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

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

35_aoa

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 08:01

marauder2048 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:No engines or radar or EW equipment etc you mean?


There's typically some EW equipment like the RWR and sometimes IDECM.


No idea who works what contract, but the jets come off the St Louis line without any RWR or IDECM components (technically speaking, ALR-67(v)3 is inherent to IDECM). Those are all post delivery maintenance actions. Engines and radar do come with the plane however.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1925
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 08:25

Thank you neuro.

What gets counted and not counted in the cost of a SH has been central to Boeing sophistry on comparative costs for decades. To what degree government interests (in Canada e.g) might have been party to the shading of that cost reality is an open question. The Danes and others clearly havent bought the story.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6967
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 15:47

The entire SH Program has been the epitome of obfuscation from day one.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2604
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 17:42

35_aoa wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:No engines or radar or EW equipment etc you mean?


There's typically some EW equipment like the RWR and sometimes IDECM.


No idea who works what contract, but the jets come off the St Louis line without any RWR or IDECM components (technically speaking, ALR-67(v)3 is inherent to IDECM). Those are all post delivery maintenance actions. Engines and radar do come with the plane however.


...does Boeing deliver them with the AESA or is the "Canoe Club" buying the prehistoric version?
:oops:
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 19:13

SpudmanWP wrote:The entire SH Program has been the epitome of obfuscation from day one.


This is beginning to look like counting the Mig 21's in the Warsaw Pact Air Forces in the '90s. Everyone had hundreds of them from India to Romania's "special versions," but at least half the aircraft were not even decent parts carcasses.

The Hornets especially, but now even the SH's in the Navy are not what they seem. I consider US Navy buys as replacement parts, and not new planes. And it will be that way for a while. If they get a new upgrade here or there, this doesn't change the base issues.

But yeah circa 1995 ... Day One ... it's just a Hornet! Really! there's nothing new here .... until ... "Whiplash!" ... fast forward to 2017 and it's like the most modern design eh..ver!

MHO,
BP
Offline

marauder2048

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 19:25

sunstersun wrote:although it probably is important that boeing's production lines stay open in order to compete for the f/a-xx


I have to question this premise given that during the time that they've been producing the Super Bug,
Boeing has lost practically every competition for an air-breather that has to survive in a high threat environment.
The most recent example being LRSO.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2338
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 19:34

neptune wrote:
35_aoa wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:There's typically some EW equipment like the RWR and sometimes IDECM.


No idea who works what contract, but the jets come off the St Louis line without any RWR or IDECM components (technically speaking, ALR-67(v)3 is inherent to IDECM). Those are all post delivery maintenance actions. Engines and radar do come with the plane however.


...does Boeing deliver them with the AESA or is the "Canoe Club" buying the prehistoric version?
:oops:

Do they make APG-73 radar units anymore? Even most non-US operators upgraded to APG-73 radar a long time ago. Super Hornet Block II jets all have have APG-79 AESA radar, with exception of early Block II Lot 25 jets, which still had APG-73 from the factory.

The APG-79(V)X is intended for legacy Hornets, and is scaled down to fit the smaller nose. I'm not sure the Marines jets will be upgraded, but some non-US operators might upgrade.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2338
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 19:43

marauder2048 wrote:
sunstersun wrote:although it probably is important that boeing's production lines stay open in order to compete for the f/a-xx


I have to question this premise given that during the time that they've been producing the Super Bug,
Boeing has lost practically every competition for an air-breather that has to survive in a high threat environment.
The most recent example being LRSO.

LRSO risk-reduction contracts went to Northrop and Boeing.
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/08/21/nort ... ear-icbms/

When F/A-XX comes along (unless they buy a lot of MQ-25s) they'll keep the SuperBugs as carrier launched tankers.
Offline

marauder2048

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 20:26

neurotech wrote:LRSO risk-reduction contracts went to Northrop and Boeing.
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/08/21/nort ... ear-icbms/

When F/A-XX comes along (unless they buy a lot of MQ-25s) they'll keep the SuperBugs as carrier launched tankers.


NG and Boeing won GBSD contracts i.e. the MMIII replacement contract.

LRSO is the ALCM (and ACM) replacement. Those contracts went to Lockheed and Raytheon.
Offline

35_aoa

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 04:13

neurotech wrote:Do they make APG-73 radar units anymore? Even most non-US operators upgraded to APG-73 radar a long time ago. Super Hornet Block II jets all have have APG-79 AESA radar, with exception of early Block II Lot 25 jets, which still had APG-73 from the factory.

The APG-79(V)X is intended for legacy Hornets, and is scaled down to fit the smaller nose. I'm not sure the Marines jets will be upgraded, but some non-US operators might upgrade.


You are correct in that APG-73's have not been delivered since mid lot 2X. Most of the operational fleet has been upgraded to 79 standard at this point, regardless of original build (aside from LRIP, which are not operational). The mini AESA for the legacy was just a bench test many years ago, and died on the vine. I've not heard of the Marines or otherwise talking about reviving it, though I suppose it is possible in some other alternate fiscal reality. Simply physically installing a little AESA into the jet is the least of the problems (power generation, cooling, among other things). The F/A-18A-D is also essentially dead to NAVAIR at this point, so I'd say there is almost zero chance of such a costly program being re-invigorated.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post17 Sep 2017, 05:40

neurotech wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:SOME MORE GRIST FOR THE Super Hornet Price MILL... $677 million divided by 14 say (yes total Es & Fs) equals? ........?

~$48M each, not much at all. The joy of buying "replacements" for something you already operate is that you don't need all the support equipment.

The $48M per aircraft doesn't include F414 engines (2x $5.4m), radar is $6.2m, plus avionics and accessories that are basically required to get the jet to flyaway. Each Rhino costs $78m flyaway (FY17). The recent FY16/FY17/FY18 purchases include $15m each for engineering support, but no additional ground equipment or initial spares. The 2 FY17 jets were OCO funded due to combat related losses.

maus92 wrote:F414 engines are ~3.9M each for FY17, so add 8M for the engines. The radar and most other electronics are CFE/E (furnished by the contractor, i.e. Boeing from subcontractors) for the Super Hornet, so add ~3M for GFE/E (furnished by the Navy from other contracts.) So that's $48.2M for the airframes and most electronics; $8M for engines; and $3M for misc systems, for ~$60M URF.

$5.4m per F414 engine.

$14.1m for "ancillary equipment such as: Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM)/Radio Frequency Counter Measures (RFCM) ALQ-214 EFC, ALR-67, and External Fuel Tank."


Add up the actual contracts let this year for F414 and you get $3.9M for each engine; the Navy purchased 3 APG-79s this year for $9M, divide by 3, and you get $3M (but the radars installed in USN F/A-18s are purchased by Boeing from Raytheon and included in the contract price.)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19371
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Sep 2017, 17:41

I wonder how the Canaduckduckduckians are going to deal with the OXY issues? Anyhoo CAPT JOYNER HOOK '17 says this:

Last edited by spazsinbad on 18 Sep 2017, 22:19, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

magitsu

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post18 Sep 2017, 21:29

neurotech wrote:The APG-79(V)X is intended for legacy Hornets, and is scaled down to fit the smaller nose. I'm not sure the Marines jets will be upgraded, but some non-US operators might upgrade.


Very unlikely. Even the youngest batch is past their "midlife crisis". Finnish Hornets just completed their 2nd MLU and they along with Switzerland are running replacement programs.

Of course there's always Canada. :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19371
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Sep 2017, 20:59

Heaven forfend that Canada buys known 'not functioning' SHornet - maybe they'll fly low enuf no pressure - needed? :doh:
NAVAIR Engineers Target F/A-18 Physiological Events
25 Sep 2017 FRCSW Public Affairs

"NAVAL AIR STATION NORTH ISLAND, Calif. - A group of Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) engineers intend to solve a troubling and dangerous problem that has been experienced by pilots who fly all variants of the F/A-18 Hornet airframe: decompression sickness, or Physiological Events (PE).

During a PE, a pilot may experience confusion, dizziness or even the loss of consciousness due to hypoxia, or the lack of an adequate supply of oxygen. So far, more than 500 PEs including decompression sickness and hypoxia have been documented.

Kyle Zust, F/A-18 Environmental Control Systems (ECS) Cabin Pressure Test Lab (CPTL) Project Lead, suspects that problems with the airframes cabin pressurization system may be contributing to PE events.

“The inability of the cabin to maintain proper pressure has been recorded in F/A-18 A-F and EA-18G aircraft. Improper cabin pressure on the ground and during flight can result in a PE,” Zust said. “We have documented occurrences during the life cycle of this aircraft that have stated issues with cabin pressure. Approximately six years ago, the F/A-18 and EA-18G Fleet Support Team (FST) created a PE tracking system which has allowed us to gather information following a PE to investigate the occurrences.”

To test and verify cabin pressure anomalies, Zust and NAVAIR lead engineer Sean Alexander formed an engineering team in September 2016 and designed and built a testing laboratory in Buildings 486 and 487 at Fleet Readiness Center Southwest (FRCSW)....

...“We have gained a clearer understanding of how the F/A-18 cabin pressurization components are performing at the system level,” Cummins said. “We are currently systematically testing flight profiles to better understand the system variables that drive the system pressurization overshoots and cabin surging. We believe we are heading in the right direction.”

“By creating this lab we will gain the system level test capability that will ensure our aircrew can come home safely to their families, and also be effective down range,” Zust said."

Photo: "Aerospace engineer Nathan Cox operates the pressurization test lab control station while fellow aerospace engineer Duy Nguyen, foreground, monitors the inside of the test chamber. (U.S. Navy photo)" http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/DSC_00101.JPG (2.8Mb)


Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6648
Attachments
ShorntePresTestChamber.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2604
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post25 Sep 2017, 21:26

spazsinbad wrote:Heaven forfend that Canada buys known 'not functioning' SHornet - maybe they'll fly low enuf no pressure - needed? :doh: ...


....not a problem, they are budgeting for used Cessna 150s, which usually leak when it hardly rains! :devil:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests