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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 03:21

marauder2048 wrote:I don't see the MQ-25 surviving in any meaningful sense because as Hendrix points out it has a fairly
low fuel-give at range; strike capability was scrubbed and the Navy already has Triton and P-8
for ISR.

Once the Hornet mafia demonstrates "good enough" offload with a 3-wet + CFT equipped Super Hornet
the MQ-25 program will probably be killed especially since the high-time Block IIs that aren't upgraded
to Block III standard provide a ready source of tanker hulls.



If, the winner of the MQ-25 meets the USN requirements for the aircraft. Then why would they cancel the project??? :doh:
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1590
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 04:32

marauder2048 wrote:I don't see the MQ-25 surviving in any meaningful sense because as Hendrix points out it has a fairly low fuel-give at range; strike capability was scrubbed and the Navy already has Triton and P-8 for ISR.

Once the Hornet mafia demonstrates "good enough" offload with a 3-wet + CFT equipped Super Hornet the MQ-25 program will probably be killed especially since the high-time Block IIs that aren't upgraded to Block III standard provide a ready source of tanker hulls.


I fail to see how F/A-18 SH with 3 bags and CFTs can compete with the 'good enough' ~48,000 lb from 3 fuel offloads in the following example:

If we presume F-35C's 'Best Range Speed,' at high-altitude is 475 kt, which is a reasonable guesstimate given it is a very low-drag and range enhancing high laminar-flow design, the conservative extra 70 mins of fuel for a flight of 4 x F-35C I estimated, equates to a track distance range increase of 543 nm.

For three refuellings this gives a track distance boost of:

3 x 543 nm = 1,628 nm track distance increase

We know from other documents that F-35C can manage a combat out and back dash radius of at least 760 nm, or:

760 x 2 = 1,520 nm baseline combat track distance, unrefuelled.

Combining this with the three refuellings gives:

1,628 nm + 1,520 nm = 3,148 nm total track distance flyable

(and that's with a mandated 2,500 lb FAA certified reserve requirement remaining intact btw).

So we are already out to 1,574 nm track distance radius range, so already exceeding Hendrix's desired strike radius.

Now add the range addition from LRASM, of 450 nm (conservative) extra of VLO precision fire and forget, and you get a conservative achievable strike radius of:

1,574 nm + 450 nm = 2,024 nm

Hence why I said, " ... Seems to me this, MQ-25 + F-35C + (JSM, LRASM) = 1,300 to 1,800 nm, would be a much more seamless solution to the carrier strike range/reach problem, and far more survivable too. Which all hinges on prioritising faster fielding of MQ-25 tanker, F-35C, plus VLO cruise standoff weapons, for USN.

----
BTW, your arguments seem curiously almost indistinguishable to those of Hendrix, you're not related, are you?
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1468
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 04:36

Corsair1963 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:I don't see the MQ-25 surviving in any meaningful sense because as Hendrix points out it has a fairly
low fuel-give at range; strike capability was scrubbed and the Navy already has Triton and P-8
for ISR.

Once the Hornet mafia demonstrates "good enough" offload with a 3-wet + CFT equipped Super Hornet
the MQ-25 program will probably be killed especially since the high-time Block IIs that aren't upgraded
to Block III standard provide a ready source of tanker hulls.



If, the winner of the MQ-25 meets the USN requirements for the aircraft. Then why would they cancel the project??? :doh:



Because MQ-25 was premised on a gap in carrier-based refueling capability due to
Super Hornet retirements in the mid-2020s. Those retirements are now, in effect, not happening.

The costs for mission/recovery tanking from the Super Hornet are known knowns and MQ-25
was so scrubbed of other capabilities that it will serve no purpose.
Attachments
mq-25-requirements-evolution.png
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 04:45

The US Navy seems like they have other ideas. As they're progressing ahead with the MQ-25A.... :wink:
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1590
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 05:05

marauder2048 wrote:The costs for mission/recovery tanking from the Super Hornet are known knowns and MQ-25
was so scrubbed of other capabilities that it will serve no purpose.


So having a dedicated survivable LO fleet air tanker won't free up a squadron of Super Hornets to fight in far more suitable roles?

And keep in mind the quoted offload weight @ 550 nm radius will include an extended loiter phase also.

i.e. if you fly out and back, to 1,100 nm, with no extended loiter phase, you would probably still be able to unload the full 16,000 lb, or even more, and RTB, to recover that MQ-25 when done.

So, in the strike range example I gave above, 1st loitering refuel at 550 nm radius (outbound), 2nd non-loitering refuel at 1,100 nm radius (returning), and 3rd loitering refuel at 550 nm radius out from the carrier, to RTB.

How many SH would that take to support 4 x F-35 like that? And could a squadron of SH even manage to do it, and provide comparable F-35C strike range potential?

At what cost? And should expensive SH strike fighters even be doing that? They are f**king them up doing it, that is the cause of billions being spent to re-cap SH!

Get a tanker.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1468
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 06:01

Corsair1963 wrote:The US Navy seems like they have other ideas. As they're progressing ahead with the MQ-25A.... :wink:


The buy profile suggests that they'll only acquire a few air vehicles and most of the funding will go to the
connectivity and carrier segments. It looks more like an MQ-8B effort.

To element1loop:

Survivability is not a key requirement for MQ-25 so I don't see the Navy paying for it.

The counter-argument to freeing up strike fighters is that CFTs free up pylons for weapons
meaning you need fewer Super Hornets to deliver the same payload.

I should stress that I don't believe the Navy *should* do what I'm predicting.
But the arguments (pretexts?) that could be marshaled for doing so seem to be
mounting by the day.

No relation to Hendrix (we're not the same person either) but his article was
spookily similar to my line of thinking.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1590
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 09:00

marauder2048 wrote:
To element1loop:

Survivability is not a key requirement for MQ-25 so I don't see the Navy paying for it.

The counter-argument to freeing up strike fighters is that CFTs free up pylons for weapons
meaning you need fewer Super Hornets to deliver the same payload.

I should stress that I don't believe the Navy *should* do what I'm predicting. But the arguments (pretexts?) that could be marshaled for doing so seem to be mounting by the day.

No relation to Hendrix (we're not the same person either) but his article was spookily similar to my line of thinking.


Your thinking that the USN won't pay a premium for survivability, seems unlikely to me in the big-power 'push-me, shove-you' theatre that's developed since 2014. Five years ago you would have been right, but not now. USN put a lot of effort into LO features within each rendition of Shornet. Making LO work for them seems to be an important feature of USN aircraft, systems and ships, plus Growler and NGJ to enhance it's partial but incremental avantages. Out of character to forego a forward tanker, especially a LO forward tanker, I'd say.

It's something the USN must have from here as non-LO tankers will definitely not survive forward, loitering on their lonesome. You can not have them visible and unarmed because you can not afford to lose them, or the jets relying on them. Nor can you have SHornets loitering that far out, as that defeats the point of putting limited fuel out there for the strikers.

So this has to be a LO tanker.

Something less will not work, so they have to be able to be quietly moved out of the way of bandits, without them being detected, else your capacity to strike will take a big hit fast

----
" ... The counter-argument to freeing up strike fighters is that CFTs free up pylons for weapons
meaning you need fewer Super Hornets to deliver the same payload.
... "
---

Sorry, there's no way that's a "counter-argument" to MQ-25 tankers, it's just a nice low-ish impact range upgrade that's 15 years past due.

CFT's free up pylons, but LO auto-tankers free up squadrons ... of strike fighters.

There's a counter-argument. ;-)

The point of a tanker is to perform its roll so the rest can perform their designed role.

I take it that you concur with my strike-range example given above, given you did not dispute it. You said you wanted USN to be able to do that.

It's way better than anything Hendrix put forward. You say you don't think the USN "*should*" cancel the MQ-25, but it sure seemed like it on the previous page. If you're concerned with rising sentiments or "pretexts" to that effect, start countering them instead.

If you aren't Hendrix he seems to have read your comments before writing the article. Maybe we put it down to a bit of plagerism on his part.

He needs to rethink his position.

2c
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 12:29

U.S. Navy Wants New F/A-18 Cockpit Monitoring System
13 Mar 2018 Lara Seligman

"...the service is looking for a new digital system to monitor pressure and oxygen levels in the cockpit of its Boeing F/A-18s.

Naval Air Systems Command last summer quietly issued a sources-sought notice for Cabin Pressure and Onboard Oxygen Generation System (Obogs) Monitoring System (Cpoms) improvements. This program aims to replace the F/A-18’s analog cockpit-pressure altimeters with digital altimeters, Navy spokesman Scott Cregan says.

Rather than compete the work, the Navy intends to negotiate a sole-source contract with Boeing to provide the new Cpoms cabin pressure and oxygen altimeter, according to the notice posted on FedBizOps last year. “Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements,” the notice says.

The first phase of the program aims to warn pilots of pressure “anomalies” in the cockpit, as well as enabling operators to log data related to pressure and oxygen levels. Phase two will include a process to automatically activate emergency oxygen, if needed.

Cpoms would begin being delivered to the fleet in 2019, Cregan said. All F/A-18 aircrew already use a commercial-off-the-shelf Garmin watch that monitors pressure fluctuations in the cockpit....

...The Navy also is drafting a request for proposals for a new Obogs concentrator for the F/A-18 and EA-18G Growlers, which will provide digital data logging of performance, increased reliability and oxygen scheduling in compliance with the latest standard...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy ... ing-system
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1468
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 19:34

element1loop wrote:So this has to be a LO tanker.


Not sure how that can be given that the Navy is insisting on the use of
the existing buddy refueling pods which are anything but LO.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 21:35

At the BTM of page 52 of this thread is the story 'bout 'freezin' your a$$ off' in a Growler with iced over instruments etc.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=389384&hilit=blind#p389384
Aircrew that landed a Growler while blind and freezing awarded for bravery
14 Mar 2018 David B. Larter

"WASHINGTON — The two-man aircrew that battled frostbite to safely land an EA-18G Growler blind after a catastrophic failure of the cockpit oxygen and climate control system has been officially recognized for exceptional airmanship.

The U.S. Navy’s top aviator, Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller III, awarded Air Medals to Lt. Jason Hirzel and Lt. Sean Noronha, an award given for aircrew who “distinguish themselves by heroic or meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight,” according to the instruction. Miller’s spokesman said Hirzel and Noronha, both assigned to the elite Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine, went well beyond the call of duty to land the stricken Growler.

“This is a situation that absolutely would have justified ejection from the aircraft,” Flanders said. “But the aircrew persevered through the extreme conditions and risked their lives to ensure a safe recovery of the aircraft.”...

...Both pilots were rushed for medical treatment, having suffered from frostbite. One pilot has returned to flight status and the other is expected to make a full recovery and be up in the air again soon, Flanders said, but could not elaborate due to privacy protections...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... r-bravery/
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 post14 Mar 2018, 23:23

And the T-6 is back OBOGSwiser with some potential fixes.
T-6 hypoxia fix on the way, but grounding hurt pilot training pipeline
14 Mar 2018 Valerie Insinna & Stephen Losey

"...All of the Air Force’s T-6s should be back in the skies as early as this summer after the service makes a couple fixes to key parts on each aircraft’s onboard oxygen generating system, or OBOGS, Gen. Dave Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, told lawmakers Wednesday....

...what we’ve found is that there were three parts of the system that were actually failing at a much higher rate than we had anticipated. “So we put our actions to go replace those parts. As those parts come in and we complete those actions, those airplanes are getting back in the air.”

...Air Force Materiel Command head Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, who spoke to reporters earlier on Wednesday, said the root cause of the physiological episodes is still unknown. However, the service is implementing a three-phase approach to try to ameliorate the episodes, which could variously be categorized as hypoxia, hypocapnia, hypercapnia or other medical conditions that leave pilots short of breath and in danger of passing out....

...As Goldfein explained to lawmakers, there are three parts identified by the service as particularly problematic that will be replaced on every T-6. “We’re finding issues with some of the parts,” Pawlikowski said. “We’re finding moisture in the condensers that shouldn’t be there. We’re finding valves that are sticking. All of those things are things that we’re fixing, and we’re looking at what’s the right cycle, the number of hours before we replace the different components in them. We have a cycle, it’s 4,500 hours. Is that the right one?”

Beyond making changes to the OBOGS, the service is conducting additional training to educate pilots on how to identify potential physiological problems and what to do in that situation. It’s also considering equipping T-6 aircraft with an automated backup system that would provide oxygen through the old-school method of onboard oxygen bottles, she said...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-a ... -pipeline/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7723
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 11:52

LOL.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/14/trump-w ... exist.html

Trump wants Boeing to build stealth F-18s for a 'good price' — but they don't exist
President Donald Trump said Boeing's F-18 is "his favorite plane" and called it "a work of art."
Trump wants to buy another 24 F-18s from Boeing that are equipped with "stealth."
Boeing does not field F-18s with stealth capabilities.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1590
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 12:15

popcorn wrote:LOL.
... 'good price' — but they don't exist ...


Yet another contemporary example of why political salesmen or buyers should never ever comment on airpower matters.

(and ... a Shornet just crashed in GOM)
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... -key-west/
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2792
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Mar 2018, 12:33

popcorn wrote:LOL.
... 'good price' — but they don't exist ...


Look at the "bright side":
- Since they don't exist it means they don't cost nothing or resuming, they are FREE! (LOL) :mrgreen:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

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

Unread post16 Mar 2018, 14:20

ricnunes wrote:
popcorn wrote:LOL.
... 'good price' — but they don't exist ...


Look at the "bright side":
- Since they don't exist it means they don't cost nothing or resuming, they are FREE! (LOL) :mrgreen:


And if that's true, the F-35 has just become Bernie Sanders favorite plane!
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests