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

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3136
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post27 Aug 2016, 21:46

madrat wrote: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.


Great question/idea. Couldn't do everything, but for a start could certainly do the aerial refueling the SHs do now.

I'm re-gifting the cupie doll to madrat. :salute:
Offline
User avatar

arrow-nautics

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
  • Location: Halifax

Unread post28 Aug 2016, 13:28

cosmicdwarf wrote: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.


Sorry Maus but I agree with this. It's easy to point fingers at the F-35C, but what about the B? As you know, the Marines fly Hornets as well so the B is a part of this equation to some degree. While it's true that the C (CV) is a CATOBAR as is the F/A-18 & the B is a different animal (new AV-8B) - it is still applying pressure to Boeing's bottom line on the assembly line. Also, Obama's sequestration has led to the Pentagon choosing to go full throttle JSF while abandoning (to a large degree) Hornets. In a perfect world without the cuts, the services would be buying the B's & C's plus SHornets to a far greater equal ratio.

It goes without saying that the Navy especially is in a pickle. There's a major shortcoming of Hornets available & the signs are beginning to show. The F/A-18A/B/C is a disaster waiting to happen. Just look at your neighbour to the north for the DNA evidence.

The Pentagon has to make a decision & the current notion is the JSF, not the Hornet...but, stay tuned.
There's an old rule among many in the fighter procurement business: "Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Stop".
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post28 Aug 2016, 14:25

arrow-nautics wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote: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.


Sorry Maus but I agree with this. It's easy to point fingers at the F-35C, but what about the B? As you know, the Marines fly Hornets as well so the B is a part of this equation to some degree. While it's true that the C (CV) is a CATOBAR as is the F/A-18 & the B is a different animal (new AV-8B) - it is still applying pressure to Boeing's bottom line on the assembly line. Also, Obama's sequestration has led to the Pentagon choosing to go full throttle JSF while abandoning (to a large degree) Hornets. In a perfect world without the cuts, the services would be buying the B's & C's plus SHornets to a far greater equal ratio.

It goes without saying that the Navy especially is in a pickle. There's a major shortcoming of Hornets available & the signs are beginning to show. The F/A-18A/B/C is a disaster waiting to happen. Just look at your neighbour to the north for the DNA evidence.

The Pentagon has to make a decision & the current notion is the JSF, not the Hornet...but, stay tuned.

Actually, without the cuts, the timetable for all the F-35 variants wouldn't have been pushed back, and they probably would be in full rate production by now. The Navy wouldn't need any SH at all.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6447
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 Aug 2016, 17:30

cosmicdwarf wrote: 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.



I don't even think he is trying that hard, Basically he is trying to sully the reputation of serving flag officers, while qouting bloggers in australia who have no clue what they are talking about. Maus is actually very lazy. Imply there is a connection then leave. qoute anyone who agrees no matter their background. Its an interesting tactic to be sure. What would Admiral Shoemaker know compared to a guy like Eric Palmer? Even more funny when we see the kind of stuff Eric and Co have said about the old Super Bug... If Maus could qoute Charles Manson saying something negative about the F-35 he would, while attempting to discount serving military personnel.

Maus is basically trying to foist every problem the US Navy has had with aviation (and boy there are many) and blame the whole thing on the F-35C, right down to blaming the JSF program for getting in the way of creating a new super plane, even though the USN hasn't fielded a wholly new, all their own fighter in coming up on 50 years. With tons of failures throughout, especially the 1990s that predate the creation of the JSF program. Most famously the A-12, which lead to the Super Hornet which he says is insufficient in the areas the USN knew it would be insufficient in, like Range.

Yes I'm sure if it wasn't for that mean old JSF the USN would be fielding a fleet of all new super ranged, super fighters on time, and on budget without any cancellation or curtailment, even thought that hasn't happened since the early 1970s with the Tomcat. Its the F-35 alright, and not the collapse of dozens of navy programs along the way (marauder2048, did a good job on the specifics).

And if it wasn't for my parents holding me back, I would be a rock star even though I can't sing or play an instrument. :mrgreen:


In other news as the Hornet line slows the cost is increasing. $77 million Flyaway up from $67 million previously 36 is optimal and we are not looking at that amount anymore even if we do stretch the line (and this is before we add all the ASH stuff) Canada is waiting, what happened to Kuwait? F-35 is getting cheaper, Super Hornet is getting more expensive. They are tearing apart the early super hornets and finding a host of problems that are apparently forgivable for the Super Hornet but not the F-35.
Choose Crews
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 16:27

U.S. Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: source
Reuters | 03DEC2016

"The U.S. Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said.

The plan, which is still being finalized, could be implemented as early as part of the fiscal 2018 budget, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. ["Navy officials say the jets could still be added to the fiscal 2017 budget as part of a supplemental budget that lawmakers are urging Republican President-elect Donald Trump to submit after he takes office."]

"To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant," said the official...."

"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6447
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 17:44

maus92 wrote:U.S. Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: source
Reuters | 03DEC2016

"The U.S. Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said.

The plan, which is still being finalized, could be implemented as early as part of the fiscal 2018 budget, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. ["Navy officials say the jets could still be added to the fiscal 2017 budget as part of a supplemental budget that lawmakers are urging Republican President-elect Donald Trump to submit after he takes office."]

"To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant," said the official...."

"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S



its all on what you bold. :wink: The Navy can't manage their fleet. Maus blames everyone but the navy

Logical. stay whiny, squids gonna squid
Choose Crews
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 624
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 17:52

XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S



its all on what you bold. :wink: The Navy can't manage their fleet. Maus blames everyone but the navy

Logical. stay whiny, squids gonna squid


TIL War On Terror was caused by JSF. It's all coming together now: no JSF => no war, no war => no revenue for evil military industrial complex. I bet if we canned it now Hamas would reconsile with Israel, not a single shout would be fired on India-Pakistan border and Korean DMZ would be dismantled piece by piece and sent to museums over the world just like the Berlin wall.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 18:07

maus92 wrote:"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S


They don't plan on buying fewer F-35Cs, they just need the production of two lines to stay ahead of attrition. This isn't rocket science.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24772
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 18:42

And the last paragraph from REUTERS post above (hubbahubba):
"...The older model Hornets could be transferred to the Marine Corps, which has faced its own maintenance issues, including a lack of spare parts."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

talkitron

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 19:45

Compare the debates over fighter acquisition in Canada, Denmark and Finland (at least on this forum) to this casual desire to buy another squadron or two of Super Hornets. I wonder if the supplemental money for new planes could instead be used to build a more robust depot and maintenance system for both legacy Hornets and Super Hornets? The US taxpayer should not be buying a fair number of SHs to keep the line open in order to chase not many more sales to small countries like Kuwait and countries with small defense budgets like Canada. Moving the line to India for a big order seems like a long shot and of unclear benefit to the US. Presumably the SH employees in St Louis could be given priority to transfer to work on the Qatari F-15 order, if that goes through.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3136
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 22:13

No worries in St Louis; they'll get an myp. Betcha.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1401
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 23:15

To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant," said the official.

The Navy also plans to field and deploy a new unmanned carrier-based refueling plane, the official said.


The Navy's fixed wing procurement plans are so baffling stupid and irrational
that two Air Force PhDs were deployed to make some sense of it. See:

"INNOVATION LOST: THE TRAGEDY OF UCLASS"
Dr MONTE D TURNER USAF
Lt Col DOUGLAS P WICKERT, PhD USAF

From the conclusions (emphasis mine)

UCLASS could have been the crown jewel in the development of next-generation naval combat
capability andthe first component of DoD’s Third Offset. The UCAS technology development
program that preceded UCLASS was well-funded and the required technology was proven ready for
engineering and manufacturing development. At initiation of the UCLASS program, all corners
of the iron triangle, to include the Navy, were firmly behind a fully-capable UCLASS that stood
to transform the Navy’s power projection from manned to unmanned systems in A2/AD
airspace.

From such a promising start at innovation, UCLASS ran into resistance in the Navy that
offers proof for an oft-cited claim that bureaucracies resist innovation that threaten the status
quo. Over the course of five years, the Navy systematically eroded the requirements for
UCLASS until they finally succeeded in converting the next-generation unmanned combat
system into a tanker that supports traditional manned missions . Without an advocate from within
the Navy leadership to champion transformation, further attempts at innovation will likely suffer
the same fate as UCLASS
. It seems clear through history that, due to bureaucratic inertia, the
services will not deliver innovation without vision and leadership. Even in the midst of calls for
a Third Offset strategy and generous support from Congress, the Navy suppressed the best
promise for innovation in this generation
.
Attachments
turner_m.pdf
INNOVATION LOST: THE TRAGEDY OF UCLASS
(588.89 KiB) Downloaded 795 times
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 23:42

I give the Navy a pass on UCLASS. Crawl, walk then run.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

talkitron

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 23:48

Yeah, developing UCLASS as a combat platform seems risky in a crowded budget environment. The Navy needs to fund lots of F-35C's in addition to the many shipbuilding projects, particularly the new ballistic missiles subs.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6447
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 23:55

sferrin wrote:
maus92 wrote:"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S


They don't plan on buying fewer F-35Cs, they just need the production of two lines to stay ahead of attrition. This isn't rocket science.


A lot of new Super Hornets are needed to replace the early lot super hornets the USN bought. Maus is fine with the navy buying early lot airplanes so long as they aren't F-35s. Since I wasn't born yesterday I remember all the navy butt hurt over the Super Hornet at the time. Maus must be new
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 35 guests