Within the Navy’s higher circles, it’s called “Nathman’s
vision.” Vice Adm. John B. Nathman is the commander of naval
air forces for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, headquartered in San Diego.
He formerly was director of naval air warfare and oversaw aviation
programs in Washington, D.C.
Nathman’s vision, like that of many of his fellow senior
officers, is that of a Navy with 15 aircraft carriers, which is
three more that the current fleet. But, in addition to building
more carriers, he believes the Navy should have aviation carrier
wings with fewer fighter jets and more “helos and hummers.”
The helos are the new H-60s (CH-60S and SH-60R), which the Navy
is buying to replace aging support aircraft and to take over various
warfare missions. The “hummers” are the E-2 Hawkeye
early-warning aircraft, whose nickname refers to the sound of its
turboprop engines.
During a conference of Navy three-star admirals, nearly two years
ago, the decision was made to redesign the carrier air wing, Nathman
told the 2000 Tailhook Association’s annual convention, in
Reno, Nev. “Those were controversial decisions,” he
said, because they were bound to upset some aviation communities.
But they were necessary moves, said Nathman, in order to make the
Navy a competitive force in the 21st century. “Our focus is
on time-critical strike against mobile targets, on shaping deep
attack.” More helicopters would assist in littoral-based operations,
he said. “We are studying those trends and forces for the
carrier flight deck.”
Instead of having four Hawkeyes per wing, Nathman would like to
see six. The S-3 Viking anti-submarine platform and tactical refueling
plane, which averages 23 years of age, would be phased out. And
instead of six H-60 helos, he would put 10. “We need to use
helicopters as a true total-force answer,” he said.
The strike forces also would change. The current four EA-6B Prowler
radar-jamming aircraft per wing would be replaced by six F/A-18G
“Growlers,” a jammer configuration of the F/A-18E/F
Super Hornet. Instead of 26 E/Fs, there would be 24. The 24 Hornets
(F/A-18C/Ds) would be replaced by 20 Joint Strike Fighters, which
are scheduled to enter service in 10 to 15 years.
The three-star panel’s decision to endorse the F/A-18G as
an electronic attack platform has yet to be approved by the Pentagon,
which wants jammer aircraft to be “purple,” rather than
service unique and currently is conducting a study on electronic
warfare options to replace the Prowler.
Designing an air wing with 50 fighters, down from 54, was controversial,
said Nathman. “We can use that money [that would be saved
by deploying fewer fighters] to buy other things we need to buy.”
An even more provocative discussion among the three-star admiral
group was on the future of support aircraft: the Hawkeye, the C-2
transport and the S-3.
During the past several years, the Navy had promoted its plan to
develop a “common support aircraft” (CSA) to replace
those three legacy platforms. The CSA was going to do aerial refueling,
airborne early warning, anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare.
But trying to pack so many requirements into one aircraft doomed
the project. “It was really hard for me to figure out, as
a resource sponsor, what that airplane was going to look like, let
alone how to build it,” Nathman said.
Worse yet, “there was no money in the budget to buy it.”
A CSA platform would have required $22 billion for research, development
and procurement. “We made a pragmatic decision to not buy
CSA,” he said. The E-2 and the C-2 will be upgraded and kept
on the decks for decades. The S-3 will be retired by 2008. The Viking’s
anti-surface warfare mission will be transferred to the helos and
the Hornets. The tanking mission will go to the Super Hornet, which
could perform both the tanking and the strike functions after it
pumps gas, Nathman said. “It’s important for the Navy
not to have to rely on ‘purple’ tanking. We need to
get our tanking back on our flight decks.”
Is Vision Realistic?
Given the budgetary problems the Navy is having in its modernization
program, the question that Nathman’s vision begs is whether
the Defense Department and Congress will ever agree to fund such
a program. The aviation and shipbuilding procurement accounts have
been cut in recent months to pay for short-term priorities such
as force readiness and personnel benefits.
During the past four years in Washington, said Nathman, “we
have migrated $5.5 billion out of modernization, to sustain and
support readiness.” But he believes the reason that naval
aviation doesn’t get enough money for modernization is not
because the Navy is shifting dollars around, but because the nation’s
leaders don’t fully appreciate the role of carrier-based aviation.
“We don’t see a national debate about what we do for
our nation,” Nathman said. “This administration has
to start making those investments.”
For next year’s quadrennial defense review of military priorities
and strategies, the Navy should emphasize that the carrier-based
forces “have been in almost constant combat operations for
nine years,” he said. “The last seven battle groups
that deployed since December 1998, have all gone into combat operations.”
Vice Adm. Michael L. Bowman, who recently retired and was Nathman’s
predecessor as commander of the Pacific naval air forces, told the
Tailhook convention that naval aviators must continue to fight for
more Pentagon dollars. “If we have to do what the country
is asking us to do, we need to be a Navy of 15 carriers and 15 amphibious
readiness groups.”
Rear Adm. M.J. McCabe, who replaced Nathman as director of naval
air warfare, agreed. “We acknowledge that we are underfunded
... that naval forces are undervalued.”
In the mind of Marine Maj. Gen. Mike Hough, who runs the Joint
Strike Fighter program, the reality is quite simple. Nathman’s
vision is long on ideas, but short on money. “It’s like
flipping me a quarter and saying ‘buy me a Coke.’ It
ain’t enough money,” he said at the convention. “A
vision without money is a hallucination.”
The budget “has to match that vision,” said Capt. N.
Lee Lilly, program manager for the E-2C and the C-2A programs. “It
needs a commitment from the Defense Department,” he said in
an interview at Patuxent River, Md. Nathman’s vision, he said,
is “way out there” into the future.
Bowman suggested that naval aviators would benefit from being more
politically astute. “We aren’t very good at the political
side of things. We just aren’t.”