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

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2031
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 14:40

The Navy sure does like their Super Hornets:

"INDUSTRY INTEL — NAVY CHIEF WANTS TO KEEP BUYING SUPER HORNETS: The commander of Naval Air Forces says he's pushing for the Navy to keep purchasing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets after fiscal year 2018 when the service is scheduled to stop buying the Boeing-made fighter jets. The Navy's latest five-year budget plan calls for buying two of the jets next fiscal year, 14 in fiscal 2018 and then none after that as the service transitions to buying more F-35 fighter jets. But Vice Adm. Michael Shoemaker said today he's advocating for the Navy to continue buying Super Hornets and to continue upgrading them, in part because of delays in the F-35 program that have led to a maintenance backlog for F-18s, which are being flown longer than planned to make up the difference."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morni ... z4Hmig0qD4

VADM Shoemaker also hints at "challenges" [code for problems] with F-35C in ongoing operational testing (although training and milcon are preceding on track):

"During his remarks, the head of Naval Air Forces also provided an update on the F-35C joint strike fighter, which is currently undergoing another round of sea trials with the USS George Washington aircraft carrier.

The Air Force A-variant of the F-35 was declared operational earlier this month. The Marine Corps B-variant reached the milestone last year. The Navy is aiming to declare initial operating capability for its C-variant by late 2018, Shoemaker said.

Right now we’re working through some challenges with operational tests but … everything is on track from a training [and military construction] perspective to be ready to accept and declare IOC” by the target date, he said.

The joint strike fighter program has been plagued by technical problems and schedule slippage. The complex software that accompanies the aircraft has been one of the biggest development hurdles.

The big concern I think is that 3F software,” Shoemaker said, noting that the readiness of the technology would factor into the Navy’s calculations when it comes to declaring the F-35C operational.

“I’m confident that we’re going to get there,” he said."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... px?ID=2277
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 15:35

maus92 wrote:Right now we’re working through some challenges with operational tests


The big concern I think is that 3F software,” Shoemaker said, noting that the readiness of the technology would factor into the Navy’s calculations when it comes to declaring the F-35C operational.

“I’m confident that we’re going to get there,” he said."


http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/08/18/navy- ... -a-runway/

“They were landing in the same spot on the runway every time, tearing up where the hook touches down,” Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, head of Naval Air Forces, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Thursday. “So we quickly realized, we needed to either fix the runway or adjust, put some variants in the system. So that’s how precise this new system is.”
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 16:33

So basically they want more Hornets to replace Hornets. This isn't really new.
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 194
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 16:46

cosmicdwarf wrote:So basically they want more Hornets to replace Hornets. This isn't really new.


Indeed.
This will be seized upon by dwellers, but there really isn't anything here.

I assume (could be wrong) that the navy can cram their carriers with Super Hornets if the so chose or were allowed.
They are stretched more because they have flogged their airframes to death in 15 years of war rather than anything delay caused by the Lightning.

And tbh, he should be ordering as many Super Hornets as they can because I can't see the F/A-XX turning up any time soon.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5170
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 19:16

maus92 wrote:The Navy sure does like their Super Hornets


Too bad more people dont.

Boeing has had challenges [code for problems] suckering people into buying these. Any news on Kuwait or Canada maus?

I remember when the navy "hated" the super hornet. Priceless
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post20 Aug 2016, 01:02

maus92 wrote:The Navy sure does like their Super Hornets


In another article at USNI the same good admiral also said

“When you pair those two up together [JSF and SH] I think they bring a very good complement in terms of, if you call it a high-low mix and the low part of that mix is Super Hornet, we’re in a good spot,” he said.

That really sums things up.
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post20 Aug 2016, 03:12

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.
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post20 Aug 2016, 03:54

cosmicdwarf wrote: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.


You got it. I keep hearing that the Kuwait order is coming soon...coming soon...who knows.

Congress seems happy enough to keep the Super Bug line open. I think we'll be seeing Super Bugs replacing worn-out Super Bugs; fifteen years of continuous combat operations have not been easy on that fleet. Buy as many as Congress will fund.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 750
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post20 Aug 2016, 05:09

marauder2048 wrote:
maus92 wrote:The Navy sure does like their Super Hornets


In another article at USNI the same good admiral also said

“When you pair those two up together [JSF and SH] I think they bring a very good complement in terms of, if you call it a high-low mix and the low part of that mix is Super Hornet, we’re in a good spot,” he said.

That really sums things up.


Ouch Maus92......ouch!!!! :mrgreen: The US Navy is not giving up the high end of the mix (aka F35C) PERIOD
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19381
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Aug 2016, 05:31

Yep that classic quote "low is Shornet" is here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52184&p=350935&hilit=Shoemaker#p350935
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1683
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post20 Aug 2016, 13:38

Maybe they should take a serious look at CFT for the Growlers. They really need a boost in time on station
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5170
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Aug 2016, 15:40

mk82 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
maus92 wrote:The Navy sure does like their Super Hornets


In another article at USNI the same good admiral also said

“When you pair those two up together [JSF and SH] I think they bring a very good complement in terms of, if you call it a high-low mix and the low part of that mix is Super Hornet, we’re in a good spot,” he said.

That really sums things up.


Ouch Maus92......ouch!!!! :mrgreen: The US Navy is not giving up the high end of the mix (aka F35C) PERIOD


The funniest thing is that Maus92 thinks the navy opinion really matters at all. The F-35C is happening. Its not a matter of Super Hornet vs F-35C. Thats passed. if things stay the same in 2 years the USN will be buying more F-35Cs than Super Hornets.

Lets review. The F-35A is operational, the F-35B is operational. The two versions that make up a great majority of F-35s, and of course both versions the international partners are buying. No one else is buying Super Hornets or F-35Cs which makes Maus92 trying to turn all of this into hay is rather laughable. F-35C and Super Hornet are sideshows at this point. Who cares? right down to the "horrifying truth" that the F-35C is still years away from operation, which we knew IOC is 2018. And the Navy wants to get more Super Hornets, which we also knew because theyve been saying it for years.

Old news is just so exciting!!

I remember back 15 years ago when the Super Hornet was expensive, horrible, godawaful, "The navy hates it!!" and should keep what they are using now instead!! If you listened back then (in some cases the actual same people are making the exact same complaints regarding F-35) The Super Bug was a disaster of epic proportion, and Naval Aviators were on the verge of mutiny!

Whats old is new again.

good luck in your future Boeing sales Maus. IF you can convince others as well as you have convinced yourself the Navy=everyone, then this should be a breeze. Have we not figured out the Navy can kick and scream and no one cares about their opinion on this?

besides the Navy has other priorities:

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaemb ... pg?w=800&h

But I do enjoy it, Maus continue posting about the Super Hornet's slow death and articles about it being the baby brother, its very fun to watch.

cosmicdwarf wrote: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.


And of course the Aussies are done buying them. The Super Bug isn't getting international orders, the line is slowing so the cost is increasing. The USN is probably never going to get near even 24 per year. But this should all terrify F-35 fans.
Choose Crews
Offline

35_aoa

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post20 Aug 2016, 16:56

On that note, I'd argue that the Navy is very much not trying to stiff arm the F-35C…..the DoN has made some pretty significant fiscal sacrifices to ensure it continues to move along, and is extremely dedicated to and invested in the program. What we are talking about here is augmenting the Rhino fleet, which is not going away anywhere near F-35 IOC, or even years after that date. Unless Washington agrees to build drastically greater numbers of F-35C (which I don't think they will), the math just doesn't work out to fill all 10 or 11 carrier airwings (or whatever the Capitol eventually settles on) in traditional numbers. That too could change, but at the moment, it has not.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1927
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post21 Aug 2016, 17:25

I would offer that some posters show up here not because of F-35C, but rather for the on-going matters of Canada, Finland, Switzerland, and Spain.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2031
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post26 Aug 2016, 15:44

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.) He also states that the aircraft are complementary, meaning that both types have a place on the deck. He also goes on to say that they are working to get one F-35C squadron per carrier in the 2020's, and a bit noncommittal about the previous 2 + 2 goal.
Next

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests