Aviation Week editors discuss U.S. naval aviation ahead of the annual Tailhook gathering and the surprise announcement that U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Allvin will be retiring.
Subscribe Now
Don't miss a single episode of the award-winning Check 6. Follow us in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Discover all of our podcasts at aviationweek.com/podcasts
AI-Generated Transcript
Robert Wall (00:06): Welcome to Check 6, where today we take a sneak peek at the upcoming U.S. Navy Tailhook get together and of course, touch on the surprise announcement. Gen. Allvin will be leaving his post as chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force. A lot to pack into this episode, so we'll have to fire up the afterburners. And here on the ride with me are Brian Everstine, Aviation Week's Pentagon editor, who is about to head out to Reno for Tailhook and Steve Trimble, our senior defense editor who will remain grounded. I'm Robert Wall, Aviation Week's executive editor for Defense and Space.
Brian, why don't we kick it off with you? Could be a really interesting Tailhook. Obviously there's still a lot of questions about the U.S. Navy's future sixth-gen combat aircraft, F/A-XX, what's going to happen there, what the budget will mean, and if there'll be a program, but there's also a lot else going on. Why don't you talk a bit about what you think the big topic or topics may be at Tailhook?
Brian Everstine (01:01): Thanks for that, Robert. So I am about to head out soon to Tailhook, which is always an interesting event. And just to put a little caveat out there, it's not Sea Air Space, it's not AFA. It's a very small kind of members only type of event off the record. So we're not going to be doing a sort of show news daily type check-in, but it's probably the best opportunity of the year to really get an idea of where things are within the world of naval aviation. And it's been an interesting year. I mean, obviously we all want to talk about F/A-XX, but we all don't really know exactly what's going to be happening with it. It's clear from the uniform side of the Navy up from the CNO nominee on down that they want this. They need the sixth generation fighter, but the bean counters and the Pentagon, the capes and such are kind of pushing back saying we need to go all in on the Air Force's F-47 and kind of push F/A-XX back three years, which some have said is kind of a de facto cancellation.
(01:50): So this is all playing out on the Hill through different appropriations authorizations, bills with the Hill, kind of urging the Navy to keep going. So we'll see how that all plays out. And one interesting thing, another interesting competition, which I really think has been kind of under focus, doesn't get the attention really that I think it might need is the Navy's T-45 replacement. The undergraduate jet training system, which is just by the sheer numbers of tails as this goes through, if the Navy can get the money, will be a very big win for the competitors that are vying for it. And it's been kind of a focus of controversy within the past couple of years within the naval aviation community with the decision to not only forego having to go to the boat, but also to do field carrier landing practice to have these jet trainers slam down to practice landing on the ship.
(02:40): This is a concern that we had heard from the announced competitors, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Textron, and Leonardo, that being able to build their jets up to handle that sort of abuse would've added extensive amount of time and money to a program the Navy wants to move quickly on. So they removed that need for field carrier landing practice kind of just to simulate that. But we're going to have a new entrant announced hopefully by the time this podcast goes out. SNC Corporation is going to unveil their freedom trainer, which if you remember was originally for the Air Force's TX, but they're bringing that forward again for the undergraduate jet training system. And their argument to the Navy is that since this is not an existing aircraft, it's a clean sheet design, it can build it from the ground up for the FCLP even though it isn't necessarily a requirement now that they can meet that need. So this is going to be shown for the first time out at the event. We'll see if it impacts how the Navy wants to go for it. But again, to my earlier remark, it's even an open question where this funding is going to come from. The Navy is really, really under the gun for all of its spending priorities, most notably shipbuilding. So F/A-XX hasn't been getting the money in the Navy's long-term plan. We'll see how UJTX can fit into that as well.
Robert Wall (04:00): Yeah. Brian, you mentioned numbers. Can you give us a sense, what's the rough guessing game? How many aircraft are we talking about because clean sheet design seems amortizing that you would need a considerable buy of some sort.
Brian Everstine (04:16): Well, just as a planning number, the Navy has currently about 220 T-45s. So if we're going for a one for replacement, that's a lot of aircraft. And SNC's argument is that their design, their engine choice is a much lower cost per flight hour over the life of the program. If you look at what the other competitors are flying, the T-7 with the F-404 is a lot more expensive than the Williams engine that SNC is putting into their design. So their argument is over the life of the program that they could save a lot of money on it.
Robert Wall (04:49): I mean, it would be really interesting. Obviously we got a new airframer here into this. Steve, what do you think? What, you're shaking your head a bit.
Steve Trimble (04:57): Yeah, no, I think it is interesting. The FJ-44 is a business jet engine. I think SNC is planning to use two of those for the Freedom Trainer in each of them versus just the one of the F-404, which kind of balances things out a little bit more. But still the FJ-44 would've significantly less thrust probably 8,000 pounds thrust versus I think 13 or 14,000 pounds thrust for the F-404. So there could be savings there. It's going to be a much smaller aircraft. So it's going to be more like the M-345 or L-39NG, not quite the same size and scale as T-7, but maybe especially with the Navy talking about not putting these on the aircraft carrier, flying these out to the aircraft carrier and operating them from carrier decks, just using them for field landing carrier practice. Maybe that's all the Navy needs. And they could some money on acquisition costs and certainly some on operations and support costs over the long term. So it would be an interesting thing to see. There is a lot of startup costs with starting up a whole new jet, whereas the Air Force's funding the certification development and certification of T-7. So you also have to balance that into this as well.
Robert Wall (06:18): And just to be clear, this will be the non-tailhook, therefore carrying aircraft.
Steve Trimble (06:23): That is the intention. Yes.
Brian Everstine (06:25): And one thing I will add is that SNC is not going out this alone as we were talking right now, Wednesday morning, their partner has not formally been announced yet, but it is established.
Robert Wall (06:38): Got it. So they're not trying to start building something without any prior experience here. So that'll be interesting. Yeah, for sure. Obviously it's still also a lot, it's just an interesting time actually for naval aviation and the kind of evolution of the carrier air wing. I feel like the three of us, we've talked about this kind of offline a lot. I just thought maybe you in particular have written about this a bit. We're kind of getting a glimpse of what the future carrier air wing in a decade or a bit more actually than that will look like even if we're not quite sure what F/A-XX will be. But there's also other things in play. So why don't you talk to us about some of that then you've preserved and also written about for Aviation Week,
Steve Trimble (07:26): Right. So what is official and what is known is that the Navy for the future carrier Air Wing has two multi-role fighters on the deck. One of which the funding of which is still in question, which is F/A-XX. They said that that would have 25% more range than the Super Hornet, which puts it in the, I think 750 nautical mile, 800 nautical mile range. And the F-35C, which is down on the 650 nautical, 700 nautical mile range. The question that is sort of hovered over this, is that enough? And does the Navy only need multi-role fighters and not something like what they used to have with say the A-6, which was a long range bomber of sorts, a light bomber, call it a tactical attack aircraft with longer range than their tactical fighters.
(08:20): So that question's been out there and we got maybe a clue about where the Navy is going in that direction through the text of the one big beautiful act, the budget reconciliation bill that we all read about and wrote about for us anyway over the summer. And I have to walk you through it and keep in mind we're talking about classified programs. You don't get all the information, but sometimes you just get little snippets here and there that tell you that something's out there. In this particular case, when the House of Representatives released their version of this budget reconciliation Bill, and in that bill they had the additional money that they were going to assign to the Defense department in different sections, and there was one section for strike aircraft, and in that section you had F-47, F/A-XX-B-21, F-35, blah, blah, blah.
(09:23): I mean just all the ones you'd expect. And then at the very bottom of that list, they had two lines. One said unclassified Air Force programs, and the next line said Navy unclassified programs. So a few weeks later, the Senate released their version of the bill and everything is basically the same. There's a strike aircraft section, there's F/A-XX, there's F-47, there's B-21, there's F-35. And then at the very bottom, they don't have Air Force classified programs and Navy classified programs. Instead it says Air Force Long Range strike aircraft and Navy long range strike aircraft. Now we kind of know what the Air Force long range strike aircraft is, and that is what the Skunkworks is working on. And that Lockheed has been reported on because of the financial challenges associated with that program, they've had to disclose that to the SEC. So we know a little bit about what's going on with that program.
(10:16): What we had never heard about before was a Navy long-range strike program, which implies a carrier-based long-range strike aircraft that has not been in any of the official Navy plans or forecast for their force structure or for the future carrier wing that I'm aware of. However, there had been little hints and traces of this concept, this idea, if you go back to 2018, the CSBA think tank, a report that was authored by Brian Clark at the time, they were being supported by Navy analyses looking at the future carrier Air Wing. It recommended a carrier Air Wing of the future that would include three squadrons of a multi-role long-range UAS that would be highly stealthy and that could penetrate contested environments at significant range from the carrier and way more than much further than the maximum range of F/A-XX. And they distinguish that from the MQ-25 in the report, this MQ-25 would be a lesser type of aircraft.
(11:23): It would just be used for refueling and in some cases in low contested environments it could be used to augment this more stealthy and higher end aircraft. So there was a track there. And then the second thing that, I mean, it just made me think of this moment back in April of 2021 when the Navy disclosed almost offhandedly that they had taken the ground control station for the MQ-25 away from Boeing and gave it to Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. This was two and a half years into the EMD program for MQ-25. And it always made me sort of scratch my head and wonder where that came from. But if there was a Lockheed long-range strike aircraft in development within the Skunk Works and the Navy just wanted to baseline on one ground control station rather than have two independent ground control stations on the carrier, that would make a lot more sense for them to do what they did, which never made sense externally at least. So anyway, those are some of the little clues and there's more to that and there's a little Easter eggs and things we've been writing about that sort of allude to this, but we don't know for sure exactly what's going on there.
Robert Wall (12:37): Yeah, very, very, very interesting. So really in a way, assuming F/A-XX does happen, we are starting to see kind of a shift or in what the carrier wing composition will look like.
Steve Trimble (12:49): Yeah, well because there was also the vector that the Navy put out in 2021 where they said that the future carrier air wing would be 60% unmanned by the end of the decade. And if you look at their force structural plans, that makes no sense at all because they, they're clearly are not going to be based on what we know of. But if there is this long-range strike aircraft in their force structure and it's going into production and being delivered by the end of the decade, you actually do get to a 60% ratio of unmanned demand, including the MQ-25. So I think that's interesting. And I mean there's a lot of focus on CCA and there should be, but it is starting to make me think that there's an unclassified track that's going on with unmanned combat aircraft and we're seeing that with the Air Force CCA and the Marine Corps CCA programs.
(13:42): And then there's this classified track and we've been writing in the past about this program we've called the RQ-180, even though we're pretty sure that that's not what it's called anymore. So there's that that's out there. There's this Lockheed classified aircraft that they've disclosed at Skunk Works and maybe there's also this Navy program and it kind of mirrors what China's doing too. So for years we've heard about FH-97, about GJ-11 Cs-5,000T as their sort of CCA programs. And now in the last couple of weeks we've seen these new models that have appeared in the rehearsals for their National day parade coming up on September 3rd that suggests that they've also had this classified track for much more advanced, much more sophisticated aircraft that are also part of this combat collaborative concept. It's just interesting how all this stuff is sort of swirling around out there and we're just getting little pieces here and there, but it all seems to be pointing in a similar direction anyway.
Robert Wall (14:46): Yeah, very interesting. Well, we warned you that we would be trying to pack in a lot here. And so if you guys just hang in with me as I attempt the most elegant segue ever key part of the carrier Air wing is of course the E-2. And with that, the E-2 now is taking on a new role, land-based airborne early warning gap filler for the Air Force, which may or may not be losing its E-7 Wedgetail, a program the Pentagon wants to kill. Congress is not so sure about. And Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Allvin has made pretty clear he's not a huge fan of that idea of not buying the E-7 either. So with that, we are Gen. Allvin just announced he is leaving his role in the Air Force in November, I believe. Brian, what is going on?
Brian Everstine (15:36): Well, that's a good question. I mean, last spoke with Gen. Allvin about a month ago at the Global Air and Space Chief Conference, and we talked about future budget planning, talked about his outlook for the Air Force reorganization. It was clear that he had plans, he had things he wants to do. And then this surprise announcement dropped right before the close of business on Monday, kind of took all the Air Force watchers really by surprise. But as we've kind of been trying to report this out, talked to some sources, it seems like there has been some debate growing within the Air Force. We've seen this publicly over the past couple of years with the sort of divest to invest type approach where taking cuts of current readiness to do this long-term investment. And that has kind of bubbled up with a lot of concern across the Air Force, senior leaders below Gen. Allvin. And what we've been hearing is that this kind of came to a head recently and the reporting that we've seen is that the Pentagon wants to go a different direction. So that could be a euphemism that this type approach, this long-term planning approach, needs to start of take a back seat and there needs to be a different leader in the Air Force to change that type of thinking.
Robert Wall (16:49): Let me ask Brian or Steve to chime in here, but I mean obviously we've seen some other senior departures with the Trump administration coming in and John Brown, for instance, the CNO replacement, just kind of wondering, do you guys see this as just one of the same and it was just Allvin's turn or is something else maybe going on here behind the scenes?
Brian Everstine (17:15): It's kind of hard to I think, pin it down really specifically. One change I would point to in this vein would be Gen. Slyfe, the former vice chief. He was very much a long-term outlook thinker for the Air Force. So that might have had some of the same concerns about the near term versus long-term type of consideration.
Steve Trimble (17:34): And my sense is right, there's been a lot of top-down personnel changes from the White House, from the administration, from the top of the Pentagon on certain positions. We saw that with Gen. CQ Brown with Admiral Franchetti for the Navy Gen. Life obviously was ushered out of office early. But I don't think that that's what's happened here based on our reporting, based on Brian's and my reporting, this seems like much more of a bottom up. When I say bottom, I mean at the MAJCOM level, at the major command chief level that this, I mean the Air Force has got a lot of things to deal with. They're trying to be ready for the 2040 fight while at the same time being ready to go to war against a peer adversary, say China for example, in 2027 or 2028. And those are fairly incompatible things to do with the budget that they have.
(18:24): At least that's their perception. So there's already this overhanging tension on top of that. We've seen a lot of top-down approach to solving problems from the Air Force over the last few years. I don't think anybody thinks that they're poor intention between Frank Kendall's operational imperatives, the reorganization with the standup of the Integrated Capabilities Command, which is really taking the requirements setting function of the major commands like Air Combat Command, Air Mobility Command, and Air Force Global Strike Command. And instead of saying, instead of you guys defining what you guys want independently of each other, we want to create an Integrated Capabilities Command in DC or at least at Bolling Air Force Base that adjudicates, say the Air Force wants a new fighter, Air Mobility Command wants a new tanker. Instead of them sort of optimizing the designs and the requirements for each of those, have somebody at Integrated Capabilities Command go, well, if we make the fighter smaller and the tanker bigger, is that a better thing or a worse thing?
(19:33): And that was sort of the idea there. And that was something that Allvin championed to a degree that I think major commands were quite uncomfortable with. Maybe not because they think that the idea is bad, but just the manpower and the pressures on the existing force structure of the Air Force, which is we talk about the pilot shortage in the Air Force, but it's much deeper that much broader than that. There is a huge manpower problem in the Air Force today and it's affecting everything. And so on top of that, they also came out with this deployed combat wing concept moving away from the crowdsourcing model, for lack of a better term, for deployed units. So instead of having just sort of assembling people ad hoc to deploy to an expeditionary base, have units, cohesive units that are formed from different units on different bases assigned to a virtual deployed combat wing.
(20:29): And they would train together and be ready together, not unlike a carrier battle group, for example, and then be ready to deploy. And they've started that out this year and there's just been a lot of frustration and angst over just a lack of manpower to carry that out. Even an abstract, it's not a bad idea, but they're not dealing with some of the underlying problems. At least that seems to be the complaint coming up from the bottom of the ranks that I've been hearing and Brian's been hearing about. So there's a lot going on there, but I think it's important to say that this is not some of the other personnel changes at the highest level that we've seen earlier this year. It's not even what we've seen in the past with other chiefs of staff being forced out of office early, whether that was nuclear surety and concerns about lobbying about the F-22 or the Khobar Towers investigation and one chief's concerns about that or blabbing to the press about targeting information during Desert Storm.
Robert Wall (21:32): Well, that's totally fine now, as you know.
Steve Trimble (21:34): Yeah, I was never against that to begin with, but yeah, so this is a little bit different. It's a little bit unusual. I mean I wouldn't call it a palace coup, but it is from the inside. It's the major commands basically getting fed up with that and apparently the White House signing off on that, which is unusual.
Robert Wall (22:00): Yeah. Funny little story on Gen. Dugan's blabbing, as you called it. John Morocco, our former Aviation Week reporter was on that trip and was one of the people he blabbed to. So it's a nice thanks for the trip down memory lane there, Steve. Yes,
Steve Trimble (22:19): And bless his soul, John Morocco. We missed that guy,
Robert Wall (22:25): Either of you. Well, I'm not going to ask you to hazard to guess who's going to be the next chief, but maybe throw out a name or two who would be on a likely shortlist.
Steve Trimble (22:35): Well, I can say for sure that, I mean the reason why Allvin is not leaving until November is at the moment there's no vice chief confirmed and they're waiting for Gen. Bussiere to be confirmed for the vice chief role. I mean, it looks like, I mean, he's going to be in acting as a chief for at least a month or two until they can actually get somebody nominated and confirmed and who that could be could be Bussiere. We've heard possibility of Wilsbach, he'd have to come out of retirement. That wouldn't be unusual in the Trump administration. They brought Gen. Kane out of retirement. I don't think we'll see Gen. CQ Brown coming out of retirement for that job. But besides that, there could be others.
Brian Everstine (23:23): I would be surprised if the chief nominee Gen. Bussiere would be bumped up one more. I think Steve mentioned a couple of names that we've been hearing a lot more that I don't think that coming out of retirement will be that big of a hurdle for this administration just to be a little guarded in my prediction.
Robert Wall (23:40): Yeah, fair enough. Fair enough. Predictions about the future are hard. All right guys, well let's leave it there. Thanks both for your insights on a range of issues and topics. Thanks also to our podcast producer Guy Ferneyhough for helping us put this together. And to our listeners, of course, thanks for checking in. And please remember to leave us a five-star rating on Spotify or wherever you get your podcast so more people can find us and listen in. And of course, as always remember, check back for another episode of Check 6.
Related Content
Comments