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
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post24 Feb 2018, 05:12

Well this is all very bad. Doesn't matter how stealthy or fast your airplane is if you can't fly it. I hope a good solution is found soon enough.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Feb 2018, 02:37

On previous page USN 'hypoxia training' via ROBD Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device is explained via the video. MORE:
Some odd juxtapositions of text for 1st graphic? I see it is a suit connected to helmet for F A R T Protection: :doh:
ROBD & Hypoxia Training
Flight Surgeon Dr. (LTC) Joseph Puskar

JPG: "The Joint Service Aircrew Mask-JSF integrates with the F-35 life support system and pilot flight equipment to provide combined chemical-biological and anti-gravity protection. / ARMY.MIL http://armyaviationmagazine.com/images/ ... geon_a.jpg

Source: http://armyaviationmagazine.com/index.p ... a-training

THE IMPACT OF HYPOBARIC VERSUS HYPOXIC HYPOXIA TRAINING IN ELEVEN HIGH PERFORMANCE MILITARY PILOTS
A. Macovei and D. Popescu National Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Bucharest, Romania
AEROSPACE MEDICINE AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE Vol. 87, No. 3 March 2016


"INTRODUCTION: page 277 or physical page 19
Recently, the new modality of physiological training has emerged from the research labs into the specific market. The reduced oxygen breathing devices (ROBD) have the potential to enhance and/or replace our current hypoxia training altitude chamber.

METHODS:
A total of 11 experienced high performance pilots had undergone physiological training in the hypobaric facility of The National Institute of Aerospace Medicine in Bucharest, Romania. All pilots were fighter pilots, currently flying the MiG 21 LanceR fighter. Two days after the chamber profile, the pilots volunteered to take the ROBD hypoxia test. The ROBD profile was a two-step (3500m, 7500m) ascent to 7500 m over 3 minutes. The ROBD is a high-grade commercially available medical device, certified for use on humans. The ROBD device software had the ability to perform psychometric testing built in.

RESULTS:
There were generally more symptoms reported in the ROBD. Most recognized symptoms were the mental and motor skills category. Statistically, there were no significant differences for symptoms distribution, p value ranging from 0.06 to 0.6, except for the mental symptom reporting (p=0.018, Z=2,36). Recorded variations in heart rate differed significantly with a Z of 2.80 and a p of 0.004. Recorded oxygen saturation did significantly differ for the two setups, at 7500 meters in chamber and in ROBD with a Z of 2.40 and a p of 0.015.

DISCUSSION:
At debriefing, all pilots reported that it was harder to cope with hypoxia with ROBD than in the chamber. This was borne out by the greater number of symptoms with ROBD. Although air hunger might have been a factor, all the pilots gave negative responses to this issue. Our results give the general impression off adding value for training over the normal altitude chamber training. The ability to take motor coordination skills in the hypoxic environment was most appreciated by pilots. The ROBD simulation managed to drop the oxygen saturation lower than for the chamber for most cases (10 out of 11) with marked effect for some cases. The ROBD training is not without peril. We did not encounter any medical issues with our subjects, both in chamber or on ROBD, but there are case reports in the literature.

CONCLUSION:
Optimal hypoxia training can still be best realized in an altitude chamber. However, ROBD training is a reasonable alternative if costs preclude altitude chamber facilities. Learning Objectives: 1. The participant will be able to figure out the role of a reduced oxygen breathing device in physiological training. 2. The participant will learn of commonly perceived hypoxia symptoms."

Source: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/a ... cation/pdf (0.8Mb)
Attachments
F-35helmetBIOsuitProtection.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Feb 2018, 02:58

So this is definitive info: GROUND CONTROL TO MAJOR TOM "Put Your Funny Suit ON" : Dressing for Altitude www://https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/683215ma ... -ebook.pdf (18Mb)

Aviation Community to See Significant Change in Training
17 May 2016 Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Matthew Clutter, Navy Medicine Education and Training Command Public Affairs

"PENSACOLA, Fla. (NNS) -- The Naval Survival Training Institute announced May 17, the Navy is fully integrating the Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device (ROBD) into aviation hypoxia training as a bridge to the more permanent normobaric hypoxia (oxygen reduced) trainer. The portable ROBD is replacing the large, room-sized low-pressure chambers that were decommissioned at all eight Aviation Survival Training Centers in March, said Capt. Michael Prevost, NSTI assistant officer in charge....

ROBD training is also more realistic. In the traditional low-pressure chambers, hypoxic pilots and flight crew members were required to perform tasks that required simple coordination. By contrast, ROBD can be packed up and taken to a fleet simulator, permitting context-specific hypoxia training.

"Instead of sitting in a low pressure chamber playing patty cake or playing with a shape box or something like that, we can put them at a set of aircraft controls and have them do aviation-type tasks," Prevost said.

Prevost explained hypoxia is the number-one human factors issue for the F/A-18 Hornet and for the commander of Naval Air Forces. He said ROBD addresses this issue by giving him and his team a much better way to train aviators for hypoxia. In addition to its mobility is its ability to allow the pilot train and re-train for hypoxia -- something that was rather limited with the low pressure chamber due to the reported cases of decompression sickness.

Low-pressure chambers are expensive to operate and maintain, and they have reached the end of their operational life. By shutting them down the ASTCs avoid the risk of pushing them structurally, Prevost said.

In decommissioning the giant, steel low-pressure chambers, the Navy is losing a longtime staple of the aviation training community. In its place is a more mobile and efficient tool. The shift to a less expensive, more efficient and permanent training solution will be complete by 2017. All pilots will use the ROBD trainer until the full implementation of normobaric hypoxia trainers occurs. Once those trainers are in place, only pilots who fly with masks will continue using the ROBD."

Source: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=94743

Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device 2 (ROBD2)
2014 Environics

"The Environics® Series 6202 Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device 2 is the next generation system that simulates altitude exposure and can be utilized for both research and hypoxia training....

...The U. S. Military currently uses the ROBD 2 to train aircrew to recognize the signs and symptoms of hypoxia and to perform the appropriate emergency procedures and additionally, conducts hypoxia research.

As of 2017, the Navy will no longer use low-pressure chambers, instead using only the ROBD for hypoxia training.The Army also relies heavily on the ROBD for their re-training of crews...."



ROBD2 Specs: http://www.environics.com/hubfs/Series% ... rature.pdf (200Kb)

Source: http://www.environics.com/product/reduc ... ice-robd-0
Attachments
ROBD2front.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Feb 2018, 02:29

A NEUTRON BLAST From DEEP Space with JUST the dollar(s) amount paid for 24 Super Hornets for our RAAF - no kidding.
Australia signs Super Hornet fighter deal
03 May 2007 Peter La Franchi

"Australia has signed US foreign military sales contracts worth approximately AUD$2.9 billion ($2.4 billion) for its acquisition of 24 Boeing F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet fighters.... [100 mil US dollars per aircraft in 2007]

...The Australian Department of Defense (DoD) says the aircraft contract will be followed by additional FMS awards later this year for weapons acquisition and type sustainment. The US Navy is coordinating the deals...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... al-213647/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Mar 2018, 01:29

Super Hornets and Growlers to get bigger fuel tanks
28 Feb 2018 Geoff Ziezulewicz

"The Navy is set to equip its Super Hornet and Growler fleet with bigger fuel tanks in the coming years, a development that will allow the jets to fly farther and provide additional capability in a changing world. Boeing will receive $219.6 million for work on the F/A-18 E/F variants, as well as the EA-18G, according to a Pentagon announcement earlier this month. The new conformal fuel tanks can hold 515 gallons of fuel in a low-drag configuration, an increase from the current [external?] tank’s 480-gallon capacity, according to officials with Naval Air Systems Command, or NAVAIR.

While existing fuel tanks are mounted under the wing, the new tanks will sit on top of the wing, on either side of the aircraft dorsal, according to NAVAIR. In a conformal array, the fuel tanks hug the profile of the jet, increasing aerodynamics while freeing up space below the wings for weapons. Super Hornets will start coming off the production line with the new tanks in FY2021, while upgrades of existing jets will commence in FY2023, according to NAVAIR....

...“The F/A-18’s Achilles heel has always been range,” Wertheim said. [Eric Wertheim, a defense consultant and analyst specializing in naval and aviation issues] “When you have adequate tanking that’s not as big of an issue. But when you have a high-threat environment where tankers might not be able to get in or survive, you’ve got to make sure you have extended range capabilities.” In a more permissive environment, the extended fuel tanks will allow those jets to loiter or patrol for longer periods, Wertheim said. “This is part of the changing nature of getting back to a capability that was kind of given up on after the Cold War,” he said."

Source: http://hrana.org/news/2018/02/super-hor ... uel-tanks/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

chucky2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2016, 20:27

Unread post01 Mar 2018, 07:25

That is straight insanity. I'm all for tweaking designs and getting the most out of them, but good lord, the f*cking F-18 spending just needs to stop! Make due with what exists, share assets between carriers, whatever, just stop buying anything for them. The Navy should be mandated to buy only F-35C, and get going on that. For f*cks sake the F-35 replacement will be doing IOC before the Navy gets all its F-18's retired...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6944
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Mar 2018, 07:30

chucky2 wrote:That is straight insanity. I'm all for tweaking designs and getting the most out of them, but good lord, the f*cking F-18 spending just needs to stop! Make due with what exists, share assets between carriers, whatever, just stop buying anything for them. The Navy should be mandated to buy only F-35C, and get going on that. For f*cks sake the F-35 replacement will be doing IOC before the Navy gets all its F-18's retired...





I am with you.....buying more Super Hornets is nothing short of insanity! :bang:
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post01 Mar 2018, 17:37

chucky2 wrote:That is straight insanity. I'm all for tweaking designs and getting the most out of them, but good lord, the f*cking F-18 spending just needs to stop! Make due with what exists, share assets between carriers, whatever, just stop buying anything for them. The Navy should be mandated to buy only F-35C, and get going on that. For f*cks sake the F-35 replacement will be doing IOC before the Navy gets all its F-18's retired...



Not gonna happen for at least five more years. Super Hornets are just too versatile. And affordable. Meanwhile in that same time frame, the US plans to order ~22 fewer F-35s than planned last year's budget. There is also authorization to buy ~20 more Super Hornets from FY17 and FY18 funding if Congress can get off their collective azzes and pass a real appropriations bill instead of CRs.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4199
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post01 Mar 2018, 19:26

The Navy is absolutely wed to the thing (SH). No matter how compromised it is, it can do no wrong in their minds. There was $ for the original Hornet, and they bought oodles of them. Then when it became apparent they needed something more, some idiot came up with the SH. And Congress and the Navy quite literally bought it.

Now that the Navy finally has a world class strike fighter that can do it all (F-35C) what are they doing? Buying Super Duper Hornets and spending $ it supposedly doesn't have on yesterday's news, vs. accelerating the F-35C buy. Whoever is behind this fiasco will be remembered in the same way as Robert Gates, who cancelled the F-22.

They might as well kill the F/A-XX while they're at it, because shortly someone at Boeing is going o sell them on the "Super-Hornet 2060", or some such bullsh!t.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post01 Mar 2018, 19:39

The FY2018 --> FY2022 F-35A/B/C quantity numbers are identical compared to last year's numbers.

Where are you getting this ~22 fewer number?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

chucky2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2016, 20:27

Unread post02 Mar 2018, 01:02

maus92 wrote:Not gonna happen for at least five more years. Super Hornets are just too versatile. And affordable. Meanwhile in that same time frame, the US plans to order ~22 fewer F-35s than planned last year's budget. There is also authorization to buy ~20 more Super Hornets from FY17 and FY18 funding if Congress can get off their collective azzes and pass a real appropriations bill instead of CRs.


Affordable?! New build SH Block II+ or whateverTF they're building will literally take longer to get than F-35, which means enduring shortage longer and more harshly, and they cost as much as F-35C. Where in the hell do you get affordable from?

Look, if new build F-18 Block II+ cost like $40M, maybe $50M, I could maaaaaybe see it being worth it while F-35C was rolled out. But it doesn't. It's not even remotely close to that. Now they're going to spend how much on fuel tanks that are barely bigger than drops they're already carrying?

It's like giving Boeing money day or something, for a totally EOL system. If we're going to throw money at Boeing, do it for the Apache, or the B-52, or the Chinook, or the Eagle, or the P-8, or the KC-46...for sh*t that still has value. I have no Hornet hate at all, but, it's served its purpose, its replacement is here. Same for F-16. If anything we should be putting F-35 resources fully into F-35C being done, finished, full production+, and get it going Super [strikethrough]Hornet[/strikethrough] Duper quicky. Bigly. Start replacing full carrier worth and use those Hornets as parts for the others. When we're all done Canada can extend out their competition another decade or something, maybe two. Heck, wait for F-35 replacement.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Mar 2018, 05:24

This'll (or THISTLE?) get the broken hearted 'maus92' "back in the game" or the author HOOTED off the stage - clapped out.
Giving the Super Hornet More Punch: Think SM-6
01 Mar 2018 By Jason Blackstone

"In the Navy’s recent budget request, the Navy finally funded the design an acquisition of conformal fuel tanks for the Super Hornet. With the potential to extend the range of the Hornet with a low drag external fuel tank, the tanks can either expand the range of a Super Hornet or free up two high capacity weapons stations by replacing the two external tanks currently used on almost every flight. One option would help to restore a long-range interception role that has been missing from the Navy since the retirement of the Tomcat in the 2000s. With four capacity weapons stations available on the Super Hornet, the SM-6 Dual I SAM could be modified to serve as a long-range air to air missile, much like the Standard SM-1 was modified to serve as an anti-radiation during the Vietnam War....

...The Block III Super Hornet in development will include conformal fuel tanks that will allow the Block III Hornet to have an increased combat radius while freeing up the high capacity weapons stations 4 and 8. A Block III Hornet with the conformal fuel tanks will be able to carry 4 SM-6 Dual II missiles and 6 AIM-120D missiles along with a single external fuel tank on weapons station 6 to a combat radius of 510 miles.

The SM-6 Dual II missile currently in development by the Navy is capable of engaging both air and surface targets out to a range of 130 miles when launched from the surface. The missile is about 15 feet in length and 1,800 pounds, and so can be accommodated on four weapons stations of the Super Hornet, weapons stations 3, 4, 8, and 9. In a Block II Super Hornet, weapons stations 4, 6, and 8 are normally occupied by external fuel tanks, but on a Block III Hornet, with weapons stations 4 and 8 freed, an SM-6 can be carried on the 4 stations mentioned earlier.

The process of qualifying the SM-6 Dual I to be carried on a Super Hornet should not be needlessly complex. The SM-6’s predecessor, the SM-1, was similarly modified from a naval SAM to an air-carriage configuration. This process took around two years to create an operational product. The SM-6 has been designed to be easily updated using software updates, as evidenced by the newly enabled ability to engage surface targets. Capt. Michael Ladner, program manager, told USNI News in 2014 that several new missions could be added via software-only upgrades. In addition to being easily reconfigurable, the SM-6 has been shown to work with the Navy’s fighter datalinks by the engagement of an aerial target utilizing targeting data provided by an F-35 in 2016. A short development process would allow the SM-6 to be qualified for Super Hornet use by 2020.... [more at the jump]

...This modification is a low risk, low cost endeavor that could provide a much greater engagement range of the current carrier strike group against air threats and should be explored soon and taken seriously."

Source: https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 13137.html
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Mar 2018, 06:29

US Navy launches Super Hornet SLEP
01 Mar 2018 Gareth Jennings

"The US Navy (USN) has launched a service life extension programme (SLEP) for its fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet combat aircraft, the Department of Defense (DoD) disclosed on 28 February. The Naval Air Systems Command has awarded Boeing a USD73.2 million contract to increase the airframe hours of the first four Super Hornets, from 6,000 to 9,000. The work will continue through to April 2020....

...Beyond these initial four aircraft the navy has not said how many aircraft will go through the SLEP process, but it will likely encompass most if not all of the service’s 568 Super Hornet programme-of-record (with more being requested). Also, it is not clear if the programme will be extended to the USN’s 160 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft that are to be delivered, or if international Super Hornet and Growler operator Australia is to be included. Any future aircraft (including those expected for Kuwait) will likely be built to the SLEP standard...."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/78258/us-n ... ornet-slep
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 Mar 2018, 06:40

So.. an extra $15+ mil to get them to the F-35's level of lifetime hours?

Wow.. those are "so" much more affordable than the already existing F-35. :lmao:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6482
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post02 Mar 2018, 15:47

maus92 wrote:
Not gonna happen for at least five more years. Super Hornets are just too versatile.



Are these the same super hornets you are always telling us don't have range?
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests