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

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Mar 2018, 21:43

AND... some good news for the T-45C aircrew & T-6 oxygen-wise....
The rate of oxygen loss events in the Navy's training jets has plummeted in the last 6 months
08 Mar 2018 David B. Larter

"The rate of frightening physiological episodes in the Navy’s T-45 training jets has plummeted in the past six months, the head of Naval Air Systems Command testified Tuesday....

...The drop in PEs among T-45s is welcome progress in the Navy’s ongoing fight to ensure that aircrews are safe in the air. The number of PEs in the T-45 aircraft peaked in 2016 at 38. In 2017 there were 21....

...“One of the things that we found out, the primary thing we found out before we resumed flying last fall was that there are certain environments, conditions during flight where if the power is reduced to too low of a setting in flight, that it reduces the flow of breathing gas from the oxygen-generating system to the aircrew,” he said.

The Navy installed an additional sensor in the aircraft to identify when the aircraft is operating in those conditions. The service is still working on ways to boost oxygen flow in low-power conditions, he said. Grosklags also testified that the Navy has not seen the same rate of failures in the T-6 single prop training aircraft as the Air Force, which in January grounded its fleet due to PEs.

“During the month of January and early into February, the Air Force had 19 physiological events in their T-6s, which is why they grounded the aircraft,” Grosklags testified. “During that same time period, the Department of the Navy had a total of two ... So, we’re staying in very close contact with the Air Force. We are taking steps with our T-6s to make sure we understand the environment.”

The Navy is working with the Air Force to replace the oxygen system [of the T-6], including some new sensors that will allow the Navy to monitor the system in flight."

Photo: [The CAPTION writer was suffering from severe delusions - yep we see some SMOKE interpreted as STEAM but the rest fails me] "A T-45C Goshawk assigned to Training Air Wing 1 from Meridian, Miss., is launched from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt. (MCSN Jennifer Fournier/Navy)" https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/zZZFZ ... uality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/LURTFCRUL5EMDHY6D5ZXM7DD24.JPG


Source: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... -6-months/
Attachments
T-45CarrestsBLUR.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

chucky2

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 96
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2016, 20:27

Unread post09 Mar 2018, 01:51

steve2267 wrote:As I read your comments chucky2, it occurred to me that perhaps the reason the USN is so seemingly gung-ho on the Super Duper is because they have a strategy or plan going forward to have 2-1 Super Dupers to Lightnings for future carrier air wings. If their existing Super Dupers are falling apart from heavy usage (Afganistan, Iraq/Syria + tanking duties), then perhaps they need all these new F/A-18E/F's just to replace the worn out equipment and keep up with their plan? I would suggest that perhaps their 2:1 SH to Lightning ratio is in need of re-examining. This seems to make sense from a capability point of view, but perhaps doesn't make sense from a cost sustainment perspective.


Oh, I'm sure that's their plan, and I'm pretty sure something like that has been posted by someone before where the Navy said something like that. To me it just seems very inefficient to a.) Have multiple types of aircraft over what is truly needed ((especially on a space limited item such as a carrier)) and b.) Have these rollouts take so freaking long.

The point of spending 100's of Billions isn't to have the rollout take so incredibly long that by the time you're finishing, it's replacement is in IOC, but to actually get some value out of the program and benefit in the wild. If God forbid we had to get into a shooting war with China, or Russia, or worse both, having our pilots flying SH instead of -35C, and having to supply replacement and maintenance for SH+35 instead of just 35, would be stupid as sh*t. Think of being a SH pilot in that war watching your fellow SH buddies get smoked because Navy has a SH infatuation. Or because the powers that be have a Boeing kickback infatuation.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1634
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post09 Mar 2018, 02:24

marauder2048 wrote:How could any of this come as a surprise to the Navy?

Rightly or wrongly, Lockheed's position on software data rights for ALIS has been the same for ages.

I suspect the reality is that Lockheed itself doesn't own certain chunks of ALIS itself.


If I had to speculate, and this is purely a guess on my part... the gummint at some point wanted ALIS really really bad, but they didn't have the money to pay for it. LM said, OK, we'll fund that part on our own. So you get ALIS, but the source code is ours. OK? And the gummint gobbled it up, thinking they were getting something for nothing. Now their shortsightedness comes home to roost, and they are lamenting the fact that contractually LM owns the source code. But I could be all wet, too.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Mar 2018, 02:47

I may not like the Admirable CONN explanation to HASC however it makes sense in the same way USAF not buying a lot of F-35As at moment - because they are waiting for BLOCK 4 - so is the USN but of course the USMC just happy to be HERE! :mrgreen:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=13143&p=390378&hilit=Conn#p390378
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Mar 2018, 01:32

AND JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE - to breathe OBOGS again - here are the HASC 06 Feb 2018 TESTIMONIES. TABLE GRAPHIC is from the USAF PDF.

RADM Joyner USN (PHYSIOLOGICAL EPISODE ACTION TEAM LEAD) Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC); TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE; PHYSIOLOGICAL EPISODES WITHIN NAVAL AVIATION 06 Feb 2018

PDF 150Kb : http://docs.house.gov/meetings/as/as25/ ... 180206.pdf

NASA on these PEs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/as/as25/ ... 180206.pdf (84Kb)

USAF PEs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/as/as25/ ... 180206.pdf (280Kb)

A good place to start to download PDF transcripts for the above hearings - especially the F-35 Program: (VIA 'SWP')

Source: http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calenda ... tID=106951
Attachments
USAFhypoxiaLIKEeventsFeb2018.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post12 Mar 2018, 20:41

steve2267 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:How could any of this come as a surprise to the Navy?

Rightly or wrongly, Lockheed's position on software data rights for ALIS has been the same for ages.

I suspect the reality is that Lockheed itself doesn't own certain chunks of ALIS itself.


If I had to speculate, and this is purely a guess on my part... the gummint at some point wanted ALIS really really bad, but they didn't have the money to pay for it. LM said, OK, we'll fund that part on our own. So you get ALIS, but the source code is ours. OK? And the gummint gobbled it up, thinking they were getting something for nothing. Now their shortsightedness comes home to roost, and they are lamenting the fact that contractually LM owns the source code. But I could be all wet, too.



Well Winter essentially confirmed in testimony what I suspected:

(from insidedefense.com)

"Winter estimates the number of data points it needs to own needed for F-35 C2D2 is in the range of 20 to 30. For production sustainment, the majority of data rights needed are owned by the supply chain, not Lockheed Martin."
Offline

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1041
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Kentucky

Unread post12 Mar 2018, 21:15

spazsinbad wrote:AND JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE - to breathe OBOGS again - here are the HASC 06 Feb 2018 TESTIMONIES. TABLE GRAPHIC is from the USAF PDF.

RADM Joyner USN (PHYSIOLOGICAL EPISODE ACTION TEAM LEAD) Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC); TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE; PHYSIOLOGICAL EPISODES WITHIN NAVAL AVIATION 06 Feb 2018

PDF 150Kb : http://docs.house.gov/meetings/as/as25/ ... 180206.pdf

NASA on these PEs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/as/as25/ ... 180206.pdf (84Kb)

USAF PEs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/as/as25/ ... 180206.pdf (280Kb)

A good place to start to download PDF transcripts for the above hearings - especially the F-35 Program: (VIA 'SWP')

Source: http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calenda ... tID=106951


This would be a lot more informative if an incident rate per flight hour was also included.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2076
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 01:55

LM..."rightly or wrongly?"

If there was any question about LM being on the wrong side of the law and the FARs on this, the USG would already own the IP/code.

This is just acquisition bureaucrats negotiating in public by insinuating against the contractor(s).
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 03:23

quicksilver wrote:LM..."rightly or wrongly?"

If there was any question about LM being on the wrong side of the law and the FARs on this, the USG would already own the IP/code.

This is just acquisition bureaucrats negotiating in public by insinuating against the contractor(s).


Heck it took DOD nearly 5 years to implement/interpret what Congress enacted
on technical data rights in FY2012 which itself rescinded what Congress had done the year prior.

Please forgive the equivocation: I don't know the intersection (and adjudicated interpretation?) of contractual
language/law/FAR for the JSF SDD.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 746
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 09:17

marauder2048 wrote:
element1loop wrote:Makes sense to be in standoff/standby role, awaiting LO effects to accrue, and threats to decrease before moving closer.

As for LRASM, it's an antiship weapon on USAF B1-B, as that will work with BAMS MQs, to clear the ocean and littorals, so less LRASM are needed in the fleet. JSOW cleans up the rest.

...

Seems to me you want protected P8 and MQs in first to kill subs. Plus hammer away with B-52 ALCMs as well, as DDGs move in to kill subs and make strikes - all with air cover support.

Makes sense to hang back and do that.

Would work much better though with more F-35C, sooner.


The recurring them of hang back and let land-based or surface/sub-surface assets do their work is
pretty much the Guadalcanal scenario mentioned above.

It's also why the Marines have aviation-focused LHAs which logically would and should be the basis
for the CVL/CVM/CV-LX class that all of the Navy's future fleet studies told it it should build.

And this class would be very well suited for providing air cover for the other assets.

AFAIK, the Navy has done nothing on this front.



With regard to the article linked below, could not such a deep penetrating strike capability consist of;

MQ-25 + F-35C + (JSM, LRASM) = 1,300 to 1,800 nm

... VLO precision strike range against a spectum of high-value defended targets, for low to no losses, and also a much shorter flight times and lower fuel needs, due to long-range fire and forget ALCM use?

----

For the Navy, Strike Capability Should Be Top Priority

By Jerry Hendrix

March 12, 2018 6:30 AM

" ...The real strategic challenge facing the Navy is a requirement for penetrating deep strike from the carrier deck. The Navy needs a new aircraft to perform this mission. Given the mission profile, a range of 1,000 to 1,500 miles out and then back, the density of A2AD surface-to-air defenses, and the ten-hour-plus flight duration, the aircraft should probably be unmanned. The Navy should not forget the lessons of World War II ..."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/ ... -priority/
----

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.

That said, USMC will have F-35C on deckd too, so won't they, in a Joint Force context, be picking up the slack as well, for standoff strike-power addition at sea?

The other options offered in the article seem much less satisfactory, to me.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4521
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 09:39

I remember reading the stress on Super Hornets operating in the "Tanker Role". Was doing considerable damage on the life expectancy of the aircraft. Which, could explain one of the reasons why the Navy is buying more Super Hornets even at this late date?
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 746
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 09:55

Corsair1963 wrote:I remember reading the stress on Super Hornets operating in the "Tanker Role". Was doing considerable damage on the life expectancy of the aircraft. Which, could explain one of the reasons why the Navy is buying more Super Hornets even at this late date?


The long article I just linked says this:

" ... The Navy stated that it needed a new tanker aircraft to relieve stress on the FA-18E/F Super Hornet inventory, which had been serving in the tanker role since the retirement of KA-3 and KA-6 aircraft — planes that served as long-range, deep-strike platforms but whose designs allowed easy retasking as tankers — over the past generation. Super Hornets serving in a tanker role carry up to five external fuel tanks, which exert additional stresses on their wing structures, causing the aircraft to use up their “wing-life” ahead of schedule. Given that the Navy’s higher-than-normal operational tempo supporting counterterrorism wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was already burning through its aircraft inventory at an accelerated rate, the need to relieve strain on the finite force by creating a purpose-built mission tanker was clear. However, this decision was in contradiction with lessons of the past, which leveraged serving deep-strike aircraft to serve in an auxiliary role as mission tankers. By creating a purpose-built mission tanker without regard to the potential for evolution into an unmanned deep-strike asset, the Navy missed an opportunity. ..."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/ ... -priority/

It's not a bad read.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4521
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 10:15

Well, the USN should have enough F-35C's by 2030. So, my guess is as soon as those are acquired. The USN will continue to purchase more F-35C's. Which, will replace the remaining Super Hornets still left in the fleet. With the most fatigued examples being replaced first.

We could even see a Composite Squadron of Super Hornets and Growlers at some point. This is not a first as the USN use to operate a mix of A-6 (Bombers) and KA-6 (Tankers) in a single squadron back in the day....
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 746
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 10:58

Corsair1963 wrote:Well, the USN should have enough F-35C's by 2030. So, my guess is as soon as those are acquired. The USN will continue to purchase more F-35C's. Which, will replace the remaining Super Hornets still left in the fleet. With the most fatigued examples being replaced first.

We could even see a Composite Squadron of Super Hornets and Growlers at some point. This is not a first as the USN use to operate a mix of A-6 (Bombers) and KA-6 (Tankers) in a single squadron back in the day....


Another interim option is to buy far more fleet LRASM for F/A-18E/F, as these probably retain the full JASSM-ER land-attack capability they grew from. You'd get a lot more reach to take out land based threats, until F-35C numbers finally scale up. Then fit external multirole 4 x LRASM to F-35s.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 03:13

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.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests