Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

[maus92]

People always try to use the Navy wanting more Super Hornets as somehow a problem for the F-35C going forward. It's not. The Navy wants Super Hornets because Legacy Hornet and Super Hornets are going through their airframe lifetime faster than expected. The only "problem" is that the F-35 delays caused them to need to keep legacy Hornets longer than they probably expected as well. So it's Hornets for Hornets with no effect on the F-35C.

The Navy's main problem is Boeing inability to sell the aircraft to anyone but them (and the Aussies) so the Navy has to be the one to keep the line open for the rest of the years they plan to keep on getting Hornets.

The Navy wants and needs more Super Hornets, both to mitigate delays in the F-35C program and to offset higher than anticipated usage (and operational losses.) They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now. Every Super Hornet purchased today reduces potential F-35C sales in the short to mid term. A scenario that *might* work in favor of the F-35C surfaces next decade, and depends on the SLAP. The Navy *could* opt to park Block I Super Hornets rather than SLEPing them when they time out, and purchase F-35Cs in a (useful) late Block 4 or Block 5 configuration. It's going to depend on the cost of regenerating the older Super Hornets and what ASH options are picked to be incorporated.

[XanderCrews]

Re: VADM Shoemaker saying the F-35C and F/A-18 are part of a high low mix: that's nothing new - he said the same thing in the 2015 version of the same naval aviation conference hosted by CSIS - and sponsored by the same corporation - that's right, the series sponsor is Lockheed Martin (clearly mentioned in the intro.).

Had no idea the sponsorship of the conference meant the admiral now worked for them. Learning a lot.

Admiral speaks at LM conference means it's no longer valid. Wow sailors sure do have some screwy ideas. Had no idea that opinions changed by the venue.

What does it mean when sailors walk into an LM facility, or even touch or fly an LM aircraft? Do they burst into flames or suddenly renounce their service?

[SpudmanWP]

They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now.

Regardless of which fighter you buy"Now", it takes 3 years to make (1 yr LL items & 2 years for Prod). That means that any F-35C bought NOW will be a post IOC Block 3F bird when it is delivered. So much for "limited".

[cosmicdwarf]

People always try to use the Navy wanting more Super Hornets as somehow a problem for the F-35C going forward. It's not. The Navy wants Super Hornets because Legacy Hornet and Super Hornets are going through their airframe lifetime faster than expected. The only "problem" is that the F-35 delays caused them to need to keep legacy Hornets longer than they probably expected as well. So it's Hornets for Hornets with no effect on the F-35C.

The Navy's main problem is Boeing inability to sell the aircraft to anyone but them (and the Aussies) so the Navy has to be the one to keep the line open for the rest of the years they plan to keep on getting Hornets.

The Navy wants and needs more Super Hornets, both to mitigate delays in the F-35C program and to offset higher than anticipated usage (and operational losses.) They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now. Every Super Hornet purchased today reduces potential F-35C sales in the short to mid term. A scenario that *might* work in favor of the F-35C surfaces next decade, and depends on the SLAP. The Navy *could* opt to park Block I Super Hornets rather than SLEPing them when they time out, and purchase F-35Cs in a (useful) late Block 4 or Block 5 configuration. It's going to depend on the cost of regenerating the older Super Hornets and what ASH options are picked to be incorporated.

This isn't an F-35C problem though. I get that you're trying really really hard to try and dig up dirt on the F-35, but this is literally a Hornet problem.

The only "problem" with the F-35C was that it didn't have realistic timelines initially, which has been rectified. This only means that the Navy didn't get Super Hornets to initially replace Legacy Hornets, which is why the Navy still wants to get Super Hornets now. Super Hornets are going through their aircraft faster because the Navy is using them more than expected, which is why the Navy wants to get Super Hornets now. No amount of the F-35C being delayed has an effect on that.

[SpudmanWP]

Part of the Navy's problem with the is that they purposefully slowed the F-35C build rate. The natural fix to this is to increase the rate, not buy something else.

[marauder2048]

Re: VADM Shoemaker saying the F-35C and F/A-18 are part of a high low mix: that's nothing new - he said the same thing in the 2015 version of the same naval aviation conference hosted by CSIS - and sponsored by the same corporation - that's right, the series sponsor is Lockheed Martin (clearly mentioned in the intro.) .

What's your point? Boeing is CSIS's biggest contributor and McNerney (Boeing CEO 2005 - 2015) sits on the board. No Lockheed, BAE, or NG former employees of any standing on CSIS's board.

[XanderCrews]

Re: VADM Shoemaker saying the F-35C and F/A-18 are part of a high low mix: that's nothing new - he said the same thing in the 2015 version of the same naval aviation conference hosted by CSIS - and sponsored by the same corporation - that's right, the series sponsor is Lockheed Martin (clearly mentioned in the intro.) .

What's your point? Boeing is CSIS's biggest contributor and McNerney (Boeing CEO 2005 - 2015) sits on the board. No Lockheed, BAE, or NG former employees of any standing on CSIS's board.

Good question. Maus's MO is basically find a connection (again I want to know exactly what the direct connection is between LM and the VADM and how the venue influenced him to say something maus thinks doesn't count) between a positive comment and LM and think that is making a point he mistakes for evidence

[spazsinbad]

I'm still waiting for a 'maus92' list of acceptable think tanks, news websites, authors and bloggers for F-35 stuff. NOT.

[marauder2048]

The Navy wants and needs more Super Hornets, both to mitigate delays in the F-35C program and to offset higher than anticipated usage (and operational losses.)

20% of Super Hornet sorties are *tanker* sorties because the Hornet Mafia convinced the Navy to retire the S-3.
Predictably, this has led to higher usage and so it's completely untrue to say this was unanticipated.

Stupidly, the Navy isn't buying VARS for the CMV-22B which when combined with the Navy's complete mismanagement of UCLASS/CBARS/Stringray/MQ-25 (or whatever they are calling it) has resulted in a mini-crisis of their own making.

But you are right in that both the F-35C and Super Hornet have a place on the deck; the Super Hornet is there to refuel the F-35C.

They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now. Every Super Hornet purchased today reduces potential F-35C sales in the short to mid term. A scenario that *might* work in favor of the F-35C surfaces next decade, and depends on the SLAP. The Navy *could* opt to park Block I Super Hornets rather than SLEPing them when they time out, and purchase F-35Cs in a (useful) late Block 4 or Block 5 configuration. It's going to depend on the cost of regenerating the older Super Hornets and what ASH options are picked to be incorporated.

How does it save money to buy from an inefficient factory (30% fewer deliveries Year-over-Year) that potentially has to pass along closing costs?

Gotta love how the Navy took Delta Flight Path on the "limited capability" F-35C to the boat before the fully capable (?) Super Hornet got Magic Carpet on the boat. When's the production cut-in for Magic Carpet on the Super Hornet? How much will it cost to retrofit it to the entire Super Hornet fleet? What's the cost of maintaining two different training syllabi?

The Block I Super Hornets should be pushed over the side of the boat; the Navy did not know how to properly maintain their RAM coatings and the resulting corrosion has been phenomenal. Plus, they can't accommodate anything new given that the Block Is ran out of growth room more than a decade ago.

At best, the Navy will get CFTs for some of the Super Bug fleet which will enable the Super Hornet to reach the level of capability the Block 60 F-16 reached 12 years ago.

[XanderCrews]

The Navy wants and needs more Super Hornets, both to mitigate delays in the F-35C program and to offset higher than anticipated usage (and operational losses.)

20% of Super Hornet sorties are *tanker* sorties because the Hornet Mafia convinced the Navy to retire the S-3.
Predictably, this has led to higher usage and so it's completely untrue to say this was unanticipated.

Stupidly, the Navy isn't buying VARS for the CMV-22B which when combined with the Navy's complete mismanagement of UCLASS/CBARS/Stringray/MQ-25 (or whatever they are calling it) has resulted in a mini-crisis of their own making.

But you are right in that both the F-35C and Super Hornet have a place on the deck; the Super Hornet is there to refuel the F-35C.

They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now. Every Super Hornet purchased today reduces potential F-35C sales in the short to mid term. A scenario that *might* work in favor of the F-35C surfaces next decade, and depends on the SLAP. The Navy *could* opt to park Block I Super Hornets rather than SLEPing them when they time out, and purchase F-35Cs in a (useful) late Block 4 or Block 5 configuration. It's going to depend on the cost of regenerating the older Super Hornets and what ASH options are picked to be incorporated.

How does it save money to buy from an inefficient factory (30% fewer deliveries Year-over-Year) that potentially has to pass along closing costs?

Gotta love how the Navy took Delta Flight Path on the "limited capability" F-35C to the boat before the fully capable (?) Super Hornet got Magic Carpet on the boat. When's the production cut-in for Magic Carpet on the Super Hornet? How much will it cost to retrofit it to the entire Super Hornet fleet? What's the cost of maintaining two different training syllabi?

The Block I Super Hornets should be pushed over the side of the boat; the Navy did not know how to properly maintain their RAM coatings and the resulting corrosion has been phenomenal. Plus, they can't accommodate anything new given that the Block Is ran out of growth room more than a decade ago.

At best, the Navy will get CFTs for some of the Super Bug fleet which will enable the Super Hornet to reach the level of capability the Block 60 F-16 reached 12 years ago.

Post of the year. But let's just blame the F-35C for navy botches

[blindpilot]

... How much will it cost to retrofit it to the entire Super Hornet fleet? What's the cost of maintaining two different training syllabi?

....

<sarc on>Oh NO!!!! Concurrency !!! That will never work !!! ... <sarc off> except ... have you noticed lately ... it sort of ... doh! ... actually .... is working? .. I mean we have active operational squadrons .. and the update costs ... well .... aren't going off the charts ... and production is running .. and costs are going down ...

Never mind ..

... well except the Boeing charges for upgrading the SH haven't been quoted yet, and we know what the CEO said about Boeing's goals of replacing making new fighter income with maintenance/upgrade income dollar for dollar ... ugh...oil change $100M, new tires $100M, it's almost like TV cable bundles * ... that could be brutal ...



Just a thought,
BP

* TV Cable bundles = "How much for cable? - $200, "wow what if I want movie channels, too?" - today only! $200, "Can I get a phone with it?" - yep both for $200. "What about Cable, phone AND internet?" - great deal only $200. "Hmmm well I just need internet, how much is that?" - $200 !!

[XanderCrews]

... How much will it cost to retrofit it to the entire Super Hornet fleet? What's the cost of maintaining two different training syllabi?

....

<sarc on>Oh NO!!!! Concurrency !!! That will never work !!! ... <sarc off> except ... have you noticed lately ... it sort of ... doh! ... actually .... is working? .. I mean we have active operational squadrons .. and the update costs ... well .... aren't going off the charts ... and production is running .. and costs are going down ...

Never mind ..

... well except the Boeing charges for upgrading the SH haven't been quoted yet, and we know what the CEO said about Boeing's goals of replacing making new fighter income with maintenance/upgrade income dollar for dollar ... ugh...oil change $100M, new tires $100M, it's almost like TV cable bundles * ... that could be brutal?



Just a thought,
BP

* TV Cable bundles = "How much for cable? - $200, "wow what if I want movie channels, too?" - today only! $200, "Can I get a phone with it?" - yep both for $200. "What about Cable, phone AND internet?" - great deal only $200. "Hmmm well I just need internet, how much is that?" - $200 !!

You've got it all wrong. Boeing doesn't do concurrency they do "spiral development" lol. Maus even mentioned the advanced super hornet upgrades to come surely this aircraft is mature right?

So here's a question, Maus tells us the super hornet doesn't have enough range and they need something with more range than the F-35C yet he is happy to get more super Hornets? What amount of super Hornets would the navy buy before they suddenly start getting magically better range and how close are we to that?

[quicksilver]

Conformity and group-think are strong in Naval Aviation, and have gotten stronger (worse) since the CVW was homogenized into E/F/G. Add a little corporate competition where one side "can't tell" and the other "can't tell the truth" and we find the future of the air wing looking more like Australia (and maybe, Canada) than the tip of America's spear in the 2d and 3d decades of the 21st century.

When the SLAPs were done on A-D Hornets some years ago, the cost to extend life beyond 6K hrs was between $2-5M per 300 hours of extension (there is a CRS, CBO or GAO report on same somewhere in the interabyss); that's $20-50M to get to 9K hrs.

Show of hands...who buys the idea that it will somehow be cheaper to do so for SH? OK. Now show us the additional bill for the capability upgrades to make it competitive with a Block 3i F-35C...dont forget both the NRE and the retrofit money (for how many jets?).

So, lets do the math -- if we accept the fiction that a fully burdened SH URF is $55M (it is not), let's take the midpoint of the SLAP-assessed extension cost for another 3K hours on legacy Hornets ($35M) and add it to the 55M; that's 90M before we ever do a thing about capability deficiencies (remember...compared to a Block 3i F-35C). Now let's factor in time...how long will it take to do all of this? 2021, 22...when? By that time, F-35 is going to be well into Block 4 (and beyond) and the capability deficiency for SH gets worse because they have limited airframe life and are out of growth margin.

And what do the cost curves for O&S escalation look like for jets that are beyond their original service lives? They are bad and get worse over time due to component obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources (cant keep the subs on line for parts except at very high prices). Good for the depots' future (and contractors who want to make money on the throughput the depots cant keep up with, like...Boeing).

Wow. What a future to get excited about.

[blindpilot]

...

Wow. What a future to get excited about.

Bingo! Give the man a cupie doll!

BP

[madrat]

Can $35 mil get you a new build UCAV that would do the same job as a Super Hornet? Only you wouldn't need additional pilots.