considered several options, including the Dassault Rafale, Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, and Saab’s Gripen NG, ultimately opting against the F-16.

The discussion of acquiring second-hand F-16s has resurfaced. Despite lacking the advanced features of the Gripen-E/F, the F-16 remains a proven and versatile fighter jet, widely used globally.

The Gripen E/F offers advanced avionics, sensor fusion technology, and a state-of-the-art electronic warfare suite, providing superior situational awareness and threat detection capabilities compared to older F-16 models. Its AESA radar offers greater range, better target tracking, and improved resistance to jamming. The Gripen E/F also boasts better fuel efficiency, extended range, and a modern digital cockpit with enhanced pilot interfaces, surpassing the older F-16 designs.

Additionally, the Gripen E/F’s open architecture design allows for easier upgrades and integration of new technologies, ensuring it remains at the forefront of advancements in avionics, weapons systems, and software, a flexibility not as prevalent in older F-16 models.

Romania Initiates Major Expansion of Strategic Air Base Near Ukraine Amid Rising Tensions

 

The Romanian government has launched a significant expansion and modernization project for the Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, situated less than 200 kilometers from the Ukrainian border. This multibillion-euro initiative aims to upgrade the base, which has been hosting U.S. forces since 1999, with new military equipment and infrastructure.

Defense Minister Angel Tîlvăr announced the project on June 11 during a ceremony at the base. The expansion includes constructing a new runway, a guard tower, and additional hangars to accommodate existing and future military assets. The total cost is estimated at €2.5 billion (approximately $2.7 billion).

Col. Nicolae Cretu, the base commander, explained that the decision to expand the base stems from Russia's actions in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. Romania’s plans for the base have been in place since 2018, well before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Romania is currently focused on acquiring short-range and very-short-range air defense systems, with planned expenditures up to $2.1 billion. Additionally, the country received two more Patriot batteries last year, bringing the total to four, and is participating in the European Sky Shield Initiative to procure up to 1,000 Patriot PAC-2 GEM-T missiles.

The strategic location of the Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base has been crucial for Romania and NATO allies, particularly noted during the Iraq war for projecting force over long distances. Recent enhancements have included hosting NATO Enhanced Air Policing missions and the first deployment of Finnish F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets.

Romanian media suggested the modernization could result in a facility comparable in size to Germany's Ramstein Air Base, though this has not been officially confirmed. With its access to the Black Sea and proximity to Russian territory, the air base remains a pivotal asset for NATO operations in the region.

NATO Fighter Pilots Hone Dogfighting Skills Amid Rising Tensions with Russia

Last week, over three dozen fighter pilots from nine NATO countries gathered at Ramstein Air Base in Germany for a unique U.S.-led exercise focused on sharpening air-to-air combat skills and enhancing coordination among allies. The "Ramstein 1v1" event saw pilots from the U.S., U.K., Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, and Germany engage in basic fighter maneuvers, commonly known as dogfighting. This high-stakes exercise required pilots to make rapid decisions and demonstrate quick reflexes, utilizing a variety of aircraft, including F-35A Lightning IIs, F-16 Fighting Falcons, Eurofighter Typhoons, French Rafales, F/A-18 Hornets, and A-4 Skyhawks.

This event marked a first for the U.S. Air Forces in Europe, transforming Ramstein, typically a military airlift hub, into a fighter base for the day. Lt. Col. Michael Loringer, USAFE’s chief of weapons and tactics, emphasized the importance of such exercises for building fundamental combat skills, reaction time, physical stamina, and situational awareness. He noted that one-on-one dogfighting is critical for building trust in both a pilot's abilities and their aircraft.

The exercise took place as Russia continues to gain ground in Ukraine, in the third year of the conflict. This context has heightened the focus of the U.S. military and its allies on improving aerial combat skills to prepare for potential conflicts with advanced air forces from Russia and China.

In line with these preparations, the Air Force revived the "William Tell" aerial shooter competition last September after a nearly two-decade hiatus due to high operational demands in the Middle East. Air Combat Command has indicated plans for a 2025 William Tell competition, though dates are not yet confirmed. Additionally, NATO pilots will apply their refined offensive and defensive maneuvers at the upcoming Ramstein Flag exercise in Greece at the end of 2024, according to USAFE Commander Gen. James Hecker.

Despite the preparations, Gen. Hecker expressed a desire to avoid conflict with Russia, stressing the importance of having capable forces to deter aggression. The recent exercise at Ramstein also highlighted cooperation and mutual support among NATO allies. U.S. airmen from RAF Lakenheath in England supported the Royal Norwegian Air Force's F-35s, while the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein managed installation support and flight operations.

The exercise emphasized readiness and trust-building, culminating in a day of flying and a piano burning ceremony to honor fallen fighter pilots, a tradition dating back to World War II. Lt. Col. Loringer underscored the significance of trust and teamwork, noting that successful military operations often depend on these critical elements. 

US Navy Tests Air-Launched SM-6 Missile on F/A-18 Super Hornet Amid Rising Threats

 

The U.S. Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron VX-9 “Vampires” has been observed testing the RIM-174 ERAM (SM-6) missile on one of their F/A-18 Super Hornets once again. Stationed at Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, VX-9 operates a diverse fleet including F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers, and F-35C Lightning IIs.

Previously, in 2021, a VX-31 F/A-18F was seen carrying an inert SM-6 without its MK72 first-stage booster, leading to speculation about the missile's potential as a new long-range air-to-air weapon. This idea was reinforced by Raytheon’s classified Long-Range Engagement Weapon (LREW) program for the U.S. Air Force and Navy, which aims to develop advanced long-range air-to-air missile technology. The LREW program incorporates proven components from existing systems with new technologies to enhance performance, involving system design validation, wind tunnel testing, engineering assessments, and kill chain investigations.

Although the LREW project transitioned entirely to the U.S. Air Force in 2019, with Raytheon receiving a contract in 2022, the U.S. Navy has continued its efforts to integrate a long-range air-to-air weapon for its fighter fleet. Recently, a VX-9 Super Hornet was spotted carrying an inert SM-6 missile, as captured by aviation photographer @StinkPlove on social media platform X. The orange and gray SM-6 was mounted on the Super Hornet’s number 7 pylon.

This push for air-launched SM-6 capability aligns with the development of new long-range air-to-air weapons by the PLA Air Force, such as the PL-15 and PL-17, which surpass the range of current U.S. Navy air-to-air weapons. The surface-to-air version of the SM-6 achieves ranges of 130 nautical miles (240 km), with estimates suggesting potential ranges up to 250 nautical miles (463 km) for an air-launched variant. This enhancement would significantly extend the reach of a Carrier Air Wing (CAW), enabling it to engage distant targets more effectively.

The SM-6 utilizes an X-band receiver for guidance, making it compatible with the AN/APG-79 radar on the F/A-18E/F and the AN/APG-81 AESA radar on the F-35C. In operational scenarios, forward-based F-35C fighters could guide the missiles to their targets, while Super Hornets, launching from safer distances, could provide the firepower. The Super Hornets can also transmit fire control data via the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control–Counter Air (NIFC-CA) datalink system.

An air-launched SM-6 capability would add another high-speed, long-range strike option for surface and land targets, enhancing the versatility of the U.S. Navy’s CAWs. This addition to the weapons portfolio would offer more flexibility for time-sensitive land attacks and maritime strikes, expanding the operational capabilities of fighter aircraft.

US Navy Conducts Test of AGM-158C-3 Anti-Ship Missiles: Ready for Deployment Against Chinese Naval Threats

The United States Navy recently conducted a significant test involving four AGM-158C-3 Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASMs), marking a milestone in the development of these stealth anti-ship weapons. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, hailed the event as a pivotal step forward in ensuring maritime security in the face of rising threats, particularly from China.

This test, part of the 12th Integrated Test Event, showcased the LRASM's formidable capabilities in terms of lethality, mission planning, and target integration. The successful demonstration met all objectives set by the US Navy, affirming the missile's readiness for deployment.

Lisbeth Vogelpohl, LRASM program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, emphasized the company's commitment to providing reliable and effective solutions to empower warfighters and ensure mission success.

The LRASM, belonging to the AGM-158 family, stands out for its lethal, long-range, and survivable features, making it a potent weapon against well-defended surface combatants. Its precision-guided technology allows it to engage a wide range of targets, including hostile ships, submarines, and land-based threats, with a minimum range of 200 nautical miles.

Derived from the AGM-158B JASSM-ER, the LRASM boasts advanced autonomous targeting capabilities, reducing reliance on external navigation systems in hostile environments. Its integration into various aircraft platforms, including the B-1B, F/A-18E/F, and upcoming F-35 and P-8 aircraft, underscores its versatility and strategic importance.

The US Air Force's multiyear acquisition plan for LRASMs reflects the growing recognition of its significance in countering Chinese naval aggression, particularly in potential conflicts involving Taiwan. With China's increasing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region, long-range weapons like the LRASM are expected to play a crucial role in early-stage engagements, circumventing China's formidable anti-access/area-denial capabilities.

In addition to aircraft deployment, the LRASM's compatibility with the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System opens up possibilities for deployment on various US Navy warships, further enhancing its flexibility and reach.

As tensions escalate in the Indo-Pacific, the LRASM stands as a symbol of America's commitment to maritime security and readiness to confront emerging threats, ensuring a deterrent against potential adversaries like China. 

Enhancing F-35s for Combat: Innovative Approaches to Maintenance

Amidst the bustling activity at the U.S. Navy's largest jet base, efforts are underway to maximize the readiness of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and the expanding fleet of F-35C Joint Strike Fighters. However, concerns persist regarding the availability of F-35Cs for missions and the escalating costs associated with sustaining these aircraft.

Unlike traditional military aircraft programs, the F-35 program relies heavily on Lockheed Martin for various aspects of maintenance and management. This arrangement, overseen by the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), has limited the Navy's control over ensuring readiness. To address this challenge, the Joint Strike Fighter Wing in Lemoore is adopting innovative strategies drawn from the successful maintenance practices of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

Following a data-driven initiative called Naval Sustainment System-Aviation, which propelled Super Hornet readiness rates to surpass 80%, the Joint Strike Fighter Wing is collaborating with F/A-18 counterparts to implement similar practices. By enhancing data collection and communication efforts, the Navy aims to improve F-35C readiness and reduce costs.

Despite these efforts, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted maintenance challenges and spare parts availability issues within the F-35 program. Unlike other aircraft programs, the F-35 lacks intermediate-level maintenance, leading to additional workload on squadrons and delays in repair times.

To address these issues, the Navy is seeking to increase its involvement in maintenance operations and streamline communication between stakeholders. By leveraging data-driven insights and adopting proven practices, the Navy aims to optimize F-35 sustainment and mitigate cost overruns.

However, challenges persist, including parts availability fluctuations and delays in standing up depot repair capabilities. The Navy is closely monitoring these issues and collaborating with industry partners to find sustainable solutions.

Amidst budget constraints, maintaining F-35C readiness is critical for naval aviation operations. Efforts to minimize mishaps, address corrosion issues, and empower squadrons to conduct maintenance are underway to enhance operational efficiency and reduce costs.

Looking ahead, the Navy and Air Force are exploring unmanned wingmen as a cost-effective solution to supplement combat aircraft capacity. Despite setbacks, the F-35 remains a vital asset in the Indo-Pacific theater, underscoring the importance of addressing readiness challenges and learning from past experiences for future programs.

Gortney named Head of U.S. Fleet Forces

. President Obama has nominated Vice Adm. Bill Gortney as the next commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, a move that if approved by the Senate would likely occur this summer.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made the announcement Monday.

Gortney, director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, would be promoted to admiral and replace Adm. John Harvey, who has commanded what was once known as U.S. Atlantic Fleet since July 2009. Gortney reported to the Pentagon in July 2010.

Harvey, with three years on the job come summer, is expected to retire.

Naval observers and industry insiders told Navy Times in late December that Gortney appeared to have the inside track on the job, saying he possesses the right combination of experience in preparing ships and aircraft to deploy, knowledge of overseas combatant commander requirements and understanding of wartime fleet operations.

Gortney will bring extensive experience in the war theater of operations to the job; since 2002, he’s commanded Carrier Air Wing 7 and Carrier Strike Group 10, both of which operated in the Central Command area of operations, and U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain. He also has a previous hitch at Fleet Forces Command under his belt, having served as deputy chief of staff for global force management and joint operations from 2004-2006.

Gortney’s current job is his second go-round on the Joint Staff; he worked at the J-33 Joint Operations Department, Central Command Division, from 1998-1999.

That pallet of experience, particularly in the war zones, will serve him well at the helm of Fleet Forces, says retired Vice Adm. Peter Daly, chief executive officer of the U.S. Naval Institute and a former Fleet Forces deputy commander under Harvey.

“It’s very important because Fleet Forces … generates all the forces coming off the East Coast, and also has a special responsibility for standards for training all strike groups, East and West Coast,” said Daly, reached in San Diego, where USNI is holding its annual West Coast Conference and Symposium. The commander of Fleet Forces Command, Daly said, has to be someone “who understands what it takes to get there, what’s needed and what’s required when they’re at the tip of the spear. And Bill Gortney represents that.

“He’s an affable guy, but he’s no-nonsense when it comes to the warfighting piece,” Daly said. “I think he’s an excellent choice.”

In addition to its responsibilities for manning, training and equipping all Navy forces east of the Mississippi and providing same to overseas combatant commanders, Fleet Forces Command advises the chief of naval operations on all integrated warfighter capability requirements. It also handles the Navy’s anti-terrorism/force protection, individual augmentee and sea basing programs for the CNO.

Gortney is a 1977 graduate of Elon College in North Carolina. He earned a commission in the U.S. Naval Reserve in September 1977 and, in December 1978, was designated as a naval aviator. He has flown more than 5,360 “mishap-free hours,” according to his official biography, and made 1,265 carrier-arrested landings, primarily in the A-7E Corsair II and the F/A-18 Hornet.

U.S. Navy Document Plans Carrier Air Wings’ Future

The U.S. Navy’s carrier air wings of tomorrow will look very different from today’s, according to a new document produced by the sea services.

By 2032, the Navy’s fleet of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and new EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets will have begun to be replaced by new types, a new document called Naval Aviation Vision 2012 says.

The Navy will consider manned, unmanned and optionally manned aircraft to replace the long serving Rhino, as the F/A-18E/F is known to carrier deck crews. The Super Hornet will begin to reach the end of its service life around 2025 and must be replaced. The document says a competitive fly-off will be held at some point in the future.

The Super Hornet-derived EA-18G will also start being replaced by a new aircraft, but the document offers no further details.

Additionally, a new Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) is to be integrated onto the carrier deck around 2018 — possibly with four to six planes embarked. The aircraft could make use of technologies developed by the X-47B program. The Navy document calls for “balanced survivability” so that the unmanned strike plane will be effective in “specified tactical situations.”

The F-35C will serve alongside these prospective aircraft.

But the Navy isn’t going to stop with replacing just its fixed-wing assets, as the document calls for the wholesale replacement of its helicopter fleet.

The MH-60 helicopter fleet will be supplanted by a new rotary-wing aircraft. The Fire Scout unmanned helicopter will also be replaced as will the MH-53E Sea Dragon counter-mine and heavy lift helicopter. In the case of the MH-53E, a replacement aircraft needs to be operational by 2026, the document says.

The Marines will get a Cargo Resupply Unmanned Aerial System (CRUAS) by 2032, and the service’s entire fleet of tactical remotely operated drones will be replaced. The Navy will continue to fly the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance version of the Global Hawk unmanned plane in 2032.

The training aircraft fleet will look similar to today’s, the document says. The T-6 and T-45C will soldier on, as will the TH-57 training helicopter. But the T-44 and TC-12B multi-engine turboprop trainers will be replaced with a new aircraft. The Marines’ C-20 and Navy’s C-26D and UC-12 fleets will also be replaced. As well, a new plane will take the place of the C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery plane starting in 2026.

Nor has the Navy forgotten about its fleet of F-5 and F-16 aggressor aircraft. A replacement aggressor aircraft is envisioned for 2025, according to the document.

JSF may miss acceleration Goals

The F-35 Lightning II’s transonic acceleration may not meet the requirements originally set forth for the program, a top Lockheed Martin official said.

“Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.”

The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35’s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.

“We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said. “I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”

A recent report by the Defense Department’s top tester, J. Michael Gilmore, says that the Navy’s F-35C model aircraft, which has larger wing and tail surfaces, is not meeting requirements for acceleration.

The report doesn’t say whether the F-35A and F-35B have hit similar snags.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that the revelation was not particularly surprising.

“It’s a strike fighter,” Aboulafia said. “It’s not an interceptor; it’s not an F-22.”

Aboulafia said it was unclear whether additional engine power could boost acceleration in the difficult transonic regime. So far, doubts about the aircraft’s aerodynamic performance haven’t diminished Lockheed’s sales prospects, he said.

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.

But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.

Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.

In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35’s acceleration is better than almost anything flying.

Thus far, Lockheed has not had issues with the plane’s acceleration, Burbage said. There are top level Key Performance Parameters from which lower level detailed engineering specification are derived and Lockheed’s job is to meet as many of those specifications as possible within the laws of physics, he said. Discussions are underway about if those original specifications are relevant given the jet’s acceleration in a combat configuration, Burbage added.

Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience.

“I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”

But the F-35’s aerodynamic performance is not what makes the jet special, Smith said. The F-35 powerful sensors and data-links and how that information is fused into a single coherent and easy to use display are what will make the jet an effective warplane.

Burbage added that while the F-35 is designed as a supersonic fighter, it’s not optimized for the extremely high supersonic speeds that the Raptor was designed to operate at.

“This is not a supercruising airplane like the F-22,” Burbage said.

F-35C Tailhook Design Blamed for Landing Issues

Lockheed Martin has traced the U.S. Navy F-35C Joint Strike Fighter’s troubles with catching a carrier’s arresting gear wires to the tailhook design.
Efforts to fix the problem are well underway, a top company official said.
“The good news is that it’s fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. “It doesn’t have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane.”


Moreover, the rest of the design of the tailhook system, which include the doors and bay that conceal the device and other ancillary hardware, is sound, Burbage said.
“What we are trying to do is make sure that we got the actual design of the hook is optimized so that it in fact repeatedly picks up the wire as long the airplane puts itself in position to do that,” he said.
A preliminary review has already been completed and was done in conjunction with the Naval Air Systems Command and F-35 Joint Program Office.
Burbage said the hook system is already being modified in accordance with the new test data.
“We’re modifying the hook to accommodate what we found so far in test,” Burbage said. “The new parts, we expect to have them back in the next couple of months.”
Tests with the newly modified tailhook should start at Lakehurst, N.J, in the second quarter of this year, Burbage said.
That will give the F-35 program another set of data to study to make sure the new design works as promised. However, until those tests are done, there is no ironclad guarantee that the redesign of the tailhook will work, but Burbage said he is confident of that the modified design will be successful.
“The big test for this airplane is not until the summer of ’13 when we take the Navy jet out to the big deck carrier and do actual traps at sea,” Burbage said.
Burbage dismisses claims that the F-35C will be unable to land on a carrier as falsehoods.
“That’s patently not true,” he said.


Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said the claim that the F-35C could never land on a ship was always highly dubious.
“They turned the YF-17 into a carrier plane, why couldn’t they correct carrier-hook problems here?” he said. “This does not appear to be a killer problem.”
Flight testing is designed to uncover and fix problems with a new aircraft, Aboulafia said.
“This is the kind of problem that might come out during the flight testing of a carrier-based plane,” he said.
Aboulafia added that the F-35 is an extremely ambitious program with its three variants — technical problems are par for the course.
The reason the problem with the hook arose in the first place is because of the inherent constraints of building a stealth fighter, said Burbage. The F-35 is the first naval stealth fighter and as such, Lockheed had the unique challenge of designing the jet with a tail-hook that had to be concealed when it’s not being used.
Because the tail-hook has to fit within the outer mold line of the F-35, the device had to be fitted further forward on the jet’s ventral surface than on other naval aircraft, Burbage said. The result is that the hook behaves differently than on previous fighters like the F/A-18.
In an ideal world, an arresting-hook will catch a wire 100 percent of the time, however in the real world that doesn’t happen due to various dynamic forces, the veteran former Navy test pilot said.


In the case of the F-35, one of those dynamic forces includes the way the wires react when the jet passes over them. The wire reacts in a sine wave pattern, Burbage said. “The time differential between when the main gear rolls over the cable and the time the hook picks up the cable on a more convention airplane, there is more time for that wave to damp out,” he said. “In the case of the F-35, one of our design constraints is that hook just has to be closer to the main landing gear than on a conventional aircraft because of the requirement to hide it inside the airplane.”
Another factor that effects landing on a carrier is the sheer force of the impact from a carrier landing. Unlike conventional land-based aircraft, naval aircraft don’t flare on landing. While the landing is on a more precise spot, it causes the tail-hook to oscillate vertically- which increases the chances that it won’t catch a wire, Burbage said. The dampening of that motion has to be tweaked, he said.
The shape of the hook itself also has an effect on the probability of catching a wire, he added. All of these are being tweaked to increase the chances that the F-35C will catch a wire on a carrier’s deck.
“We’re doing a redesign of the hook to increase the probability the hook will engage the wire a high percentage of the time,” Burbage said.

An AirSea Battle on the Potomac

It is clear from last month's commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor that this disaster continues to impact the U.S. psyche and national strategy. "The next Pearl Harbor" has been a common theme in reports regarding 9/11.

One can assume the recently developed and classified AirSea Battle Concept has a similar vista. Addressing the "anti-access/area denial" environment, it purportedly discusses the growing influence of China and the importance of Asia to America's national interests. As the name states, air and sea power will be critical to the attainment of U.S. national interests.

While analogies to Pearl Harbor are understandable, they may be misleading on the challenges of tomorrow. A more appropriate lesson might be found in the Battle of Midway.

As the sun rose on June 4, 1942, the Imperial Navy of Japan was the most powerful navy ever to sail. By sunset, its eventual defeat was inevitable. Japan in 1942 possessed six world-class aircraft carriers and the finest naval aviators. Four carriers were lost on that day.

Lacking a robust industrial base, Japan would produce only seven additional fleet carriers by the end of the war (the U.S. more than 20). Rational or not, Japan started a war with a limited force structure and little ability to replenish loses.

Fast-forward to 2012. In a world of iPads, it is incredible, but the forces that will carry out the AirSea Battle construct reflect decisions made decades ago. Tomorrow's U.S. Air Force will possess a nominal force of bombers and a handful of sophisticated F-22s and F-35s. While highly capable, these fifth-generation fighters lack the range and payload necessary for conflicts in Asia. Friendly bases are few.

The airfields close enough for effective sortie generation rates with fifth-gen fighters will likewise be within range of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles. This environment requires hardened facilities and a robust missile-defense system. The former do not exist and the latter only in limited numbers.

While U.S. naval forces will benefit from their mobility, they too will face a Chinese anti-access threat projected to acquire and target surface combatants. With a deck of F/A-18s and F-35s, our carriers will be as range-challenged as our land-based fighters. Getting the carrier to the fight will require expensive escorts to defend against missile attacks. Combat operations would quickly become problematic once the defensive armaments are depleted.

Complicating this bleak outlook is the acquisition death spiral of increased cost/reduced numbers. As weapon systems progress through the acquisition cycle, they invariably fall behind schedule from unforeseen production issues. This drives up the cost, reducing the number of systems that can be purchased. The spiral continues with the war fighter receiving fewer platforms, later than needed, and costing significantly more than planned.

These two flaws could leave the U.S. in the same position that Japan found itself in 1943, weakened and unable to reconstitute a viable force. A small fighter force will generate few effective sorties (this assumes sufficient aerial tankers. Fighters in Asia are static displays without tankers). The loss of a Nimitz-class carrier would rival Pearl Harbor in loss of life and drive our surface naval forces out of harm's way. Like Imperial Japan, a Midway debacle would cripple U.S. power projection. And like Japan of 1943, America of 2012 cannot quickly reconstitute our current weapon systems.

With senior leaders stating there are no alternatives to weapon systems currently in development, it's apparent their predecessors organized a Pickett's Charge decades ago and left the charge to them. Resolving this mismatch between force structure and strategy will require a proper focus on the challenges of combat operations in the Pacific.

Specifically, in the short term:

■ Expand procurement of standoff missiles, such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range.

■ Regain our superiority in electronic warfare that was lost in our infatuation with stealth.

■ Purchase low-end attack aircraft and remotely piloted vehicles for noncontested environments.

■ Limit the F-35 buy to 200 to 400 aircraft.

For the long term:

■ Develop manned/unmanned long-range penetrating precision strike platforms (both land- and carrier-based).

■ Research and develop 21st century battleships capable of firing ballistic and cruise missiles from long range.

On June 3, 1942, the Imperial Navy of Japan was the uncontested master of the Pacific. On the following day, American ingenuity, guts and a degree of luck made Japan's eventual defeat inevitable. The future naval and air forces of the U.S. could face a similar tragedy, one in which the finest air and naval forces are rendered incapable of effective combat operations due to a 20-year process where we purchased what we wanted instead of what we needed.

Perhaps the most important contribution from an honest assessment of the AirSea Battle construct will be to own up to this unfortunate fact.

Chris Choate is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel now performing operational test and evaluation work with the service as a civilian employee. These views reflect those of the author and not the Air Force, Defense Department or U.S. government.