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

[marsavian]

With CFTs the SH becomes a useful longer range workhorse to backup F-35C operations. That is probably the most important part of Block III enhancements.

[marauder2048]

They can't build Cs fast enough, to replace aircraft that would need to be retired.

Because the Navy hasn't ordered them.

Without planes, it's hard to justify carriers

Which is circular: The Navy has a strike fighter shortfall
because it was trying to demonstrate the utility of carrier aviation in the face of
15 years of land-bases in the theaters. And because the Navy
retired the S-3 which dramatically increased wear-and-tear on the Super Bug.

If the Super Hornet really contributes something unique to the campaign
as has been often claimed it's just as able to do that from a land base.

The only way to get the numbers is concurrent production of BLK III and F-35C.

The Navy is only required by law to maintain 9 CVWs; the composition of each CVW (# squadrons, # aircraft/squadron)
is completely fungible. Indeed, MITRE's future fleet study advised the Navy to cut both and bring back
the S-3 and/or adopt the V-22 VARS rather than spending the next 8 years damaging the Super Hornet
fleet with tanking.

The nice thing about the SH, is that it's already certified for a vast amount of weapons,

SDB and APKWS have been the outstanding weapons in the campaign against ISIS.
Neither of which are carried by the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet-unique weapons
are either not useful in the low-end fight, obsolete against a high-end opponent or
being procured in too few numbers (LRASM).

[wrightwing]

They can't build Cs fast enough, to replace aircraft that would need to be retired.

Because the Navy hasn't ordered them.

Without planes, it's hard to justify carriers

Which is circular: The Navy has a strike fighter shortfall
because it was trying to demonstrate the utility of carrier aviation in the face of
15 years of land-bases in the theaters. And because the Navy
retired the S-3 which dramatically increased wear-and-tear on the Super Bug.

If the Super Hornet really contributes something unique to the campaign
as has been often claimed it's just as able to do that from a land base.

The only way to get the numbers is concurrent production of BLK III and F-35C.

The Navy is only required by law to maintain 9 CVWs; the composition of each CVW (# squadrons, # aircraft/squadron)
is completely fungible. Indeed, MITRE's future fleet study advised the Navy to cut both and bring back
the S-3 and/or adopt the V-22 VARS rather than spending the next 8 years damaging the Super Hornet
fleet with tanking.

The nice thing about the SH, is that it's already certified for a vast amount of weapons,

SDB and APKWS have been the outstanding weapons in the campaign against ISIS.
Neither of which are carried by the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet-unique weapons
are either not useful in the low-end fight, obsolete against a high-end opponent or
being procured in too few numbers (LRASM).

Even at FRP, the F-35C ramp rate isn't fast enough to fill squadrons. They'd have to buy the current amount, plus an extra 2 squadrons per carrier, etc...

Circular or not, that's the position the USN had put themselves in. Their MC rate is pathetic at the moment.

It'd be easy enough to integrate SDB/SDB2/APKWS, along with additional stand off weapons for high end, in the interim, while the Cs are still in LRIP.

[marauder2048]

Even at FRP, the F-35C ramp rate isn't fast enough to fill squadrons. They'd have to buy the current amount, plus an extra 2 squadrons per carrier, etc...

Which neatly sidesteps the issue of how many squadrons and how many aircraft/squadron.
The Navy has strenuously avoided addressing that issue partly because it would highlight
the drastic reduction in F/As the carriers have been embarking since the 90's.

The Navy defines the F-35C ramp rate with its purchases or lack thereof.

Circular or not, that's the position the USN had put themselves in. Their MC rate is pathetic at the moment.

They were warned about it more than a decade ago. I'd like to see some evidence that contracting
the carrier air wing further is really going to have dire implications since contracting it from
the 90's gave the Navy a carrier air wing it still can't manage.

It'd be easy enough to integrate SDB/SDB2/APKWS, along with additional stand off weapons for high end, in the interim, while the Cs are still in LRIP.

If it's so easy why is the Navy not doing it?

[element1loop]

Seems the only thing that'll shunt USN into F-35Cs sooner is a Commander in Chief's directive. Yet Boeing co-opted Trump, with no trouble at all, bit of schmooze, a few cameras, make America great again quipping, and it's in the bag. A 20 year old F/A-18 design, with timing-out airframes, is the future of US naval Greatness. Plus Boeing seems to want to pretend the superhornet is a stealth fighter, or nearly as good as one! phft! Meanwhile, USN seems to stuggle to even pass civil shipping, red to red. Unbelievable.

[usnvo]

By this line of reasoning the studies should be considering F/A-XX which they did not.

IIRC, RAND's report (the original version of which the CNO rejected and had them do-over), had a CVN-LX date that
was that far into the future because the CVN-LX envisioned had a hybrid nuclear-diesel IPS that had to be designed
from scratch which resulted in CVN-78 like design/build hours.

The other studies were more modest, lighter and conventional CVLs derived from the LHA(R)/LHD dual tram line
studies with far sooner delivery dates.

Well, a quick read of the RAND study, not their best work by far which was probably why the Navy hired them, has two options for CTOL (FORD with three catapults and a nuclear hybrid FORRESTAL. I mean who comes up with these?) and makes no change in planned airwing size or composition and two VSTOL (one based on the LHA(R) optimised for STOVL and one more like the Jaun Carlos) carriers which of course use the F-35B. The RAND study even lists 2042 as the earliest in-service date for a CVN alternative which is just crazy. And yes, they mentioned F/A-XX. They also make silly noises about requiring a 1000ft flight deck for CTOL (although USN aircraft have operated from the much shorter French CdG and the A-3 which is larger and in the same weight class as both the F-35C and F-18E routinely operated from ESSEX class carriers). There is no LHA-6 derived CTOL carrier as that would be virtually impossible for only about a dozen reasons.

I still contend the use of the F-35C on any small carrier proposals is largely just because it will be around a long time. It also has the issue of being just about as large as possible with the existing catapults and recovery gear. If you can operate a F-35C, anything else will be possible. One of the reasons F/A-XX is largely doomed, at least as the oft dreamed about F-22 beating super plane, is that it just will be too heavy.

[marauder2048]

By this line of reasoning the studies should be considering F/A-XX which they did not.

IIRC, RAND's report (the original version of which the CNO rejected and had them do-over), had a CVN-LX date that
was that far into the future because the CVN-LX envisioned had a hybrid nuclear-diesel IPS that had to be designed
from scratch which resulted in CVN-78 like design/build hours.

The other studies were more modest, lighter and conventional CVLs derived from the LHA(R)/LHD dual tram line
studies with far sooner delivery dates.

Well, a quick read of the RAND study, not their best work by far which was probably why the Navy hired them, has two options for CTOL (FORD with three catapults and a nuclear hybrid FORRESTAL. I mean who comes up with these?) and makes no change in planned airwing size or composition and two VSTOL (one based on the LHA(R) optimised for STOVL and one more like the Jaun Carlos) carriers which of course use the F-35B. The RAND study even lists 2042 as the earliest in-service date for a CVN alternative which is just crazy. And yes, they mentioned F/A-XX. They also make silly noises about requiring a 1000ft flight deck for CTOL (although USN aircraft have operated from the much shorter French CdG and the A-3 which is larger and in the same weight class as both the F-35C and F-18E routinely operated from ESSEX class carriers). There is no LHA-6 derived CTOL carrier as that would be virtually impossible for only about a dozen reasons.

I still contend the use of the F-35C on any small carrier proposals is largely just because it will be around a long time. It also has the issue of being just about as large as possible with the existing catapults and recovery gear. If you can operate a F-35C, anything else will be possible. One of the reasons F/A-XX is largely doomed, at least as the oft dreamed about F-22 beating super plane, is that it just will be too heavy.

The point about F/A-XX was that it was not a consideration in driving requirements for a future carrier.
Imagine a notional F/A-XX which is 100,000 lbs TOGW, that has a spot factor of 2 and needs to carry 6 SM-6s.
If that's your mainstay F/A then sure, smaller carriers don't make sense. But RAND doesn't invoke
really even a notional config to support an argument.

And actually RAND does have a future F/A contingent that's potentially only 36 fighters. RAND says
their source is: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 2016.

Not sure about launch/recovery weights: EMALS is supposed to support 100,000+ lbs and AAG is supposed
to be able to recover 62,000+ lbs at 155 knots. Some of the arguments for smaller, conventional carriers come
from the fact that these technologies have the potential to reduce WOD requirements.

There is no LHA-6-derived CATOBAR in RAND but the CSBA study did envision one.

[spazsinbad]

What comes first? The chicken or the egg? Naval Aircraft are usually designed to fit current and future aircraft carriers. Not likely a new carrier will be designed around one single aircraft type but who knows the future. For sure the new carrier if designed will have to have the electric power to provide for EMALS and whatever else with oodles to spare for the new laser/rail guns on offer perhaps for self protection or not. Anyway the radars and other electric doodads are always going to demand more and more power - so go nuke power? Steam won't cut it now or in future methinks. For sure the limits of launch/recovery gear are important, they cannot be ignored, WOD may still be useful, depending on design.

[element1loop]

Does anyone really see F-35C as anything other than a genuine F/A-35C? Which was merely improperly designated 'F' for inexplicable reasons?

At the time of the 'F' designation, was it not roundly scoffed at, and panned by everyone---for months?

Seems to me the USN desire for F/A-XX fielded in late 2020s to early 2030s is about to reach its LRIP IOC within 12 months.

The USN has no problem with operating one F/A type now, so why can't the (actual) F/A-35C do the same job, all by itself?

Whence the need for a second new USN F/A jet type, when you have F/A-35C + MQ-25 + 500 nm VLO standoff weapon, for 1,750 nm high-intensity strike radius, from about 2025 onwards?

Please explain?

Is someone taking-the-piss out of everyone, or what?

If you want a replacement, nay, a major capability upgrade to the Shornet, you already have it! Brand spankin' new! It's already baked.

Next excuse = Bk4

Sorted.

Change the designation from F-35C to F/A-35C, if it makes you feel better about the critical presumed need for the best F/A ever developed.

Same bloody difference.

And please explain, USN, why something other than an F/A-35C, would ever be better, or be required, or be necessary?

Pure baloney.

And why would an F/A-18F BkIII, ever be better than an F/A-35C Bk4?

Good grief! Cut the complete bullcrap, USN.

F/A-XX is redundant, it needs to be axed.

It's becoming clear the USN needs to be force-fed the F/A-35C, by mandate.

2c

[spazsinbad]

What is with all the one sentence paragraphs? Anyway it seems the USN has reasons for wanting SHORNETS NOW!

Flush with cash, the Navy bores in on aviation readiness amid a crisis [Lots of detail missed - read at URL]
08 Apr 2018 David B. Larter

"...Today only one in three of the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornets are fully mission capable and ready to fly in combat. Naval aviation is either at or close to its readiness nadir....

...“I think for all of us it’s more up jets,” Moran [Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. Bill Moran] said in a later interview. “We’ve got to have more up jets....

...In brief but stunning testimony, Shoemaker [Then-air boss Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker] offered a clear view of the readiness ditch that naval aviation had been driven into by incessant demand, budget cuts and backlogs at the aircraft repair depots. “We are meeting the combatant commanders’ requirements for ready, lethal carriers and air wings forward, but at a tremendous cost to the readiness of our forces at home,” Shoemaker told the committee.

“For example, to get Carl Vinson, Nimitz and Theodore Roosevelt ready to deploy in January, June and October of this year, and equip their embarked air wings with the required number of mission capable jets, 94 strike fighters had to be transferred to and from the maintenance depots or between F-18 squadrons on both coasts.”

Shoemaker went on to say that, to get the fighters out the door, he had to poach 300 sailors from other squadrons to fill out critical billets in the air wings and cannibalize hundreds of parts from other jets, which further reduced the number of jets the home squadrons had to fly and train on. It’s a shell game, Shoemaker said, and it was degrading the naval aviation’s overall readiness.

The numbers told much of the story. Of the Navy’s 542 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, only 170 were deemed mission capable, or able to be deployed. That number has remained largely static since Shoemaker’s testimony, said Lt. Lauren Chatmas, a Navy spokeswoman....

...The Navy has also made the decision to strike nearly 140 of the legacy one-seater Hornets that have been creating backlogs in the maintenance depots. The aircraft will be harvested for parts and the best of the aircraft will be transferred to the Marine Corps, which has been suffering from readiness problems in its legacy aircraft as it transitions to the F-35B.

The cut aircraft will be offset by an influx of new F/A-18s the Navy has purchased over the last few years, including 24 new Super Hornets funded in the 2018 Ominibus spending bill: double what the service requested. The move is combined with the acceleration of the transition of the last two squadrons flying legacy Hornets to the Super Hornets. Those two squadrons will transition by the end of 2019...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -a-crisis/

[spazsinbad]

How stealthy is Boeing’s new Super Hornet?
08 Apr 2018 Valerie Insinna

"WASHINGTON — The Block III Super Hornet is getting a marginal increase in stealth capability, but if you’re expecting the invisible aircraft of President Donald Trump’s dreams, think again. Building a “stealthy” Super Hornet has been one of Trump’s talking points since he was elected to the presidency. During a March trip to Boeing’s plant in St. Louis, he claimed the U.S. military would buy Super Hornets with “the latest and the greatest stealth and a lot of things on that plane that people don’t even know about.” Trump was referring to one of the Super Hornet’s Block III upgrades slated to be incorporated on jets rolling off the production line in 2020: the application of radar absorbent materials or RAM, also known as stealth coating.

But far from being “the latest and greatest,” the company has already used the exact same materials on the on the Block II Super Hornet to help decrease the chances of radar detection, said Dan Gillian, who manages Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler programs. Block III jets will get “a little more” of that coating applied to them, “and in a few different areas to buy a little bit more performance,” Gillian told Defense News in a March interview.

All in all, those improvements will reduce the aircraft’s radar cross section by about 10 percent, and with very low risk, he said...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... er-hornet/

[popcorn]

10% RCS reduction? Stealth lipstick on a pig.

[Dragon029]

I assume (though maybe incorrectly) that the 10% reduction is while clean as well. With weapons the reduction would be less significant (though even with a 10% reduction you're only looking at around a 3% reduction in detection range), because for example (just spitballing numbers here); 1m^2 (airframe) + 5m^2 (payload) vs 0.9m^2 (airframe) + 5m^2 (payload) is only a 2% reduction in RCS.

[botsing]

10% RCS reduction? Stealth lipstick on a pig.

LOL!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[element1loop]

170 of 542 ... 'death-spiral' comes to mind.

No way F-35C could match that any time soon.

If USN had same problem for years why not accelerate F-35C and update to Bk4 like everyone else? Why keep doing the opposite to 2025? Spending more money on parts instead would have worked, while replacing flogged-out SHII with F-35C 3F. Nah, that's just crazy talk, new-build SHIII and operate it into 2040s. Winnng move!