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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24625
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Dec 2016, 23:56

There's a very long thread read backwards about twists & turns, X-47B, UCLASS & STINGRAY and UncleTomCobbley&All here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=356343#p356343

But thanks for the PDF I'll go read it now....
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 00:01

Couldn't the Navy declare IOC with block 2B F-35s and call it a day? A block 2 F-35c will still kill a hornet.
If there is such a short fall, then why not?
Purchasing early blocks would have pushed the price down and allowed for a block buy.
Also Uclass would go a long way twoards filling empty slots. WHATS WRONG WITH THE NAVY?!
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6423
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 00:03

jessmo111 wrote: WHATS WRONG WITH THE NAVY?!


How much time do you have?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5596
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 00:15

popcorn wrote:I give the Navy a pass on UCLASS. Crawl, walk then run.

Except they'd already crawled, we're walking just fine, and now they'll have to start over again. Probably pissed away a decade. :bang: :doh:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24625
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 00:20

'maus92' likes to represent "What is Rong with the USN" BUTT I'll chime in nevertheless....

Having expended many many many hours researching 'how to deck land' on various flat decks by various aircraft, from the beginning until the almost upon us future, I can attest the USN Naval Air Arm quite rightly moves relatively slowly and cautiously with new technology, for good historic reasons. These 'facts' have been mentioned a few times on the forum - most probably in the threads about this or similar issues. Whether we like it or not Naval Aviation is much more dangerous in the 'take-off & landing' phase compared to any other land based air arm. For example the USN need to consider not only the safety of the aircraft and crew BUT ALSO the many deck crew involved in aforesaid evolutions - let alone the SAFETY of the SHIP & CREW (aircrew have no control over the ship which has in the past turned out of the wind whilst aircraft are on final approach - YIKES! - Captain / Officer of the Watch on the Bridge I'm looking at YOU!).

Only recently deck crew were maimed badly by a crossdeck pendant break. I have posted several times a graph showing how USN aviation has improved since WWII, with many high safety standards being enabled in all aspects of naval aviation and maintenance/building with thorough testing of these aircraft and a SAFETY CULTURE BAR NONE exemplified in the USN APPROACH magazine (now emulated worldwide by other air arms). And we see that today with the final DT-III F-35B & F-35C testing complete. And yet testing continues ashore and will continue for the life of the aircraft. That is the mission for VX-23 amongst others responsible for ongoing testing.

So testing / enabling a ROBOT Naval Aircraft is a big deal - what irked me was the constant 'requirements a'changing'.

You may find my researched parked in the 4.4Gb PDFs at the 'tinyURLs' below my posts. At some near time I'll upload a new updated naval aviation 'how to deck land' with a tonne of stuff about the F-35B/Cs and MagiiHornetos. But don't hold your breath as we know NavAv moves slow so what's online already has all the good gen both histeric & whatever spelling.
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: 1288
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 00:30

popcorn wrote:I give the Navy a pass on UCLASS. Crawl, walk then run.


Hang on. UCAV-N was initiated all the way back in 1999!
NG had its cranked-kite planform configuration by the Fall of 2000.

At this pace, only the evolution of bi-pedal hominids has taken longer.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1288
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 00:44

talkitron wrote:Yeah, developing UCLASS as a combat platform seems risky in a crowded budget environment. The Navy needs to fund lots of F-35C's in addition to the many shipbuilding projects, particularly the new ballistic missiles subs.



Except SSBN(X) got ring-fenced in the budget courtesy of the National Sea-based Deterrence Fund (NSBDF) which
the Navy always expected to have.

And the high-end UCLASS had such universal support in Congress and the Pentagon that the Navy's UCAS-D and
UCLASS budgets were always marked up (in some cases added back or doubled) beyond the Navy's request.

The money was there. The support in the Pentagon (including from the Air Force) and Congress was there.
But it was not complemented by the vision or will in the Navy.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24625
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 01:13

Well well w e l l - despite all the moaning & groaning only recently the USN decided to fast track the STINGRAY (tanker/recon version of new UCLASS via X-47B). How about dem apples - still won't be fast enough for some but they don't count in overall scheme of things.... Go here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=356314&hilit=STINGRAY%21#p356314

And I forgot to 'quote' 'johnwill' and his experiences with the F-111B testing. The USN were 'infuriating' but for reasons I have outlined - ignore those reasons at your peril - which is not at peril Robotically but there are other humans involved as has been mentioned above. Read the thread mentioned for a goodly dollop of details about it - despite all else.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 02:18

jessmo111 wrote:Couldn't the Navy declare IOC with block 2B F-35s and call it a day?


They should have done that with Block 3i since it has the new TR2 and is only a software upgrade from 3F.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1288
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 02:43

spazsinbad wrote:Well well w e l l - despite all the moaning & groaning only recently the USN decided to fast track the STINGRAY (tanker/recon version of new UCLASS via X-47B). How about dem apples - still won't be fast enough for some but they don't count in overall scheme of things.... Go here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=356314&hilit=STINGRAY%21#p356314

And I forgot to 'quote' 'johnwill' and his experiences with the F-111B testing. The USN were 'infuriating' but for reasons I have outlined - ignore those reasons at your peril - which is not at peril Robotically but there are other humans involved as has been mentioned above. Read the thread mentioned for a goodly dollop of details about it - despite all else.



Bringing back the S-3 or acquiring the V-22 VARS would be fast tracking the tanker option but
that would mean admitting that most of the wear-and-tear on your Super Hornet fleet was
self-inflicted (the 5-wet, tanker configuration chews up airframe hours like you wouldn't believe).

To your previous point, I appreciate the safety concerns but even a high-end, long range,
first-day-of-the-war UCAS-N that could only launch from the carrier but had to be recovered on land
would still be incredibly useful.

Also, how much of the improved safety record is just due to operating much smaller aircraft and a (nearly)
all Hornet fleet? And while prioritizing deck crew safety is desirable should it really be done at the expense
of aircrew safety given that aircrew, in the cold calculus of warfare, are drawn from a smaller,
eligible population and take vastly more time and resources to recruit, train and retain?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24625
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 03:49

'marauder2048' said:
"Bringing back the S-3 or acquiring the V-22 VARS would be fast tracking the tanker option but that would mean admitting that most of the wear-and-tear on your Super Hornet fleet was self-inflicted (the 5-wet, tanker configuration chews up airframe hours like you wouldn't believe)...."

The USN have been pointing the Shornet extra wear & tear out for a long time - not only as tankers but also extended ops hours to places sandy. Probably they would have liked more Shornets but have now to look forward to the STINGRAY.
"...To your previous point, I appreciate the safety concerns but even a high-end, long range, first-day-of-the-war UCAS-N that could only launch from the carrier but had to be recovered on land would still be incredibly useful...."

Range (&/or loiter time) required for that vehickle would be amazing - STINGRAY gets them there and back to fly agin.
"...Also, how much of the improved safety record is just due to operating much smaller aircraft and a (nearly) all Hornet fleet? And while prioritizing deck crew safety is desirable should it really be done at the expense of aircrew safety given that aircrew, in the cold calculus of warfare, are drawn from a smaller, eligible population and take vastly more time and resources to recruit, train and retain?"

It seems to me you do not understand naval aviation priorities. Everyone gets a say and everyone involved gets to be as safe as possible in the circumstances. The USN NavAv safety record improvement bears this out. For example a crash on deck not only is hazardous for the aircraft & crew but also the deck crew. Therefore have none - good deal all round.

IIRC a ZUNI rocket misfiring into bombed up & fuelled deck park almost caused the loss of that aircraft carrier - NOT only aircrew waiting in said aircraft but deck crew and firefighters drawn from same crew. For the sake of saving a few minutes for each launch, aircraft were armed before going to the catapult; instead of being armed ON the catapult - a safety precaution waived for erroneous reasons. Where did I mention prioritising safety?

Sure operating smaller aircraft and an all Hornet fleet means something for the safety record however NavAv started more than 100 years ago so best look at the long view methinks. I'll find the graphic again.

An earlier discussion about same/similar brought this: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52184&p=350888&hilit=grampaw#p350888 & download/file.php?id=23336&t=1

Image
Last edited by spazsinbad on 05 Dec 2016, 04:12, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6855
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 04:00

The dear Admiral is just making a case for "more" F-35C's. (not Super Hornets) Honestly, this is likely just a political move on part of the USN. In order to increase F-35 orders overall to get the price down. As the F-35C is the most expensive of the three....Remember all of the talk about a large block order! Which, has yet to materialize???


Also, don't forget the USAF, USMC, other F-35 Customers won't be happy with the USN ordering more Super Hornets. As they all want to see sizable orders of F-35's for there respective Air Forces.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6855
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 04:03

In short the USN is likely looking for firm commitments from the other F-35 Customers. Before it will commit to large numbers of F-35C's. So, we need to see a large block order from multiple partners and soon. Otherwise, we are stuck with the eggs before the chicken or the chicken before the egg!
:shock:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24625
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 04:13

Just checking to get best graphic - t=1 seems to be 'thumbnail' takeaway '&t=1' from URL to get better quality = sir yes sir.

GRAMPS with cramps at his finest: http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... ut-safety/

Image
Last edited by spazsinbad on 05 Dec 2016, 04:22, edited 3 times in total.
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: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post05 Dec 2016, 04:14

marauder2048 wrote:
popcorn wrote:I give the Navy a pass on UCLASS. Crawl, walk then run.


Hang on. UCAV-N was initiated all the way back in 1999!
NG had its cranked-kite planform configuration by the Fall of 2000.

At this pace, only the evolution of bi-pedal hominids has taken longer.

All in good time. The Navy has a full plate and risks indigestion partaking too much, too soon of the tech buffet. Lots of priorities competing for finite resources. Stingray will advance the learning curve and mitigate risk for the day when UCLASS is resurrected and deemed ready for a primetime CAW role.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests