Matt: You would not want a DDG 1000 or CVN or any gator for that matter in the Persian Gulf – much safer in the Arabian Sea. One area where Gates wants the Navy to spend some cash is in ASM (point) defense – and he is right. A supersonic ASM can make a good day bad. Some interesting technologies are being developed to degrade this very serious threat.

The best way to defend the fleet is to strike the mobile launchers first, and to do that, he Navy needs to build something like the NGAD – a true naval strike fighter. The design concept promises to bring 4 key features and capabilities to the fleet which in combination is currently or will be lacking: long range strike, which was lost when the A-6 and F-14 were retired; stealth, something the fleet has attempted once, and maybe twice and failed; 2-engined survivability, which was foolishly bargained away; and most important, a 2-man crew. The value of a second crewman to run the attack is something even the AF realized when they designed the F-15E, and the Navy rediscovered in the KEZ. In contested airspace, the pilot has his hands full flying the plane and dealing with active threats. GIB can concentrate on the mission: finding, designating, and launching weapons, and directing others to the target – and helping to spot SAM’s and bogies. And when the UCAS-N come online, the GIB will be responsible for managing their ops. The last 2 areas – 2 engines and 2 crew – is where the F-35C is seriously lacking as a naval strike fighter – not that it’s a bad plane technologically speaking, it’s the wrong plane for the (mobile) strike mission and the maritime environment.

Matt: The needs of Naval Aviation will outlast Mr. Gates. Not that I think he is wrong about developing expensive weapons for the theoretical next war when we are currently fighting an asymmetrical conflict where the Air Force’s top fighter is useless. But I digress. The Navy would do fine with procuring more F/A-18E/F/G’s to replace aging legacy Hornets and serve as an interim aircraft until the UCAV-N / NGAD combo comes along in 10-15 years.

You are correct: the Navy held their nose and went along with the F/A-18E/F/G – F-35C combo, with the understanding that they would get to develop an F/A-XX down the line. The F/A-XX was killed off, leaving the Navy with the prospect of having a single engined / single crew aircraft as a primary naval strike aircraft. Not a particularly survivable combination even with stealth technologies.

The other comparisons that I was making were purely to illustrate how out of whack weapons cost-to-utility has gotten.

Part of it from cutting the F-35C – if they were smart. There is always development money in the pipeline though. Gates is trying to wean the Admirals and Generals from spec’ing the most complex and expensive solutions – a good fight imo. Look at the USAF: F-22’s at all costs and to the detriment of other programs. The Marines: the MV-22 – hugely expensive and difficult to maintain. F-35B: not going to be cheap. Don’t get me started on the EFV – 22mil each – more than an M1 tank. And it can’t handle EFP/IED’s. The Navy: lCS, a small combatant: 500mil +…. DDG 1000….

Press articles say that Boeing has offered the F414 EPE SH to India.