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

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2016, 14:40
by maus92
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

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2016, 15:35
by botsing
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.”

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2016, 16:33
by cosmicdwarf
So basically they want more Hornets to replace Hornets. This isn't really new.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2016, 16:46
by bojack_horseman
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2016, 19:16
by XanderCrews
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

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 01:02
by marauder2048
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 03:12
by cosmicdwarf
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 03:54
by southernphantom
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 05:09
by mk82
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

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 05:31
by spazsinbad
Yep that classic quote "low is Shornet" is here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52184&p=350935&hilit=Shoemaker#p350935

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 13:38
by madrat
Maybe they should take a serious look at CFT for the Growlers. They really need a boost in time on station

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 15:40
by XanderCrews
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 16:56
by 35_aoa
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2016, 17:25
by quicksilver
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 15:44
by maus92
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 16:17
by maus92
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.


The Navy wants and needs more Super Hornets, both to mitigate delays in the F-35C program and to offset higher than anticipated usage (and operational losses.) They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now. Every Super Hornet purchased today reduces potential F-35C sales in the short to mid term. A scenario that *might* work in favor of the F-35C surfaces next decade, and depends on the SLAP. The Navy *could* opt to park Block I Super Hornets rather than SLEPing them when they time out, and purchase F-35Cs in a (useful) late Block 4 or Block 5 configuration. It's going to depend on the cost of regenerating the older Super Hornets and what ASH options are picked to be incorporated.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 16:33
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote: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.).



Had no idea the sponsorship of the conference meant the admiral now worked for them. Learning a lot.

Admiral speaks at LM conference means it's no longer valid. Wow sailors sure do have some screwy ideas. Had no idea that opinions changed by the venue.

What does it mean when sailors walk into an LM facility, or even touch or fly an LM aircraft? Do they burst into flames or suddenly renounce their service?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 16:54
by SpudmanWP
maus92 wrote:They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now.


Regardless of which fighter you buy"Now", it takes 3 years to make (1 yr LL items & 2 years for Prod). That means that any F-35C bought NOW will be a post IOC Block 3F bird when it is delivered. So much for "limited".

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 19:55
by cosmicdwarf
maus92 wrote:
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.


The Navy wants and needs more Super Hornets, both to mitigate delays in the F-35C program and to offset higher than anticipated usage (and operational losses.) They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now. Every Super Hornet purchased today reduces potential F-35C sales in the short to mid term. A scenario that *might* work in favor of the F-35C surfaces next decade, and depends on the SLAP. The Navy *could* opt to park Block I Super Hornets rather than SLEPing them when they time out, and purchase F-35Cs in a (useful) late Block 4 or Block 5 configuration. It's going to depend on the cost of regenerating the older Super Hornets and what ASH options are picked to be incorporated.

This isn't an F-35C problem though. I get that you're trying really really hard to try and dig up dirt on the F-35, but this is literally a Hornet problem.

The only "problem" with the F-35C was that it didn't have realistic timelines initially, which has been rectified. This only means that the Navy didn't get Super Hornets to initially replace Legacy Hornets, which is why the Navy still wants to get Super Hornets now. Super Hornets are going through their aircraft faster because the Navy is using them more than expected, which is why the Navy wants to get Super Hornets now. No amount of the F-35C being delayed has an effect on that.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 20:53
by SpudmanWP
Part of the Navy's problem with the is that they purposefully slowed the F-35C build rate. The natural fix to this is to increase the rate, not buy something else.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 22:23
by marauder2048
maus92 wrote: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.) .


What's your point? Boeing is CSIS's biggest contributor and McNerney (Boeing CEO 2005 - 2015) sits on the board. No Lockheed, BAE, or NG former employees of any standing on CSIS's board.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 22:28
by XanderCrews
marauder2048 wrote:
maus92 wrote: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.) .


What's your point? Boeing is CSIS's biggest contributor and McNerney (Boeing CEO 2005 - 2015) sits on the board. No Lockheed, BAE, or NG former employees of any standing on CSIS's board.


Good question. Maus's MO is basically find a connection (again I want to know exactly what the direct connection is between LM and the VADM and how the venue influenced him to say something maus thinks doesn't count) between a positive comment and LM and think that is making a point he mistakes for evidence

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2016, 00:08
by spazsinbad
I'm still waiting for a 'maus92' list of acceptable think tanks, news websites, authors and bloggers for F-35 stuff. NOT.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2016, 00:09
by marauder2048
maus92 wrote:
The Navy wants and needs more Super Hornets, both to mitigate delays in the F-35C program and to offset higher than anticipated usage (and operational losses.)


20% of Super Hornet sorties are *tanker* sorties because the Hornet Mafia convinced the Navy to retire the S-3.
Predictably, this has led to higher usage and so it's completely untrue to say this was unanticipated.

Stupidly, the Navy isn't buying VARS for the CMV-22B which when combined with the Navy's complete mismanagement of UCLASS/CBARS/Stringray/MQ-25 (or whatever they are calling it) has resulted in a mini-crisis of their own making.

But you are right in that both the F-35C and Super Hornet have a place on the deck; the Super Hornet is there to refuel the F-35C.

maus92 wrote:They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now. Every Super Hornet purchased today reduces potential F-35C sales in the short to mid term. A scenario that *might* work in favor of the F-35C surfaces next decade, and depends on the SLAP. The Navy *could* opt to park Block I Super Hornets rather than SLEPing them when they time out, and purchase F-35Cs in a (useful) late Block 4 or Block 5 configuration. It's going to depend on the cost of regenerating the older Super Hornets and what ASH options are picked to be incorporated.


How does it save money to buy from an inefficient factory (30% fewer deliveries Year-over-Year) that potentially has to pass along closing costs?

Gotta love how the Navy took Delta Flight Path on the "limited capability" F-35C to the boat before the fully capable (?) Super Hornet got Magic Carpet on the boat. When's the production cut-in for Magic Carpet on the Super Hornet? How much will it cost to retrofit it to the entire Super Hornet fleet? What's the cost of maintaining two different training syllabi?

The Block I Super Hornets should be pushed over the side of the boat; the Navy did not know how to properly maintain their RAM coatings and the resulting corrosion has been phenomenal. Plus, they can't accommodate anything new given that the Block Is ran out of growth room more than a decade ago.

At best, the Navy will get CFTs for some of the Super Bug fleet which will enable the Super Hornet to reach the level of capability the Block 60 F-16 reached 12 years ago.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2016, 03:09
by XanderCrews
marauder2048 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
The Navy wants and needs more Super Hornets, both to mitigate delays in the F-35C program and to offset higher than anticipated usage (and operational losses.)


20% of Super Hornet sorties are *tanker* sorties because the Hornet Mafia convinced the Navy to retire the S-3.
Predictably, this has led to higher usage and so it's completely untrue to say this was unanticipated.

Stupidly, the Navy isn't buying VARS for the CMV-22B which when combined with the Navy's complete mismanagement of UCLASS/CBARS/Stringray/MQ-25 (or whatever they are calling it) has resulted in a mini-crisis of their own making.

But you are right in that both the F-35C and Super Hornet have a place on the deck; the Super Hornet is there to refuel the F-35C.

maus92 wrote:They also save money by purchasing Super Hornets now vs. (limited capability) F-35Cs now. Every Super Hornet purchased today reduces potential F-35C sales in the short to mid term. A scenario that *might* work in favor of the F-35C surfaces next decade, and depends on the SLAP. The Navy *could* opt to park Block I Super Hornets rather than SLEPing them when they time out, and purchase F-35Cs in a (useful) late Block 4 or Block 5 configuration. It's going to depend on the cost of regenerating the older Super Hornets and what ASH options are picked to be incorporated.


How does it save money to buy from an inefficient factory (30% fewer deliveries Year-over-Year) that potentially has to pass along closing costs?

Gotta love how the Navy took Delta Flight Path on the "limited capability" F-35C to the boat before the fully capable (?) Super Hornet got Magic Carpet on the boat. When's the production cut-in for Magic Carpet on the Super Hornet? How much will it cost to retrofit it to the entire Super Hornet fleet? What's the cost of maintaining two different training syllabi?

The Block I Super Hornets should be pushed over the side of the boat; the Navy did not know how to properly maintain their RAM coatings and the resulting corrosion has been phenomenal. Plus, they can't accommodate anything new given that the Block Is ran out of growth room more than a decade ago.

At best, the Navy will get CFTs for some of the Super Bug fleet which will enable the Super Hornet to reach the level of capability the Block 60 F-16 reached 12 years ago.


Post of the year. But let's just blame the F-35C for navy botches

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2016, 03:37
by blindpilot
marauder2048 wrote:
... How much will it cost to retrofit it to the entire Super Hornet fleet? What's the cost of maintaining two different training syllabi?

....


<sarc on>Oh NO!!!! Concurrency !!! That will never work !!! ... <sarc off> except ... have you noticed lately ... it sort of ... doh! ... actually .... is working? .. I mean we have active operational squadrons .. and the update costs ... well .... aren't going off the charts ... and production is running .. and costs are going down ...

Never mind ..

... well except the Boeing charges for upgrading the SH haven't been quoted yet, and we know what the CEO said about Boeing's goals of replacing making new fighter income with maintenance/upgrade income dollar for dollar ... ugh...oil change $100M, new tires $100M, it's almost like TV cable bundles * ... that could be brutal ... :(


:D
Just a thought,
BP

* TV Cable bundles = "How much for cable? - $200, "wow what if I want movie channels, too?" - today only! $200, "Can I get a phone with it?" - yep both for $200. "What about Cable, phone AND internet?" - great deal only $200. "Hmmm well I just need internet, how much is that?" - $200 !! :( :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2016, 04:02
by XanderCrews
blindpilot wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
... How much will it cost to retrofit it to the entire Super Hornet fleet? What's the cost of maintaining two different training syllabi?

....


<sarc on>Oh NO!!!! Concurrency !!! That will never work !!! ... <sarc off> except ... have you noticed lately ... it sort of ... doh! ... actually .... is working? .. I mean we have active operational squadrons .. and the update costs ... well .... aren't going off the charts ... and production is running .. and costs are going down ...

Never mind ..

... well except the Boeing charges for upgrading the SH haven't been quoted yet, and we know what the CEO said about Boeing's goals of replacing making new fighter income with maintenance/upgrade income dollar for dollar ... ugh...oil change $100M, new tires $100M, it's almost like TV cable bundles * ... that could be brutal?


:D
Just a thought,
BP

* TV Cable bundles = "How much for cable? - $200, "wow what if I want movie channels, too?" - today only! $200, "Can I get a phone with it?" - yep both for $200. "What about Cable, phone AND internet?" - great deal only $200. "Hmmm well I just need internet, how much is that?" - $200 !!



You've got it all wrong. Boeing doesn't do concurrency they do "spiral development" lol. Maus even mentioned the advanced super hornet upgrades to come surely this aircraft is mature right?

So here's a question, Maus tells us the super hornet doesn't have enough range and they need something with more range than the F-35C yet he is happy to get more super Hornets? What amount of super Hornets would the navy buy before they suddenly start getting magically better range and how close are we to that?

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2016, 14:15
by quicksilver
Conformity and group-think are strong in Naval Aviation, and have gotten stronger (worse) since the CVW was homogenized into E/F/G. Add a little corporate competition where one side "can't tell" and the other "can't tell the truth" and we find the future of the air wing looking more like Australia (and maybe, Canada) than the tip of America's spear in the 2d and 3d decades of the 21st century.

When the SLAPs were done on A-D Hornets some years ago, the cost to extend life beyond 6K hrs was between $2-5M per 300 hours of extension (there is a CRS, CBO or GAO report on same somewhere in the interabyss); that's $20-50M to get to 9K hrs.

Show of hands...who buys the idea that it will somehow be cheaper to do so for SH? OK. Now show us the additional bill for the capability upgrades to make it competitive with a Block 3i F-35C...dont forget both the NRE and the retrofit money (for how many jets?).

So, lets do the math -- if we accept the fiction that a fully burdened SH URF is $55M (it is not), let's take the midpoint of the SLAP-assessed extension cost for another 3K hours on legacy Hornets ($35M) and add it to the 55M; that's 90M before we ever do a thing about capability deficiencies (remember...compared to a Block 3i F-35C). Now let's factor in time...how long will it take to do all of this? 2021, 22...when? By that time, F-35 is going to be well into Block 4 (and beyond) and the capability deficiency for SH gets worse because they have limited airframe life and are out of growth margin.

And what do the cost curves for O&S escalation look like for jets that are beyond their original service lives? They are bad and get worse over time due to component obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources (cant keep the subs on line for parts except at very high prices). Good for the depots' future (and contractors who want to make money on the throughput the depots cant keep up with, like...Boeing).

Wow. What a future to get excited about.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2016, 18:31
by blindpilot
quicksilver wrote:...

Wow. What a future to get excited about.


:applause: Bingo! Give the man a cupie doll!

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2016, 21:09
by madrat
Can $35 mil get you a new build UCAV that would do the same job as a Super Hornet? Only you wouldn't need additional pilots.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2016, 21:46
by quicksilver
madrat wrote:Can $35 mil get you a new build UCAV that would do the same job as a Super Hornet? Only you wouldn't need additional pilots.


Great question/idea. Couldn't do everything, but for a start could certainly do the aerial refueling the SHs do now.

I'm re-gifting the cupie doll to madrat. :salute:

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2016, 13:28
by arrow-nautics
cosmicdwarf wrote:This isn't an F-35C problem though. I get that you're trying really really hard to try and dig up dirt on the F-35, but this is literally a Hornet problem.


Sorry Maus but I agree with this. It's easy to point fingers at the F-35C, but what about the B? As you know, the Marines fly Hornets as well so the B is a part of this equation to some degree. While it's true that the C (CV) is a CATOBAR as is the F/A-18 & the B is a different animal (new AV-8B) - it is still applying pressure to Boeing's bottom line on the assembly line. Also, Obama's sequestration has led to the Pentagon choosing to go full throttle JSF while abandoning (to a large degree) Hornets. In a perfect world without the cuts, the services would be buying the B's & C's plus SHornets to a far greater equal ratio.

It goes without saying that the Navy especially is in a pickle. There's a major shortcoming of Hornets available & the signs are beginning to show. The F/A-18A/B/C is a disaster waiting to happen. Just look at your neighbour to the north for the DNA evidence.

The Pentagon has to make a decision & the current notion is the JSF, not the Hornet...but, stay tuned.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2016, 14:25
by count_to_10
arrow-nautics wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:This isn't an F-35C problem though. I get that you're trying really really hard to try and dig up dirt on the F-35, but this is literally a Hornet problem.


Sorry Maus but I agree with this. It's easy to point fingers at the F-35C, but what about the B? As you know, the Marines fly Hornets as well so the B is a part of this equation to some degree. While it's true that the C (CV) is a CATOBAR as is the F/A-18 & the B is a different animal (new AV-8B) - it is still applying pressure to Boeing's bottom line on the assembly line. Also, Obama's sequestration has led to the Pentagon choosing to go full throttle JSF while abandoning (to a large degree) Hornets. In a perfect world without the cuts, the services would be buying the B's & C's plus SHornets to a far greater equal ratio.

It goes without saying that the Navy especially is in a pickle. There's a major shortcoming of Hornets available & the signs are beginning to show. The F/A-18A/B/C is a disaster waiting to happen. Just look at your neighbour to the north for the DNA evidence.

The Pentagon has to make a decision & the current notion is the JSF, not the Hornet...but, stay tuned.

Actually, without the cuts, the timetable for all the F-35 variants wouldn't have been pushed back, and they probably would be in full rate production by now. The Navy wouldn't need any SH at all.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2016, 17:30
by XanderCrews
cosmicdwarf wrote: I get that you're trying really really hard to try and dig up dirt on the F-35, but this is literally a Hornet problem.



I don't even think he is trying that hard, Basically he is trying to sully the reputation of serving flag officers, while qouting bloggers in australia who have no clue what they are talking about. Maus is actually very lazy. Imply there is a connection then leave. qoute anyone who agrees no matter their background. Its an interesting tactic to be sure. What would Admiral Shoemaker know compared to a guy like Eric Palmer? Even more funny when we see the kind of stuff Eric and Co have said about the old Super Bug... If Maus could qoute Charles Manson saying something negative about the F-35 he would, while attempting to discount serving military personnel.

Maus is basically trying to foist every problem the US Navy has had with aviation (and boy there are many) and blame the whole thing on the F-35C, right down to blaming the JSF program for getting in the way of creating a new super plane, even though the USN hasn't fielded a wholly new, all their own fighter in coming up on 50 years. With tons of failures throughout, especially the 1990s that predate the creation of the JSF program. Most famously the A-12, which lead to the Super Hornet which he says is insufficient in the areas the USN knew it would be insufficient in, like Range.

Yes I'm sure if it wasn't for that mean old JSF the USN would be fielding a fleet of all new super ranged, super fighters on time, and on budget without any cancellation or curtailment, even thought that hasn't happened since the early 1970s with the Tomcat. Its the F-35 alright, and not the collapse of dozens of navy programs along the way (marauder2048, did a good job on the specifics).

And if it wasn't for my parents holding me back, I would be a rock star even though I can't sing or play an instrument. :mrgreen:


In other news as the Hornet line slows the cost is increasing. $77 million Flyaway up from $67 million previously 36 is optimal and we are not looking at that amount anymore even if we do stretch the line (and this is before we add all the ASH stuff) Canada is waiting, what happened to Kuwait? F-35 is getting cheaper, Super Hornet is getting more expensive. They are tearing apart the early super hornets and finding a host of problems that are apparently forgivable for the Super Hornet but not the F-35.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 16:27
by maus92
U.S. Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: source
Reuters | 03DEC2016

"The U.S. Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said.

The plan, which is still being finalized, could be implemented as early as part of the fiscal 2018 budget, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. ["Navy officials say the jets could still be added to the fiscal 2017 budget as part of a supplemental budget that lawmakers are urging Republican President-elect Donald Trump to submit after he takes office."]

"To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant," said the official...."

"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 17:44
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:U.S. Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: source
Reuters | 03DEC2016

"The U.S. Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said.

The plan, which is still being finalized, could be implemented as early as part of the fiscal 2018 budget, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. ["Navy officials say the jets could still be added to the fiscal 2017 budget as part of a supplemental budget that lawmakers are urging Republican President-elect Donald Trump to submit after he takes office."]

"To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant," said the official...."

"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S



its all on what you bold. :wink: The Navy can't manage their fleet. Maus blames everyone but the navy

Logical. stay whiny, squids gonna squid

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 17:52
by hythelday
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S



its all on what you bold. :wink: The Navy can't manage their fleet. Maus blames everyone but the navy

Logical. stay whiny, squids gonna squid


TIL War On Terror was caused by JSF. It's all coming together now: no JSF => no war, no war => no revenue for evil military industrial complex. I bet if we canned it now Hamas would reconsile with Israel, not a single shout would be fired on India-Pakistan border and Korean DMZ would be dismantled piece by piece and sent to museums over the world just like the Berlin wall.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 18:07
by sferrin
maus92 wrote:"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S


They don't plan on buying fewer F-35Cs, they just need the production of two lines to stay ahead of attrition. This isn't rocket science.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 18:42
by spazsinbad
And the last paragraph from REUTERS post above (hubbahubba):
"...The older model Hornets could be transferred to the Marine Corps, which has faced its own maintenance issues, including a lack of spare parts."

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 19:45
by talkitron
Compare the debates over fighter acquisition in Canada, Denmark and Finland (at least on this forum) to this casual desire to buy another squadron or two of Super Hornets. I wonder if the supplemental money for new planes could instead be used to build a more robust depot and maintenance system for both legacy Hornets and Super Hornets? The US taxpayer should not be buying a fair number of SHs to keep the line open in order to chase not many more sales to small countries like Kuwait and countries with small defense budgets like Canada. Moving the line to India for a big order seems like a long shot and of unclear benefit to the US. Presumably the SH employees in St Louis could be given priority to transfer to work on the Qatari F-15 order, if that goes through.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 22:13
by quicksilver
No worries in St Louis; they'll get an myp. Betcha.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 23:15
by marauder2048
To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant," said the official.

The Navy also plans to field and deploy a new unmanned carrier-based refueling plane, the official said.


The Navy's fixed wing procurement plans are so baffling stupid and irrational
that two Air Force PhDs were deployed to make some sense of it. See:

"INNOVATION LOST: THE TRAGEDY OF UCLASS"
Dr MONTE D TURNER USAF
Lt Col DOUGLAS P WICKERT, PhD USAF

From the conclusions (emphasis mine)

UCLASS could have been the crown jewel in the development of next-generation naval combat
capability andthe first component of DoD’s Third Offset. The UCAS technology development
program that preceded UCLASS was well-funded and the required technology was proven ready for
engineering and manufacturing development. At initiation of the UCLASS program, all corners
of the iron triangle, to include the Navy, were firmly behind a fully-capable UCLASS that stood
to transform the Navy’s power projection from manned to unmanned systems in A2/AD
airspace.

From such a promising start at innovation, UCLASS ran into resistance in the Navy that
offers proof for an oft-cited claim that bureaucracies resist innovation that threaten the status
quo. Over the course of five years, the Navy systematically eroded the requirements for
UCLASS until they finally succeeded in converting the next-generation unmanned combat
system into a tanker that supports traditional manned missions . Without an advocate from within
the Navy leadership to champion transformation, further attempts at innovation will likely suffer
the same fate as UCLASS
. It seems clear through history that, due to bureaucratic inertia, the
services will not deliver innovation without vision and leadership. Even in the midst of calls for
a Third Offset strategy and generous support from Congress, the Navy suppressed the best
promise for innovation in this generation
.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 23:42
by popcorn
I give the Navy a pass on UCLASS. Crawl, walk then run.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 23:48
by talkitron
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 23:55
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
maus92 wrote:"Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN13T05S


They don't plan on buying fewer F-35Cs, they just need the production of two lines to stay ahead of attrition. This isn't rocket science.


A lot of new Super Hornets are needed to replace the early lot super hornets the USN bought. Maus is fine with the navy buying early lot airplanes so long as they aren't F-35s. Since I wasn't born yesterday I remember all the navy butt hurt over the Super Hornet at the time. Maus must be new

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 23:56
by spazsinbad
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....

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 00:01
by jessmo111
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?!

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 00:03
by XanderCrews
jessmo111 wrote: WHATS WRONG WITH THE NAVY?!


How much time do you have?

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 00:15
by sferrin
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 00:20
by spazsinbad
'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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 00:30
by marauder2048
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 00:44
by marauder2048
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 01:13
by spazsinbad
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 02:18
by SpudmanWP
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 02:43
by marauder2048
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 03:49
by spazsinbad
'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

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 04:00
by Corsair1963
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 04:03
by Corsair1963
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 04:13
by spazsinbad
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

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 04:14
by popcorn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 05:50
by marauder2048
popcorn wrote:
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.



Too much, too soon? They spent 6 years on technology development/operational assessment followed
by a down select in 2007, first flight of the X-47B in 2011 and several years demonstrating (at sea, on the boat).

It's a priority if Navy leadership makes it a priority; I'm hopeful that Forbes gets the SecNav nod.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 06:14
by spazsinbad
Now you get it 'marauder2048' - the USN TURTLE - slow and steady wins the race - no HARES here.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 06:18
by popcorn
They proved hey could land a UAV on a carrier. Great first toddler step...

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 06:25
by sferrin
popcorn wrote:They proved hey could land a UAV on a carrier. Great first toddler step...


And launch from a carrier, and aerial refuel, and strike targets. Sorry but "toddler step" is just showing your ignorance.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 06:28
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote:'marauder2048' said:

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.




Just consider one combat related advantage: there's no need to recover a battle damaged UCAV.
Surely, that's a plus for deck crew safety.

In reality, how much of the improved safety record is just due to to general trend of
improved mechanical, mission systems, weapons systems and avionics reliability/durability?

In other words, has better engineering has been the dominant driver of improvement and now
human factors are the major contributors to mishaps? If pilot error is a major contributor then
surely unmanned has the potential to help on that score.

The incident on Forrestal drove insensitive munitions (IM) requirements as much as anything else.
So a UCLASS would have an IM compliant weapons load, launch fuel-light for safety, hit a VARS equipped
CMV-22B and would then be target bound.

Stingray, a Tomcat-sized aircraft according to some reports, has to launch very close to MTOW i.e.
full of fuel. Surely, this is less safe to all involved.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 06:44
by popcorn
sferrin wrote:
popcorn wrote:They proved hey could land a UAV on a carrier. Great first toddler step...


And launch from a carrier, and aerial refuel, and strike targets. Sorry but "toddler step" is just showing your ignorance.

Ah... Reverting to form .. Oh well..

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 07:10
by neurotech
marauder2048 wrote:
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).

The logistics support for the S-3 isn't there anymore, so putting the jets back into service would not be simply and cheap. Also, the S-3s were pretty old when they were withdrawn from the fleet. The V-22 VARS option aint cheap either.

One factor is that complicates things, especially for the Super Hornet, is that the budget for Operations & Sustainment is separate from the procurement. The strained maintenance budget results in less comprehensive depot maintenance programs, which ultimately increase maintenance costs in fleet. New jets were leaving the production line, while squadron jets are grounded due to depot backlog or parts delays.

This is slowly changing, with increases in depot funding, and squadron maintenance budgets. The Navy still needs more F/A-18E/F jets, as well as F-35Cs.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 07:45
by spazsinbad
'marauder2048' likes to go off on irrelevant tangents:
"Just consider one combat related advantage: there's no need to recover a battle damaged UCAV. Surely, that's a plus for deck crew safety...."

Pretty broad brush question however battle damaged manned NavAv aircraft are recovered - and NOT recovered - all depends on the length of the piece of string and whatever else you seem to dream up that is irrelevant.

'marauder2048' said:
"...In reality, how much of the improved safety record is just due to general trend of improved mechanical, mission systems, weapons systems and avionics reliability/durability?

In other words, has better engineering has been the dominant driver of improvement and now human factors are the major contributors to mishaps? If pilot error is a major contributor then surely unmanned has the potential to help on that score...."

Wow. IF you want to guess then I'll guess the same - so? In other words the pilot is usually to blame and if not the pilot the maintainer and if not the maintainer/pilot the manufacturer and if not all those then the damn airplane designer. Having robotic navav aircraft does not remove humans from that chain - only from the aircraft itself.

'marauder2048' said:
"...The incident on Forrestal drove insensitive munitions (IM) requirements as much as anything else. So a UCLASS would have an IM compliant weapons load, launch fuel-light for safety, hit a VARS equipped CMV-22B and would then be target bound.

Stingray, a Tomcat-sized aircraft according to some reports, has to launch very close to MTOW i.e. full of fuel. Surely, this is less safe to all involved."

And weapons are live only on the catapult just before launch - plenty of hands on helmet videos show this aspect.

Now all of a sudden 'UCLASS' needs to air refuel from a manned CMV-22B. How about a STINGRAY. STINGRAY air refuelling from another STINGRAY sounds doable but why? Make the 'missionised STINGRAY follow on' mission capable off the catapult in the first place. Why does NOT fully fuelled have to do with it. In fact taking out the unnecessary support aircraft is what it is all about. That support aircraft has to be launched and landed also I'll assume - what are the odds?

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 08:25
by Corsair1963
neurotech wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
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).

The logistics support for the S-3 isn't there anymore, so putting the jets back into service would not be simply and cheap. Also, the S-3s were pretty old when they were withdrawn from the fleet. The V-22 VARS option aint cheap either.

One factor is that complicates things, especially for the Super Hornet, is that the budget for Operations & Sustainment is separate from the procurement. The strained maintenance budget results in less comprehensive depot maintenance programs, which ultimately increase maintenance costs in fleet. New jets were leaving the production line, while squadron jets are grounded due to depot backlog or parts delays.

This is slowly changing, with increases in depot funding, and squadron maintenance budgets. The Navy still needs more F/A-18E/F jets, as well as F-35Cs.


Either way the USN doesn't need more Super Hornets. It needs more F-35C! How is it better to acquire more of the less capable Super Hornets. When the US Military needs to increase production of the more capable F-35A/B/C to get the cost down. Honestly, the logic for more Super Hornets is just not supported by the facts.

The future is the F-35 so it's survival is more paramount and let's not forget that a number of other countries are developing and fielding 5th Generation Fighters. Like China (J-20 and J-31) and Russia (PAK-FA)....

Another point if the Super Hornet is "good enough". Then why should anybody rush to buy the F-35 now???

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 09:01
by marauder2048
neurotech wrote:The logistics support for the S-3 isn't there anymore, so putting the jets back into service would not be simply and cheap. Also, the S-3s were pretty old when they were withdrawn from the fleet. The V-22 VARS option aint cheap either.

One factor is that complicates things, especially for the Super Hornet, is that the budget for Operations & Sustainment is separate from the procurement. The strained maintenance budget results in less comprehensive depot maintenance programs, which ultimately increase maintenance costs in fleet. New jets were leaving the production line, while squadron jets are grounded due to depot backlog or parts delays.

This is slowly changing, with increases in depot funding, and squadron maintenance budgets. The Navy still needs more F/A-18E/F jets, as well as F-35Cs.


The Navy was going to buy either a C-3 (re-fuselage'd S-3) or a V-22 variant for COD anyway.
They've decided on a V-22 variant with extended fuel tanks. VARS is a very logical progression and
has the advantage of not being reliant on winds over the deck, CATOBAR or an open deck
at all for launch and recovery.

*If* the US had not retained bases in Iraq and Afghanistan as was the plan back in 2013 - 2014.
carrier aviation would have been needed and the O&S costs and burden would have fully justified.
But It hasn't been needed. After all, the Australians are managing to operate their legacy and
Super Hornets from land bases just fine.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 09:19
by spazsinbad
So the USN have forgotten about STINGRAY? Puhleez. The VARS Osprey is for the USMC / F-35B air refuel or DSO Distributed STOVL Ops (or even refuelling other V-22s going on a mission with the F-35Bs - explained in other threads). Read all about the STINGRAY in the link provided.

BTW the robotic carrier aircraft will be always under the control of the mission pilot onboard the carrier, who will send commands to the robot as required which then decides how to carry out command in the circumstances. Once the robot is near the carrier it will also be controlled by ATC / Air Boss & LSO with the mission guy dropping out. Then, during carrier approach, the robot can be waved off by not only the LSO but the Air Boss with ATC dropping out. Safety Safety Safety. When the robot is on deck it may be controlled by means other than how X-47B was commanded by human directors, mimicking directions of ordinary human / aircraft directors on deck. Safety Safety Safety - HUMANS in the loop - UhOH.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 09:32
by spazsinbad

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 09:45
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote:'marauder2048' likes to go off on irrelevant tangents:
"Just consider one combat related advantage: there's no need to recover a battle damaged UCAV. Surely, that's a plus for deck crew safety...."

Pretty broad brush question however battle damaged manned NavAv aircraft are recovered - and NOT recovered - all depends on the length of the piece of string and whatever else you seem to dream up that is irrelevant.


Just highlighting an obvious safety advantage of unmanned; you can ditch the aircraft without having to worry
about recovering the pilot. No crews are endangered.

'
Wow. IF you want to guess then I'll guess the same - so? In other words the pilot is usually to blame and if not the pilot the maintainer and if not the maintainer/pilot the manufacturer and if not all those then the damn airplane designer. Having robotic navav aircraft does not remove humans from that chain - only from the aircraft itself.


It's more of a limit argument; technology helps pilots, deck crew, maintainers and manufacturers improve safety.
But at some point it's diminishing returns so the question is: which factor starts to dominate? The figure you show
doesn't provide convincing evidence one way or the other.


Now all of a sudden 'UCLASS' needs to air refuel from a manned CMV-22B. How about a STINGRAY. STINGRAY air refuelling from another STINGRAY sounds doable but why? Make the 'missionised STINGRAY follow on' mission capable off the catapult in the first place. Why does NOT fully fuelled have to do with it. In fact taking out the unnecessary support aircraft is what it is all about. That support aircraft has to be launched and landed also I'll assume - what are the odds?


If the concern is deck safety then doing less on the deck, with a lighter aircraft is better.
Automatic manned-to-unmanned AAR has already been demonstrated with X-47B and the CMV-22B
is going to be there anyway and isn't dependent on CATOBAR.

The point of all of this is that in 1999 the Navy embarked on a high-end, first day of the war UCAV which
it has long needed and needs now more than ever.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 10:30
by Corsair1963
I think the current path for the MQ-25 Stingray is the correct one. That is to develop it primarily as a tanker. Which, as it matures could expand to additional roles including but not limited to ISR, Network (relay communications) and of course Strike Missions.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 10:37
by spazsinbad
'marauder2048' responded:
"It's more of a limit argument; technology helps pilots, deck crew, maintainers and manufacturers improve safety.
But at some point it's diminishing returns so the question is: which factor starts to dominate? The figure you show
doesn't provide convincing evidence one way or the other."

The graph provided shows how safety has improved over the years with different milestones of change along the way. What more could you ask for? We all look forward to the increasing returns of the 'Magic Carpet' in the case of the Super Hornet (& similar results or even better with the F-35C). Three cheers for the little computer robot inside each aircraft. However you can be unconvinced as you wish - doesn't matter to me on a thread about USN wanting more Shornets.

'marauder2048' said:
"...If the concern is deck safety then doing less on the deck, with a lighter aircraft is better...."

WUT? How is a fuel heavy - designed to be so - robot on a deck better than a not so heavy? EMALS will be better than STEAM - steam is OK I imagine. We have to guess a lot because no details about STINGRAY extant except vague statements.

'marauder2048' said:
"...Automatic manned-to-unmanned AAR has already been demonstrated with X-47B and the CMV-22B is going to be there anyway and isn't dependent on CATOBAR...."

AAaah But... is CMV-22B going to be VAR ready? The manned tanker (not the robot tanker) needs stuff to allow the robot to make contact and take on fuel. Heard anything about that? What do your crystal balls say? IF the robot has to be catapulted then what is the problem with the air to air refueler being catapulted simultaneously?

Yes - what is the point of all this on 'the USN hankers after more Shornets apparently' thread.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 10:59
by Corsair1963
As a matter of fact the USN needs more V-22's, F-35B/C's and MQ-25A Stingrays not more Super Hornets! :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 13:45
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:Now you get it 'marauder2048' - the USN TURTLE - slow and steady wins the race - no HARES here.



"Slow and steady"? They STOPPED. X-47s are headed to either museums or bombing ranges. That whole concept is dead.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 13:46
by sferrin
popcorn wrote:
sferrin wrote:
popcorn wrote:They proved hey could land a UAV on a carrier. Great first toddler step...


And launch from a carrier, and aerial refuel, and strike targets. Sorry but "toddler step" is just showing your ignorance.

Ah... Reverting to form .. Oh well..


Sorry if I can't bring myself to coddle you with a participation trophy.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 13:49
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:I think the current path for the MQ-25 Stingray is the correct one. That is to develop it primarily as a tanker. Which, as it matures could expand to additional roles including but not limited to ISR, Network (relay communications) and of course Strike Missions.


Except the Stingray is suppose to be cheap. Survivability is not a priority. No stealth. How's that going to handle strike missions? They'll kill it miles before it can even open it's weapon bays (if it even has any).

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 15:43
by maus92
jessmo111 wrote: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?!


Nothing. The F-35C is not ready, it's as simply as that. The latest setback requires a new wing design, and that's on top of all the other structural and avionics issues that still need to be addressed. The Navy has the luxury of choice when rebuilding its air wing, exercise it.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 15:48
by lamoey
maus92 wrote:The latest setback requires a new wing design, and that's on top of all the other structural and avionics issues that still need to be addressed.


New wing design? I have not heard of this before. What is your source?

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 15:54
by maus92
lamoey wrote:
maus92 wrote:The latest setback requires a new wing design, and that's on top of all the other structural and avionics issues that still need to be addressed.


New wing design? I have not heard of this before. What is your source?


Unanticipated stress loads to the outer wing when utilizing stations 1 and 11.

"Recent flight testing of the AIM-9X air-to-air missile, which is mounted externally on the outermost wing stations and is planned to be fielded on all variants, produced load exceedances during F-35C landings and up-and-away maneuvers that caused buffet. The program conducted a review of the margins of safety of the wing substructure and determined that flight limitations for AIM-9X carriage or a redesign of the supporting wing structure may be needed. The path ahead for AIM-9X carriage on the F-35C in Block 3F is not known."

MEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE AIR FORCE, Gilmore, August 9, 2016

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 16:27
by gideonic
Well it comes from Gilmore, the one who always portraits every most distant possibility in the worst possible light (as is his job).Yet, you stated it as an absolute fact.

Allow me to highlight the relevant parts:
maus92 wrote: The program conducted a review of the margins of safety of the wing substructure and determined that flight limitations for AIM-9X carriage or a redesign of the supporting wing structure may be needed. The path ahead for AIM-9X carriage on the F-35C in Block 3F is not known."


Gilmor also mentioned "critical buffeting problems" with the A model, in his 2014 report, that "might never be fixed" and might require "huge redesigns". Wonder how that turned out?

Oh That's right, after some FCS updates, test pilots in the beginning of 2015, struggled to find any scenario, where the buffeting would be relevant, even the slightest.

Regardless, with or without AIM-9X, the F-35C will still wipe the floor with any of your proposed "Advanced Super Hornets".

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 16:31
by spazsinbad
MORE FUD 'new wing design' from 'maus92'. Your own Gilmore quote says this:
"...The program conducted a review of the margins of safety of the wing substructure and determined that flight limitations for AIM-9X carriage or a redesign of the supporting wing structure may be needed...."

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 16:43
by lamoey
maus92 wrote:
lamoey wrote:
maus92 wrote:The latest setback requires a new wing design, and that's on top of all the other structural and avionics issues that still need to be addressed.


New wing design? I have not heard of this before. What is your source?


Unanticipated stress loads to the outer wing when utilizing stations 1 and 11.

"Recent flight testing of the AIM-9X air-to-air missile, which is mounted externally on the outermost wing stations and is planned to be fielded on all variants, produced load exceedances during F-35C landings and up-and-away maneuvers that caused buffet. The program conducted a review of the margins of safety of the wing substructure and determined that flight limitations for AIM-9X carriage or a redesign of the supporting wing structure may be needed. The path ahead for AIM-9X carriage on the F-35C in Block 3F is not known."

MEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE AIR FORCE, Gilmore, August 9, 2016


While it sounds serious enough, knowing the source makes me a little less concerned. I have a feeling that a solution may be simpler than what is suggested. A tiny change in installation angles one way or the other may be all that is needed. The biggest question will probably be how to maintain LO, since the can't do like they did on the Hornets when they mounted extra bits sticking up on the wings when they had problems. (I was seriously concerned about the fuel tank insulation flaking issue, but positively surprised how fast they fixed that)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 17:42
by maus92
lamoey wrote:
While it sounds serious enough, knowing the source makes me a little less concerned. I have a feeling that a solution may be simpler than what is suggested. A tiny change in installation angles one way or the other may be all that is needed. The biggest question will probably be how to maintain LO, since the can't do like they did on the Hornets when they mounted extra bits sticking up on the wings when they had problems. (I was seriously concerned about the fuel tank insulation flaking issue, but positively surprised how fast they fixed that)


The insulation issue has been mitigated on the 3i jets at Hill so they can get back to training - it has not been "fixed." Those jets will need to be modified once again to support Block 4.x cooling requirements. Hopefully the affected jets still in production are receiving new parts that will eliminate the need for future modification.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 17:49
by spazsinbad
You know the drill 'maus92': Gotta source for your HILL insulation fix? "Hopefully" yeah sure we know you live in Hope, the sky is falling, FUD, USA.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 18:45
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
jessmo111 wrote: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?!


Nothing. The F-35C is not ready, it's as simply as that. The latest setback requires a new wing design, and that's on top of all the other structural and avionics issues that still need to be addressed. The Navy has the luxury of choice when rebuilding its air wing, exercise it.


Nothing wrong with the navy? Do you ingest some of those chemicals they make that blue camouflage with?

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 19:06
by SpudmanWP
The Pentagon will be a couple of months late flight testing a design fix for the Navy's version of the Joint Strike Fighter, a fix that strengthens the wing to support the weight of the AIM-9X air-to-air missile. The F-35C carrier variant test aircraft is undergoing modifications involving the proposed design change and the Defense Department expects to begin testing in January 2017 instead of the planned November date, F-35 joint program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova wrote in a Nov...


http://insidedefense.com/daily-news/pen ... =hootsuite

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 19:15
by spazsinbad
Wow 'SWP' that story just out 05 Dec 2016. :devil: Wheez are on the ball here.... :mrgreen: Thanks for that quickie.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 19:33
by neurotech
marauder2048 wrote:Just highlighting an obvious safety advantage of unmanned; you can ditch the aircraft without having to worry
about recovering the pilot. No crews are endangered.

You do realize that if an unmanned asset gets lost, the "pilot" still faces getting called on the carpet explain their actions. Even if a junior enlisted operator totals a $100k micro-UAV, It's still investigated as a mishap.

In one case, where a Navy contractor crashed a MQ-4B Global Hawk, the JAGMAN report read something like "We strongly recommend that the Mishap Pilots' flight status be seriously reevaluated." which is an official way to say, we can't technically ground him, but it would be a very good idea.

The thing is that in the MQ-1 Predator community, at one point, they were loosing the aircraft in an embarrassingly high mishap rate. This has improved somewhat with training changes, but its significantly higher than manned aircraft. It's extremely rare they loose a U-2 (A single training mishap out of Beale AFB, in recent history).

Its highly likely the unit cost of a MQ-25A Stingray will be comparable to the F/A-18E/F and not a whole lot cheaper to maintain (eg. lucky if 50% maintenance cost of a new SuperBug) . If the Navy starts wrecking a couple of Stingrays on each cruise, it'll get expensive pretty quickly.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 19:43
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:MORE FUD 'new wing design' from 'maus92'. Your own Gilmore quote says this:
"...The program conducted a review of the margins of safety of the wing substructure and determined that flight limitations for AIM-9X carriage or a redesign of the supporting wing structure may be needed...."

The real reason the Navy wants more Super Hornets, Is that they can do a complete wing change for around $2.5m if some unknown comes up in the SLEP. Physically replacing the F-35C wings will be more significantly more expensive.

When negative OT&E reports about the F-35C, They must require expensive upgrade fixes like a wing swap, because a simple retrofit doesn't match the whole "They'll drop out of the sky" media reports.

(Note: Some sarcasm may be included)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 20:07
by marauder2048
neurotech wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Just highlighting an obvious safety advantage of unmanned; you can ditch the aircraft without having to worry
about recovering the pilot. No crews are endangered.

You do realize that if an unmanned asset gets lost, the "pilot" still faces getting called on the carpet explain their actions. Even if a junior enlisted operator totals a $100k micro-UAV, It's still investigated as a mishap.


Career impact vs. safety impact. The discussion was about safety; there a larger career impacts for unmanned in general.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 20:16
by marauder2048
maus92 wrote:
jessmo111 wrote: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?!


Nothing. The F-35C is not ready, it's as simply as that. The latest setback requires a new wing design, and that's on top of all the other structural and avionics issues that still need to be addressed. The Navy has the luxury of choice when rebuilding its air wing, exercise it.


The Navy accepted the Block 0 Super Hornets into service with far greater limitations and a far grimmer OT&E assessment.
And that was for an aircraft that brought nothing more to the fleet than the late model F-14s and late block Legacy Hornets.

Maybe the Navy doesn't consider a first-day-of-the-war capability against a high-end threat to be important.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 21:12
by neurotech
marauder2048 wrote:The Navy accepted the Block 0 Super Hornets into service with far greater limitations and a far grimmer OT&E assessment.
And that was for an aircraft that brought nothing more to the fleet than the late model F-14s and late block Legacy Hornets.

Maybe the Navy doesn't consider a first-day-of-the-war capability against a high-end threat to be important.

Block 0 Super Hornet? Are you referring to the EMD or LRIP 1 jets?

The EMD and early LRIP jets had some weird configurations and limitations, but they stayed in the test program. Some of the early LRIP birds have been upgraded and still live at NAWS China Lake for flight avionics and weapons testing. Boeing also operates a couple of early ones for company R&D flights as well.

The OT&E report might have been grim, but the Block I jets flew into combat, quite successfully, in November 2002, just over a year after IOC. Part of the reason is that in the avionics (& software) it was basically a F/A-18C/D, with minor mods. The computer boards (AMCs), the radar (AN/APG-73), most cockpit displays, were the same as a legacy jets. The Up Front Displays were new to the Super Hornet.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 22:18
by marauder2048
The point is that very few of the issues were resolved until well into FRP; they went into combat with late LRIP,
early FRP birds that, as you confirm, brought nothing more to the fight (and in fact less) than the legacy Hornets.

There's a tried a true Navy tradition of IOC'ing and deploying with aircraft that are immature.
Having said that, the F-35C is far more mature at this stage than practically any other
carrier capable fast jet in the Navy's history.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 22:40
by magitsu
What's your take about this article from Briganti? `

Navair Sees F-35 Requiring Up to 50 Maintenance Hours per Flight Hour
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -hour.html

Is it just maturity-related or is there something wrong with the article?

In contrast F-22 gets praised:
F-22 Raptor, which “is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours,” according to a US Air Force Association response to a story by the Washington Post.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It’s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 22:44
by neurotech
marauder2048 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Block 0 Super Hornet? Are you referring to the EMD or LRIP 1 jets?

The EMD and early LRIP jets had some weird configurations and limitations, but they stayed in the test program. Some of the early LRIP birds have been upgraded and still live at NAWS China Lake for flight avionics and weapons testing. Boeing also operates a couple of early ones for company R&D flights as well.

The OT&E report might have been grim, but the Block I jets flew into combat, quite successfully, in November 2002, just over a year after IOC. Part of the reason is that in the avionics (& software) it was basically a F/A-18C/D, with minor mods. The computer boards (AMCs), the radar (AN/APG-73), most cockpit displays, were the same as a legacy jets. The Up Front Displays were new to the Super Hornet.


The point is that very few of the issues were resolved until well into FRP; they went into combat with late LRIP,
early FRP birds that, as you confirm, brought nothing more to the fight (and in fact less) than the legacy Hornets.

Thats a major (& flawed) assumption, beyond what I previously stated.

Actually, the first deployed F/A-18s had some major advantages over legacy hornets. More fuel capacity, more weapons capacity, and improved ordinance "bring back" capacity.
marauder2048 wrote:There's a tried a true Navy tradition of IOC'ing and deploying with aircraft that are immature.
Having said that, the F-35C is far more mature at this stage than practically any other
carrier capable fast jet in the Navy's history.

The thing that limits the F-35C IOC deployment options is the Navy doesn't have the shop space, parts supply, or support infrastructure to effectively deploy the F-35 off a carrier. Super Hornets were a lot easier to support on the carrier, on initial deployment, partly due to common support equipment with legacy jets. For the F-35C, The carrier support and logistics WILL change in a few years, and it will deploy, and likely see combat.

Another big issue is that no Super Hornets and Growlers are currently fitted with datalink pods (or other blackbox) to support the F-35 MADL operationally. They do have the pods "available" apparently, and were used to support other programs. I don't think the MADL pods are part of a major program of record, and are only used in support/chase/test roles.

The F/A-18E/F made it through flight testing without a major mishap, and so has the F-35C so far. The EA-18G had a couple of Class A mishaps, with some expensive repairs, during flight testing.

The thing is that OT&E reports worse case issues, and are almost all negative. IMO they are sometimes barely worth the paper they were written on. OT&E report discusses limitations, but at the end of the day, the "immature" F/A-18E/F jets put bombs on targets, and blew s#&t up, and safely landed on the carrier.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 22:55
by SpudmanWP
F-35s can communicate with Growlers with Link16 & VComms. There is no need to delay IOC or rampup of F-35C prod for MADL. There are already gateway solutions available on the market so MADL can talk to the ship, land-based station, or an E-2D

As far as the rest, the USN knew the F-35C was coming so not having parts, space, etc is no excuse. When the F-35C is ready for the boat, they will pull off all of the Classic Hornets so their equipment spaces will be available.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 23:17
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:F-35s can communicate with Growlers with Link16 & VComms. There is no need to delay IOC or rampup of F-35C prod for MADL. There are already gateway solutions available on the market so MADL can talk to the ship, land-based station, or an E-2D
Didn't say they need to delay IOC or prod ramp-up. Using an E-2D as a gateway, or a few other options are available, or could be available, when the F-35C is ready for deployment.


That said, I thought there were issues with F-35 Link 16 transmission, even with 3F software.
SpudmanWP wrote:As far as the rest, the USN knew the F-35C was coming so not having parts, space, etc is no excuse. When the F-35C is ready for the boat, they will pull off all of the Classic Hornets so their equipment spaces will be available.
I was more suggesting that if they magically deployed the F-35C because its mature enough according to armchair analysts, there will be major issues. It would be kind of hard for an "expeditionary force" of F-35Cs to deploy sooner on the boat, with the legacy equipment as well, just because somebody thought it sounded like a good idea at the time.

If the Navy wait until its IOC and ready for deployment on the boat, obviously, they'll have the equipment spaces sorted out.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 00:41
by count_to_10
How often are F-35C's going to actually be using those Sidewinder pylons? Even in no-threat, external weapon load configuration (in which an actual enemy fighter would be a black swan event), they are already going to have AMRAAMs.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 00:56
by XanderCrews
Please note that my issues with the navy go well beyond just naval aviation. They extend to that entire service, and then really tick me off when their terrible policy also affects my service. The Navy leadership is doing so poorly the duffel blog recently wrote an article about how command was trying to destroy the USN out of spite...it was satire. I think.

That is all

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 01:12
by marauder2048
neurotech wrote:
I was more suggesting that if they magically deployed the F-35C because its mature enough according to armchair analysts, there will be major issues. It would be kind of hard for an "expeditionary force" of F-35Cs to deploy sooner on the boat, with the legacy equipment as well, just because somebody thought it sounded like a good idea at the time.

If the Navy wait until its IOC and ready for deployment on the boat, obviously, they'll have the equipment spaces sorted out.


But you've outlined nothing intrinsic to the F-35C itself that's preventing deployment.
Rather, it's the Navy itself that's not ready for the F-35C.

I suppose that this is unsurprising given that the Navy has not inducted a new, clean sheet fighter in decades.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 01:27
by popcorn
A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. IMO Navy is happy to accept any Congressional SH gift as they do meet an immediate need, likely confident in the knowledge that Congress could be swayed to adjust their F-35C numbers upward if needed.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 01:54
by marauder2048
popcorn wrote:A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. IMO Navy is happy to accept any Congressional SH gift as they do meet an immediate need, likely confident in the knowledge that Congress could be swayed to adjust their F-35C numbers upward if needed.


Which is why I'm encouraged by the possibility of Forbes as SecNav.
At this point, only strong civilian leadership is likely to prevail over institutional inertia.

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/05/randy-forbes-seen-at-trump-tower-joe-courtney-endorses-forbes-for-secnav

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 02:35
by popcorn
marauder2048 wrote:
popcorn wrote:A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. IMO Navy is happy to accept any Congressional SH gift as they do meet an immediate need, likely confident in the knowledge that Congress could be swayed to adjust their F-35C numbers upward if needed.


Which is why I'm encouraged by the possibility of Forbes as SecNav.
At this point, only strong civilian leadership is likely to prevail over institutional inertia.

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/05/randy-forbes-seen-at-trump-tower-joe-courtney-endorses-forbes-for-secnav

Well having a SECNAV or SECDEF in your corner helps but so many instances of Congress buying stuff not requested.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 04:57
by 35_aoa
XanderCrews wrote:Please note that my issues with the navy go well beyond just naval aviation. They extend to that entire service, and then really tick me off when their terrible policy also affects my service. The Navy leadership is doing so poorly the duffel blog recently wrote an article about how command was trying to destroy the USN out of spite...it was satire. I think.

That is all


please tell us how you really feel :) FWIW, a lot of guys, particularly in the aviator ranks, have agreed enough in the last year or two to vote with their feet and leave for greener pastures. It is going to take years to fix the damage done by the last decade of senior leadership and asset management. To be fair, a lot of my friends flying pointy nosed jets in the AF and USMC feel the same way about their services as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 08:34
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
popcorn wrote:A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. IMO Navy is happy to accept any Congressional SH gift as they do meet an immediate need, likely confident in the knowledge that Congress could be swayed to adjust their F-35C numbers upward if needed.


Which is why I'm encouraged by the possibility of Forbes as SecNav.
At this point, only strong civilian leadership is likely to prevail over institutional inertia.

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/05/randy-forbes-seen-at-trump-tower-joe-courtney-endorses-forbes-for-secnav


Honestly, we wouldn't even be discussing more Super Hornets. If, Boeing had won a couple of export orders to keep the line going for the next several years.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 09:02
by Corsair1963
James Mattis is going to be the next Secretary of Defense and being one tough Marine. Will want as many F-35's as the US Military can get. Plus, it looks like Forbes is going to become Secretary of the Navy. Yet, he is more concern with more ships for the Navy and finding new ways to piss off the Chinese. (likely why Trump likes him) Either way even Trump will be hard pressed to find all the money he wants for the US Military. In short I am not so sure the odds are so good for more Super Hornets. As something has to give....

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 16:46
by XanderCrews
magitsu wrote:What's your take about this article from Briganti? `

Navair Sees F-35 Requiring Up to 50 Maintenance Hours per Flight Hour
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -hour.html

Is it just maturity-related or is there something wrong with the article?

In contrast F-22 gets praised:
F-22 Raptor, which “is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours,” according to a US Air Force Association response to a story by the Washington Post.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It’s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.


Briganti invents and editoriliazes to the point of hilarity is my take. And if the F-22 can mature so can the F-35 but these guys live in bubbles where nothing is connected unless it helps their bias

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 17:59
by blindpilot
XanderCrews wrote:
magitsu wrote:What's your take about this article from Briganti? `

Navair Sees F-35 Requiring Up to 50 Maintenance Hours per Flight Hour
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -hour.html

Is it just maturity-related or is there something wrong with the article?

In contrast F-22 gets praised:
F-22 Raptor, which “is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours,” according to a US Air Force Association response to a story by the Washington Post.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It’s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.


Briganti invents and editoriliazes to the point of hilarity is my take. And if the F-22 can mature so can the F-35 but these guys live in bubbles where nothing is connected unless it helps their bias


Apples and Oranges, but he probably even gets the Apples wrong. "imply that the...given that ... simple arithmetic ...clearly would have ... "

</sarc>So ...I have pondered in my sleep that bicycles have two wheels, and that`s half of what a car has, but a 18 wheel semi-truck has 9 times as many ... so if we just assert that a used $100,000 semi is 90plus times a $1000 new bicycle, at $9000-10,000 I could get a decent commuter car instead ... so ....simple arithmetic says ...

clearly .... !!! I`ll be getting a Lamborghini for Christmas!

(which is what I was really dreaming about in my sleep)
</sarc off>

Where do these "Journalists" come from? !!!!

MHO
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 20:25
by marauder2048
XanderCrews wrote:
Briganti invents and editoriliazes to the point of hilarity is my take. And if the F-22 can mature so can the F-35 but these guys live in bubbles where nothing is connected unless it helps their bias


Agreed. Briganti previously and stridently claimed that FMS can't include offsets which even the most casual inspection shows
not to be the case.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 02:30
by quicksilver
:wtf:guys. This sole source award is about recurring sustainment support, not wrench-turning maintenance man-hours. In fact, MMH is never even mentioned.

"This Sole Source contract will be awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM Aero), Fort Worth, TX, for non-recurring and recurring sustainment support for all fielded F-35 aircraft for FY18-19."

"The material and non-recurring sustainment activities include: Training Material and Infrastructure, Initial Spares, Support Equipment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) Material and Infrastructure, Site Surveys and Site Activation Activity, Depot Activation, Reliability, Maintainability and Health Maturation, and the Structural Integrity Program."

He took the total number of hours expected under the contract for all the stuff listed above and did some bar-napkin math to come up with his own definition of MMH -- which has nothing to do with how MMH/FH is calculated.

:roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 03:20
by blindpilot
quicksilver wrote:....
He took the total number of hours expected under the contract for all the stuff listed above and did some bar-napkin math to come up with his own definition of MMH -- which has nothing to do with how MMH/FH is calculated.

:roll:


Does that mean I don`t get my Lamborghini?!!!! :shock: :shock:

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 11:37
by quicksilver
Doesn't the President-elect have one for sale on eBay? Cheap, with now-historical significance... :thumb:

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 16:28
by XanderCrews
35_aoa wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Please note that my issues with the navy go well beyond just naval aviation. They extend to that entire service, and then really tick me off when their terrible policy also affects my service. The Navy leadership is doing so poorly the duffel blog recently wrote an article about how command was trying to destroy the USN out of spite...it was satire. I think.

That is all


please tell us how you really feel :) FWIW, a lot of guys, particularly in the aviator ranks, have agreed enough in the last year or two to vote with their feet and leave for greener pastures. It is going to take years to fix the damage done by the last decade of senior leadership and asset management. To be fair, a lot of my friends flying pointy nosed jets in the AF and USMC feel the same way about their services as well.


I can't vouch for why everyone is getting out. and I know some people leave with 100 reasons in order as to why and others are sometimes bewildered themselves. Not even they know.

Leadership is lacking. I don't know if people were picked as Quid Pro Quo "I make you secdef/nav if you let social justice and politics trump warfighting" or if they just got some spineless jelly fish from the start, or if there was a vetting process and anyone who gave off that "I'm here to kill people and win wars" vibe was never given a call back.

I look at the last 8 years and its almost surreal. Obama said we would SURGE in Afghanistan at his west point speech in 2009, and in the exact SAME speech, Not clarified later, not updated the next day, not another speech a year later but the SAME speech, said we were drawing down and leaving within 3 years. :doh:


LOL wut? The women in combat arms thing drives me insane, Especially given that during the Iraq war/surge we had all these people who were deploying 3 and 4 times and doing 18 month stretches, yet with that drastic manpower need women in combat never came up (even though I am told repeatedly they could totally do it). Suddenly the administration declares peace and then says its safe enough for the ladies to play with guns on the reg. :doh:

Its surreal and the CNO giving out maternity leave like its candy while at the same time saying go with combat arms... Think those gals would actually serve anymore than an actual 6 months or so in a line company? LOL just LOL

I think Obama picked who he wanted and not by accident. This drive to make the military more in line with the civilian sector is insane. I'm waiting for the "anti bullying" initiatives to begin. Post tail hook its a different game and the navy is just... wow.

this is before we get into the myriad of procurement failures and problems with the USN. People like Maus think the USN is going to just go forth alone with some Gen 5.5 or 6 aircraft without a hitch and there is nothing in the last 25 years that would back that assessment but he whines about the F-35 as the reason the navy can't do much right, even get the color of a camo uniform correct.


I still can't believe the secretary of Navy utterly dismissed the Marine Corps study that said Mixed units were less effective. he didn't stop women in combat arms. he didn't block it. thats why I say their stupidity is affecting us. Airplane A vs Airplane B pales in comparison to the desperate need for good people. People who can do the job, people who can do the job better. not people who should be allowed to slide through based on genitalia.


Speaking of Maus he basically comes in here to stir things up, but the jokes on him because A. its the Navy B. he tries to make it a zero sum game. C. The F-35C is going to be the most specialized least produced variant. D. The service that fields the super hornet doesn't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of whining about range, after they made their bed. They married the gal, that means all the good and bad.

He also likes to get peoples ire up about the A-10. Which is funny as the USN is the service that like to provide CAS the most expensive and circuitous way possible, from a ship with 4 tankings round trip (thankfully tanking provided by the USAF) and then they have to be SHOCKED! when they have burned through all their fatigue hours.


They would never do it, but the USN should have provided shore based CVWs for Iraqistan. But it counters the service desire for more aircraft carriers. So just to review if the USAF tries to retire the A-10 in a zero sum fiscal game its a horrifically selfish and political service, but if the USN does the same... well. Meh. need them ships!! The air force has adapted to a much better degree I would say.

how many hours and money and even lives do we think the USN could have saved by skipping on all the landing practice and just going full Air Force and Marines with large scale land based deployments? but we can't have that.

And now our aircraft are all worn out!! Poor planning now constitutes an emergency. The USN needs to get it together because McCain won't always be there to bail you out.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2016, 05:09
by 35_aoa
So while I don't largely disagree with you, I'd argue a couple counterpoints if you will hear me out…..

1) I hope we aren't legitimately, when all is said and done, complaining about range. The -35C has a lot of gas compared to the F/A-18, even an -E, and it has a lot less drag without externals. I think we will be fine in that respect.

2) I too think that the USN should have left OEF/OIF (particularly OEF) about 10 years before they actually did. I flew an OEF mission on the last day the Navy ever flew one from a CVN, and that was in 2014. It was, as you stated, an absurd use of assets from my perspective as a fleet pilot. With that having been said, a former CAG did say that the DoD had determined that it was actually cheaper to use Navy assets and tankers than it was to land base everyone (specifically in Afghanistan) and pay for overland fuel trucks through Kyber pass/etc. I don't know how true that is, but I can see it being somewhat truthful. That also doesn't take into account the extreme $$$'s spent in flying a fleet of newish super hornets into the ground. Not all were, but many were. That is the biggest mismanagement I see, and why that particular line of thinking may have been flawed when we talk about the forest vs the trees.

3) I saw first hand how having a CVN can be a significant advantage over land based assets. We were on station flying over Iraq within about 30 hours when ISIS was lighting refinery fires and closing in on Baghdad. Granted we *did* have USAF tanker support, but the calculus is more complex than that. It was months before USAF strike assets were authorized by their host nations to launch on offensive missions with ordnance loaded. Meanwhile we were flying in country every day, all day, with weapons and no restrictions. We also didn't require the tanker bridge and massive airlift effort that took place for over a month after we were already there and ready. Even the forward deployed USMC assets were subject to the same host nation restrictions. A VFA squadron from my airwing ended up dropping the first bombs that kicked off what would become OIR months later. I thought that experience was pretty neat. We aren't the answer for every scenario, but the CVN/CSG is a nice tool to carry in your diplomacy quiver. I will never go so far as to say we are a replacement for the massive amount of assets that the USAF can put in theater, but we are a pretty good first responder.

Just some thoughts to marinate on. I think we are generally arguing the same thing, but that's my perspective. As an aside, I was in a briefing with the CNO and CNAF yesterday, and it was pretty interesting to hear their perspectives. They are smart dudes, and pretty reasonable in my estimate. Hopefully that will carry forth into the next administration, even if you don't agree with some of the "social" policy decisions that have come out of the Pentagon as of late.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2016, 22:29
by quicksilver
35_aoa wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Please note that my issues with the navy go well beyond just naval aviation. They extend to that entire service, and then really tick me off when their terrible policy also affects my service. The Navy leadership is doing so poorly the duffel blog recently wrote an article about how command was trying to destroy the USN out of spite...it was satire. I think.

That is all


please tell us how you really feel :) FWIW, a lot of guys, particularly in the aviator ranks, have agreed enough in the last year or two to vote with their feet and leave for greener pastures. It is going to take years to fix the damage done by the last decade of senior leadership and asset management. To be fair, a lot of my friends flying pointy nosed jets in the AF and USMC feel the same way about their services as well.


These things go in cycles. Why do guys get out? Let us count the ways...

-- Their contract is up and they never intended to stay beyond. The system was never designed to retain everyone, even the ones the service would prefer to keep (performance-wise).

-- Some get to the point where they've done just about everything they wanted to do -- got the wings, got the aircraft they wanted, got all the quals they wanted, deployed to combat, saw the world. Got married. Wants other mountains to climb -- outta uniform.

-- Wife doesn't wanna do the military life anymore. Kids change things; wants dad home more, no longer buys into the inherent risks that he assumes daily as a military aviator. She has a degree, wants to stay married and pursue career. Lotsa stuff in this domain can contribute to 'out' decisions.

-- One bad CO can spoil the experience for alotta people. Unfortunately, not all leaders are created equal. Some can be really toxic, and if there isn't a follow-on experience that flips the coin the other way, people often vote with their feet.

-- It ceases being 'fun.' Everyone gets to a point where the stuff that used to be absolutely exhilarating, every time every day, no longer rises to anywhere near that level of excitement or satisfaction. There can be many reasons for that but sometimes it's because there are no longer the same kinda mountains to climb (like flight/IP quals) and the responsibilities on the other side of squadron life (leadership) take on greater time and effort. That's part of the normal career progression. However, the other reality within that reality is that the adminsitrivia that feeds the institution's bureaucracy has gotten out of control and the greater ones responsibilities, the greater the oversight and reporting requirements. Gotta find other ways to measure ones career satisfaction than getting new quals etc.

-- Accountability is a fundamental element of the environment, but zero defects breeds fear not performance. ZD very toxic.

-- The airlines are hiring, and the grass is always greener...

-- All or some combination of the above at any given moment.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2016, 07:47
by 35_aoa
quicksilver wrote:These things go in cycles. Why do guys get out? Let us count the ways...

-- Their contract is up and they never intended to stay beyond. The system was never designed to retain everyone, even the ones the service would prefer to keep (performance-wise).

-- Some get to the point where they've done just about everything they wanted to do -- got the wings, got the aircraft they wanted, got all the quals they wanted, deployed to combat, saw the world. Got married. Wants other mountains to climb -- outta uniform.

-- Wife doesn't wanna do the military life anymore. Kids change things; wants dad home more, no longer buys into the inherent risks that he assumes daily as a military aviator. She has a degree, wants to stay married and pursue career. Lotsa stuff in this domain can contribute to 'out' decisions.

-- One bad CO can spoil the experience for alotta people. Unfortunately, not all leaders are created equal. Some can be really toxic, and if there isn't a follow-on experience that flips the coin the other way, people often vote with their feet.

-- It ceases being 'fun.' Everyone gets to a point where the stuff that used to be absolutely exhilarating, every time every day, no longer rises to anywhere near that level of excitement or satisfaction. There can be many reasons for that but sometimes it's because there are no longer the same kinda mountains to climb (like flight/IP quals) and the responsibilities on the other side of squadron life (leadership) take on greater time and effort. That's part of the normal career progression. However, the other reality within that reality is that the adminsitrivia that feeds the institution's bureaucracy has gotten out of control and the greater ones responsibilities, the greater the oversight and reporting requirements. Gotta find other ways to measure ones career satisfaction than getting new quals etc.

-- Accountability is a fundamental element of the environment, but zero defects breeds fear not performance. ZD very toxic.

-- The airlines are hiring, and the grass is always greener...

-- All or some combination of the above at any given moment.


Yes, I'd say more of a combination of many than just one. But the DH "take" rates, as well as amount of SFTI's (i.e. weapons officers for those not familiar) leaving have been pretty unusual in the last couple years. I think the airline hiring boom is exacerbating the effects, but in my personal opinion, it is much much deeper than that.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2016, 09:37
by quicksilver
"...it is much much deeper than that."

That's the kind of thing that is always said. "...it has never been this bad..." Yada yada yada.

Of course it hasn't -- in the experience of those who are seeing it/going through it (for the first time). The reality is that it has been that bad before -- or worse.

Some stick around to make it better...don't they?

:salute:

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2016, 09:47
by 35_aoa
quicksilver wrote:"...it is much much deeper than that."

That's the kind of thing that is always said. "...it has never been this bad..." Yada yada yada.

Of course it hasn't -- in the experience of those who are seeing it/going through it (for the first time). The reality is that it has been that bad before -- or worse.

Some stick around to make it better...don't they?

:salute:


Never said it hasn't happened before. Of course it has. But I would say it is out of the norm for the last 10-15 years. I'm sure it was way worse in the mid 1970's than it ever will be again to be fair. What I am saying is that we are reaching another crisis of morale. Not naive enough to think it is the first or last, but at the moment, there are a lot of folks that are legitimately frustrated with the way things are going, rather than just looking to seize a better opportunity on the other side. I should hope some stick around to make it better. Out of curiosity, during what timeframe were you a (USMC right?) aviator?

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2016, 13:57
by quicksilver
"Never said it hasn't happened before."

I didn't say you did; I said those are the kinds of statements that are always made. And next-below are two more you uttered from the pantheon of "woe is us...life sucks in Naval Aviation" --

"But I would say it is out of the norm for the last 10-15 years...What I am saying is that we are reaching another crisis of morale."

I was prepared to rest my case and then you followed up with another gem --

"There are a lot of folks that are legitimately frustrated with the way things are going..."

What? Not enough people thanking you for your service? (sarcasm intended). All those brand-new/well-maintained Super Hornets getting boring for you these days? Seriously though, there are always things to be frustrated about; that's the nature of the career drill. Wanna be frustrated? Stick around for command. Have you been in command yet? Will you be competitive for command? To those who are getting ready to step over the side because "lots of folks...are frustrated", I recommend they think very rationally about the reasons why. There are plenty of good reasons to get out; 'being frustrated' isn't one of them. Wanna see 'frustrated?' You should see some of the silliness that goes on in corporate America. Frustration foments emotion; emotion clouds judgment.

"...rather than just looking to seize a better opportunity on the other side."

I was very clear that there are a host of reasons that cause people to walk, and I would add the truism, 'different strokes for different folks.'

In these 'out' cycles, there is always lotsa group-think going on. People should be careful about the group-think they choose to participate in because as frustrated as they might be, it always gets better. Remember, group-think never feels like group-think while you're in it -- the implicit rationalization being 'everyone is doing it.'

I was prepared to step in the late 80s/early 90s during a previous airline hiring binge. All of the same things were being said, "we're frustrated, etc etc etc." I was fortunate to have had leaders around whom I could talk to -- who had weathered their own mid-career crises back in the day -- who helped me understand the frustrations of the moment (however valid they might have been) in-context. My conclusion/realization was that I was simply going to take my frustrations with me to some other pasture, and in the process irrevocably walk away from alotta stuff that I really, really enjoyed and had worked very hard to be very very good at. I chose to stay and am thankful to this very moment that I did.

Never had another frustration in my entire career. :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 00:06
by 35_aoa
quicksilver wrote:I was prepared to rest my case and then you followed up with another gem --

"There are a lot of folks that are legitimately frustrated with the way things are going..."

What? Not enough people thanking you for your service? (sarcasm intended). All those brand-new/well-maintained Super Hornets getting boring for you these days? Seriously though, there are always things to be frustrated about; that's the nature of the career drill. Wanna be frustrated? Stick around for command. Have you been in command yet? Will you be competitive for command? To those who are getting ready to step over the side because "lots of folks...are frustrated", I recommend they think very rationally about the reasons why. There are plenty of good reasons to get out; 'being frustrated' isn't one of them. Wanna see 'frustrated?' You should see some of the silliness that goes on in corporate America. Frustration foments emotion; emotion clouds judgment.



All fair points. I also didn't intend to say that I'm someone who feels that way specifically. Just voicing the thoughts of a lot of friends (though I do see certain big Navy decisions as being bothersome, as well as more cultural things like our zero defect mentality that is slowly creeping through the service). And I agree that there is probably a large amount of, as you called it, "group think" leanings towards departing the service. I was actually thinking about that very thing today.

For the record, if nobody ever thanked me for my service again, it would be no skin off my back. I hope none of us are doing this for the "thank you's"…...

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 02:51
by maus92
58 Super Hornets recommended for the FY2018 Budget

Outgoing SecNav Mabus' budget memo for the incoming Trump Administration is asking for 58 more Super Hornets, no mention of F-35Cs, except to highlight their delays:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Outgoing Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has crafted the Fiscal 2018 Department of the Navy budget submission in line with the stated goals of the new Trump administration rather than the priorities of the current Department of Defense, according to a memo Mabus sent to Pentagon leaders on Thursday.....

"The Navy also added, “a number of items to its budget, including 58 F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters, six P-8A maritime multi-mission aircraft and $14 billion in readiness accounts...."

"Ahead of the Trump Pentagon, [VCNO] Moran said the service was working to get its priorities set to present to the new administration.

“When we are asked, we want to have our ducks in a row and end up with priorities that are important with the near term and the far term of the Navy and we’re working on the list,” he said.

“Maintenance and modernization of both ships and submarines and aircraft are at the top of our list. In the strike fighter shortfall world, we need to keep buying Super Hornets to offset the delay in F-35 and the material condition of our current fleet. Those are things we can execute tomorrow. Putting money into readiness, addressing some of our shortfalls in our bases, building munition stocks we have taken risks… those are things we would try to buy back given a higher topline.”"

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/09/navy-b ... s-pentagon

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 04:18
by marauder2048
Maus92's selective quoting and highlighting omitted the crucial point from the Mabus memo:


"You and I both know that this budget is almost totally a symbolic one, given the time this Administration has left in office."

"You" in this case is SecDef Carter.

Heck, I'm sure we wouldn't begrudge Mabus a few Super Bugs if he got his way on abolishing DOT&E.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 04:51
by popcorn
Trump should consider keeping Bob Work around to help the new SECDEF in his transition and even longer if possible. The DoD needs strategic thinkers and not more bureaucrats. He knows where the holes are as well.

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/06/depsec ... capability

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 06:56
by XanderCrews
35_aoa wrote:So while I don't largely disagree with you, I'd argue a couple counterpoints if you will hear me out…..

1) I hope we aren't legitimately, when all is said and done, complaining about range. The -35C has a lot of gas compared to the F/A-18, even an -E, and it has a lot less drag without externals. I think we will be fine in that respect.

2) I too think that the USN should have left OEF/OIF (particularly OEF) about 10 years before they actually did. I flew an OEF mission on the last day the Navy ever flew one from a CVN, and that was in 2014. It was, as you stated, an absurd use of assets from my perspective as a fleet pilot. With that having been said, a former CAG did say that the DoD had determined that it was actually cheaper to use Navy assets and tankers than it was to land base everyone (specifically in Afghanistan) and pay for overland fuel trucks through Kyber pass/etc. I don't know how true that is, but I can see it being somewhat truthful. That also doesn't take into account the extreme $$$'s spent in flying a fleet of newish super hornets into the ground. Not all were, but many were. That is the biggest mismanagement I see, and why that particular line of thinking may have been flawed when we talk about the forest vs the trees.

3) I saw first hand how having a CVN can be a significant advantage over land based assets. We were on station flying over Iraq within about 30 hours when ISIS was lighting refinery fires and closing in on Baghdad. Granted we *did* have USAF tanker support, but the calculus is more complex than that. It was months before USAF strike assets were authorized by their host nations to launch on offensive missions with ordnance loaded. Meanwhile we were flying in country every day, all day, with weapons and no restrictions. We also didn't require the tanker bridge and massive airlift effort that took place for over a month after we were already there and ready. Even the forward deployed USMC assets were subject to the same host nation restrictions. A VFA squadron from my airwing ended up dropping the first bombs that kicked off what would become OIR months later. I thought that experience was pretty neat. We aren't the answer for every scenario, but the CVN/CSG is a nice tool to carry in your diplomacy quiver. I will never go so far as to say we are a replacement for the massive amount of assets that the USAF can put in theater, but we are a pretty good first responder.

Just some thoughts to marinate on. I think we are generally arguing the same thing, but that's my perspective. As an aside, I was in a briefing with the CNO and CNAF yesterday, and it was pretty interesting to hear their perspectives. They are smart dudes, and pretty reasonable in my estimate. Hopefully that will carry forth into the next administration, even if you don't agree with some of the "social" policy decisions that have come out of the Pentagon as of late.



Didn't get a chance to thank you for taking the time here. Appreciate it. I can't respond at the moment but the insight is invaluable

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 06:58
by SpudmanWP
maus92 wrote:we need to keep buying Super Hornets to offset the delay in F-35


Funny how he does not mention that it was the DoD that delayed the F-35C's (as well as all the F-35's) ramp-up.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 15:50
by XanderCrews
58? Well it's Christmas time lol

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 18:45
by quicksilver
SpudmanWP wrote:
maus92 wrote:we need to keep buying Super Hornets to offset the delay in F-35


Funny how he does not mention that it was the DoD that delayed the F-35C's (as well as all the F-35's) ramp-up.


No, actually it has been the Navy that has 'delayed' F-35C. Their position is but another in a long line of self-licking ice cream cones.

Notably, they now find themselves aligned programmatically with that staunch advocate for the western alliance, Justin Trudeau.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2016, 20:08
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
maus92 wrote:we need to keep buying Super Hornets to offset the delay in F-35


Funny how he does not mention that it was the DoD that delayed the F-35C's (as well as all the F-35's) ramp-up.


No, actually it has been the Navy that has 'delayed' F-35C. Their position is but another in a long line of self-licking ice cream cones.

Notably, they now find themselves aligned programmatically with that staunch advocate for the western alliance, Justin Trudeau.


OUCH

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2016, 07:27
by optimist
my take on it is that the USN will take them in 3f. Unless things have changed, block 4/5 is where they get the maritime kit and weapons they want. So there may be a gap, besides simply numbers, that the fa-18 can fill?

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2016, 08:37
by SpudmanWP
3F will have the JSOW-C which is enough to get the job done for the Classic Hornets that it is replacing when it comes to a "maritime" mission not to mention Paveways.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2016, 11:44
by optimist
If 3f gives then what they want. Then I can't think of a reason to buy fa-18 over f-35 now. as the delivery will be in the same time frame, It must be politics

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2016, 14:34
by cosmicdwarf
optimist wrote:If 3f gives then what they want. Then I can't think of a reason to buy fa-18 over f-35 now. as the delivery will be in the same time frame, It must be politics

The part that maus ignored in the same sentence was that they also need them to replace current equipment. Basically they Navy wants more Super Hornets so they have more Super Hornets later as some of the older ones age out faster than they wanted.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2016, 15:18
by XanderCrews
cosmicdwarf wrote:
optimist wrote:If 3f gives then what they want. Then I can't think of a reason to buy fa-18 over f-35 now. as the delivery will be in the same time frame, It must be politics

The part that maus ignored in the same sentence was that they also need them to replace current equipment. Basically they Navy wants more Super Hornets so they have more Super Hornets later as some of the older ones age out faster than they wanted.


Yep. Maus is making sure to try and pin this on the F-35. However it's the super Hornets wearing out faster than anticipated and the expense of the earlier super Hornets maintained. It can't be the navy'should fault. It just can't!

He must be great in relationships. Besides, the Navy is going to need more super bugs to tank

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2016, 08:53
by spazsinbad
Have we heard from 'maus92' about this? http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98183
Aircrew Injured During Ground Aircraft Emergency; Naval Air Forces Declares Operational Pause for Super Hornet and Growler Fleet As always we wish the crew well and speedy recovery.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2016, 09:26
by popcorn
https://www.navytimes.com/story/militar ... /82255406/

And, of course, the Navy is still chasing this pesky ghost.

Nothing scares Hornet pilots more than losing oxygen — and it happens all the time

The third time the high-pitched alarm rang "deedle deedle" in the F/A-18F Super Hornet's cockpit, it was clear that something with the air flowing into their regulators had gone horribly wrong.

"That's when I realize my lips were tingling, my fingers are tingling, and I'm like, 'S---, man, something's wrong,' " a Navy pilot recalled. "And the guy in the back's like, 'Hey, dude! My fingers are blue!' "

They had just taken off from Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev., when they recognized the blurred judgment and delayed reflexes caused by a lack of oxygen. Suddenly the pilot had to figure out how to land the $65 million jet on a cloudy day, in a rocky stretch of Nevada where mountains peak at 6,000 feet.

"So the problem is, how low can you go? And you’re doing this hypoxic," recalled the 1,000-hour West Coast-based Hornet pilot, who asked not to be named out of concern over his 10-year career...

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2016, 10:03
by 35_aoa
spazsinbad wrote:Have we heard from 'maus92' about this? http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98183
Aircrew Injured During Ground Aircraft Emergency; Naval Air Forces Declares Operational Pause for Super Hornet and Growler Fleet As always we wish the crew well and speedy recovery.


"Ground Emergency" and "Injured" don't really capture how badly off those guys are right now. Keep them in your thoughts for a speedy recovery.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2016, 11:06
by Dragon029
35_aoa wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Have we heard from 'maus92' about this? http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98183
Aircrew Injured During Ground Aircraft Emergency; Naval Air Forces Declares Operational Pause for Super Hornet and Growler Fleet As always we wish the crew well and speedy recovery.


"Ground Emergency" and "Injured" don't really capture how badly off those guys are right now. Keep them in your thoughts for a speedy recovery.


Given that the incident has been reported to have involved a Growler's canopy and that the crew are critically injured, did this have something to do with the canopy-removal system?

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2016, 15:55
by XanderCrews
35_aoa wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Have we heard from 'maus92' about this? http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98183
Aircrew Injured During Ground Aircraft Emergency; Naval Air Forces Declares Operational Pause for Super Hornet and Growler Fleet As always we wish the crew well and speedy recovery.


"Ground Emergency" and "Injured" don't really capture how badly off those guys are right now. Keep them in your thoughts for a speedy recovery.



Can you tell us anything about them?

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2016, 16:21
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Have we heard from 'maus92'.


Must have slipped his mind

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2016, 16:53
by quicksilver
Ugh. Another bleeping mishap.

Military aviation is a risky business, even when there's no shooting going on. I hope that this incident drives home -- for some -- the reality that groundings in military aviation are not unusual, even in aircraft that are long past an IOC date or a Milestone C decision.

A few more families now in crisis during the holidays.

Ugh.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2016, 17:54
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:
35_aoa wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Have we heard from 'maus92' about this? http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98183
Aircrew Injured During Ground Aircraft Emergency; Naval Air Forces Declares Operational Pause for Super Hornet and Growler Fleet As always we wish the crew well and speedy recovery.


"Ground Emergency" and "Injured" don't really capture how badly off those guys are right now. Keep them in your thoughts for a speedy recovery.



Can you tell us anything about them?

He probably isn't allowed to comment on the specifics, per standard protocol. The appropriate senior officer or PAO will make a comment when available. OPSEC would be a factor, since they grounded the entire fleet. This seems more than a "pause" for a safety meeting.

All we know is that it was a very serious mishap, and can only wish the crew the best, and a speedy recovery.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2016, 21:51
by optimist
wishing them a full recovery
my guess, ground incident and had to eject, canopy didn't separate and the guys went through it.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2016, 00:55
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:wishing them a full recovery
my guess, ground incident and had to eject, canopy didn't separate and the guys went through it.


Can we try not to speculate?

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2016, 14:32
by optimist
it's a forum, it's what we do

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2016, 21:44
by neurotech
Navy lifts operational pause of Growlers, Super Hornets
"After Naval Air Systems Command and Boeing engineers investigated and identified several factors that likely contributed to the mishap, Naval Air Forces directed mitigation measures be implemented across the F-18 Fleet, since there are some similarities in the component designs for the affected systems in the recent Growler mishap," according to the release.

Once squadrons have briefed and incorporated the measures, which include changes to aircraft water-wash procedures and updates to Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization, normal flight operations may resume.

The Growler accident is under investigation.


https://www.navytimes.com/articles/navy ... er-hornets

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2016, 23:37
by popcorn
... which include changes to aircraft water-wash procedures...

what's this?

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 00:46
by Dragon029
Jets get bird-bathed on land and hosed down on carriers to remove sea-salt and reduce corrosion. I'm not sure how it would relate to what happened.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 00:49
by popcorn
Dragon029 wrote:Jets get bird-bathed on land and hosed down on carriers to remove sea-salt and reduce corrosion. I'm not sure how it would relate to what happened.

Ditto.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 01:55
by neurotech
Dragon029 wrote:Jets get bird-bathed on land and hosed down on carriers to remove sea-salt and reduce corrosion. I'm not sure how it would relate to what happened.

Not directly related, but when a high pressure washer sent water into the AoA sensor on an A320, this was a major factor in why the jet went down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XL_Airway ... light_888T

It's possible water got somewhere it shouldn't on this EA-18G, but I'm not sure the details as to how.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 04:47
by 35_aoa
Busy weekend for NAVAIR I think. New boldface emergency procedures for A-G jets this morning. Ironically, both my flights today were in Super Hornets, which last night, I had expected to be grounded at least for the day. I guess the turnaround is pretty quick when you have the AIR BOSS breathing down your neck.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 05:51
by blindpilot
neurotech wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:Jets get bird-bathed on land and hosed down on carriers to remove sea-salt and reduce corrosion. I'm not sure how it would relate to what happened.

Not directly related, but when a high pressure washer sent water into the AoA sensor on an A320, this was a major factor in why the jet went down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XL_Airway ... light_888T

It's possible water got somewhere it shouldn't on this EA-18G, but I'm not sure the details as to how.


Also lost a B-2 that way -

"After the accident, the Air Force took the B-2 fleet off operational status until clearing the fleet for flight status 53 days later on 15 April 2008. The cause of the crash was later determined to be moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration, which distorted the information being sent to the bomber's air data system. As a result, the flight control computers calculated an inaccurate airspeed, and a negative angle of attack, causing the aircraft to pitch upward 30 degrees during takeoff. This was the first crash of a B-2 and the only loss as of 2016."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_ ... e_note-136

Sadly this is not a once only problem, nor restricted to one aircraft`s "design".

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 13:31
by Dragon029
Just heard earlier on from a guy associated with VAQ-132 that the problem was a cockpit over-pressurisation that got so severe (because the cockpit safety valve failed to open) that the canopy blew open. Their critical health status likely comes from severe decompression sickness, but the canopy may potentially have shattered as well, which could have lead to nasty lacerations.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 21:22
by neurotech
Dragon029 wrote:Just heard earlier on from a guy associated with VAQ-132 that the problem was a cockpit over-pressurisation that got so severe (because the cockpit safety valve failed to open) that the canopy blew open. Their critical health status likely comes from severe decompression sickness, but the canopy may potentially have shattered as well, which could have lead to nasty lacerations.

The F414 engine gets the bleed air from the 7th (final) stage compressor, so if somehow there is a stuck open Bleed Air Pressure Regulator and Shutoff Valve, Its going to be a really bad for the crew of that jet.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 21:25
by spazsinbad
In an A-4 when the aircon got stuck on FULL HOT - or it went to FULL HOT unserviceability - it was REALLY HOT real quick and AFAIK NATOPS RTB ASAP (return to base and land as quickly as possible). I have read that some pilots were tempted to jettison the canopy before able to land, when aircon went to full hot.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 23:12
by popcorn
Dragon029 wrote:Just heard earlier on from a guy associated with VAQ-132 that the problem was a cockpit over-pressurisation that got so severe (because the cockpit safety valve failed to open) that the canopy blew open. Their critical health status likely comes from severe decompression sickness, but the canopy may potentially have shattered as well, which could have lead to nasty lacerations.

Presumably the crew popped the canopy?

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2016, 23:37
by neurotech
popcorn wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:Just heard earlier on from a guy associated with VAQ-132 that the problem was a cockpit over-pressurisation that got so severe (because the cockpit safety valve failed to open) that the canopy blew open. Their critical health status likely comes from severe decompression sickness, but the canopy may potentially have shattered as well, which could have lead to nasty lacerations.

Presumably the crew popped the canopy?

Scuttlebutt says the canopy wasn't jettisoned, but shattered as a result of the overpressure.

Edit: Mishap summary
A CLOSED AIRCRAFT CANOPY EXPLODED ON FLIGHT LINE DURING GROUND OPERATIONS

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 06:26
by popcorn
YIKES! If so, then I shudder to think of the kind of pressure the aircrew was under. I was thinking they might have been trying to deal with the situation knowing they at least had that final option in reserve.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 06:58
by Corsair1963
Honestly, the Navy will never be able to afford the F-35C. If, it doesn't start placing larger orders! For example Lot 9 says it all.........


The contract set a price of $102.1 million per A model and $131.6 million per B model, down from about $108 million and $134 million, respectively. However, a smaller Navy order for only two F-35Cs caused unit prices to rise by $3.2 million to $132.2 million per aircraft!

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-3 ... ol-program


SPENDING ONE MORE DIME ON ADDITIONAL "SUPER HORNETS' IS CRAZY! :shock:

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 12:31
by popcorn
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... leet-18797

What's Wrong With the U.S. Navy's Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Fleet?

According to U.S. Navy sources, while the accident is still under investigation, it appears that the EA-18G suffered from severe cockpit over-pressurization. As it was described, the canopy failed after a particular safety valve—which would have relieved the pressure—failed to operate correctly. The Navy is in the process of implementing procedural fixes to address the most immediate issues in an effort ensure that such an accident doesn’t happen again.

“There is an ongoing investigation into the Mishap experienced by VAQ-132 last Friday,” Commander Jeannie Groeneveld, a spokeswoman for Naval Air Force, told the National Interest. “I can confirm that the crew was troubleshooting cabin pressurization issues when the canopy failed, damaging the aircraft and injuring the crew. It is important to let the investigation run its course to determine all causal factors of this mishap.”

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 22:45
by wolfpak
There is a large-of-the-art hyperbaric chamber at Travis AFB

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 22:54
by spazsinbad
AFAIK hyperbaric chamber training for aircrew has been discontinued for some time. Why? Because it is dangerous. However training is done otherwise; whilst USN Hornet crews are trained specifically about hypoxia symptoms with special gear. This was covered in another forum thread and I have a bunch of info about it. I guess it could be posted here - if not again....

I understand your mention of the hyperbaric chamber to perhaps relieve symptoms however AFAIK we do not know about injuries suffered by the crew in this accident.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 23:43
by wolfpak
Yep, Only mentioned it because if they had a severe case of decompression sickness they would probably go there since it's close.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 00:56
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:AFAIK hyperbaric chamber training for aircrew has been discontinued for some time. Why? Because it is dangerous. However training is done otherwise; whilst USN Hornet crews are trained specifically about hypoxia symptoms with special gear. This was covered in another forum thread and I have a bunch of info about it. I guess it could be posted here - if not again....

I understand your mention of the hyperbaric chamber to perhaps relieve symptoms however AFAIK we do not know about injuries suffered by the crew in this accident.

Hyberbaric Oxygen Chambers are still used to treat De-Compression Sickness (DCS). Still don't know if that was the actual condition that injured the crew.

Hypobaric (Altitude) Chambers were used to train aircrews in hypoxia awareness, and emergency procedures (e.g for U-2 crews) but with the exception of U-2 crew and some test pilots, they stopped requiring actual altitude chamber training. F-22 pilots may still be required to go in the altitude chamber. Part of the reason was the chambers got so old, as to become a major safety risk. Another reason is that sudden decompression in the chamber is still quite dangerous.

F/A-18 and most other fighter crews now use a Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device (RODB) for hypoxia awareness training. RODB training also helps crew identify toxic hypoxia, which isn't nearly as obvious as a sudden decompression.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 01:32
by count_to_10
neurotech wrote:Hypobaric (Altitude) Chambers were used to train aircrews in hypoxia awareness, and emergency procedures (e.g for U-2 crews) but with the exception of U-2 crew and some test pilots, they stopped requiring actual altitude chamber training. F-22 pilots may still be required to go in the altitude chamber. Part of the reason was the chambers got so old, as to become a major safety risk. Another reason is that sudden decompression in the chamber is still quite dangerous.

Shouldn't that be "sudden recompression"? I don't see how a low pressure chamber would suddenly "decompress". That's the kind of thing that happens when a high pressure chamber fails.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 01:32
by spazsinbad
What 'neurotech' said - I'll get my PDF ready soonish. And 'count_to_ten' we knew what he meant.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 02:22
by wolfpak
I should have posted this along with my comments.

http://www.travis.af.mil/About-Us/Fact- ... department

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 02:56
by neurotech
count_to_10 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Hypobaric (Altitude) Chambers were used to train aircrews in hypoxia awareness, and emergency procedures (e.g for U-2 crews) but with the exception of U-2 crew and some test pilots, they stopped requiring actual altitude chamber training. F-22 pilots may still be required to go in the altitude chamber. Part of the reason was the chambers got so old, as to become a major safety risk. Another reason is that sudden decompression in the chamber is still quite dangerous.

Shouldn't that be "sudden recompression"? I don't see how a low pressure chamber would suddenly "decompress". That's the kind of thing that happens when a high pressure chamber fails.

No. The chamber is "pressurized" to cabin altitude equivalent, then rapidly decreases pressure to simulate high altitude at ambient pressure.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 03:19
by spazsinbad
27 PDF pages attached about Tall Tales But True From The Legendary Past: Acceleration Atelectasis in the A-4 & F-22 +
HEAVENS TO MURGATROID, My Pilot has Decompression Sickness!
May-June 2013 LT. ADAM VANDENBOOGAARD; APPROACH - USN Flight Safety Magazine

"...Decompression sickness (DCS) — one of seven “land as soon as possible” emergencies in the EA-6B Prowler and arguably the least understood — was not something any of our four crew members had expected to encounter...."

Source: http://www.public.navy.mil/comnavsafece ... ay-Jun.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 05:16
by 35_aoa
neurotech wrote:
Hypobaric (Altitude) Chambers were used to train aircrews in hypoxia awareness, and emergency procedures (e.g for U-2 crews) but with the exception of U-2 crew and some test pilots, they stopped requiring actual altitude chamber training. F-22 pilots may still be required to go in the altitude chamber. Part of the reason was the chambers got so old, as to become a major safety risk. Another reason is that sudden decompression in the chamber is still quite dangerous.

F/A-18 and most other fighter crews now use a Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device (RODB) for hypoxia awareness training. RODB training also helps crew identify toxic hypoxia, which isn't nearly as obvious as a sudden decompression.


Sounds like things may have changed, but when I went through API/Pensacola, we still had to do the chamber ride. IIRC they only depressurized you to 18,000 ft, which is where the risk factor for DCS exponentially increases above. Have done ROBD during recurring physiology/swim survival training though. Not sure about the toxic hypoxia part, as they don't introduce toxins into the O2 flow, they just reduce the O2 concentration over time. I suppose the symptoms would be similar in any case though. From multiple ROBD rides, I know that I personally have very minimal symptoms until my blood-oxygen level is very low and I am near clinical incapacitation.

As for the rest of the discussion, HYPERbaric chambers are used to medically treat things like DCS, or for divers, the "bends". There are actually a lot of them around the country, and around the world, in major regional hospitals. HYPObaric chambers are much more uncommon, and are purely for exposing aircrew to the effects of decompression, as well as medical studies, and primarily govt or DoD operated in the US.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 17:47
by spazsinbad
:devil: One could say the 'CMDR NavAirForce' is TRUMP so that he is the 'TWITtererInChief' but I AM NOT THAT ONE! :doh:
2017 Forecast: Trump Is The Navy’s Best Friend
04 Jan 2017 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...His [Trump] personal intervention in programs like Air Force One and the F-35 has alarmed the Air Force....

...The one time the Navy might have gotten caught in the Twitter crossfire, moreover, it came off unscathed. When Trump took aim at Lockheed’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy, Marines, and Air Force all had planes at stake. But the Navy’s F-35C variant is the one being introduced at the slowest pace, so any Trump-induced disruptions to the program will hurt the sea service less than Air Force or Marines.

What’s more, Trump’s suggested alternative to the F-35, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, happens to a Navy plane. The Marines considered buying Super Hornets but decided not to, instead retaining their aging F-18A/B/C/D Hornets — which have since become a maintenance nightmare — until the arrival of the F-35B, whose jump-jet capabilities are critical to future Marine operations. The Air Force never even considered the Super Hornet and would fight it until their last legislative liaison died from overwork: The F/A-18 would require an all-new maintenance and supply chain, it’s optimized for carrier operations rather than land bases, and it lacks stealth. But the Navy has been buying Super Hornets for two decades, and many admirals would gladly take more, even at the price of delaying the F-35C. And it’s clear the President-Elect will be more than receptive to Navy requests for Super Hornets....

...It’s impossible to say whether Trump held his fire on the Ford and LCS because he didn’t know about their problems, didn’t care, or decided both ships were worth buying anyway. His silence may well end as Congress keeps the pressure on both programs and he feels compelled to chime in as Twitterer-in-Chief. But until Trump changes course — which he’s very capable of doing — his administration is blowing only fair winds for the US Navy.It’s impossible to say whether Trump held his fire on the Ford and LCS because he didn’t know about their problems, didn’t care, or decided both ships were worth buying anyway. His silence may well end as Congress keeps the pressure on both programs and he feels compelled to chime in as Twitterer-in-Chief. But until Trump changes course — which he’s very capable of doing — his administration is blowing only fair winds for the US Navy."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/2017 ... st-friend/

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2017, 16:32
by Dragon029
It's not news, but I thought it was interesting given who it came from - Captain Scott Farr, the CO of the USN Pacific Fleet's Electronic Warfare Wing mentions in this interview that the F-35A has "significant" mission overlap and electronic warfare capabilities.

An excerpt of that interview (the statements come in the final 1/3 of the video):

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2017, 23:34
by spazsinbad
OVER on previous page this thread I mentioned FULL HOT in the A-4 Emergency - speak o' the devil and his chains rattle...

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=358575&hilit=NATOPS#p358575
Too Hot to Handle
2016 LCDR DEREK ASHLOCK, VFC-111 Approach-MECH Vol.61, No. 3

"As a seasoned aviator, during Operation Desert Storm I had my fair share of emergencies. From losing an engine and performing a single-engine approach at the boat several times, to losing a leading edge flap inflight, I have an extensive experience dealing with situations outside the norm. Recently I encountered an event that quickly progressed from bad to worse.

I was leading a light division out of Key West (consisting of me in an F-5N and two Hawker Hunters on the 7 a.m. SFARP launch to act as red air strikers. Taking off from RW 32, power-up and wipe-out were normal and the ECS flow felt normal as did the temperature. After a normal acceleration and takeoff —promptly as the gear came up and locked— and upon turning to our assigned heading, the ECS went past what I would consider normal full flow.

With the amount and velocity of the air coming out of the diffusers, I couldn't hear the radios. It was even more concerning that the temperature was something akin to a blowtorch and as if one wasn’t enough, I immediately knew the combination of both was a serious situation. Initially trying to deflect the air blast coming from the right diffuser, the air was so hot that I could not hold my gloved hand over the airflow.

The outer control rings that meter airflow on the left canopy were literally too hot to touch so I could not turn them down or off, let alone divert their direction. I was amazed that flames were not accompanying the extraordinarily high temperature.

Mental note No. 1, "Golly, this is more serious than just hot air..."

Climbing through 1,500 feet armed with only my system knowledge because there is no procedure for this in NATOPS, I manually selected man cold to remove the auto temperature logic from the system. Knowing full well the advertised time required to effect change could be north of a minute, I gave it its due effort as much as I was able. After holding the toggle for 10 or 15 seconds with no change to flow or temperature, the heat building up in the cockpit was rapidly approaching unbearable. I abandoned this step and proceeded to my next course of action. Mental note No. 2, "If RAM/DUMP doesn't work quickly, I’m going to have to jettison the canopy very, very soon..."

After reducing power, leveling at 2,500 feet and selecting RAM/DUMP on the pressurization switch, the amount and velocity of air coming through the system began to reduce but the temperature remained extremely hot. I could now hear the radio and I asked my Hawker Hunter wingman to back me up with my thought process as he was also qualified in the F-5N. He came back immediately with the same procedures I already had completed and that I was not trailing smoke or on fire. It was reassuring that I had acted properly and hadn't caused this myself or, even worse, forgot some simple step along the way. As mentioned before, there is no procedure in the F-5 NATOPS about runaway cockpit airflow/ temperature. With the airflow reduced and the temperature still hot but bearable, I passed the lead to the Hawker Hunter to press to the area and complete the red air presentation while I declared an emergency and coordinated my return to base with approach. I then spoke to my squadron ODO on AUX frequency who was brand new and on his first time on the desk. Confirming there was nothing in NATOPS to aid in my situation, I told him my game plan and then returned my attention to tower to alert them of my situation. I informed them of my problem and that I had it under control and would adjust my gross weight 5 miles south of the field. As the Tiger does not have a fuel dump system, I did a few afterburner 360s and landed with a 4.0 on the fuel on a 7,000 foot runway without issues.

Post-flight maintenance inspection discovered the bleed air regulator valve had failed to fully open, so full bleed air was coming into the cockpit directly from the engine. The extreme temperature of several hundred degrees and overwhelming velocity ultimately made sense. So, what are my takeaways?

First, I have had my fair share of emergencies, but haven't had an emergency ramp up as fast to a near desperation level (consideration of jettisoning the canopy) in a matter of seconds before. The amount of airflow and heat was beyond my imagination. With no NATOPS procedures, only system knowledge that the RAM/DUMP switch would cease engine airflow to the cockpit and evacuate the extremely hot air aided me in handling this unique (to the F-5), situation.

Second, CRM was my friend. From communicating with my wingman for procedural backup and a visual inspection, to engaging our ODO to dig into NATOPS, to being directive with tower about my game plan, good crew resource management was a key factor in resolving this emergency in a safe, timely and efficient manner. Lastly, with the historically volatile weather in the Florida Keys, I caught a break with basic VFR conditions. Had the weather been less than optimum, the attention that was required in the cockpit to battle the extreme heat could have led to disastrous results. Often, as naval aviators we launch in less than ideal weather conditions, hardly pausing at the thought that bad things could happen let alone happen in a rapid manner. I have run the scenario through my head in bad weather or at night, and am thankful to have had this emergency during daylight and VFR conditions."

Source: http://www.public.navy.mil/NAVSAFECEN/D ... 61_No3.pdf (4.7Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 00:10
by spazsinbad
2 Navy Growler Aircrew Members Injured in December Still in Hospital
06 Jan 2016 Hal Bernton

"Two Navy aircrew who suffered severe injuries Dec. 16 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island have not been released from Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

The pilot and an electronic-warfare officer were preparing to take off on a training mission in an EA-18G Growler jet when the transparent enclosure over the cockpit -- known as the canopy -- separated from the aircraft.

The Navy has not released the names of the two crew, citing privacy reasons, according to Cmdr. Jeannie Groeneveld, a Naval Air Forces spokeswoman.

One of the crew is in satisfactory condition but "has a ways to go," while the other is serious and improving in intensive care, according to Susan Gregg, hospital spokeswoman....

...The incident occurred as the crew was preparing to take off. The canopy, which is supposed to seal over a pressurized cockpit, instead came off the aircraft.

The Naval Safety Center, in a brief report, said that canopy "exploded" but Groeneveld said the incident did not involve any fire or smoke.

The incident may have been related to a water wash that the aircraft had undergone during frigid temperatures, so washing procedures were reviewed during the operational pause by other flight crews.

Groeneveld said a Navy investigation of the incident is "ongoing."..."

Source: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017 ... pital.html

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 07:32
by spazsinbad
Restoring Afloat Readiness is Top Navy Unfunded Priority
26 Jan 2017 RICHARD R. BURGESS

"...Next on the list is a need for 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters ($2.32 billion), needed to bridge the readiness gap until the F-35C Lightning II strike fighter is in the fleet in significant numbers...."

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/201 ... unded.html

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 08:11
by popcorn
$97M a pop per SH.
Good to know then that Boeing says the ASH will cost $80M at the most.. :mrgreen: must be one of those alternative facts' we keep hearing about.

"Additionally, Gillian said the Advanced Super Hornets would not cost much more than the current F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, which run around $70 million a piece. Even if that price rose $10 million, it would still be cheaper than the cheapest expected F-35s, which come in at $85 million...."

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 10:27
by spazsinbad
EA-18G Growler Crew Saved By Portland-Based PJs After Canopy Explosion
23 Jan 2016 UNK

"A WALL OF TEXT But interesting nevertheless...."

Source: http://hrana.org/articles/2017/01/ea-18 ... explosion/

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 10:47
by popcorn
Good to know the fortuitous presence of PJs and that one crew member has been released from hospital and his buddy expected to join him in the coming weeks.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 16:25
by steve2267
EA-18G Growler Crew Saved By Portland-Based PJs After Canopy Explosion
23 Jan 2016 UNK

...
The Scorpions CO handed the two men engraved bottles of scotch as a thank you from his squadron.
...

Source: http://hrana.org/articles/2017/01/ea-18 ... explosion/


Great job by those PJs.

Growlers are two seaters, right? CO should have offered thank you rides to those two PJs. If John Elway etc can get rides with the Blue Angels / Thunderbirds, two PJs who saved the lives of an aircrew oughta get a flight.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 17:53
by 35_aoa
steve2267 wrote:
EA-18G Growler Crew Saved By Portland-Based PJs After Canopy Explosion
23 Jan 2016 UNK

...
The Scorpions CO handed the two men engraved bottles of scotch as a thank you from his squadron.
...

Source: http://hrana.org/articles/2017/01/ea-18 ... explosion/


Great job by those PJs.

Growlers are two seaters, right? CO should have offered thank you rides to those two PJs. If John Elway etc can get rides with the Blue Angels / Thunderbirds, two PJs who saved the lives of an aircrew oughta get a flight.


I wouldn't disagree, other than to say the logistics involved with legally carrying a passenger, on a no-notice surprise visit might be difficult. I'm sure it is quite possible that they offered one at a later date. You can take non-aviators for incentive rides, but there is still a requirement for them to get basic aviation survival/equipment training. Some can be waived, but the ejection seat specific stuff cannot, which would be something that USAF PJ's probably wouldn't have already completed for a NACES seat. Just saying. Your idea is a good one though.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 13:15
by spazsinbad
I guess the aircraft is not to blame but humans - but still.... wot a turdburger this is - USN. Where is 'maus92'?
Grounded: Nearly two-thirds of US Navy’s strike fighters can’t fly
06 Feb 2017 Christopher P. Cavas

"Washington – The US Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet strike fighters are the tip of the spear, embodying most of the fierce striking power of the aircraft carrier strike group. But nearly two-thirds of the fleet’s strike fighters can’t fly – grounded because they’re either undergoing maintenance or simply waiting for parts or their turn the aviation depot backlog.

Overall, more than half the Navy’s aircraft are grounded, most because there isn’t enough money to fix them....

...“Our priorities are unambiguously focused on readiness -- those things required to get planes in the air, ships and subs at sea, sailors trained and ready,” a Navy official declared. “No new starts.”

The dire situation of naval aviation is sobering. According to the Navy, 53 percent of all Navy aircraft can’t fly – about 1,700 combat aircraft, patrol and transport planes and helicopters. Not all are due to budget problems – at any given time, about one-fourth to one-third of aircraft are out of service for regular maintenance. But the 53 percent figure represents about twice the historic norm.

The strike fighter situation is even more acute, and more remarkable since the aircraft are vitally important to projecting the fleet’s combat power. Sixty-two percent of F/A-18s are out of service, 27 percent in major depot work and 35 percent simply awaiting maintenance or parts, the Navy said.

With training and flying hour funds cut, the Navy’s air crews are struggling to maintain even minimum flying requirements, the senior Navy source said. Retention is becoming a problem, too. In 2013, seventeen percent of flying officers declined department head tours after being selected. The percentage grew to 29 percent in 2016....

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/gro ... s-cant-fly

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 17:03
by XanderCrews
Surely this is the fault of the F-35, and the only cure is buying new Super Hornets

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 18:16
by steve2267
XanderCrews wrote:Surely this is the fault of the F-35, and the only cure is buying new Super Hornets


Of course it is the F-35's fault. After they are installed on a new airframe, when powered on for the first time, the Lightning avionics get on the internet and seek out any F-18 avionics boxes and tease them mercilessly. The F-18 boxes, though designed for EW, fail prematurely from all the additional stress of F-35 teasing and Lightning envy...

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2017, 23:47
by spazsinbad
Who knows what will happen however Congress & President are Republican but I don't follow US politics eh - Thornberry.
Thornberry Eyes Quick Passage of Appropriations, Defense Supplemental Measures
06 Feb 2017 OTTO KREISHER

"...“We cannot wait to fix our airplanes until we fix the budget,” he [Thornberry] added.

...The compromise NDAA cut $18 billion the House wanted to add to the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which would have gone mainly to increased weapons. The proposed adds included 14 F/A-18 Super Hornets, another littoral combat ship and an extra LPD 17 amphibious warship, plus 11 more F-35 Lightning IIs, split among the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force...."

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/201 ... berry.html

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 03:43
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Who knows what will happen however Congress & President are Republican but I don't follow US politics eh - Thornberry.
Thornberry Eyes Quick Passage of Appropriations, Defense Supplemental Measures
06 Feb 2017 OTTO KREISHER

"...“We cannot wait to fix our airplanes until we fix the budget,” he [Thornberry] added.

...The compromise NDAA cut $18 billion the House wanted to add to the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which would have gone mainly to increased weapons. The proposed adds included 14 F/A-18 Super Hornets, another littoral combat ship and an extra LPD 17 amphibious warship, plus 11 more F-35 Lightning IIs, split among the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force...."

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/201 ... berry.html


I would rather have 10 F-35C's (full squadron) than 14 Super Hornets. Especially, considering they will be 3F (full capability) F-35C's....

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2017, 05:35
by spazsinbad
Broken USN Naval Aviation - more Super Hornets will fix it - yeah right....
VCNO Moran: Navy Will Be ‘Just Flat Out Out Of Money’ Without Supplemental Funding; Would Cancel Flight Hours, Ship Avails
07 Feb 2017 Megan Eckstein

"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Without a readiness-focused supplemental spending bill passed by lawmakers this spring, the Navy and Marine Corps would stop flying at home and ship and submarine maintenance availabilities would be canceled, the vice chief of naval operations and assistant commandant of the Marine Corps said at a hearing today.

The continuing resolution currently funding the government at last year’s spending levels is set to expire on April 28, 2017, and even if lawmakers could pass the Fiscal Year 2017 spending bill for the second half of the fiscal year, budget caps already in place mean that the Navy would receive about $5 billion less than it did in FY 2016. Having started the year, then, at a higher spending rate, dropping down to the FY 2017 budget would cause the Navy to almost immediately run out of operations and maintenance dollars in parts of its budget.

If the Navy did not receive a supplemental spending bill with additional funds for FY 2017, “within a month we are going to have to shut down air wings, we are going to have to defer maintenance on several availabilities for our surface ships and submarine maintenance facilities,” Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran told the House Armed Services Committee today at a “state of the military” hearing....

...The sea services also face aviation readiness challenges that go beyond what supplemental funding can immediately fix. Moran said during the hearing that the legacy F/A-18A-D Hornets today take twice as many man hours as originally planned for repairs and maintenance, which only exacerbates the challenges at aviation depots. He said that “on a typical day in the Navy about 25 to 30 percent of our jets and our airplanes are in some kind of depot maintenance,” and overall just over half are unavailable for operations today.

“We can and we do put ready airplanes and ready aircrews forward” but “there’s no depth on the bench behind them if we had to surge forces,” the vice chief said. If a crisis broke out somewhere in the world, “we will be late to get there, if we want to have full-up equipment to get to the fight.”

On the Marine Corps side, Walters said the service requires 589 ready basic aircraft to train, workup for deployment and operate forward. The Marines have only 439 today, which is still 50 more than it had two years ago. He said readiness numbers are moving in the right direction – most pilots are now receiving between 12 and 14 hours of flight time a month, which is still short of the 16 to 18 minimum requirement but much better than at the height of the recent aviation readiness crisis. However, even reaching these ready basic aircraft and flight hour goals would put the Marines at the minimum requirement to stay current on their certifications, and still falls short of helping the pilots become proficient, or “the A-team” as Walters said. The assistant commandant said there was no correlation between the flight hours and fatal crashes that have occurred in recent years, but he said that an inability to build proficiency would hurt the service in a high-end fight."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/02/07/vcno-n ... hip-avails

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2017, 08:50
by spazsinbad
Fun with numbers & damn statistics and how to report/calculate said numbers is like figuring out cost of an F-35 - when?
62 % Of F-18 Hornets Unfit To Fly, Up To 74% In Marines; DoD, Hill Focus On Readiness
07 Feb 2017 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller, speaking to the shipbuilders just after Wittman, was even more emphatic about readiness. “Secretary Mattis is — for those of us who’ve worked for him before — he’s always very clear, he’s always given good guidance,” Neller said. “Right now restoring readiness is the priority,” though the Pentagon team will try to fill “holes in programs” where possible.

Issues with insufficient flight hours for pilot training, insufficient spare parts to keep planes flying, and so on are at the top of the readiness priorities, Neller added. These problems tie directly into the low readiness figures for naval aviation, which were first reported by Defense News last night, acknowledged by Vice-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Moran at a hearing this morning, and clarified for Breaking Defense by a Navy spokesperson this afternoon. It’s likely Marine Corps Hornets are worse off than the reported figures indicate, since they’re some of the oldest fighters in the military.

[UPDATED:] Marine Corps figures provided Breaking Defense confirm this guess. Of 280 Marine Corps F-18s, 109 are in long-term maintenance — heading to or from depots, in depots, or simply “out of reporting.” The other 171 assigned to squadrons, but 58 percent of these 171 aircraft are in shorter-term maintenance, leaving 71 to 72 aircraft, on average, ready to fight. That’s 42 percent of the Hornets assigned to squadrons but only 26 percent of the total inventory.

[UPDATED:] It’s also worth noting that the services don’t report their readiness rates this way: They simply look at aircraft “in reporting” — in this case, the 171 assigned to squadrons — and figure how many of them are ready to go — in this case, 42 percent. The aircraft in long-term maintenance are “out of reporting” and not included in the calculation. But the figures from the Defense News story and confirmed by the Navy were calculated as percentages of the entire aircraft fleet, and we’re trying to give an apples-to-apples comparison.

“We’re hopeful that all the discussion and all the talk is going to provide the resources that we think we need,” Neller said, “(but) none of this is going to happen overnight… even if you had the funding to increase the acquisition of airplanes or even if you had the money to increase the throughput through fleet readiness centers.”"

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/62-o ... readiness/

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2017, 15:10
by steve2267
Is it just me (entirely possible, but my perception) or has there been a sudden increase in the number of dire readiness stories these past few weeks? Is it just the time of year? Were there a similar number of readiness-problem stories last January / February? Or is this something that occurs whenever a new Presidential administration takes office? Or have eight years of Obama really left the US military this bad off readiness wise? (Or fifteen years of operations is increasingly takings its toll?)

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2017, 19:07
by spazsinbad
I'm not an 'historian' - except for my own interests - which do not include USAF etc. however the 'hits' keep on coming....
Return to a Hollow Force
07 Feb 2017 Wilson Brissett

"Air Force readiness is worse than it was in the “hollow force” days of the late 1970s, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson told the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday morning. Describing what he called “the smallest and oldest Air Force” in US history, Wilson told lawmakers that “we’re out of balance” due to “non-stop combat,” “budget instability,” and a “declining top-line.”

In this climate, USAF is forced to make “unacceptable trades” between readiness and modernization. He said the service is “less than 50 percent ready across our Air Force and we have pockets that are below that.” When asked if the Air Force could fight two simultaneous regional conflicts in different parts of the world, Wilson said it could do so only with units arriving “late” to the fight and with “higher casualties.”

By way of comparison, he said, the Air Force of the Desert Storm era had 500,000 personnel and 134 fighter squadrons, while today’s Air Force has 317,000 Active Duty personnel and 55 fighter squadrons. USAF had 8,600 aircraft in 1991, but only has 5,500 today, and the average age of a USAF aircraft is 27 years old today, Wilson said.

“During my time as Vice Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, I testified in several readiness hearings. I am more concerned now than ever about the need to shore up the Air Force’s readiness,” said Air Force Association President Larry Spencer. “Having served over 40 years, I know first-hand the results of having a hollow force—it is not good for our Air Force, and it is not good for our nation. This upcoming budget supplemental must immediately address readiness concerns for our nation’s first responder, the US Air Force.”

Wilson insisted that with the help of “stable, predictable funding,” USAF can still “dig out of our readiness challenges.” He urged Congress to repeal the Budget Control Act and said the Air Force needs to build its manpower up to 350,000, increase “weapons & support” funding, & “flying hours,” and “modernize our force” by keeping programs like the F-35, KC-46, and B-21 “on track.”

Given healthier conditions like these, Wilson estimated it would take six to eight years to regain a sufficient level of readiness. In the near term, he said without a supplemental defense budget in 2017, USAF would see “sequestration-type actions” this year, meaning a further reduction in flying hours and longer backlogs at the maintenance depots."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... Force.aspx

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2017, 19:17
by spazsinbad
Now posts are lost because 'server busy'? COOL - I'll come here often and not be able to see anything. COOL - I like it.

Missed a diatribe about perhaps posting this post on a new thread but it is relevant to the above question but ain't USN...
Joint Chiefs Wary on New Money
08 Feb 2017 John A. Tirpak

"​Though Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein is optimistic about the prospect of new monies flowing into the services, as directed by President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis, he said Tuesday he’s cautious about building a new spending plan....

...All that said, Goldfein agreed that the F-35 “will be” among his recommendations for new spending if the money appears. “The more F-35s we can … procure in the shortest period of time” the more it will enhance the capability of the force, add capacity, and reduce the average age of the inventory, all of which are essential, he said. But the F-35 will compete with the nuclear enterprise, cyber, bombers, munitions, infrastructure, and other priorities, he said. “Is it the No. 1 place I would spend dollars? That’s going to be a department-level discussion,” he noted. Goldfein also said that the F-35 buy objective of 1,763 airplanes is still the service’s goal, despite the many conflicts that have erupted worldwide since that figure was set. “While we have to look at the endgame numbers,” Goldfein observed, “We don’t have to make that decision” on the final number “for several years, given the buy rate” on the F-35. “What we don’t need right now is a lot of … turbulence and uncertainty,” in the program, which Goldfein suggested a change would cause. Such a move “would not be helpful” to the Air Force or international partners."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Money.aspx

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2017, 20:07
by sprstdlyscottsmn
By way of comparison, he said, the Air Force of the Desert Storm era had 500,000 personnel and 134 fighter squadrons, while today’s Air Force has 317,000 Active Duty personnel and 55 fighter squadrons. USAF had 8,600 aircraft in 1991, but only has 5,500 today, and the average age of a USAF aircraft is 27 years old today, Wilson said.


I notice there is no mention of how old the fleet was in '91, but I do find it interesting that the "average age" of our current fleet would be brand spanking new aircraft back in '91. I suppose back in '91 we were only 21 some years removed from the middle of Viet' Nam so even the 'Nam relics would only be 20-25 years old in '91.

We now have new F-35s rolling off the line and we have planes that have been flying since the Sixties. This year the youngest B-52s turn 55. In '91 B-1 production was already finished and the B-2 was still on the upswing. Our newest bombers are between 15 and 20 years old even lumping the Mudhen into the equation.

All that said, our smaller force is more potent then ever. We have fewer SEAD aircraft now ('91 was the final missions for the F-4 Wild Weasel in the Air Force) because with our advances in ECM, VLO, weapon range and accuracy we just don't need a dedicated SEAD platform.

We can strike targets deeper behind defenses more accurately using fewer munitions and thus airframes. You often see the charts saying "See how many fewer planes you need to do this with stealth? This is why it is worth the cost!" but the same thing could be said/seen even in the interim with precision guided munitions. These days the cannon round is about the only think not guided.

Folding fin rockets? No need to hose an area with 19 HYDRA rockets for effect, APKWS means that pod just turned into 19 laser guided mini missiles that can take out a truck or a person standing in a doorway. Put it on a Zuni and now you have a viable anti tank weapon.

Bombs? From 250lb to 30,000lb we have GPS/Laser/IIR kits on everything!

Cluster Munitions? Slap on a WCMD tail and suddenly the CEP accuracy of the parent munition is smaller than the area covered by submunitions. Slap it onto a CBU-97 and you can target a whole column/depot of vehicles with just a few bombs.

Don't want to overfly the target? Hellfire, Maverick, JSOW, JASSM take your pick!

Sorry for the "sales pitch" type rant, but I can't stand "doom and gloom" fearmongering. If you want to make your case for newer aircraft use the number of flight hours on the airframes. That shows what the last 15 years of ops has done, take new jets and run them through 75% of their service live in 33-50% of the planned time.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2017, 21:46
by thepointblank
steve2267 wrote:Is it just me (entirely possible, but my perception) or has there been a sudden increase in the number of dire readiness stories these past few weeks? Is it just the time of year? Were there a similar number of readiness-problem stories last January / February? Or is this something that occurs whenever a new Presidential administration takes office? Or have eight years of Obama really left the US military this bad off readiness wise? (Or fifteen years of operations is increasingly takings its toll?)

Happens practically every year at around this time. It's budget time and everyone is jockeying around for budget increases.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2017, 00:09
by spazsinbad
Some of the bad news explained.... Best Read it all at source because the cause(s) goes back a long way(s)....
Navy, Marine F-18s In ‘Death Spiral’ As Readiness Plummets
08 Jul 2017 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"CAPITOL HILL: The Navy-Marine fighter fleet is in a “death spiral” and the only long-term fix is to buy new jets faster, both F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a former Pentagon analyst told Breaking Defense. Two veteran Hill staffers agreed the situation is dire and new planes are needed, although they put equal emphasis on stable, adequate funding for maintenance....

... First, the staffer said, “there has been a gutting of the aviation support accounts, (which) dropped to 52 percent of requirement in 2013” — the year sequestration sliced the Pentagon budget — “and (rose) only back up to 74 percent in 2015.”

Second, “consumption is outpacing procurement: Since 2000, we have struck 748 strike fighters and procured 573 for a delta (net loss) of 175 aircraft,” the staffer continued. More than half that net loss is due to delays on the Joint Strike Fighter program, the staffer added. “There were supposed to be something like 110 F-35Cs by 2018. Since they’re not there, the older aircraft get used up more.”

“What we are seeing is a classic death spiral,” said the former OSD analyst. “We have talked about this for years as being theoretically possible, but it never has actually happened. A platform death spiral occurs when you have too few of a given platform — airplanes, tanks, ships — but you continue to use them at the same or increased pace.” That creates a vicious circle. Fewer aircraft doing more work will wear out faster, which means you have even fewer aircraft working even harder, repeat at nauseam until the last plane breaks.

“The bottom line is that the naval air force is in a bad way,” said the analyst. “We need to continue producing JSFs to meet the high-end threats like SA-300/400s (advanced Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles) and reopen the Super Hornet line with Boeing to take pressure off the current force now.”... [LONG EXPLANATION BEST READ AT SOURCE]

...“To fix it, they mostly just need more O&M money over a sustained period of time, and it needs to be provided in a more predictable manner,” without BCA caps or Continuing Resolutions, the staffer said. “(But) a lot of the F-18s, especially in the USMC, are just plain old and worn out. No amount of maintenance can make a very old aircraft brand new.”

“The ways to get out of this are increase depot throughput, fully fund the enabler accounts, especially spares, (and) buy more new aircraft,” agreed the second staffer. “Procurement does help readiness.”"

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/navy ... -plummets/

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2017, 03:46
by madrat
So what's so bad about getting an F-35C out the door that's not fully functional in every respect, but at least can take some strain off the current fleet?

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2017, 03:53
by spazsinbad
I think this clue has been mentioned earlier but I'm getting old. I do not know the timetable for getting CVNs ready for the F-35C (and maybe the B if the USN don't hurry up enough!) but that is part of the equation for deploying them on any old CVN - those CVNs have to be ready for the F-35C. Not even the 'F-35C test so far CVNs' were fully F-35C capable - takes time, money and effort. There might be a timetable for these individual CVN modifications online somewhere. Then there is standing up squadrons with all the land paraphernalia required - add the money (which no one seems to have) & STIR!

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 03:03
by spazsinbad
And now it is time for the SUPA DUPA Hornet (or block three - whatever that is as I cannot read more than below....)
Boeing’s Souped Up Super Hornet Adds Smart U.S. Navy Firepower
14 Feb 2017 Lara Seligman

"As President Donald Trump signals he may reconsider the mix of F-35Cs and F/A-18s for the carrier air wing of the 2020s and beyond, Boeing is pitching an upgraded “Block 3” Super Hornet designed to add firepower and act as a smart node on the U.S. Navy’s future network. While the service’s first F-35Cs will come online in 2018, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet will make up at least half of the carrier air wing through the 2040s. The challenge is to keep the Super...[schiezenhauser?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft ... -firepower

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 05:24
by quicksilver
Didn't SecDef direct an F-35C vs SH comparison recently? I ask because, behold(!), BA trots out a new version of SH -- complete with all kinds of developmental items (i.e. costly, risky, and time consuming, including a full slate of testing), and magically a 9000hr design to boot (bet that's free of charge too :roll:) What happened to the Advanced Super Hornet (stealth doesn't matter, but we can be just as stealthy) or the Advanced SH Lite (lowest price, technically acceptable)?

What's the story next week?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 12:27
by spazsinbad
:devil: Youse can now see the full article - why was it locked earlier? Schadenfreude - because it was really SchiezenHauser? :doh:
Boeing’s Souped-Up Super Hornet Adds Smart U.S. Navy Firepower
14 Feb 2017 Lara Seligman

"As President Donald Trump signals he may reconsider [WTF has the Donald got to do with this?] the mix of F-35Cs and F/A-18s for the carrier air wing of the 2020s and beyond, Boeing is pitching an upgraded “Block 3” Super Hornet designed to add firepower and act as a smart node [heheh that is funny] on the U.S. Navy’s future network....

...While the “Advanced Super Hornet” Boeing proposed in 2013 focused on stealth, the new and improved Block 3 is designed to optimize the Navy’s integrated network architecture, says Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager. The big question for the carrier air wing through the 2030s, says Gillian, is: “How can the Super Hornet evolve in a complementary way with the E-2D [Hawkeye] and Growler to help address some of those carrier gaps?”...[wot no F-35C?]

...However, Gillian would not say definitively whether Block 3 could replace the F-35C in the carrier air wing. Boeing is focused on “complementary capability,” and ultimately the Navy will decide the right mix of each platform, he stresses.
“We are supporting Block 3 as a key piece of solving the carrier air wing capability problem,” he says. “Our job is to present solutions to solve their warfighting problems.”

Gillian envisions a Block 3 Super Hornet working in tandem with the stealthy F-35C [THANK GOODNESS THE F-35C gets a mention - who'da thunk], Growler’s full-spectrum jammer and E-2D’s early-warning capability to dominate the skies. The addition of a long-range infrared sensor (IRST) will allow Block 3 to detect and track advanced threats from a distance, while conformal fuel tanks (CFT) will extend range by 100-120 nm. The CFTs are designed to replace the extra fuel tanks Super Hornets currently sling under the wing, reducing weight and drag and enabling additional payload.

These changes allow a fully loaded Block 3 Super Hornet to operate in conjunction with a stealthy F-35 [PHEW!], providing air cover and greater magazine depth.

“You can have an F-35 in its very stealthy way doing a deep-strike mission with Super Hornet providing air superiority at that same range, or you can have Super Hornet carrying large standoff weapons that F-35 cannot carry [WUT?!], with F-35 providing some air cover,” Gillian says. “You get very mission-flexible, so range is important.”... [then gibberish about stealthy evolved shornet BUT here comes the NETWORK to KICK BUTT!]

...The aircraft will have an advanced cockpit system with a large-area display for improved user interface, a more powerful computer called the Distributed Targeting Processor Network (DTPN), and a bigger data pipe for passing information known as Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT). TTNT is already a program of record for Growler and E-2D, and DTPN is also fielded on the Growler.

“You have your IRST sensor, you have other sensors in the carrier air wing, you need a big pipe to move that information around, then you need a big computer to be able to fuse all that information together,” Gillian says. “Block 3 Super Hornet needs to be a smart node on the network capable of crunching and passing data across the network to other assets.”

This advanced computing architecture ensures the Super Hornet, Growler and E-2D can talk to each other and pass critical threat data over the same network in combat. However, the F-35 is not on TTNT; rather it uses the smaller-bandwidth Link 16 network to pass and receive data from fourth-generation aircraft.

The result is that while the F-35C can communicate with the rest of the carrier air wing, passing large amounts of data may be more difficult. While improving fifth-to-fourth generation connectivity is an ongoing discussion, “I think the question is: how does F-35 plug in with everybody else?” Gillian says. “If everybody else is on TTNT, there seems like an obvious answer there.”

The Navy could probably add TTNT to the F-35’s Link 16 functionality, but the fighter cannot broadcast on any Link 16 waveform without compromising its stealth, because Link 16 is not a low-probability-of-intercept waveform. The F-35 can pass large amounts of data to other F-35s via the stealthy Multifunction Advanced Data Link, which most other aircraft cannot currently access....

...“I believe there is a general acceptance of the fact that we need to advance the Super Hornet, because it is going to be a front-line fighter [from the] 2020s into the ’40s,” Gillian says. “We believe we have good alignment on the Block 3 Super Hornet systems that address key carrier air wing gaps in a complementary way with the F-35, E-2D and Growler.”"

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... -firepower

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 12:43
by popcorn
TTNT not yet available on the F-35 but the jet figures far more prominently in the TTNT brochure from Rockwell Collins than the SH. :mrgreen:
8)
https://rockwellcollins.com/~/media/Fil ... chure.aspx

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 14:21
by krorvik
Well, it seems Boeing has seen an opportunity, proposing a super hornet almost as a missile truck to combine with F-35C stealth and sensor capability.

But this is a complement to the F-35C, not an alternative.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 15:12
by talkitron
Presumably new avionics could be added to existing Super Hornet airframes. Buying new SH airframes would only be necessary because of failures of depots to rapidly conduct upgrades and maintenance. This has been previously blamed on sequestration budget cuts.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 15:47
by steve2267
krorvik wrote:Well, it seems Boeing has seen an opportunity, proposing a super hornet almost as a missile truck to combine with F-35C stealth and sensor capability.


How many AIM-120s can you hang on a SHornet? F-35 will be able to carry how many? Twelve? Fourteen (if six internal is enabled)?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 16:13
by Dragon029
A Super Hornet can carry a max of 12 AIM-120s + 2 AIM-9s if you don't have any tanks on the wings and don't have a targeting pod on STA 5 or 7 (the fuselage / hip hardpoints).

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 16:25
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Dragon029 wrote:A Super Hornet can carry a max of 12 AIM-120s + 2 AIM-9s if you don't have any tanks on the wings and don't have a targeting pod on STA 5 or 7 (the fuselage / hip hardpoints).

Without an EPE engine the SHornet will also be subsonic and short ranged with that payload.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 16:34
by steve2267
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:A Super Hornet can carry a max of 12 AIM-120s + 2 AIM-9s if you don't have any tanks on the wings and don't have a targeting pod on STA 5 or 7 (the fuselage / hip hardpoints).

Without an EPE engine the SHornet will also be subsonic and short ranged with that payload.

That's OK! Instead of buying one F-35C to act as a missile truck, the USN will buy four SHornet airframes:
  1. One F/A-18E shooter / missile truck
  2. One F/A-18E tanker to get the shooter there
  3. One F/A-18E tanker to get the shooter back
  4. One E/A-18G Growler to keep them from getting shot down

Boeing must be waiting for Trudeau to make the non-refundable downpayment to set the hook, then they'll hit up Canada for additional tanker and Growler sales so they don't waste their investment in the 18 SHornets. :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 17:31
by mixelflick
I told you all the Super Duper Hornet was coming... :)

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 17:48
by lamoey
Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 18:04
by southernphantom
lamoey wrote:Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?


By either using standoff-capable missiles with a disposable booster, allowing the missile to have sufficient energy to successfully complete an engagement, or being VLO.

Watch for LRS-B to act in this role, or for a VLO UCAV.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 18:09
by XanderCrews
lamoey wrote:Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?



Your also looking at modern systems that target and shoot down stand off weapons. That's what the whole A2AD notion is. Access denial. You have to orbit and pop missiles in there and hope they make it. With no BDA, follow on shots, ground support, it's basically impossible to hit anything moving etc.

Let's say the block 3 ASH happens. Its not even a 1 for 1 replacement for super Hornets let alone F-35s be shocked if the USN gets even 100 of them

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 18:11
by XanderCrews
southernphantom wrote:
lamoey wrote:Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?


By either using standoff-capable missiles with a disposable booster, allowing the missile to have sufficient energy to successfully complete an engagement, or being VLO.

Watch for LRS-B to act in this role, or for a VLO UCAV.


So the navy wants to use an airplane to plunk it's cruise missiles instead of ships?

It's not like the navy just has hundreds of sea borne platforms already loaded with 1,000s of long range surface to surface missiles amiright?

How silly would that be?

When do we figure out you can cut out the "middle man?" And the navy uses bigger stealthier missiles fired from ships?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 18:19
by steve2267
southernphantom wrote:Watch for LRS-B to act in this role, or for a VLO UCAV.


An X-47B, Phantom Ray (X-45C?) or derivative would seem to make so much sense as a missile truck, tanker, possibly an ISR / Early Warning aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 19:29
by southernphantom
XanderCrews wrote:
southernphantom wrote:
lamoey wrote:Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?


By either using standoff-capable missiles with a disposable booster, allowing the missile to have sufficient energy to successfully complete an engagement, or being VLO.

Watch for LRS-B to act in this role, or for a VLO UCAV.


So the navy wants to use an airplane to plunk it's cruise missiles instead of ships?

It's not like the navy just has hundreds of sea borne platforms already loaded with 1,000s of long range surface to surface missiles amiright?

How silly would that be?

When do we figure out you can cut out the "middle man?" And the navy uses bigger stealthier missiles fired from ships?


I believe that we were referring to AAMs, for which the time delay imposed by using missiles on a surface combatant located up to several hundred miles away is...impractical. For surface targets, I agree that it makes far and away the most sense to have surface combatants doing the heavy lifting, with F-35s providing targeting.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 00:28
by quicksilver
lamoey wrote:Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?


This.

And shooting at Rmax drives down the Pk and potentially obviates the benefit of the additional missiles.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 22:18
by spazsinbad
US Navy revives interest in Super Hornet engine upgrades
15 Feb 2017 Stephen Trimble

"The US Navy has revived interest in studying a major upgrade of the engine that powers the Boeing F/A-18E/F, EA-18G and two foreign fighters, including the possible addition of new technologies.

In early February, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) notified industry that it would ask GE Aviation to submit a proposal for a contract for the company’s engineers to perform a study on an “F414-GE-400 core enhancement evaluation”....

...GE’s proposed Enhanced Engine design surfaced as a proposal several years ago as part of Boeing’s Super Hornet bid for India’s fighter competition. GE has tested the durability or thrust upgrades in laboratory rigs. NAVAIR also paid GE in late 2013 to evaluate the F414 Enhanced Engine, with the possibility of funding a development programme two years later, although that follow-on contract never materialised.

“We believe this study would be an update of the previous work to include new technologies,” says GE, without elaborating.

A term in the title of the latest NAVAIR study — “core enhancement” — suggests the navy is focusing now on the three modules in the core of the engine, which include the high-pressure compressor, combustor and high-pressure turbine.

Any new technologies would come on top of GE’s proposals for the F414 Enhanced Engine. In the core section, these included 3D aerodynamic shaping of the compressor blades and an improved cooling system for the turbine blades. GE had previously considered inserting ceramic matrix composites in the turbine of the F414 Enhanced Engine, but as of early 2014 had resolved to continue using metallic alloy blades...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gr-434227/

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2017, 21:12
by spazsinbad
:devil: The GIFT that keeps on GIVING - another TRUMP negotiation via pre-emptive orders so don't worry 'bout anything USN.
Trump: 'We are looking seriously at a big order' of F-18s as the Navy's F-35 drags behind schedule
18 Feb 2017 Alex Lockie

"US President Donald Trump again teased the prospect of placing a “big order” of F/A-18 Super Hornets to a cheering crowd at Boeing’s South Carolina factory on Friday.

“We are looking seriously at a big order” of F-18s said Trump to applause from the crowd at Boeing, the company that builds the F/A-18....

...The advanced Super Hornet package offered by Boeing builds on the company’s reputation for delivering upgrades to the F-18, first built in the 1970s, on time and on cost.

This contrasts heavily with the Navy’s F-35C, made by Boeing rival Lockheed Martin, which has faced significant difficulties achieving readiness in the military.

Dan Gillian, Boeing’s vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18 programs, told Business Insider that even with the coming F-35C naval variant, US carrier air wings would consist of a majority of F/A-18s into the 2040s. In fact, Boeing has contracts currently underway to update the F/A-18s."

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump ... 18s-2017-2

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 02:16
by marauder2048
Does a service which claims it is suffering from severe fighter maintenance shortfalls really want to introduce
another fighter configuration?

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 11:12
by spazsinbad
Some more BOING! Trumpet Blowing:

Trump flirting with big Super Hornet order 17 Feb 2017 Valerie Insinna,

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tru ... rnet-order

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 15:00
by les_paul59
So am I supposed to believe that future super hornets will come in the block 3 configuration, I have nothing against the super hornet but it seems when I read about the block 3 upgrade it's just trying to be a worse f-35. conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapon pod, internal flir....f-35 comes with all that standard but does it better

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 15:32
by steve2267
les_paul59 wrote:So am I supposed to believe that future super hornets will come in the block 3 configuration, I have nothing against the super hornet but it seems when I read about the block 3 upgrade it's just trying to be a worse f-35. conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapon pod, internal flir....f-35 comes with all that standard but does it better


How much $$ and how long for testing of stores separation testing from the weapons pod?

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 15:40
by Dragon029
From the Aviation Week article further back in this thread, the newest vision for the Block 3 Super Hornet ("F/A-18XT") will not feature an enclosed weapons pod. Instead it will only feature a combined external fuel tank / IRST like the Talon Hate pod.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 16:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Dragon029 wrote:From the Aviation Week article further back in this thread, the newest vision for the Block 3 Super Hornet ("F/A-18XT") will not feature an enclosed weapons pod. Instead it will only feature a combined external fuel tank / IRST like the Talon Hate pod.

Not even the conformal tanks? Sheesh, what's the point.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 17:01
by Dragon029
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Not even the conformal tanks? Sheesh, what's the point.

No, the conformal tanks are included; it's just the weapons pod - Boeing stated that they believe they have a good mix of stealth and affordability or flexibility or something else. Reading between the lines I think they're just too concerned about either the pricetag of the pod, or they're too concerned about the timeline of having to perform separation testing from scratch for that pod.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 17:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Got it, thanks. Those CFTs will be a great benefit to the SHornet. Zero net drag when subsonic and while they do increase wave drag normal EFTs do as well. The joy of the SHornet is that each Block of modifications was designed to be done without needing a new airframe. You COULD upgrade a Block I to a Block III. The approach was very similar to what Grumman did with the Tomcat. Initial plane (Block I/A model) is a new airframe with proven avionics (AWG-9 was developed already for the Missileer) and engines (granted the F414 is qutie a bit more advanced than the F404 it was developed from, they do share the same footprint). Next (Block II/B Model) make a big upgrade (AESA Radar for the SHornet, better motors for the Tomcat). Then (Block III/D Model) make another big upgrade (CFTs and IRST-Tank ((needs the EPE though)) for SHornet and APG-71 for Tomcat).

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 21:21
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: The joy of the SHornet is that each Block of modifications was designed to be done without needing a new airframe. You COULD upgrade a Block I to a Block III. .


Uh no. The Block Is have a completely different forward fuselage (amongst many other things) than the Block IIs
and are not forward compatible with any subsequent revision.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 22:55
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marauder2048 wrote:
Uh no. The Block Is have a completely different forward fuselage (amongst many other things) than the Block IIs
and are not forward compatible with any subsequent revision.

Really? I was under the impression that they were. Thanks for the correction. I don't want to spread misinformation.

Alright, I guess only the Tomcat gets that distinction as only a few D models were built that way and the rest were upgraded A+/B models.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2017, 23:59
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
Uh no. The Block Is have a completely different forward fuselage (amongst many other things) than the Block IIs
and are not forward compatible with any subsequent revision.

Really? I was under the impression that they were. Thanks for the correction. I don't want to spread misinformation.

Alright, I guess only the Tomcat gets that distinction as only a few D models were built that way and the rest were upgraded A+/B models.


That's really what this topic is all about: the orphaned Block I Super Hornets.
The Navy did not maintain their LO coatings properly, burned through the airframes
doing tanking sorties and the birds themselves have next-to-no upgradeability.

So the Navy wants new builds.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2017, 03:52
by maus92
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
Uh no. The Block Is have a completely different forward fuselage (amongst many other things) than the Block IIs
and are not forward compatible with any subsequent revision.

Really? I was under the impression that they were. Thanks for the correction. I don't want to spread misinformation.

Alright, I guess only the Tomcat gets that distinction as only a few D models were built that way and the rest were upgraded A+/B models.


Block I (< Lot 26) are planned to be used for FRS / training duty, unless the SLAP assesses that rebuilding cockpit forward is somehow cost-effective, and there is industrial capacity in the depots (currently no.) Depends on how many new build Super Hornets are acquired, and/or if Boeing would be able to accommodate a possible factory rebuild option (probably not, considering the Kuwati order, the probable Navy, the likely Canadian order, and potential Indian order.)

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2017, 04:41
by steve2267
I've lost track.

How many Super Hornets or Super Hornet XTs would the Navy like to purchase new?

Eleven carriers each with two squadrons of 10-12 SHornets each... 264 total? So 264 less how ever many are considered "wore out"?

Since so many SHornets have apparently been worn out as tankers, why not re-manufacture a number of S3's from the boneyard for tanker duty? Or is the plan to instead transition to a UCAV / ISR tanker in the next 10-20 years?

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2017, 15:14
by cantaz
CBARS is the next carrier borne tanker.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2017, 15:34
by mixelflick
I am convinced the Navy wants to fly Hornets into infinity..

They want to fly the wings off these birds, then order new ones. I would not be surprised to see an order (even a small one) for the ASH. The Navy is in love with this airframe, and I'm not convinced we've seen the end of "modifications" for various roles. No more S-3's? No problem. The ASW Hornet is no doubt on the way. C-2's wearing out? The COD Hornet is in the works. Boeing studies show you can sling at least 4 F-404's under the wings.

I hope I live to see the day this thing flies off into the sunset - for good! Since I'm only 47 though, I doubt it..

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2017, 01:33
by popcorn
The Navy's Fleet Architecture Study... makes for some interesting reading. The Navy is adopting a distributed fleet model to make life more difficult for the bad guys. Some interesting numbers for various platforms including ships (its the Navy after all) but here are figures for the aviation assets.

From the study to help explain the tables:



.3.Implications of adopting the Distributed Fleet - The table below compares the numbers of surface, subsurface and large USV/UUVs from the currently-planned inventory and those of the proposed Distributed Fleet. The column labeled Baseline in 2030 is the Battle Force Inventory as projected for2030 per the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2017 Long-Range Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels (Shipbuilding Plan(SBP)). The column labeled FFA is this study’s proposed Battle Force for the 2030 timeframe, to implement the Distributed Fleet architecture described above.The most significant changes between the Baseline and FFA-derived Fleets includeadditional FFs and SSN (VPM) and the implementation of CV-LX, DDGH and USV/UUV to implement the Distributed Fleet CONOPS



https://news.usni.org/2017/02/14/docume ... ture-study

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2017, 02:02
by spazsinbad
Improved the above graphic I hope....

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2017, 02:07
by count_to_10
mixelflick wrote:I am convinced the Navy wants to fly Hornets into infinity..

They want to fly the wings off these birds, then order new ones. I would not be surprised to see an order (even a small one) for the ASH. The Navy is in love with this airframe, and I'm not convinced we've seen the end of "modifications" for various roles. No more S-3's? No problem. The ASW Hornet is no doubt on the way. C-2's wearing out? The COD Hornet is in the works. Boeing studies show you can sling at least 4 F-404's under the wings.

I hope I live to see the day this thing flies off into the sunset - for good! Since I'm only 47 though, I doubt it..

Good lord, I think that "four engines on hard points" is just barely possible. :shock:

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2017, 16:01
by XanderCrews
marauder2048 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: The joy of the SHornet is that each Block of modifications was designed to be done without needing a new airframe. You COULD upgrade a Block I to a Block III. .


Uh no. The Block Is have a completely different forward fuselage (amongst many other things) than the Block IIs
and are not forward compatible with any subsequent revision.


This. Which is why I laugh when people like Maus act so scandalized that the USN F-35s may not be 100 percent from the get go

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2017, 16:04
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Block I (< Lot 26) are planned to be used for FRS / training duty, unless the SLAP assesses that rebuilding cockpit forward is somehow cost-effective, and there is industrial capacity in the depots (currently no.) Depends on how many new build Super Hornets are acquired, and/or if Boeing would be able to accommodate a possible factory rebuild option (probably not, considering the Kuwati order, the probable Navy, the likely Canadian order, and potential Indian order.)


So no worries using early lot F-35Cs to do the same things?

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2017, 10:18
by quicksilver
The Navy does not have an inventory shortfall in TACAIR; they have a capability shortfall that is being masked by publicly-documented availability problems and a litany of excuses for moving F-35 buys to the right.

They have chosen to buy their way out of the availability problem with new aircraft. The problem is that a new buy of SHs or Super Duper Super Hornets -- or whatever flavor -- doesn't relieve them of the capability shortfall. In fact, it will make it worse because they will emerge on the backside of the new buy with an even bigger capability shortfall because the threats will have advanced, the SHs won't, and the clock/calendar will have ticked off a few pages that can never be recovered.

A front line force that can't fight in the first week of the war? What the bleep is happening in Naval Aviation...

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2017, 14:46
by mixelflick
This all started to go south when the Navy decided to retire its F-14's, then had no plan to replace them.

The F-14's reason for being was fleet air defense. But when the cold war threat of Backfires striking carriers evaporated, so did the F-14's mission. What they didn't count on was that we're right back in that quandry with China, her carrier killer missiles and now the J-20.

Whatever the case, the Navy decided to wed itself to the F-18 - with no F-14 replacement. It doesn't have the speed or the legs. I suppose you could make a case of the SH plus AIM-120D, but even that pales in comparison to a new platform. The only thing saving them now is going to be F-22's, and fat chance they'll be enough of them. The F-35? Going to be awhile and even longer for the 6 AMRAAM loadout. I hope AEGIS has been getting upgrades..

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2017, 15:28
by steve2267
mixelflick wrote:Whatever the case, the Navy decided to wed itself to the F-18 - with no F-14 replacement. It doesn't have the speed or the legs. I suppose you could make a case of the SH plus AIM-120D, but even that pales in comparison to a new platform. The only thing saving them now is going to be F-22's, and fat chance they'll be enough of them. The F-35? Going to be awhile and even longer for the 6 AMRAAM loadout. I hope AEGIS has been getting upgrades..


Uhh, the Navy doesn't have F-22's. I'm confused. Are you saying the only thing saving the Navy is the Air Force's F-22s? Or are you saying the only thing that could save the Navy is if they re-started F-22 production and created a navalized version of the F-22? If so, I would argue the time and expense would be better applied to a 6th gen Naval fighter, and I think they have already started the beginning studies of such a program.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2017, 05:05
by noth
steve2267 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Whatever the case, the Navy decided to wed itself to the F-18 - with no F-14 replacement. It doesn't have the speed or the legs. I suppose you could make a case of the SH plus AIM-120D, but even that pales in comparison to a new platform. The only thing saving them now is going to be F-22's, and fat chance they'll be enough of them. The F-35? Going to be awhile and even longer for the 6 AMRAAM loadout. I hope AEGIS has been getting upgrades..


Uhh, the Navy doesn't have F-22's. I'm confused. Are you saying the only thing saving the Navy is the Air Force's F-22s? Or are you saying the only thing that could save the Navy is if they re-started F-22 production and created a navalized version of the F-22? If so, I would argue the time and expense would be better applied to a 6th gen Naval fighter, and I think they have already started the beginning studies of such a program.


No he's just saying that the Navy better hope the USAF F-22s will be in range to help out if there's a Backfire-style attack on a carrier. Which isn't always going to be likely...

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2017, 05:48
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
Uh no. The Block Is have a completely different forward fuselage (amongst many other things) than the Block IIs
and are not forward compatible with any subsequent revision.

Really? I was under the impression that they were. Thanks for the correction. I don't want to spread misinformation.

Alright, I guess only the Tomcat gets that distinction as only a few D models were built that way and the rest were upgraded A+/B models.


Block I (< Lot 26) are planned to be used for FRS / training duty, unless the SLAP assesses that rebuilding cockpit forward is somehow cost-effective, and there is industrial capacity in the depots (currently no.) Depends on how many new build Super Hornets are acquired, and/or if Boeing would be able to accommodate a possible factory rebuild option (probably not, considering the Kuwati order, the probable Navy, the likely Canadian order, and potential Indian order.)

The issue is more structural changes in the center barrel area, for jets before Lot 26.

Stripping and rebuilding the forward section is possible. They did that for some of the Bugs at Pax for testing avionics intended for the SuperBug.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2017, 05:59
by madrat
Because Backfire attacks would never be within c7 range...

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2017, 06:45
by vanshilar
marauder2048 wrote:Uh no. The Block Is have a completely different forward fuselage (amongst many other things) than the Block IIs
and are not forward compatible with any subsequent revision.


Whoa, really? I thought the Typhoon was the only modern fighter with this problem (England is putting their Tranche 1 Typhoons into its own air defense squadrons to not mix it with newer tranches which have air-to-ground capability).

So F-35: "Concurrency, accounting for the cost of upgrading previous versions to the up-to-date standard, it's so bad and expensive and the program is such a failure!"

Typhoon (and apparently Super Hornets): "The designed modernization path is such that older versions are not forward compatible with later versions (which really means that it'd be so expensive to upgrade them that it's not worth it) well that's alright then, no problem."

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 02:12
by spazsinbad
Price of a Super Hornet according to BOING!? "...The latest Super Hornet cost upwards of $70 million, Hutcheson [BOING! company spokeswoman] said. A souped-up Block 3 configuration would likely be “a few million more than that,” she said, adding that the company would have to determine the exact pricing with the Navy. Boeing does not currently have an estimate for how much it would cost to give existing Super Hornets Block 3 capabilities during the service life modification program, she said...."
Clear the Decks: Super Hornet to Challenge F-35 (UPDATED)
March 2017 Jon Harper

"...Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said the joint strike fighter’s capabilities are “on a completely different level” than the F/A-18s that exist today. But “you can do some things to the Super Hornet to make it kind of a four-and-a-half generation aircraft so it can be more relevant against the projected threat.”

Boeing is proposing several modifications to the current Block 2 design to create a “Block 3” advanced Super Hornet, said Caroline Hutcheson, a company spokeswoman. They include removing fuel tanks from the wings and replacing them with conformal fuel tanks to increase the aircraft’s range and speed, which would make it more stealthy and enable it to carry more firepower. When you “remove the tanks on the wings you enable additional magazine depth because you can put weapons there,” Hutcheson said.

Enhanced computing capabilities would facilitate information-sharing between the Block 3 Super Hornet and other aircraft such as the F-35, EA-18G Growler and E-2D Hawkeye, according to Boeing. “We have an advanced cockpit system, which is sort of like a big iPad in the plane with a touchscreen, so that you can visualize the data and information that’s enabled by the new computer and targeting system,” Hutcheson said. Infrared search and track technology would enable F/A-18 pilots to see and engage multiple targets at longer range, and operate as “a smart sensor node” on the U.S. military’s tactical aviation network.

At a recent conference, Richardson said the Navy needs “a healthy cadre of advanced Super Hornets” in addition to the joint strike fighter....

...Enhancing the capabilities of Boeing’s fighter jet would come with a significant bill and narrow the price gap, Clark noted. “The cost of that F/A-18 then goes up as you add all these improvements to try to make it more like an F-35,” he said. “You’re creating an airplane that costs almost as much” as the joint strike fighter is projected to cost a few years from now.

Lockheed expects to get the price of the F-35A down to $85 million by 2019, although the C-variant might remain more expensive because production numbers will be lower and the aircraft has different technical requirements. The latest Super Hornet cost upwards of $70 million, Hutcheson said. A souped-up Block 3 configuration would likely be “a few million more than that,” she said, adding that the company would have to determine the exact pricing with the Navy.

Boeing does not currently have an estimate for how much it would cost to give existing Super Hornets Block 3 capabilities during the service life modification program, she said. Even if the proposed upgrades to the F/A-18 were carried out, experts argued that the joint strike fighter would still have greater capabilities when it comes to stealth, sensors and electronic warfare.

Assumptions about the future operating environment could dictate the number of fifth-generation planes that are ultimately purchased, they said....

...The Navy can take advantage of fifth-generation aircraft well before it fields the F-35C, which means there is less urgency to bring the carrier variant into the fleet, Clark said. The F-35C is expected to reach initial operating capability in 2019. But the Marine Corps variant has already reached IOC, and the service plans to start deploying F-35Bs on big-deck amphibious ships in the Asia-Pacific region later this year.

“You put 15 or 20 F-35 Bravos [on amphibs] and then you marry that up with the regular aircraft carrier and its F/A-18s,” Clark said. “Now you’ve got a lot more airplanes and you’ve got a bunch of fifth-generation stealthy aircraft. … The Navy doesn’t have to be as urgently pursuing the F-35 Charlie because they can leverage the F-35 Bravo.”

Richardson appeared to endorse that operating concept. To stay ahead of advanced adversaries, the Navy needs to look at new approaches to air warfare and carrier operations, he said. “If you think about the introduction of the [joint strike fighter] onto our amphib force, that might be systemically the way to get after this.”...

...Hutcheson emphasized that Boeing is not proposing the Block 3 as an aircraft that could replace the joint strike fighter. The company is “offering this Block 3 Super Hornet as part of the complementary mix of capabilities interoperable with the F-35,” she said. [YOU'RE FIRED!]

“The ultimate force structure mix is going to have to be determined by the Navy and DoD, and we’re just here to present the [advanced Super Hornet] solution.” Boeing executives have had “a steady drumbeat of conversations” about the aircraft with Pentagon officials over the past year or so. But the talks have accelerated since Mattis issued his directive, Hutcheson said.

The Marine Corps, which is slated to acquire 67 F-35Cs for its carrier-based squadrons, will participate in the review ordered by Mattis, Davis said. “My sense is we’ll probably end up validating the imperative to have [the F-35C] out there,” he said. “But we’ll have an apples-to-apples comparison. We’ll let Boeing and Lockheed basically make their case for what they think they can do.”"

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... geF35.aspx

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 06:02
by blindpilot
The Marine Corps, .. Davis said. “My sense is we’ll probably end up validating the imperative to have [the F-35C] out there,” he said. “But we’ll have an apples-to-apples comparison. We’ll let Boeing and Lockheed basically make their case for what they think they can do.”"


But wait !!
Hutcheson [BOING! company spokeswoman] said. ...
"... Hutcheson emphasized that Boeing is not proposing the Block 3 as an aircraft that could replace the joint strike fighter. The company is “offering this Block 3 Super Hornet as part of the complementary mix of capabilities interoperable with the F-35,” she said....

Boeing just said they are only quoting oranges. You don`t get an "apple" quote from them. (in direct disregard of Sec Def`s and POTUS order)

Boeing is now proposing a Fruit Salad! and the costs for that are flexible, depending on how you mix the salad..

Man I can`t keep up with this.

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 06:26
by blindpilot
Another point needs to be made on Conformal Fuel Tanks. EFT`s or any tank doesn`t really have that large an RCS. It`s the fuel, the JP8, the kerosene, that has a very large RCS! This means you can`t just put extra fuel in a plastic tank,whether it`s Israel and their F-35`s, or Boeing on the SH, or on the F-16 for that matter.

These Super Duper CFT`s will have to have stealth engineering to mask the fuel. It certainly can be done ... but about that "few million more", ... add a couple million to that for the "stealth" CFT`s.

A few million here, a few million there and pretty soon you`re talking about .... well it won`t be anywhere near $70M.

FWIW,
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 06:54
by popcorn
Boeing knows they won't fare well in any comparison so they're pushing the "complementary" platform angle.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 07:30
by old_rn
I am fascinated by the thought that the USN can wait for the F35C because the USMC F35B on the amphibs coukd provide that level of 5th gen support to the CVN airgroup. Does that mean that the USN is saying that in a CVN battle group the USMC amphib will be the lead airgroup capability? :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 19:19
by blindpilot
old_rn wrote:I am fascinated by the thought that the USN can wait for the F35C because the USMC F35B on the amphibs coukd provide that level of 5th gen support to the CVN airgroup. Does that mean that the USN is saying that in a CVN battle group the USMC amphib will be the lead airgroup capability? :doh:


Honestly, the way I read this is not about the SH or the Lightning, CVN or Marines. But rather that they really do like their new E2D package. Remember the new paradigm. Information is life. The issue I take with the "just buy a few more SH`s" approach is sooner than later it will morph from conservative caution to a waste of money.

That said. You probably won`t hear the USMC complain as the USN keeps saying, "No go right ahead and take our place in line." As long as the Navy keeps signing the checks.

MHO
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 19:59
by quicksilver
Think about what the consequences of these decisions will be 10 years from now...

If one counts from its origins (a 1985 concept call 'Hornet 2000'), in 10 years that design will 42 years old. If one counts from 1992 (roughly when it was offered to the USG unsolicited iirc) it will be 35 years old.

Notice that BA is no longer suggesting that it is doing much new to the design capability-wise (keeps the cost competitiveness of the design competitive); in 2027 people actually think that will be good enough? Really?? (as in, ygsm) Wow, just wow...that's some kind of aspiration isn't it.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 05:29
by maus92
The Navy just ordered 7 Growlers and 5 Super Hornets with funds appropriated in FY16. They are also receiving 3 Growlers from the A-12 settlement, for a total of 15 new airframes (not enough.) The jets are due by February 2019.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 06:49
by marauder2048
What a waste. The Navy's self-inflicted fighter shortage was predictable and has had obvious solutions
for years now as highlighted by studies which the Navy itself commissioned and which the recent
MITRE fleet study brought out (my highlights):

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 07:35
by spazsinbad
Yeah but what about the STINGRAY - still to early to predict anything I guess. BUY MORE Shornets - delay STINGRAY!

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 08:39
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote:Yeah but what about the STINGRAY - still to early to predict anything I guess. BUY MORE Shornets - delay STINGRAY!


As the CNA and MITRE studies scream: the Navy needed an organic recovery/mission tanker years ago.
The A-12 settlement with Boeing back in 2014 could have been put towards the KV-22; the MV-22
tanker experiment occurred way back in 2013.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 09:53
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yeah but what about the STINGRAY - still to early to predict anything I guess. BUY MORE Shornets - delay STINGRAY!


As the CNA and MITRE studies scream: the Navy needed an organic recovery/mission tanker years ago.
The A-12 settlement with Boeing back in 2014 could have been put towards the KV-22; the MV-22
tanker experiment occurred way back in 2013.


The USN should have never retired the Vikings in the first place! :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 19:07
by blindpilot
Corsair1963 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yeah but what about the STINGRAY - still to early to predict anything I guess. BUY MORE Shornets - delay STINGRAY!


As the CNA and MITRE studies scream: the Navy needed an organic recovery/mission tanker years ago.
The A-12 settlement with Boeing back in 2014 could have been put towards the KV-22; the MV-22
tanker experiment occurred way back in 2013.


The USN should have never retired the Vikings in the first place! :doh:


Read my lips. There was no money! The US Military has been in a no win box for the last 8 years. With Sequestration there were no good answers. They conitnued to bet that the Pres/Congress surely couldn't keep doing this over and over. So they robbed future readiness to keep the short term war going, looking for a way to untangle it on the back side. They wanted to - keep the S-3s, A-10s, F-16/18 squadrons etc. etc. but there was no money, and you cannot "restructure" with continuing resolutions. You have to slice $$ % off the top and juggle the pots. But you always have to pay back the past when it steals from the future.

That's why Trump is upping the budget $50B more. It is not for new stuff in truth. It's just paying back what got broken.

MHO
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 22:11
by marauder2048
blindpilot wrote:
Read my lips. There was no money! The US Military has been in a no win box for the last 8 years. With Sequestration there were no good answers.

MHO
BP


The decision to retire the S-3 was made way back in 2004 before BCA/Sequestration.
There's been more than a decade to either reverse that decision, deploy an interim solution
or develop a replacement.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 22:29
by neptune
marauder2048 wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
Read my lips. There was no money! The US Military has been in a no win box for the last 8 years. With Sequestration there were no good answers.

MHO
BP


The decision to retire the S-3 was made way back in 2004 before BCA/Sequestration.
There's been more than a decade to either reverse that decision, deploy an interim solution
or develop a replacement.


S-3A- External fuel capacity: 2 × 300 US gal (4,080 lb)(1,136 L) tanks
MV-22B- ...a roll-on/roll-off bladder can contain up to 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) of fuel. (1,800 US gal.)

MV-22B is the new Navy COD...
:)

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 22:44
by blindpilot
marauder2048 wrote:
The decision to retire the S-3 was made way back in 2004 before BCA/Sequestration.
There's been more than a decade to either reverse that decision, deploy an interim solution
or develop a replacement.


Well the "decision" back then was in a context of the "Common Support Aircraft (CSA)" and on that schedule was executed 2008 to 2009 in the context of that time period. The Navy wanted CSA, and absent that would have gladly kept the S-3s. But the snowball was already gaining speed by then.

I'll agree the US Navy has often shot itself in the foot with it's transition plans. They should realize wars and budgets happen. But I wouldn't accuse them of not "wanting" 12 CVNs, fully supplied CVWs etc. etc.

just MHO,
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2017, 08:15
by spazsinbad
maus92 wrote:The Navy just ordered 7 Growlers and 5 Super Hornets with funds appropriated in FY16. They are also receiving 3 Growlers from the A-12 settlement, for a total of 15 new airframes (not enough.) The jets are due by February 2019.

Boeing Lands $679M Navy Contract to Produce Lot 40 Growler, Super Hornet Jets
28 Feb 2017 Jane Edwards

"Boeing has received a potential two-year, $678.7 million contract to build seven lot 40 EA-18G Growler aircraft, five F/A-18E Super Hornet fighter jets and related aerial electronic attack kits for the U.S. Navy.

The company will perform work in California, Missouri, Minnesota, New York, Texas, Arizona, Ohio and Canada through February 2019 under the sole-source, fixed-price contract, the Defense Department said Monday.

The Naval Air Systems Command will obligate the full contract amount from the service branch’s aircraft procurement funds for fiscal 2016 at the time of award...." [I do not follow - please explain 'potential' - thanks]

Source: https://www.govconwire.com/2017/02/boei ... rnet-jets/

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2017, 12:05
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad....
The Naval Air Systems Command will obligate the full contract amount from the service branch’s aircraft procurement funds for fiscal 2016 at the time of award...." [I do not follow - please explain 'potential' - thanks]...[/quote]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... le/1096345

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded a $678,679,386 fixed-price, incentive-firm target contract for the procurement of seven Lot 40 EA-18G aircraft and associated airborne electronic attack kits and five F/A-18E aircraft.  Work will be performed ... and is expected to be completed in February 2019.  ....  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-17-C-0003).
:roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2017, 09:50
by spazsinbad
The Arrival of the F-35C for the Carrier Fleet [also: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=24950&p=363658&hilit=jump#p363658 ]
27 Feb 2017 SLDinfo

...Across the force we carefully manage aircraft utilization, and I would rather not expend precious 5th generation fatigue life doing missions that can be performed by other, 3rd or 4th generation platforms.

This is why CNO said we will supplement Lighting II with a healthy cadre of Super Hornets. This “high-low” mix is essential to sustainable, cost effective, combat lethality now and in the future.

Also, the requirement for our pilots to execute high-end missions that only F-35C can do, as well as those missions it could potentially do, would quickly make the training syllabus and the hours required to be current and proficient in all mission areas, unexecutable. Therefore, we will focus and tailor F-35C training where its design and capabilities add most value to our integrated carrier air wing. The Navy is in a unique position to do just that, and we plan to keep that advantage and capitalize on the synergy of our 5th generation Lightning IIs and 4th generation Super Hornets.

In other discussions with flight line leadership in Lemoore, I assured them that recovering readiness in our Super Hornet fleet, sustaining it through mid-life upgrades and smartly modernizing it, will ensure that fleet remains the lethal, warfighting partner to the remarkable F-35C platforms that just arrived. And as the home for our new F-35C fleet as well as our west coast Super Hornets, we need to ensure NAS Lemoore continues to grow in capacity and services to support both our warfighters and their families, well in to the future...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-arrival-of-t ... ier-fleet/

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 01:38
by madrat
It's a shame we couldn't figure out how to convert the recently retired EA-6B airframes into something useful as a utility platform. Surely they have converted a few dozen to help with launch recovery by removing one (or both) of the back seats, removing all the built in ECCM gear, and converting them with a retractable centerline drogue. Avoid total rebuilds, but create something useful out of what you already own.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 02:32
by Dragon029
They could have made for a good MADL node and naval mini-arsenal plane as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 02:43
by popcorn
Obviously the Navy didn't think they were worth repurposing. The benefits of a reduced logistical footprint and a newer, more capable replacement weighed heavily for sending them to the boneyard.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 05:10
by 35_aoa
To be fair, some of them got re-purposed to the Marines, at least I believe that is the destination for many of the ICAP III birds.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 06:21
by neptune
35_aoa wrote:To be fair, some of them got re-purposed to the Marines, at least I believe that is the destination for many of the ICAP III birds.


The last Navy operational flight took place on 27 May 2015. Electronic Attack Wing, U.S. Pacific Fleet (CVWP), hosted a retirement commemoration for the EA-6B from 25 to 27 June 2015 at NAS Whidbey Island.

.... while the USMC expect to phase out the Prowler in 2019.

:wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 06:45
by 35_aoa
neptune wrote:
35_aoa wrote:To be fair, some of them got re-purposed to the Marines, at least I believe that is the destination for many of the ICAP III birds.


The last Navy operational flight took place on 27 May 2015. Electronic Attack Wing, U.S. Pacific Fleet (CVWP), hosted a retirement commemoration for the EA-6B from 25 to 27 June 2015 at NAS Whidbey Island.

.... while the USMC expect to phase out the Prowler in 2019.

:wink:


Yep. I was on the last Prowler cruise in 2014. VAQ-134 started incrementally flying their old ICAP II jets to the boneyard starting shortly thereafter, culminating in the ceremonial Whidbey flyover a few months later, as you mentioned, and the last couple jets going away. I will believe a 2019 USMC retirement when I see it, but in the meantime, there are a decent number of former USN airframes to augment and upgrade their fleet. Like I mentioned, what I heard is that this is ICAP III only.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 22:38
by spazsinbad
Air Boss: Navy Would Prioritize New Platforms Over Legacy Ones When Funding Readiness
03 Mar 2017 Megan Eckstein

"SAN DIEGO, Calif. – The Navy aviation community has kept its transition to new aircraft types on track amid years of funding challenges and will prioritize the readiness of those new planes over older ones if needed, the Air Boss told USNI News.

Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, commander of Naval Air Forces, said last week at the West 2017 conference that the aviation community has tried to “balance the readiness, the procurement, the modernization aspects of our force. We’ve accepted risk in readiness, and that’s acknowledged, I believe, but we’ve been able to keep that future air wing and our transitions in type/model/series on track.”...

...Shoemaker told USNI News after his panel presentation that, when it comes to spending limited funding on readiness for these new airplanes versus the older ones, “it’s a great balancing act right now. We’re looking at ways we can ensure that we apply the lessons from the legacy platforms – things that we learned from sustaining and supporting, supply/support – to make sure that we apply those to the newer platforms, E-2D, F-35 as it’s coming down, so we can ensure that they maintain the readiness levels we would expect.”

Asked if that meant that the new platforms were being prioritized over old ones, Shoemaker said, “I would say that’s probably accurate. But again, we’ve still got two legacy Hornet squadrons deployed, one on (aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush] and one on (USS Carl Vinson] right now, so we can’t take our eye off that. But I think at least from a Navy perspective … we’ve shrunk down our force to where there’s just four (Hornet) squadrons left, and I think our ability to support them, as well as our reserves and aviators up at Fallon – they’re flying legacy as well – we’ve got some choices and some tradeoffs we can make.”...

...“We’re trying to be smart and efficient in how we apply the legacy readiness dollars versus the new platform readiness dollars,” he said. “And it’s an ongoing discussion and a tradeoff, but the key piece is applying those lessons to ensure that our most capable forces are ready.”..."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/03/03/air-bo ... -readiness

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 04:19
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:
Air Boss: Navy Would Prioritize New Platforms Over Legacy Ones When Funding Readiness
03 Mar 2017 Megan Eckstein

"SAN DIEGO, Calif. – The Navy aviation community has kept its transition to new aircraft types on track amid years of funding challenges and will prioritize the readiness of those new planes over older ones if needed, the Air Boss told USNI News.

Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, commander of Naval Air Forces, said last week at the West 2017 conference that the aviation community has tried to “balance the readiness, the procurement, the modernization aspects of our force. We’ve accepted risk in readiness, and that’s acknowledged, I believe, but we’ve been able to keep that future air wing and our transitions in type/model/series on track.”...

...Shoemaker told USNI News after his panel presentation that, when it comes to spending limited funding on readiness for these new airplanes versus the older ones, “it’s a great balancing act right now. We’re looking at ways we can ensure that we apply the lessons from the legacy platforms – things that we learned from sustaining and supporting, supply/support – to make sure that we apply those to the newer platforms, E-2D, F-35 as it’s coming down, so we can ensure that they maintain the readiness levels we would expect.”

Asked if that meant that the new platforms were being prioritized over old ones, Shoemaker said, “I would say that’s probably accurate. But again, we’ve still got two legacy Hornet squadrons deployed, one on (aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush] and one on (USS Carl Vinson] right now, so we can’t take our eye off that. But I think at least from a Navy perspective … we’ve shrunk down our force to where there’s just four (Hornet) squadrons left, and I think our ability to support them, as well as our reserves and aviators up at Fallon – they’re flying legacy as well – we’ve got some choices and some tradeoffs we can make.”...

...“We’re trying to be smart and efficient in how we apply the legacy readiness dollars versus the new platform readiness dollars,” he said. “And it’s an ongoing discussion and a tradeoff, but the key piece is applying those lessons to ensure that our most capable forces are ready.”..."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/03/03/air-bo ... -readiness


Legacy in this case are the 4 remaining squadrons of F/A-18Cs.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 05:27
by marauder2048
Meanwhile, the air-campaign against ISIS managed to surge despite a "carrier gap."

Editorial: No Carrier, No Problem


The war on ISIS reached a new high while the Middle East experienced a “carrier gap.”

The Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier battle group departed the Middle East in December 2016 and returned home to Norfolk, Va., after completing a seven-month combat tour. Ike’s replacement, the George H. W. Bush battle group, departed Norfolk for the Middle East three weeks later, on Jan. 21.

By Feb. 6, Bush was making a port call at Souda Bay, Greece. More than six weeks passed without a US aircraft carrier in the Middle East, a fact that generated considerable national media attention.

The gap “comes at a particularly inopportune time,” read Defense News, reflecting a common opinion. “Numerous media reports indicate intelligence organizations and analysts are on the lookout for provocative actions by potential antagonists—in particular Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, or ISIS. Terror alerts … are high in many regions … due to a confluence of factors—the new year, ISIS’ diminishing power in the face of counterattacks in Iraq and Syria, and a natural tendency to test a new administration.”

The Navy’s carrier groups had repeatedly surged to meet combat demands in recent years, which took a toll on the flattops. Bush needed a longer-than-expected overhaul before returning to the high seas, and there were no other carriers available to fill in for it in the waters around the Middle East.

Besides the carrier gap, other January operations also generated considerable attention. That month saw a successful B-2 strike against ISIS training camps in Libya and an airpower-supported raid against al Qaeda facilities in Yemen, an attack that left Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens dead and an MV-22 Osprey destroyed.
But an interesting thing happened while there was no carrier available to support combat operations in the Middle East: The US-led coalition air campaign attacking ISIS delivered a record amount of ordnance and continued to grind down ISIS. The flexibility and versatility of airpower allowed other units, including an Air National Guard detachment from Vermont, to overcome the carrier gap and continue Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) at a record pace.

This fact generated considerably less media attention.

Coalition air forces released 3,606 weapons against ISIS targets in January 2017, according to the Combined Air and Space Operations Center (CAOC) at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. This was fully 10 percent more weapons delivered than in any previous month of the war on ISIS.

Lest anyone fear activity masks a lack of progress, the CAOC noted airpower is helping “overwhelm [ISIS] in its last major strongholds.” By Jan. 31, ISIS had lost 60 percent of its territory in Iraq, while in Syria, Raqqa (“the nexus of [ISIS’] external operations”) is increasingly isolated.

In all, officials wrote, “we’ve disrupted their command and control apparatus and imposed an incredible strain on their leaders, industrial base, financial systems, and communication networks.”

For example, over Syria, “the coalition in the last 24 hours conducted 10 air strikes,” hitting tactical units and the oil infrastructure ISIS depends on to finance its operations, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said Jan. 5. Coalition forces conducted eight air strikes supporting anti-ISIS operations in Mosul, Iraq, the same day.
On p. 12, Jennifer Hlad has the story of the Vermont Air Guard’s 134th Fighter Squadron deploying to an undisclosed forward base to battle ISIS.

Airmen and a squadron of F-16s deployed on a month’s notice, although Guard deployments of this scale are typically planned a year in advance. The 134th began flying combat missions 15 hours after touching down. “The presence of the F-16s demonstrates the Air Force’s flexibility to meet the dynamic requirements of the warfighting commanders,” US Air Forces Central Command officials observed.

“The CAOC is continuously evaluating airpower requirements and making adjustments as necessary to ensure we have the right amount of combat airpower overhead,” added Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, the Inherent Resolve air commander.

Operations were similarly aided by a surge in coalition sorties and the presence of the Marine Corps’ 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit centered on the large-deck amphibious assault ship Makin Island. “Amphibious forces at sea provide a formidable presence … although they might not be as noticed or tracked as the larger nuclear powered carriers,” wrote US Naval Institute News in January.

It is no surprise the lack of a carrier generated more attention than airpower’s ability to step up and deliver the greatest single month of attacks on ISIS. Carriers occupy a unique place in the American psyche. But the events of early 2017 reaffirmed how airpower destroys enemies and defends friends—whether there is a carrier available or not.


http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/April%202017/No-Carrier,-No-Problem.aspx

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 05:42
by spazsinbad
This one liner "Legacy in this case are the 4 remaining squadrons of F/A-18Cs." is from 'maus92' originally titling this thread: 'Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s'. So that is code? for Super Hornets as the original article top of page 1 this thread makes clear. Wot to think? OK I know 'maus92' will read and reinterpret the clear messages for us 'non-Hornet/Shornet believers' but I'm still confused - much as the USN is on this very issue. But hey that has been explained in early posts on this thread - so I'm still confused - and await further 'maus92' one liner clarification - this time one hopes without the original volumes of text to precede it.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 05:44
by 35_aoa
In a stagnant campaign, it really doesn't matter where the air assets come from. The entire purpose of the CSG is to 1) be available as a diplomacy tool, and 2) project power on short notice when land based assets are not yet available………or in conjunction with available land based assets in the event of a much more significant sort of conflict (a la ODS or OAF). I don't think anyone would argue that a carrier air wing of strike fighters is more capable than multiple USAF expeditionary fighter wings who are much more closely forward deployed. We make our money when those folks can't get the diplomatic clearances to launch in theater (which while not common, has been something I have observed firsthand). On that note, I fully support a more flexible CVN deployment schedule, that is not based entirely on having a defined carrier presence in on specific COCOM AOR (i.e. the "2.0 presence" in CENTCOM of years past as an example). Talk about just burning up flight hours/material just to meet some weird irrelevant metric, considering that forward deployed F-15E, F-16, B-1, and B-52's can all do the same thing more efficiently.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 16:58
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:This one liner "Legacy in this case are the 4 remaining squadrons of F/A-18Cs." is from 'maus92' originally titling this thread: 'Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s'. So that is code? for Super Hornets as the original article top of page 1 this thread makes clear. Wot to think? OK I know 'maus92' will read and reinterpret the clear messages for us 'non-Hornet/Shornet believers' but I'm still confused - much as the USN is on this very issue. But hey that has been explained in early posts on this thread - so I'm still confused - and await further 'maus92' one liner clarification - this time one hopes without the original volumes of text to precede it.


I'm not confused. The Navy just ordered 5 Super Hornets, and 7 Growler (in addition to the 3 EA-18s owed to settle the A-12 stealth attack jet debacle.) That's 15 for FY16. The FY17 HR is restoring the 12 SH from the Navy's unfunded priorities list, plus 2 from the FY17 PB OCO, for a total of 14. The FY17 PB also planned for 14 SH for FY18, but given the Trumpster's signaling, we're probably going to see larger orders for SH in his FY18 PB and beyond. These might even be the "F/A-18XT" (a horrible variant designation) version that Boeing is spec'ing. It's very clear that the Navy wants these new Super Hornets, and wants to move on from the legacy F/A-18Cs ASAP. CNO Mullen *thought* (with a lot of pressure from the OSD JSF mafia) that SLEPing was the way to deal with F-35Cs delays, and I was against that idea. It turns out the VADM Richardson is also opposed to spending a ton of money (and clogging up the depots) by fixing jets that are going away in the next few years. Richardson said over the summer that the remaining F/A-18 A/C squadrons would be gone later this decade, and mentions in the linked article that the Navy has more legacy F/A-18s than they need to support the current 4 operational squadrons. The Navy should stop introducing F/A-18Cs into the depots, start preserving the remaining legacy airframes (and maybe high time Block I SHs), and transfer its best examples to the USMC as new Super Hornets come off the line. It should also increase the deployed dets of Growlers to 7 or 8 jets. I'll go ahead and speculate that future orders for SH will be at least 12 units in FY18, increasing to 24 or 36 in FY19.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 17:27
by XanderCrews
35_aoa wrote:In a stagnant campaign, it really doesn't matter where the air assets come from. The entire purpose of the CSG is to 1) be available as a diplomacy tool, and 2) project power on short notice when land based assets are not yet available………or in conjunction with available land based assets in the event of a much more significant sort of conflict (a la ODS or OAF). I don't think anyone would argue that a carrier air wing of strike fighters is more capable than multiple USAF expeditionary fighter wings who are much more closely forward deployed. We make our money when those folks can't get the diplomatic clearances to launch in theater (which while not common, has been something I have observed firsthand). On that note, I fully support a more flexible CVN deployment schedule, that is not based entirely on having a defined carrier presence in on specific COCOM AOR (i.e. the "2.0 presence" in CENTCOM of years past as an example). Talk about just burning up flight hours/material just to meet some weird irrelevant metric, considering that forward deployed F-15E, F-16, B-1, and B-52's can all do the same thing more efficiently.


This. Very much this.

One of the problems we have is instead of going "either/or" we pick the "all of the above!" Option. So you are unnecessarily wearing out aircraft, ships, and crews. It's not a matter of comparing USN fighter to USAF fighter. The USAF has the big wing bombers thay carry dozens and dozens of bombs and of course bIG tankers. We've has the ability to make war in that region for 15 years straight. The carriers can go play elsewhere

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 17:35
by spazsinbad
OH I see 'maus92' does not get <sarcasm> - but hey Congress will get it sorted won't they - they will listen to 'maus92'.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 05:11
by 35_aoa
maus92 wrote:I'm not confused. The Navy just ordered 5 Super Hornets, and 7 Growler (in addition to the 3 EA-18s owed to settle the A-12 stealth attack jet debacle.) That's 15 for FY16. The FY17 HR is restoring the 12 SH from the Navy's unfunded priorities list, plus 2 from the FY17 PB OCO, for a total of 14. The FY17 PB also planned for 14 SH for FY18, but given the Trumpster's signaling, we're probably going to see larger orders for SH in his FY18 PB and beyond. These might even be the "F/A-18XT" (a horrible variant designation) version that Boeing is spec'ing. It's very clear that the Navy wants these new Super Hornets, and wants to move on from the legacy F/A-18Cs ASAP. CNO Mullen *thought* (with a lot of pressure from the OSD JSF mafia) that SLEPing was the way to deal with F-35Cs delays, and I was against that idea. It turns out the VADM Richardson is also opposed to spending a ton of money (and clogging up the depots) by fixing jets that are going away in the next few years. Richardson said over the summer that the remaining F/A-18 A/C squadrons would be gone later this decade, and mentions in the linked article that the Navy has more legacy F/A-18s than they need to support the current 4 operational squadrons. The Navy should stop introducing F/A-18Cs into the depots, start preserving the remaining legacy airframes (and maybe high time Block I SHs), and transfer its best examples to the USMC as new Super Hornets come off the line. It should also increase the deployed dets of Growlers to 7 or 8 jets. I'll go ahead and speculate that future orders for SH will be at least 12 units in FY18, increasing to 24 or 36 in FY19.


The only wrinkle here is that until those last 4 legacy squadrons go away (I shed a small tear as my first squadron, the remaining 5th, just died a couple months ago) depot support is pretty much required. We shuffle jets around a lot, as a service, and long story short, the jets that VFA-XX(X) has right now in maintenance phase are not necessarily the jets they will deploy with. Airframe hour management (as well as trap/FLE/etc) is a delicate house of cards that often crumbles. Say squadron X has 2 jets that just got longeron cracks, they are going to need a couple replacements ASAP. The only place to provide that is the depot. Keep in mind that this pool of aircraft is also shared by NAWDC, VFA-106, and VX. I agree that overall numbers can be trimmed to more manageable levels, perhaps something along the lines of the "Golden Eagle" program, albeit without the upgrade portion.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 08:50
by marauder2048
35_aoa wrote: Talk about just burning up flight hours/material just to meet some weird irrelevant metric, considering that forward deployed F-15E, F-16, B-1, and B-52's can all do the same thing more efficiently.


This. The Navy was aware of a strike fighter gap nearly a decade ago which could have been
mitigated by reducing flight hours, shrinking squadron sizes, offloading tanking responsibilities from fast jets,
operating from land bases (e.g. Odyssey Dawn) etc. In fact, all of the recent fleet studies have advocated all of the above*.

* The CRS study from a decade ago argued for expedited procurement of a new long-range bomber.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2017, 05:54
by spazsinbad
:doh: Somebody was smart in NOT making the F-35C a buddy tanker - it is better to receive than to give. :devil:
"...The tanking mission accounts from anywhere from 25 to 30 percent of Super Hornet sorties,..."
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=364818&hilit=SupaDupa#p364818

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2017, 05:34
by spazsinbad
Inside Boeing’s F-18 Pitch To White House; Fewer F-35Cs Means Shorter Fight
30 Mar 2017 Colin Clark

"WASHINGTON: If the Navy would buy one squadron of new F-18s (known as the XT, Block 3 or Advanced Super Hornet) instead of the carrier version of the F-35 it “actually improves overall mission capability, while substantially reducing cost.”

But the Navy could go even one better and buy two squadrons of the new F-18, which would give the Navy “the best capability affordably.” Buying 120 Super Hornets and 200 of the Advanced Super Hornets (which is what their plan would work out to) would save $8 billion in procurement costs each year plus $1.4 billion in operations and maintenance costs each year, the report claims.

That’s the essence of the story that Boeing is telling the Pentagon and the White House, according to a Boeing document I obtained that was presented to White House officials. The document marks a shift in Boeing’s efforts....

...This new document goes much further. It includes a chart — “Analysis of Future A2/AD PACOM Scenario” (can you say China?) — claiming that shifting the balance of F-18s and F-35Cs would “reduce campaign duration” substantially. Keeping the planned Navy buy of three F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons and two F-35C squadrons would result in a longer fight, it says.

Another chart at the bottom ticks off the characteristics of the two planes. It grants they both have “advanced radar” and “survivability.” But it claims the advanced F-18 would outpace the F-35C in maneuverability, acceleration, combat radius and weapons load.

On costs, the paper says the advanced Hornet would cost $79 million all up — including government gear — while Boeing pegs the F-35C’s total weapon cost at $120 million. A source familiar with the F-35 program says F-35C costs should be around $100 million by 2021. The source concedes that cost per flying hour is a bit higher for the C but it is, of course, a truly stealthy aircraft while the F-18 is not....

...A key issue in terms of the Mattis-ordered review is whether the Advanced Super Hornet is being factored into the cost and capabilities comparison of the F-18 and the F-35C that the Deputy Defense Secretary will receive. It’s not clear, at this point."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/insi ... ter-fight/

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2017, 05:58
by playloud
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2017, 14:34
by ricnunes
the advanced F-18 would outpace the F-35C in maneuverability, acceleration, combat radius and weapons load.


HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA :mrgreen:


But now seriously, of course Boeing is obviously right when it says that an air wing composed of Super Hornet and Advanced Super Hornet would “reduce campaign duration”!
Afterall what's the fastest way to “reduce campaign duration”?? Easy, it's to LOSE it :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2017, 14:58
by spazsinbad
Let us hope that BOING! spends some money solving this problem - abandon hope all ye who fly the HORNETOs.
Navy F/A-18s face persistent oxygen issue
30 Mar 2017 Leigh Giangreco

"The US Navy is still struggling to find the root cause of the hypoxia issue plaguing the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler, service leadership told House Armed Services Committee members this week. The service’s Boeing F/A-18s are experiencing a dangerous crew cabin pressure issue, while the newer variants may have possible oxygen contamination.

Since 2010, the Navy has directed pilots to report possible symptoms that could be related to the Super Hornet’s onboard oxygen generation systems (OBOGS) and environmental control system (ECS). Lawmakers expected hypoxia rates to increase once pilots became aware of the issue, but were still surprised at the uptick in physiological events. The F/A-18A through D models saw a 90% increase in physiological episodes (PEs) in Fiscal 2016 compared to 2015, while the E and F models saw an 11% increase in the same period. Meanwhile, the EA-18G Growler doubled its number of PEs during that same time, according to information delivered to Congress by the navy....

...Over the last year, the Navy has developed protocols to review each ECS [environmental control system] component on a malfunctioning F/A-18, Director of navy tactical aircraft Rear Adm Michael Moran told lawmakers during a 28 March hearing. Some aircraft with persistent problems were transferred to Naval Air Station Patuxent River for further inspection, he says. The Navy has determined that rather than repair valves and switches as they fail, the service will replace parts for the legacy Super Hornets on a schedule now known as the ECS reset....

...The US Navy is also taking part in an investigation into an air contamination incident on an [ROYAL] Australian Air Force F/A-18. During that incident, both the pilot and ground crews who sat in the aircraft’s cockpit and breathed air from the system experienced dizziness and degraded cognitive ability for a half hour. The navy suspects lubricants and engine fluids might have seeped into the oxygen generation system, though the process is not fully understood....

...The Navy still isn’t sure why the Growler experienced a higher PE [physiological episodes] event rate over other F/A-18 variants, though Moran points out the EA-18G’s electronics put a greater strain on the ECS system. Boeing will examine one of the Growler’s ECS systems and the Navy has already changed a restrictor plate on the aircraft to increase the airflow to the avionics that helps control its pressurisation issues, Moran says."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ue-435731/

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 00:10
by magitsu
spazsinbad wrote:Let us hope that BOING! spends some money solving this problem - abandon hope all ye who fly the HORNETOs.


Boeing's Steve Winkler said two days ago to visiting Finnish journalists at the St. Louis plant that the oxygen/hypoxia problem is a thing of the past. Basically just means that there's been no new cases for the past 6 months.

https://translate.google.fi/translate?s ... edit-text=

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 00:27
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the link 'magitsu' although the English translation is difficult to follow and sometimes incomprehensible. And yet the page has a link to: https://theaviationist.com/2017/03/29/a ... on-issues/
All U.S. F/A-18 Hornet models affected by oxygen deprivation and cabin decompression issues
29 Mar 2017 David Cenciotti

"Legacy and Super Hornet showing a concerning steady increase in “physiological episodes” that U.S. Navy calls “No.1 safety issue

The F/A-18 Hornets of all variants seems to be affected by a serious issue: oxygen shortage, or hypoxia, is plaguing the fleet of Legacy (A/B/C/D), Super Hornet (E/F) and Growler (EA-18G).

As reported by Bloomberg News, the F/A-18 of all models have shown a steady yearly increases of what the Navy calls “physiological episodes” due to oxygen deprivation and cabin decompression since the since May 1, 2010.

Navy officials testifying before the House Armed Services subcommittee called the problem the “No.1 safety issue.”

And what is even more concerning is the fact that there seem to be little clue as to what is causing the issue.

The “lack of overall progress” is “of great concern,” said Representative Niki Tsongas, the top Democrat in the panel.

While investigating the issue (with a task force of 62 people), the U.S. Navy has also enhanced “reduced-oxygen training” so that pilots can quickly identify the symptoms of hypoxia. Two aircraft carriers have installed chambers for aircrews exposed to decompression. [WOW]

According to Bloomberg News, 130 out of 383 episodes “have involved some form of contamination,” according to a Navy and U.S. Marine Corps official statement. 114 involved an environmental control system component failure, 91 involved “human factors” and 50 concerned a component failure with the on-board oxygen generating system.

Older versions of the plane, the A through D models, have problems with cabin pressure whereas the Super Hornet and Growler issues “would appear to point to the onboard oxygen generating” system to which the Navy’ has already made changes....”

Source: https://theaviationist.com/2017/03/29/a ... on-issues/

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 04:29
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:....

The “lack of overall progress” is “of great concern,” said Representative Niki Tsongas, the top Democrat in the panel.

While investigating the issue (with a task force of 62 people), the U.S. Navy has also enhanced “reduced-oxygen training” so that pilots can quickly identify the symptoms of hypoxia. Two aircraft carriers have installed chambers for aircrews exposed to decompression. [WOW]......]


....and we should buy two more squadrons of these instead of the F-35C because ?????????????.................yeah right! :drool: :bang:

..OH wait!...Spaz, have the Aussie SBugs suffered these problems where y'all fly upside down????
:)

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 05:45
by beepa
Ok so Boeing might be talking up the Super Super Hornet by saying it may have more maneuverability than the F35c, could this mean that when they flight test the conformals they might certify the airframe at say 8g or so ??? IIRC I have read on here that sometimes a set limit (max g, max speed etc) is tested to due to service requirements and not necessarily because an airframe can't handle it. It would be a big PR win for Boeing to pull and would impress the "Duck". If LM put up the cash I wonder what g they could squeeze out of the "C".

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 15:38
by mk82
F*ck! Boeing is really going for it now.....literally lying through its teeth to get some sales. Really Boeing? Banging on about the Advance Super Hornets kinematics when legacy Hornets made Super Hornets look like dogs in kinematics. Advance Super Hornets with CFTs, externally mounted ordnance and EPE engines just ain't going to outperform or out manoeuvre F135 engined F35Cs with internal weapons bays (in stealth configuration).

The survivability boast was hilarious....survivable against what!? Sling shots!!?? Let's see..... hmmmmm......if we fly a group of F/A 18 Advance Super Hornets (without support since it is apparently the shiznit in terms of survivability according to Boeing) into an advanced IADS with many high end mobile systems that move around competently......this would be the outcome........F/A 18 Advance Super Hornet jocks: "Why is my RWR screaming at me suddenly? Where did that pop up threat come from!? Right, time to find that sucker....oh crap! I am within the S300/S400/SXX MEZ/threat ring!!! Missile launch! Missile launch! Where are the Growlers!?" -> F/A 18 Advance Super Hornet jock(s) jinks hard for their life deploying self protection jamming and expendable countermeasures like it is going out of fashion....survival is not guaranteed but a mission kill has certainly occurred! If the F/A 18 Advanced Super Hornets flew a low level nap of earth profile like every other 4th gen platform -> "Where the f*ck did that Pantsir come from......?"

Now if we replay the above noted scenario with a group/four ship of F35Cs.....F35C jocks: "(Straightaway) Hey, the sneaky SAM system is over there (thanks to the F35's highly advanced and networked sensor fusion).....oh sweet......I am still outside of the S300/S400/SXX MEZ/threat ring." Tasks are then divided up quickly between the four ship of F35Cs...some of the F35Cs will perform EA/Cyber Warfare whilst the other F35Cs will engage the elements of the SAM system kinematically (with SDB I/II, JSOW, JDAM etc). Targeted SAM system suffers a swift, confused and precisely targeted demise. All F35Cs in the group fly on in contested air space to gather and provide valuable situational awareness information to follow on forces and deal with any other pop up threats. Mission success!

There is just no comparison between the two platforms!

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2017, 04:51
by spazsinbad
The attached 3 page PDF is mostly about Super Hornet/Trump/Upgrades but has some bits at end about the F-35C below.
Hornet fleet still stinging
04-10 Apr 2017 LEIGH GIANGRECO

"...the JSF has also taken criticism over its limited weapons carriage: today it can store two air-to-air weapons in each of its two weapons bays. Six hardpoints on each wing boost the aircraft’s total ordnance package to 8,170kg (18,000lb), a slight increase in payload capacity over the Super Hornet, but at the cost of its low-observability. That stealth capability may not be necessary by the second or third day of war, when the element of surprise has already been given up, says Jim Gigliotti, F-35C and US Navy programme manager at Lockheed.

“There’s been certain arguments on the capacity of the aeroplane. That is just not true in how it’s been presented,” Gigliotti tells FlightGlobal. “What really gives [the F-35C] its edge against anything out there flying today is the inherent mission system, and combined with that stealth capability that makes this platform truly a force enabler for the entire fleet, not just the air wing. It’s going to make the Super Hornet a better platform and a better warfighter.”

STEALTH OR PAYLOAD
While it may cause concern that the F-35 can only increase its payload by giving up its stealthy aspect with external weapons, Lockheed is already working to take that consideration off the table for all three F-35 variants, Gigliotti says. “I can’t go into anything,” he says. “Just to say, we have the capacity and we’re working on growth of this aircraft already to answer any concerns about the future capability of this aircraft against growing threats.”

Along with its advanced capabilities, the F-35C carries some baggage with the JSF programme. A report from the Pentagon’s top weapon tester late last year detailed issues with the F-35C’s stiff landing gear struts, particularly the nose gear, which caused “excessive jarring” that often required pilots to stop taxiing. Pilots described vertical oscillations during catapult launches as excessive and violent, according to the report.

Lockheed recently completed tests at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and determined that the aircraft did not require a new nose gear. Gigliotti says the holdback bar behind the nose gear has been detuned to a lower release, which results in slightly less strut compression on the initial catapult release.

“That has seen some improvement there in the response of the aircraft going down,” he says. “We’ve also looked at some techniques the pilot uses in the airplane to firmly strap yourself in, but please keep in mind that any catapult is an inherently violent evolution anyway.”

Both Lockheed and the F-35 Joint Programme Office maintain the oscillation issues occur only with very low fuel weights, such as when the navy conducts initial carrier qualifications when pilots carry low fuel, and not during typical fleet operations.

Earlier this year, Lockheed also addressed a flutter issue that has affected the aircraft’s ability to carry Raytheon’s AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile. A redesign of the outboard wing panel beefed up a rib and spar to take some of the loads at the weapon attachment points, Gigliotti says.

Lockheed will retrofit existing F-35Cs with the improved panels between this August and early 2019. Depending on the number of aircraft in the developmental fleet, Lockheed could retrofit about 30 jets, he says."

Source: FLIGHT International 4-10 April 2017

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2017, 10:59
by madrat
Adding stealth external pods is only effective for subsonic use. Are you going to jettison them to fight? Advanced Super Hornet is a never will be program.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2017, 12:43
by mk82
madrat wrote:Adding stealth external pods is only effective for subsonic use. Are you going to jettison them to fight? Advanced Super Hornet is a never will be program.


Damn straight!

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 20:18
by ricnunes
IMO, I believe that the Super Hornet in the rather near future when facing advanced enemies such as the S-400, T-50, J-20, etc... will have to jettison more than "stealth external pods" or external fuel tanks. It will also have to jettison other "stuff" (note the quotes) such as the pilots :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 01:56
by spazsinbad
:devil: BOING! have supersecret (unknown) stuff for ye - wanna buy a bridge? Well hush my mouth honey chile... do tell. :doh:
Boeing pushing new Block III Super Hornet
04 Apr 2017 Christopher P. Cavas

"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Navy is back in the business of buying F/A-18 Super Hornets and Boeing is working to update the aircraft to meet warfighting needs.

“There is a general acceptance of the need to buy more aircraft to meet the fleet’s shortfall,” said Dan Gillian, Boeing’s vice president for F/A-18 and E/A-18G programs. Boeing’s strike fighter, he said, is “a low-risk, low-cost aircraft with improved capabilities.”

In some ways, Boeing updated its Advanced Super Hornet (ASH) package unveiled in 2013 to meet changed requirements. The ASH, Gillian pointed out, had several stealth features that were considered no longer necessary in a carrier wing that would include F-35C stealth fighters, and the revamped offering, dubbed Block III, is geared more to warfighting and aircraft performance and less to concealment efforts.

“The narrative shifted the capability gap, and that’s where we targeted Block III,” he said, noting the new aircraft can carry more payload at higher speeds and altitude. [THIS IS THE BRIDGE I GOTTA SELL Y'ALL] The longer range is “a big deal,” he said. Boeing declined to provide specific figures...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/boe ... per-hornet

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 02:06
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Sounds like they are trying to get finding for the EPE, since without it the Block III is a non starter.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 06:13
by spazsinbad
We have seen reports that the F-35 OBOGS is OK but hey the STINK has spread to the T-45C Goshawk with Hornets etc. LONG article best read at source I reckon - short video of Goshawks there also.
Navy instructor pilots refusing to fly over safety concerns; Pence's son affected
04 Apr 2017 Lucas Tomlinson

"EXCLUSIVE: More than 100 U.S. Navy instructor pilots are refusing to fly in protest of what they say is the refusal of top brass to adequately address an urgent problem with training jets’ oxygen system, multiple instructor pilots tell Fox News. The boycott started late last week and has effectively grounded hundreds of training flights. “The pilots don’t feel safe flying this aircraft,” one instructor pilot told Fox News....

...“Histotoxic hypoxia” is the medical term associated with the disorientating disorder which can put pilots’ lives at risk, as well as those of civilians on the ground below. Two instructor pilots say the training jets are now averaging three incidents a week, as the Navy struggles to get to the bottom of the contamination. “It can happen without warning,” one pilot said. “The system doesn’t detect contaminants.” A number of instructors cited recent episodes as reasons for the abrupt work stoppage....

...Some instructor pilots have refused to go along with the boycott and continue flying, but remove the oxygen masks as soon as they take off.... [depending on what they do this is NOT GOOD either]

...The dangers with the oxygen system are not limited to the T-45 training jets either. U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornets have been known to suffer similar problems."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04 ... ected.html


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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 07:41
by Corsair1963
beepa wrote:Ok so Boeing might be talking up the Super Super Hornet by saying it may have more maneuverability than the F35c, could this mean that when they flight test the conformals they might certify the airframe at say 8g or so ??? IIRC I have read on here that sometimes a set limit (max g, max speed etc) is tested to due to service requirements and not necessarily because an airframe can't handle it. It would be a big PR win for Boeing to pull and would impress the "Duck". If LM put up the cash I wonder what g they could squeeze out of the "C".


Time we hold a Fighter Competition between the F-35A/B/C vs F/A-18E/F and settle this! :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 07:48
by Corsair1963
mk82 wrote:F*ck! Boeing is really going for it now.....literally lying through its teeth to get some sales. Really Boeing? Banging on about the Advance Super Hornets kinematics when legacy Hornets made Super Hornets look like dogs in kinematics. Advance Super Hornets with CFTs, externally mounted ordnance and EPE engines just ain't going to outperform or out manoeuvre F135 engined F35Cs with internal weapons bays (in stealth configuration).

The survivability boast was hilarious....survivable against what!? Sling shots!!?? Let's see..... hmmmmm......if we fly a group of F/A 18 Advance Super Hornets (without support since it is apparently the shiznit in terms of survivability according to Boeing) into an advanced IADS with many high end mobile systems that move around competently......this would be the outcome........F/A 18 Advance Super Hornet jocks: "Why is my RWR screaming at me suddenly? Where did that pop up threat come from!? Right, time to find that sucker....oh crap! I am within the S300/S400/SXX MEZ/threat ring!!! Missile launch! Missile launch! Where are the Growlers!?" -> F/A 18 Advance Super Hornet jock(s) jinks hard for their life deploying self protection jamming and expendable countermeasures like it is going out of fashion....survival is not guaranteed but a mission kill has certainly occurred! If the F/A 18 Advanced Super Hornets flew a low level nap of earth profile like every other 4th gen platform -> "Where the f*ck did that Pantsir come from......?"

Now if we replay the above noted scenario with a group/four ship of F35Cs.....F35C jocks: "(Straightaway) Hey, the sneaky SAM system is over there (thanks to the F35's highly advanced and networked sensor fusion).....oh sweet......I am still outside of the S300/S400/SXX MEZ/threat ring." Tasks are then divided up quickly between the four ship of F35Cs...some of the F35Cs will perform EA/Cyber Warfare whilst the other F35Cs will engage the elements of the SAM system kinematically (with SDB I/II, JSOW, JDAM etc). Targeted SAM system suffers a swift, confused and precisely targeted demise. All F35Cs in the group fly on in contested air space to gather and provide valuable situational awareness information to follow on forces and deal with any other pop up threats. Mission success!

There is just no comparison between the two platforms!


Sooner or later Mattis is going to get involved and put the Navy in it's place. Honestly, this whole issue with the Navy isn't that they believe Super Hornets are better than F-35C's. They just don't want to spend more money on New F-35C at the moment. They want to use all available resources on ship building....

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 13:50
by mixelflick
beepa wrote:Ok so Boeing might be talking up the Super Super Hornet by saying it may have more maneuverability than the F35c, could this mean that when they flight test the conformals they might certify the airframe at say 8g or so ??? IIRC I have read on here that sometimes a set limit (max g, max speed etc) is tested to due to service requirements and not necessarily because an airframe can't handle it. It would be a big PR win for Boeing to pull and would impress the "Duck". If LM put up the cash I wonder what g they could squeeze out of the "C".


The "Super Super" Hornet you refer to is henceforth known as the Super Duper Hornet :mrgreen: . Whether that sees the light of day is anyone's guess. Congress will likely have a say in things (along with Trump), so who knows where the latest and greatest Hornet goes.

It's interesting that with an almost all Hornet Navy, they're being bitten by the flip side of flying/maintaining such a common platform. Sure, the logistics of that is probably saving a lot of $. But as this "physiological event" problem illustrates, it goes both ways. Now every Hornet flying is affected, and boom - there goes your readiness/ability to answer the call of duty.

If the Navy was still flying Tomcat's/Bombcats, they'd at least have another platform to work with..

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2017, 21:34
by spazsinbad
And there is NO upgraded engine for him.... the Shornet BLOCK III baby.
Boeing Pitches Super Hornet Block III at Navy League Event
05 Apr 2017 Bill Carey

"An F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block III would sustain the U.S. Navy’s carrier air wings at full strength and complement the F-35C Lightning II fighter into the 2030s, Boeing says. The manufacturer is proposing a network-enabled upgrade of the fourth generation fighter that could also be feathered into a planned service life modification of Block II Super Hornets.

Super Hornet Block III differs from the earlier proposed Advanced Super Hornet in that Boeing is no longer focused on improving the fighter’s stealth capability relative to the F-35's, said Dan Gillian, F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager. Rather, it proposes to integrate networking components that along with other improvements would make the Super Hornet an equal partner with the F-35 in future strike formations.

“I think a huge and significant change from the 2013 Advanced Super Hornet to the 2016-2017 Block III Super Hornet is the need for the Super Hornet to be a ‘smart node’ on the Navy’s NIFC-CA [Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air] network,” Gillian told reporters April 4 at the Navy League Sea Air Space conference. “In the past, we talked about maybe the Super Hornet could be just a ‘dumb shooter’ out there, with information passed to it. But with all the information available, being a contributing part of the NIFC-CA network is really important.”

Boeing would enable the Block III fighter by installing a Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked (DTP-N) computer and tactical targeting network technology (TTNT) Internet-protocol-based, high-speed datalink, both program-of-record upgrades for the Super Hornet’s EA-18G Growler electronic warfare variant, Gillian said. It would have an advanced cockpit with a 10-by-19 inch Elbit Systems large area display as the pilot interface, similar to what Boeing has installed in the F-15 and the clean-sheet jet it developed for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X advanced jet trainer requirement. In terms of cost, “the delta between a Block 2 and a Block 3 is a couple million dollars,” Gillian said.

Not included in the offering is the F414-GE-400 engine upgrade GE Aviation and the Navy have been developing. “Obviously every pilot wants more thrust; we think there’s a compelling business case based on the fuel efficiency,” Gillian said. “We continue to work with GE and the Navy to fund the enhanced engine. We think there’s a great story there; it’s just not part of the Block III package today.”...

...Boeing expects to secure a first contract from the Navy early next year to begin a service life modification that will extend the service life of Block II fighters from 6,000 to 9,000 hours. New build Block III Super Hornets would already be 9,000-hour fighters, which Boeing could start delivering in the early 2020s; Block II fighters could be retrofitted through the service life modification “a little later than that,” Gillian said...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ague-event

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2017, 22:49
by spazsinbad
Da Boyzzsh Battle it out - at least BOING! is changing her tune....
Boeing’s Block III Super Hornet ‘High End’ Complement To F-35: Stackley
06 Apr 2017 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"NATIONAL HARBOR: Boeing’s proposed Block III upgrade to the Super Hornet would be a “fairly high-end” complement to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley believes. Instead of seeing Super Hornets as a potential replacement for the F-35 — as President Trump proposed — Stackley and other naval leaders at the Sea-Air-Space conference here repeatedly emphasized the two are not competitors, but are complementary. In fact, the Navy sees a role for both in high-intensity, high-tech, high-end warfare against the thick anti-aircraft defenses known as Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD).

It’s not a “high/low mix,” Stackley told reporters yesterday. “That’s too Air Force.”...

...But, I asked, what can any Super Hornet model do that an F-35 can’t? “It has payload,” Stackley said at once. “The Super Hornet has a lot of payload, and that’s a good complement to the F-35, which has stealth and sensors.” (Of course, that Hornet payload can only be carried out of range of high-end Integrated Air Defenses while the F-35C penetrates and kills them.)...

...Wait, I asked: F-35s have a special hard-to-intercept datalink, MADL, to share information among themselves without the transmission being detected, but they communicate to older aircraft like the Super Hornet on the standard NATO Link-16. Won’t the enemy pick up the Link-16 transmissions and triangulate their location? “It’s not a long phone call to your grandmother, it’s a burst,” Winter replied. By using their sensors to find blind spots in the enemy’s sensor arrays, by angling their transmissions away from hostile listeners, and above all by keeping messages short, he said, the F-35s can send data to the rest of the force without giving themselves away.

In this concept of operations, the synergy between F-18 and F-35 is a bit like the relationship between a sniper and his spotter....

...For their part, Boeing says their Block III upgrade to the Super Hornet will give it the latest datalinks and cockpit displays, as well as at least one unique sensor the F-35 lacks, a so-called InfraRed Search & Track (IRST) system they say can detect stealth aircraft by the heat of their engines, without relying on radar. (Lockheed says the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System includes excellent infrared sensors, good enough to track the Falcon 9 rocket from hundreds of miles away even after it turned its engine off).

The Block III will also have built-in fuel tanks, said Boeing VP Dan Gillian, so the upgraded Super Hornet and the F-35 will have “comparable” range. (Exact ranges depend on weapons carried and are kept secret). These “conformal fuel tanks” are more aerodynamic than traditional drop tanks, making them not only more fuel-efficient but also more stealthy. However, Gillian told reporters at Sea-Air-Space, the current Block III package doesn’t include the stealth enhancements of Boeing’s earlier Advanced Super Hornet proposal, nor does it include an expensive new engine being worked on by GE....

...That rough estimate brings us to the bottom-line reason why the F-35 and F-18 are complementary: money. The carrier-capable F-35C variant currently costs $121.8 million, but Lockheed promises to get it down to $100 million. That’s compared to $70-odd million for a new Block III Super Hornet — which the Navy is still buying — or maybe $5 million to upgrade an old one.

The Navy doesn’t have enough fighters to equip its squadrons now, and it can’t afford to buy F-35Cs fast enough to fill the “fighter gap,” let alone to replace all its Super Hornets overnight. So, for decades to come, carrier air wings will be a mix of F-35s and F-18s: initially a 1:3 ratio of squadrons, later 2:2. The Marine Corps, by contrast, will go to an all-F-35B force on its amphibious ships, so the overall mix at sea will be more tilted towards the F-35 than the carrier group ratios suggest. That’s especially true in the Pacific, where Marine F-35Bs also operate from Japan and can rapidly deploy throughout the region.

“We have long planned on a mix of fourth and fifth generation squadrons comprising our air wings,” Stackley said. “They’ve always been complementary. They always have.”"

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/boei ... -stackley/

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2017, 23:41
by steve2267
"But, I asked..."

"Wait, I asked..."

Mr. Freedberg seems to have forgotten to ask acting SecNav Stackley about the fact that the F-35C can carry 18,000 lb of ordnance while still carrying 19,750 lb of gas. The Super Duper Shornet is said to be able to carry around 19,519 lb of ordnance, but with only 14,400 lb of internal gas, which I do not believe includes CFTs.

The best I've been able to figure out, the Super Duper Shornet only gets an additional 3500 lb of gas in its CFT's, which Boing claims will weigh 870lbs. Unless that is 3500 lb of gas per CFT, but by eye, I don't see how one of those CFTs will carry as much gas as one of those 480gal EFTs.

So with CFTs, the Super Duper would appear to be able to carry 15,149 lb of ordnance with 17,900 lb of gas with the CFTs.

Any way you slice the Super Duper... the only way I see it carrying more ordnance than the F-35C is if it only has 14,400 lb of internal gas... and then it's not going nearly as far as the F-35C (so much for "comparable" range).

...For their part, Boeing says their Block III upgrade to the Super Hornet will give it the latest datalinks


Does that mean Boing is going to incorporate MADL on the Super Duper?

They make a big deal about the Super Duper carrying a super duper LM IRST pod... but what good will that pod be when the Super Duper will have to lag so far behind the Lightning to avoid getting splashed by enema air or IADS?

The only thing the Super Duper has going for it is a lower price tag. But how much will development cost to add all the new Super Duper gear (network thingamajiggies, IRST pod, new bigger cockpit display)? Is Boing eating those development costs, or is the Navy paying for the development in addition to the higher aircraft unit cost?

Then there is the schedule. How long to develop all this new super duper stuff? How long will test & eval be? What are the KPP's for all the new super duper gear?

The F-35C is here now. All the Navy has to do is put coins in the LM vending machine. Yes, I get that the F-35C is more expensive, but it is available now. The Super Duper is a bunch of promises (vague ones at that), hand-waving schedules, and more reverse-FUD.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2017, 23:43
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote:Da Boyzzsh Battle it out - at least BOING! is changing her tune....
Boeing’s Block III Super Hornet ‘High End’ Complement To F-35: Stackley
06 Apr 2017 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
...For their part, Boeing says their Block III upgrade to the Super Hornet will give it the latest datalinks and cockpit displays, as well as at least one unique sensor the F-35 lacks, a so-called InfraRed Search & Track (IRST) system they say can detect stealth aircraft by the heat of their engines, without relying on radar. (Lockheed says the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System includes excellent infrared sensors, good enough to track the Falcon 9 rocket from hundreds of miles away even after it turned its engine off).



Again this BS that the F-35 doesn't have an IRST!! Jezz!

Not only the F-35 has an IRST but its IRST covers a spherical 360º arc around the F-35 as opposed to the Super Hornet's IRST which only covers the front arc. The F-35 IRST is called DAS which not only works as an IRST but it also has other well known functions.
Moreover the F-35's "IRST" is INTERNAL (DAS) where the Super Hornet IRST is carried in the central external fuel tank - And Boeing even claims that the SH is more "agile" than the F-35 :doh:
What happens if the Super Hornet enters in a dogfight (which is potentially more likely since the SH isn't stealth) or in any other situation where it need its "full agility"? Will the SH jettison its "central External Fuel Tank+IRST"??

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2017, 00:03
by steve2267
I think the F-35 Lightning II Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is the counterpart to the IRST, not DAS. DAS might be able to cue EOTS to look in a particular place, but I think EOTS is designed to do the forward quarter IR searches for air and ground targets.

Boing claims the IRST is much better than the EOTS. Ok, maybe now. But when will the Super Duper fly with the new IRST? 2018? 2022? By 2022... F-35 may be getting the Advanced EOTS by then (Block 4 upgrade), then where is the advantage?

But lets, for the sake of argument, say the Super Duper's IRST is better than the Lightning EOTS. By how much? 10 miles? 20? 50? Because the Super Duper is going to have to hang back a ways from the F-35 lest it get targeted because it cannot match the VLO characteristics of the F-35.

Can any of you 'dar experts napkin calculate how far back of an F-35C a Super Duper would have to remain to avoid detection based on a comparison of RCS values? F-35C is reputed to have, what?, 0.001 m^2 RCS in X-band? F/A-18E/F Super Duper is what? 0.1 m^2? 0.5 m^2? What distance does that work out to in detection range differential?

If it's 50nm, then the IRST needs to be better than EOTS by at least 50nm...

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2017, 00:57
by Dragon029
If the Super Hornet (Block 2/3) has an RCS of 1m^2 (a very rough guesstimate of a Rhino with the centreline fuel / IRST tank and maybe just a few AAMs) and the F-35 is a somewhat conservative 0.001m^2 (-30dBm), then the Super Hornet will need to stay about 5.6x as far away as the F-35 to avoid detection. If the F-35 has an RCS of -40dBm, then the Super Hornet will need to stay 10x as far away. If the SH has an RCS of 0.5m^2, those ratios will be 4.7x and 8.4x respectively. If the SH has an RCS of 0.1m^2, they're 3.2x and 5.6x.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2017, 15:58
by mk82
steve2267 wrote:"But, I asked..."

"Wait, I asked..."

Mr. Freedberg seems to have forgotten to ask acting SecNav Stackley about the fact that the F-35C can carry 18,000 lb of ordnance while still carrying 19,750 lb of gas. The Super Duper Shornet is said to be able to carry around 19,519 lb of ordnance, but with only 14,400 lb of internal gas, which I do not believe includes CFTs.

The best I've been able to figure out, the Super Duper Shornet only gets an additional 3500 lb of gas in its CFT's, which Boing claims will weigh 870lbs. Unless that is 3500 lb of gas per CFT, but by eye, I don't see how one of those CFTs will carry as much gas as one of those 480gal EFTs.

So with CFTs, the Super Duper would appear to be able to carry 15,149 lb of ordnance with 17,900 lb of gas with the CFTs.

Any way you slice the Super Duper... the only way I see it carrying more ordnance than the F-35C is if it only has 14,400 lb of internal gas... and then it's not going nearly as far as the F-35C (so much for "comparable" range).

...For their part, Boeing says their Block III upgrade to the Super Hornet will give it the latest datalinks


Does that mean Boing is going to incorporate MADL on the Super Duper?

They make a big deal about the Super Duper carrying a super duper LM IRST pod... but what good will that pod be when the Super Duper will have to lag so far behind the Lightning to avoid getting splashed by enema air or IADS?

The only thing the Super Duper has going for it is a lower price tag. But how much will development cost to add all the new Super Duper gear (network thingamajiggies, IRST pod, new bigger cockpit display)? Is Boing eating those development costs, or is the Navy paying for the development in addition to the higher aircraft unit cost?

Then there is the schedule. How long to develop all this new super duper stuff? How long will test & eval be? What are the KPP's for all the new super duper gear?

The F-35C is here now. All the Navy has to do is put coins in the LM vending machine. Yes, I get that the F-35C is more expensive, but it is available now. The Super Duper is a bunch of promises (vague ones at that), hand-waving schedules, and more reverse-FUD.


This!!!!!!

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2017, 16:25
by mk82
" the current Block III package doesn’t include the stealth enhancements of Boeing’s earlier Advanced Super Hornet proposal, nor does it include an expensive new engine being worked on by GE...."

Oh great, the proposed Block III Super Hornets will have the RCS of a Block II Super Hornet....good luck penetrating that high end A2/AD! And the Block III Super Hornets will likely retain the Block II's engines....thus still being a dog (relatively) kinematically. Makes you realise that Boeing's claims about a carrier air wing being more effective with greater numbers of Block III Super Hornets (and consequently smaller numbers of F35Cs) and the Block III Super Hornet being able to outfly/outperform the F35C are actually steaming piles of horsesh*t.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2017, 20:59
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:I think the F-35 Lightning II Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is the counterpart to the IRST, not DAS. DAS might be able to cue EOTS to look in a particular place, but I think EOTS is designed to do the forward quarter IR searches for air and ground targets.
.


Here:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... fault.aspx

From DAS manufacturer:

Designated the AN/AAQ-37 and comprising six electro-optical sensors, the full EO DAS will enhance the F-35's survivability and operational effectiveness by warning the pilot of incoming aircraft and missile threats, providing day/night vision and supporting the navigation function of the F-35 Lightning II's forward-looking infrared sensor.


And specially here:
Missile detection and tracking
Launch point detection
Situational awareness IRST & cueing
Weapons support
Day/night navigation

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2017, 01:59
by Dragon029
steve2267 is talking about the fact that DAS is a wide FOV / limited resolution system - you might see a pixel heat up in the distance, but EOTS is the system that can actually scan in that direction and get a high resolution IR image of the target, needed for positive ID (if they're radio silent and stealthy) and clearance to engage from BVR.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2017, 00:29
by ricnunes
Dragon029 wrote:steve2267 is talking about the fact that DAS is a wide FOV / limited resolution system - you might see a pixel heat up in the distance, but EOTS is the system that can actually scan in that direction and get a high resolution IR image of the target, needed for positive ID (if they're radio silent and stealthy) and clearance to engage from BVR.


Well it seems pretty much clear that both DAS and EOTS function as IRST in the F-35.

You say that DAS is a wide FOV / limited resolution system but I don't think that's the case in terms of resolution - Note that DAS is used for navigation or resuming DAS also projects a very high definition (and as such resolution) IR vision into the pilot's helmet visor and as such we aren't talking about a low resolution system (DAS).

But you're likely right when you say that EOTS has narrower FOVs compared to DAS and as such the pilot will be able to better ID contacts/targets compared to DAS.
Perhaps the EOTS will also have a better detection range in IRST mode compared to DAS. But none of this means that DAS doesn't work as an IRST. So from what I could gather is that in the F-35 the frontal sector IRST scan is done by the EOTS while in all other sectors (sides and rear) the IRST scan is done by DAS giving it the "famous" F-35 360 degree spherical detection/coverage.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2017, 03:48
by count_to_10
ricnunes wrote:
Well it seems pretty much clear that both DAS and EOTS function as IRST in the F-35.

You say that DAS is a wide FOV / limited resolution system but I don't think that's the case in terms of resolution - Note that DAS is used for navigation or resuming DAS also projects a very high definition (and as such resolution) IR vision into the pilot's helmet visor and as such we aren't talking about a low resolution system (DAS).

But you're likely right when you say that EOTS has narrower FOVs compared to DAS and as such the pilot will be able to better ID contacts/targets compared to DAS.
Perhaps the EOTS will also have a better detection range in IRST mode compared to DAS. But none of this means that DAS doesn't work as an IRST. So from what I could gather is that in the F-35 the frontal sector IRST scan is done by the EOTS while in all other sectors (sides and rear) the IRST scan is done by DAS giving it the "famous" F-35 360 degree spherical detection/coverage.

DAS is strictly WVR, with resolution approximately equivalent to the eye. Bright things may show up at long ranges, but they will be pixilated. The EOTS has significant zoom capability, and can identify things BVR.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2017, 14:21
by ricnunes
count_to_10 wrote:DAS is strictly WVR, with resolution approximately equivalent to the eye. Bright things may show up at long ranges, but they will be pixilated. The EOTS has significant zoom capability, and can identify things BVR.


Don't get me wrong, but I very much doubt that a sensor (or in this case a set of sensors) - DAS - which is so sensitive and capable of detecting a ballistic missiles at a distance of more than 800 miles is only sensitive enough to detect aircraft at Within Visual Range (WVR).

In the link below at around minute 0.45:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ

You can see and read that DAS provides "long range detection". While I admit that this is open to different interpretations, for example what's the real range and against what (missiles, aircraft, etc...) I would say that if "long range detection" is against aircraft than this would certainly means something BVR (and not WVR).

In the following video, specially after minute 0.45:


You can see DAS detecting several aircraft where most of them seem to be outside visual range. There's no indication on the range at which those aircraft are (from the F-35/DAS sensors) but if I had to guess I would say that some are something like well above 10 miles up to around 20 miles. Of course this is not even close to the range of many airborne radars for example and likely not the same range as the EOTS but nevertheless DAS range against aircraft doesn't seem to be WVR.


Finally it seems that you're somehow confusing an "IRST" with a "typical IR/Optical sensor" (like the Sniper Pod for example).
IRST doesn't work by providing an IR-spectrum view of the surroundings and thus giving the possibility to find something by looking for shapes.
IRST works more similarly to a radar rather than a "typical IR/Optical sensor" (a.k.a. FLIR). For example an IRST usually uses the same "radar scope" display also used by the radar. IRSTs are also an old technology as you can see below - the IRST display of the F-8 Crusader:

Image

So the above is basically what the IRST "sees" and projects - While the above is old technology (afterall it was mounted on the F-8 Crusader), all other (or most other) and more modern IRSTs follow the same principle.
And as you can see it doesn't work like a "typical IR/Optical sensor" where for example it doesn't display the aircraft's shape. There are exceptions thou, for example the Eurofighter Typhoon PIRATE IRST seems to have a mode which displays the target's/aircraft shape/image.
The opposite is also true, where the "typical IR/Optical sensor" doesn't usually work like an IRST. There are however exceptions, like the EOTS which while being a "typical IR/Optical sensor" derived from the Sniper Pod, it has also an IRST function.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2017, 14:45
by steve2267
Nobody is saying that your favorite doohickey, DAS, doesn't perform some IRST functionality. And while I cannot recall a definitive statement, I'm sure that if DAS finds something, it will cue EOTS (if within the EOTS FOV) to have a look -- that's the whole purpose of sensor fusion.

But in the context of this conversation, the F-35 doofer that most closely corresponds to the function of the super duper new IRST gizmo being trumpted by Boing on the the F/A-18E/F Duper Hornet Block IIIZ is the EOTS. Boing is proclaiming to the world that their duper new IRST will detect airborne threats further away than the F-35. They are comparing their IRST doofer to the F-35 EOTS detection range.

Now if the Duper's IRST can detect an airborne threat at 50nm, and if the current F-35 EOTS can detect the same threat at 35nm (or 30 or 25 or 40 or whatever less than the Boing's Duper IRST), well then bully for Boing. On the other hand, if the Duper is detected on 'dar @ 75nm and splashed at 50nm, but the F-35 is detected at, say, 15nm (A-A 'dar), but can detect the bandit >> 15nm with EOTS... then the Rhino drivers better stay back at the O-club, or fly tanker hops for the Cee. Cuz they aren't an equal partner then. But maybe they could be a missile truck, so maybe let them hang back.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2017, 15:41
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:Nobody is saying that your favorite doohickey, DAS, doesn't perform some IRST functionality. And while I cannot recall a definitive statement, I'm sure that if DAS finds something, it will cue EOTS (if within the EOTS FOV) to have a look -- that's the whole purpose of sensor fusion.


Well, I would say even more than that: If one of the sensors of the F-35 (doesn't matter what) detects something it will cue all the other sensors (within their FOV limits of course), or resuming it's only not DAS that will cue EOTS, that's the whole purpose of sensor fusion.

Nonetheless if DAS detects (IRST mode) for example an aircraft in the rear sector it likely wouldn't cue the EOTS hence why I mentioned DAS and F-35's 360º spherical IRST.

But yes, I admit that I should probably have mentioned an "EOTS/DAS combo" when describing the F-35's IRST capabilities. However.... (see below)


steve2267 wrote:But in the context of this conversation, the F-35 doofer that most closely corresponds to the function of the super duper new IRST gizmo being trumpted by Boing on the the F/A-18E/F Duper Hornet Block IIIZ is the EOTS. Boing is proclaiming to the world that their duper new IRST will detect airborne threats further away than the F-35. They are comparing their IRST doofer to the F-35 EOTS detection range.


Well what closely corresponds the most to the F-35's EOTS in the Super Hornet would be the combination of that IRST (mounted in the tip of the centerline external fuel tank) AND the FLIR/EO pod (mounted on one of the two fuselage pylons), usually the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR. So in that matter alone the Super Hornet's IRST pales in comparison with the F-35's EOTS.
This is another reason why I choose to compare the F-35's DAS (instead of EOTS) with the Super Hornet's IRST (since for example, both shouldn't be able to project long range/narrow FOV high definition IR imaging).


steve2267 wrote:Now if the Duper's IRST can detect an airborne threat at 50nm, and if the current F-35 EOTS can detect the same threat at 35nm (or 30 or 25 or 40 or whatever less than the Boing's Duper IRST), well then bully for Boing. On the other hand, if the Duper is detected on 'dar @ 75nm and splashed at 50nm, but the F-35 is detected at, say, 15nm (A-A 'dar), but can detect the bandit >> 15nm with EOTS... then the Rhino drivers better stay back at the O-club, or fly tanker hops for the Cee. Cuz they aren't an equal partner then. But maybe they could be a missile truck, so maybe let them hang back.


Yes, I agree with this assessment.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 07:48
by spazsinbad
On previous pages this thread - especially the last - there are stories about OBOGS deficiencies - they continue for T-45C.
Naval Air Forces Visits Training Wing
09 Apr 2017 Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker; Commander, Naval Air Forces

"...After frank discussions with the aircrew, leadership staffs and engineers, I will extend the operational pause for at least a week to allow time for our engineers to do a deeper dive into T-45 systems and for leadership to determine additional mitigation measures that will reduce the risks associated with the T-45 oxygen breathing system...."

Source: http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/04/09/ ... ning-wing/

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 18:01
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...mitigation measures that will reduce the risks associated with the T-45 oxygen breathing system...."


...I was instantly horrified to hear the removal of the O2 systems, my first preflight checklist item was to fire up the O2 for a shot to clear the residue from the club last evening!.....

Fly Navy!

:)

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 00:15
by quicksilver
I am told that EOTS has an IRST function today, as we speak/type (another one that Boeing apparently managed to 'overlook' in its presentations. See the undiscerning Breaking Defense pieces from a normally adult reporter last week). Its scan volume (a mechanical scan) is currently limited until 3F release later this year. DAS also performs an IRST function, albeit without the zoom/resolution capability of the EOTS. Its advantage -- by virtue of its 6 locations on the jet -- is 360 degree spherical coverage. Thus, it 'looks' (stares, actually) where EOTS cannot. It is sensitive enough have detected and tracked a Falcon 9 from launch at Cape Canaveral to beyond second stage burnout from over 800 miles. (see link from earlier discussion below) Both EOTS and DAS are contributors to the fusion engine.


viewtopic.php?t=14705

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 00:57
by quicksilver
"Enhancing the capabilities of Boeing’s fighter jet would come with a significant bill and narrow the price gap, Clark noted. The cost of that F/A-18 then goes up as you add all these improvements to try to make it more like an F-35,” he said. “You’re creating an airplane that costs almost as much” as the joint strike fighter is projected to cost a few years from now."

The quote being from Bryan Clark of CSBA in an article earlier in this thread. And that doesn't even include the big dollars necessary to SLEP SHs to 9K hrs (as in 10s of millions of dollars per jet) -- same problem the F-15 SLEP faces and a reason why that idea suddenly became unattractive to the USAF (as recently noted in public by the new COMACC).

Interesting to notice that a couple months after BA reportedly had an "F-18XT" paper in the hands of the presumptive WH Chief of Staff at the Boeing PEOTUS event in Charleston (and a couple months after a SecDef directed review of F-35C vs SH), they're out in the public domain pushing to keep their undeveloped, untested, and as yet unfunded idea afloat. Sounds like no one is buying yet...

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 03:52
by 35_aoa
The "block II" SH is a great jet, for what it is. If the super super ends up being a thing, it will be a nice incremental improvement. What it won't be is a replacement for the F-35. I think that much is apparent to just about anyone who is familiar with either program. I'd liken it to what the F-4E did for the Phantom fleet in its later years, or perhaps something like the A-4S. A very mature, if not dated platform, in its best possible configuration. But like anything, you can only economically stuff a 20 year old airframe with so much *new* stuff, before you begin to reach diminishing returns. I think conformals and EPE motors will be the best things to come out of this program, again, if funded for US consumption. Beyond that, you can spend billions turning it into an "F-35 Lite", but there comes a point where it is just more practical to buy more F-35's, and likely save some money in the process.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 12:05
by ricnunes
quicksilver wrote:I am told that EOTS has an IRST function today, as we speak/type (another one that Boeing apparently managed to 'overlook' in its presentations. See the undiscerning Breaking Defense pieces from a normally adult reporter last week). Its scan volume (a mechanical scan) is currently limited until 3F release later this year. DAS also performs an IRST function, albeit without the zoom/resolution capability of the EOTS. Its advantage -- by virtue of its 6 locations on the jet -- is 360 degree spherical coverage. Thus, it 'looks' (stares, actually) where EOTS cannot. It is sensitive enough have detected and tracked a Falcon 9 from launch at Cape Canaveral to beyond second stage burnout from over 800 miles. (see link from earlier discussion below) Both EOTS and DAS are contributors to the fusion engine.


viewtopic.php?t=14705


Exactly!
And I would also like to add the following:
- Unless I'm missing something IRSTs usually don't have zoom/resolution capabilities or at least considerable ones. What I'm trying to say is that traditionally IRSTs have wide FOV like DAS but lower resolutions compared to DAS.
What I'm also saying is that having zoom/resolution capabilities doesn't necessarily increase the detection range of a IRST sensor. Afterall IRST and EO/FLIR sensors work quite differently.

Of course I'm not saying that having good zoom/resolution capabilities isn't useful (by the contrary) but these capabilities are useful for target ID (identification) and not so much for target detection, this from an IRST point of view.

For example and by looking at the brochure from the IRST carried by the Super Hornet (IRST21, which curiously is manufactured by Lockheed Martin) which can be downloaded here:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... rst-pc.pdf

it doesn't seem to have much zoom/narrow FOV capabilities. Actually it's FOV seems to be wide:

• Long-range infrared scan and detection of airborne threats
• Passive detection and ranging
• Large field of regard
• Immune to electronic deception
• Programmable scan modes
• Low false-alarm rate
• Automatic target detection algorithms
• Multiple mounting options

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 13:12
by hythelday
ricnunes wrote:
quicksilver wrote:I am told that EOTS has an IRST function today, as we speak/type (another one that Boeing apparently managed to 'overlook' in its presentations. See the undiscerning Breaking Defense pieces from a normally adult reporter last week). Its scan volume (a mechanical scan) is currently limited until 3F release later this year. DAS also performs an IRST function, albeit without the zoom/resolution capability of the EOTS. Its advantage -- by virtue of its 6 locations on the jet -- is 360 degree spherical coverage. Thus, it 'looks' (stares, actually) where EOTS cannot. It is sensitive enough have detected and tracked a Falcon 9 from launch at Cape Canaveral to beyond second stage burnout from over 800 miles. (see link from earlier discussion below) Both EOTS and DAS are contributors to the fusion engine.


viewtopic.php?t=14705


Exactly!
And I would also like to add the following:
- Unless I'm missing something IRSTs usually don't have zoom/resolution capabilities or at least considerable ones. What I'm trying to say is that traditionally IRSTs have wide FOV like DAS but lower resolutions compared to DAS.
What I'm also saying is that having zoom/resolution capabilities doesn't necessarily increase the detection range of a IRST sensor. Afterall IRST and EO/FLIR sensors work quite differently.

Of course I'm not saying that having good zoom/resolution capabilities isn't useful (by the contrary) but these capabilities are useful for target ID (identification) and not so much for target detection, this from an IRST point of view.



Now I don't know if the following is true, but seeing how "sensor fusion" and "network warfare" is very prominent on F-35, I don't think zooming in is that necessary for DAS to ID target in most cases: if DAS detects airborne target it should be able to tell between aircraft/missile based on speed/maneuver; if it turns out to be aircraft it would most likely use radar/EW/ or ask other nodes on the network to determine if given aircraft might be hostile. Resolution good enough for visual ID by pilot would only be needed in case every other trick up F-35 computing capabilities' sleeve fails.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 13:37
by hornetfinn
ricnunes wrote:[
Exactly!
And I would also like to add the following:
- Unless I'm missing something IRSTs usually don't have zoom/resolution capabilities or at least considerable ones. What I'm trying to say is that traditionally IRSTs have wide FOV like DAS but lower resolutions compared to DAS.
What I'm also saying is that having zoom/resolution capabilities doesn't necessarily increase the detection range of a IRST sensor. Afterall IRST and EO/FLIR sensors work quite differently.

Of course I'm not saying that having good zoom/resolution capabilities isn't useful (by the contrary) but these capabilities are useful for target ID (identification) and not so much for target detection, this from an IRST point of view.

For example and by looking at the brochure from the IRST carried by the Super Hornet (IRST21, which curiously is manufactured by Lockheed Martin) which can be downloaded here:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... rst-pc.pdf

it doesn't seem to have much zoom/narrow FOV capabilities. Actually it's FOV seems to be wide:

• Long-range infrared scan and detection of airborne threats
• Passive detection and ranging
• Large field of regard
• Immune to electronic deception
• Programmable scan modes
• Low false-alarm rate
• Automatic target detection algorithms
• Multiple mounting options


Field of Rregard refers to total area where a sensor can see by pointing the sensor. For IRST systems it's usually something like +-70-80 degrees in azimuth and +-30 degrees in elevation. It must slew the sensor as the instantaneous Field of View (FoV) is usually much smaller, something like 3-16 degrees depending on system. To cover the whole are it would need to scan the whole area like radar and with say 10 degrees FoV, it would take something like several seconds to cover the whole Field of Regard.

An example is Skyward-G IRST: http://www.leonardocompany.com/document ... nload_file

It has 3 magnifications with 8-30 degrees FoV. I'm sure EOTS has much narrower FoV as it's also FLIR system which usually have something like 1 degrees for narrowest FoV (and highest magnification).

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 14:20
by Dragon029
ricnunes wrote:And I would also like to add the following:
- Unless I'm missing something IRSTs usually don't have zoom/resolution capabilities or at least considerable ones. What I'm trying to say is that traditionally IRSTs have wide FOV like DAS but lower resolutions compared to DAS.
What I'm also saying is that having zoom/resolution capabilities doesn't necessarily increase the detection range of a IRST sensor. Afterall IRST and EO/FLIR sensors work quite differently.

As Hornetfinn pointed out, I think you're getting mixed up - Field of Regard is where you can look, Field of View is how much you can see in the direction you're looking. For DAS, these figures are the same, because each sensor is solid-state and staring. With EOTS, you have a large field of regard, but a very tight field of view at the maximum magnifications.

As for detection and FOV; keep in mind that seeing a pixel get warmer doesn't necessarily constitute detection. Having a higher resolution and tighter field of view allows you to theoretically see a 0.01 degree wide pixel on the horizon get significantly hotter versus seeing a 1 degree wide pixel get marginally hotter. Atmospheric distortion will result in diminishing returns, but it does help.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 22:44
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:Field of Rregard refers to total area where a sensor can see by pointing the sensor. For IRST systems it's usually something like +-70-80 degrees in azimuth and +-30 degrees in elevation. It must slew the sensor as the instantaneous Field of View (FoV) is usually much smaller, something like 3-16 degrees depending on system. To cover the whole are it would need to scan the whole area like radar and with say 10 degrees FoV, it would take something like several seconds to cover the whole Field of Regard.

An example is Skyward-G IRST: http://www.leonardocompany.com/document ... nload_file

It has 3 magnifications with 8-30 degrees FoV. I'm sure EOTS has much narrower FoV as it's also FLIR system which usually have something like 1 degrees for narrowest FoV (and highest magnification).


First of all thanks for the info hornetfinn.

Yes I had my suspicions that Field of Regard is not the same as Field of View. After your post I acknowledged that Field of Regard could be a combination of some Fields of View (FOV), right?

Also thanks for the document about the Skyward-G IRST. However I must point out that IRST (Skyward-G) is state of the art new/last gen IRST, for example look at the resolution of that thing - it's almost similar to FLIR systems (at least similar to older ones).

Now I have my doubts that older IRST systems such as the ones carried by F-8 Crusaders, F-4 Phantoms, F-14 Tomcats or even the Russian ones had/have nearly similar resolution or even FOVs. Now if this is true this means that IRSTs certainly don't need to have "good" resolutions and likely don't need narrow FOVs in order to detect targets at considerably range (although I'm not denying that this could or would help).

Also by looking at the document that you provided on the Skyward-G IRST, there's one interesting point of notice:
Selectable Field Of View (FOV) (Wide – Middle – Narrow)


While in the document that I provided about the IRST21 there's nothing like that. Guess that the "million dollar question" is:
- Is this an omission on the IRST21 specs or is this really a "limitation" of the IRST21 (it doesn't have a selectable FOVs)?

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 23:01
by ricnunes
Dragon029 wrote:As Hornetfinn pointed out, I think you're getting mixed up - Field of Regard is where you can look, Field of View is how much you can see in the direction you're looking. For DAS, these figures are the same, because each sensor is solid-state and staring. With EOTS, you have a large field of regard, but a very tight field of view at the maximum magnifications.


Thanks for the heads up Dragon029.

Dragon029 wrote:As for detection and FOV; keep in mind that seeing a pixel get warmer doesn't necessarily constitute detection. Having a higher resolution and tighter field of view allows you to theoretically see a 0.01 degree wide pixel on the horizon get significantly hotter versus seeing a 1 degree wide pixel get marginally hotter. Atmospheric distortion will result in diminishing returns, but it does help.


Well again I must point out older IRST systems such as the one carried by the F-8 crusader. Those things (IRSTs) only detected "blobs of heat" which in digital systems would mean "pixels".
So if the system (DAS for example) is sensitive enough to see (or in this case detect) a "blob of heat" represented as a "0.01 degree wide pixel" than it doesn't matter much if that same system can zoom in that same "blob of heat" in order to see it as a 1 degree wide pixel, this for detection purposes.
Now in terms of target ID, I admit that this would be a different case. However like hythelday said, due to sensor fusion there are other sensors on the F-35 that would certainly help to ID a target detected by a DAS system (even if it's only a "0.01 degree wide pixel" target)

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2017, 03:03
by blindpilot
hythelday wrote:...
Now I don't know if the following is true, but seeing how "sensor fusion" and "network warfare" is very prominent on F-35, I don't think zooming in is that necessary for DAS to ID target in most cases: ... it would most likely use radar/EW/ or ask other nodes on the network to determine if given aircraft might be hostile. ...


ricnunes wrote:... However like hythelday said, due to sensor fusion there are other sensors on the F-35 that would certainly help to ID a target detected by a DAS system (even if it's only a "0.01 degree wide pixel" target)


This is the hard part for4th gen thinkers to get their heads around. Pixels, zoom, fields and resolution etc. are not the test of a 5th gen system of systems. In fact, in the F-35 the pilot doesn`t know/care where the data came from. Did you hear that? Most of the time .... He doesn`t even know!

Where the 4th gen pilot is reaching across his body to throw a switch on the throttle side, while holding down a button on his HOTAS throttle with the other hand ... so the blip on the third screen which is behind his now crossed over arm, ... and he tries to find/focus on a blur that he saw on the HUD for a moment... SO HE CAN GET A BEAUTIFUL PICTURE of a possible target...

The F-35 pilot just has an icon on his visor that says hostile SU-35, incoming .. at .. with etc. etc.and the data MAY HAVE COME FROM an acoustical sensor on a jeep that heard Ivan`s ipod playing the William Tell Overture! He doesn`t really know or care as long as it is right.

Folks are still measuring speed and range and ...Pixels! Fifth Gen doesn`t work that way.

And Boeing`s marketing statements lead me to wonder, how good can the Super Duper really be if they don`t even "get it?"

MHO
BP

PS I believe Boeing does "get it," and they know the SH "sensor fusion" is not in the F-35`s league, so they talk about speed and range and pixels... It`s called obfuscating.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2017, 05:12
by Dragon029
ricnunes wrote:So if the system (DAS for example) is sensitive enough to see (or in this case detect) a "blob of heat" represented as a "0.01 degree wide pixel" than it doesn't matter much if that same system can zoom in that same "blob of heat" in order to see it as a 1 degree wide pixel, this for detection purposes.

The difference is that the DAS doesn't just detect missile plumes and jet exhausts; it detects the heat of everything from the sun to missile plumes, to warm rocks on the ground.

If (hypothetically) each DAS sensor only had a single bolometer (only had a single pixel), but still had a 120 degree FOV and still detected the same range of temperatures, it wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it's entire FOV rising a fraction of a degree (maybe the jet flies past a cloud, which isn't very hot, but is still significantly hotter than the empty space / atmosphere behind it), or a small point of its FOV rising a significant temperature (like with a missile launch). All this hypothetical sensor sensor sees is the average temperature across its entire FOV. If it had optical filters to block all but a narrow range of frequencies / temperatures produced by rocket plumes, etc, then a single bolometer does work for missile detection.

If you take a bolometer, give it optics that have a narrow FOV (eg, 1x1 degree) and mechanically scan it, the heat from a rocket plume will make a significantly greater change to the average temperature seen in that 1x1 degree FOV; far greater than if you just fly past a cloud. Alternatively, if you don't want to deal with a slow, mechanically scanned system, you can set up hundreds or thousands of (micro)bolometers to each cover a 1x1 degree FOV, but together cover a combined FOV of (eg) 120x120 degrees. That's what the F-35's DAS does.

If you increased the resolution by two orders of magnitude, you could narrow the FOV of each microbolometer to 0.1x0.1 degree, which would result in even greater ability to detect the hot pinpricks of jet engines or rocket plumes, further in the distance.

What I also mentioned however is that there are diminishing returns; light and IR photons get diffused / refracted within the atmosphere, so those pinpricks of heat will at some point start appearing more like blobs that cover multiple pixels as soon as they appear over the horizon. Also, unless the overall size of the sensor keeps getting bigger (imagine a DAS window that was a metre wide), you're going to end up with smaller and smaller microbolometers which will have progressively noisier signals, as you rely on fewer photons and each photon (some of which will come from random directions) has a greater say in what that microbolometer thinks it saw.

Now I know what I've written above sounds confusing (including to me), but here's an image example:

Here are two images in IR, one with a MANPAD flash photoshopped in, one without. Looking at the pixelated upper images, not even a single thing has changed - the flash wasn't enough to change the pixel's 8-bit colour value at all.

Image

Here's another image where each quadrant shows the version of the flash; the red arrow points to it in every quadrant and the blue arrow points to my human best guess of where I would have thought it was, based on brightness and size - it's not until the third image that you can tell, although even then it'd be hard to distinguish between it and just the side of a building.

Image

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2017, 15:51
by ricnunes
Dragon029 wrote:The difference is that the DAS doesn't just detect missile plumes and jet exhausts; it detects the heat of everything from the sun to missile plumes, to warm rocks on the ground.


Of course it doesn't. DAS is a set of IR sensors.
The sensors that "only" (note the quotes) detect missile plumes and jet exhausts are UV (Ultraviolet) sensors. DAS is a set of IR sensors. I will get to this down below.


Dragon029 wrote:If (hypothetically) each DAS sensor only had a single bolometer (only had a single pixel), but still had a 120 degree FOV and still detected the same range of temperatures, it wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it's entire FOV rising a fraction of a degree (maybe the jet flies past a cloud, which isn't very hot, but is still significantly hotter than the empty space / atmosphere behind it), or a small point of its FOV rising a significant temperature (like with a missile launch). All this hypothetical sensor sensor sees is the average temperature across its entire FOV. If it had optical filters to block all but a narrow range of frequencies / temperatures produced by rocket plumes, etc, then a single bolometer does work for missile detection.


Yes, I must admit that your explanation is a bit confusing but if I understood it correctly I think there's something that looks a bit odd in what you've written:
You seem to imply that an IR image generated by an IR sensor (such as DAS) basically results from "average temperature across its entire FOV" but I believe that's not the case, at least not the case with the latest generation of IR sensors such as DAS. These latest gen IR sensors are extremely precise and detects a much wider range of temperatures than previous/older IR sensors.
What I mean with this is that from everything I've read about such sensors is that the generated image is indeed the "actual/precise temperature across its entire FOV" (and not the average). Note that it's this temperature precision that allows us (or better yet, the pilot) to see high quality/definition images that nowadays almost rival with images captured by light-spectrum EO sensors (such as TV) or even by our own eyes (although monochromatic).
Or putting in another perspective it's the small (actually tiny) differences in temperature reflected by the surrounding objects and the sensor's ability to detect those same differences in temperature that allows the very high definition IR images to be generated by the latest IR sensors such as DAS (such as the ones you posted where a small town/village can be clearly seen).

Regarding the rest of your post, which if I understood corrected was based on the "interpretation" of the heat signatures and how a "zoomed" image can be better interpreted than non-zoomed images.
But don't forget that the F-35 comes with a very complex software which can interpret a number of parameters in a magnitude much higher than previously possible. For example is this same complex software that allows the interpretation of several different heat sources detected by the DAS sensors and distinguish between them, like for example distinguish between aircraft or missiles or other stuff.
Previously (or with previous gen of combat aircraft like 4th and 4.5th) you usually would need different sets of sensors just to detect and distinguish missiles and aircraft apart - For example you would use IR sensors to detect aircraft while the same aircraft would also need to carry UV sensor to detect missiles (thru the detection of the missile's plume). But again and now with the F-35 the same IR sensors (DAS) detects aircraft and missile alike and discriminates between them (in large part due to the software).

Also and please note that I'm not saying that narrow FOVs don't or won't help with detection but what I mean with this, is that a high definition IR set of sensors such as DAS coupled with highly advanced and complex software is or will be able to detect (and discriminate between) same/similar targets which previously and probably required sensors with narrower FOVs (or even with other electromagnetic-spectrum sensors - in case of missiles for example).

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2017, 18:24
by mixelflick
My kingdom for the Hornet/Super Hornet's retirement.

God I can't wait 'till this one flys off into the sunset...

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2017, 23:16
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:My kingdom for the Hornet/Super Hornet's retirement.

God I can't wait 'till this one flys off into the sunset...


Amen! (and this from someone who used to be a Hornet/Super Hornet fan)

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2017, 23:50
by Tiger05
mixelflick wrote:My kingdom for the Hornet/Super Hornet's retirement.

God I can't wait 'till this one flys off into the sunset...


Ditto. Looking forward to see the first SHs arrive at AMARG... but its unlikely to happen in the near/mid-term future i am afraid.

It absolutely baffles me that under current plans the USN will fly them until the 2040s. :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2017, 00:56
by Dragon029
ricnunes wrote:You seem to imply that an IR image generated by an IR sensor (such as DAS) basically results from "average temperature across its entire FOV" but I believe that's not the case, at least not the case with the latest generation of IR sensors such as DAS. These latest gen IR sensors are extremely precise and detects a much wider range of temperatures than previous/older IR sensors.
What I mean with this is that from everything I've read about such sensors is that the generated image is indeed the "actual/precise temperature across its entire FOV" (and not the average).

That's the issue; we're not talking about the temperature across its entire FOV, we're talking about the temperature across the FOV covered by each individual pixel.

Look at it this way, DAS has a FOV of (at least, but let's assume exactly) 120 degrees and is either a 1 megapixel or 4 megapixel sensor, based on discoveries in another thread a while back. Let's assume they're 1MP sensors; this means that each DAS sensor has 1 million pixels, with a square resolution of 1000x1000 pixels.

If that's the case, then each individual little microbolometer that makes up a DAS focal plane array has its own FOV of 0.12 degrees. Within that 0.12 degree FOV, it's only possible for that microbolometer to see the average temperature - all that little pixel is doing is outputting a voltage that represents how many times its been hit by an infrared photon coming from that 0.12 degree FOV.

0.12 degrees may sound very precise and for many duties it certainly is; I'm not saying that DAS is a bad system at all. However, at 100km, 0.12 degrees corresponds to a 210 meter wide swath. What that means is that it's very possible for something like a large bonfire or housefire, or a gas power plant, or certain factories, etc to output as many (if not more) IR photons as a fighter jet flying towards the F-35.

DAS in particular can detect and show 256 different levels of temperature (ie a DAS image can show 256 shades of grey).

But don't forget that the F-35 comes with a very complex software which can interpret a number of parameters in a magnitude much higher than previously possible. For example is this same complex software that allows the interpretation of several different heat sources detected by the DAS sensors and distinguish between them, like for example distinguish between aircraft or missiles or other stuff.


Agreed; a housefire for example is unlikely to ever be falsely detected as an enemy jet by virtue of it staying in place, relative to the ground. All I'm saying however is that at longer (beyond visual) ranges like 50-100km, the accuracy of each microbolometer makes it easier for enemies to stay hidden (because at those ranges it's extremely hard / nearly impossible to tell if that housefire is on the ground, or if it's an enemy jet (flying lower than you and flying along a path that's parallel with yours). As it gets closer, it gets easier to determine whether the apparent, gradual shift in this blob of heat is due to atmospheric distortion, or by virtue of it being a moving fighter jet. With a higher resolution, you can discriminate this blob of heat and its movements easier, allowing for detection (which requires this basic level of identification [fire on the ground vs airborne object]).

Also and please note that I'm not saying that narrow FOVs don't or won't help with detection but what I mean with this, is that a high definition IR set of sensors such as DAS coupled with highly advanced and complex software is or will be able to detect (and discriminate between) same/similar targets which previously and probably required sensors with narrower FOVs (or even with other electromagnetic-spectrum sensors - in case of missiles for example).


No arguments here, I'm just saying that if you want a BVR / long range IRST for detecting aircraft (that happen to be somewhere in front of you), the EOTS has a better chance of detecting them earlier on - if the EOTS hypothetically has a minimum (max optical zoom) FOV of 1x1 degree and it happens to also be a 1MP sensor, each of it's pixels will cover a 0.001 degree FOV, corresponding to a 1.7m wide swath at 100km, making it a lot easier to determine if the IR energy reaching it is clutter or an airborne unknown worth noting to the pilot.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2017, 17:23
by ricnunes
Dragon029,

Your general assessment about resolution/pixels/range seems interesting and I'm certainly not disputing it.
I'm also not disputing that EOTS has or could have longer detection range in IRST mode compared to DAS - to be honest I trend to believe in this.

However what I'm saying is that:
- DAS detection range isn't WVR. DAS detection range (IRST mode) seems definitely to be BVR. Lower than EOTS? Perhaps and likely so, but nevertheless BVR (and on top of that 360º coverage).

About specific details of your assessment I would say that I have my doubts that the DAS sensors have (only) a 1 megapixel resolution. I say this mainly because of two reasons:
1- DAS is used for navigation so its sensors resolution is High - this is confirmed by some sources and well as by looking at actual DAS imagery.
2- Nowadays a 1 megapixel resolution is hardly considered "High" or even "barely high". But still yes, technically a 1 megapixel is considered to be in the lower end of the "high resolution".

However EOTS is also considered to have a "high resolution". I know that the following is "empiric observation" at best but by looking at actual imagery from both EOTS and DAS it seems clear to me that the DAS resolution is considerably higher compared to EOTS resolution.
For example and since EOTS resolution is also "high" this means that if EOTS has a resolution of 1 megapixel than DAS resolution would be likely higher than that.
If this is true (DAS having a higher resolution than EOTS) than this can hardly considered a surprise at all since DAS is (also) used for navigation and therefore it should have higher resolution requirements (compared to EOTS) - actually this has a well known precedent in history with the Apache attack helicopter where there are also two IR sensors in this case the PNVS which has a higher resolution which provides the Night Vision (navigation) to the pilot and TADS with lower resolution compared to PNVS which provides targeting imagery (usually to the gunner).
And the Apache's PNVS can roughly be considered a "counterpart" of the F-35's DAS while TADS a counterpart of EOTS.

So if DAS has a higher resolution than EOTS (which again I believe it does) your comparison and analysis about DAS wouldn't be so straightforward.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2017, 03:52
by Dragon029
ricnunes wrote:However what I'm saying is that:
- DAS detection range isn't WVR. DAS detection range (IRST mode) seems definitely to be BVR. Lower than EOTS? Perhaps and likely so, but nevertheless BVR (and on top of that 360º coverage).

Again, no arguments here; I just doubt that DAS will be able to detect jets, etc from 2/3 the range that EOTS will be able to (assuming the EOTS happens to look in the right direction)

About specific details of your assessment I would say that I have my doubts that the DAS sensors have (only) a 1 megapixel resolution. I say this mainly because of two reasons:
1- DAS is used for navigation so its sensors resolution is High - this is confirmed by some sources and well as by looking at actual DAS imagery.
2- Nowadays a 1 megapixel resolution is hardly considered "High" or even "barely high". But still yes, technically a 1 megapixel is considered to be in the lower end of the "high resolution".


While it's possible that the DAS sensors are 4MP; I lean more towards 1MP for a couple of reasons:

1. 1MP was still quite state of the art when the F-35 started flying; I've only worked with one targeting pod before, which entered service about a decade ago, and it had a ~0.3MP resolution, despite being designed for a high-end tactical fighter.

2. DAS uses a technology known as micro-scanning, where computers interpolate details smaller than a pixel (EOTS probably has this integrated too) by comparing subsequent frames in a video feed. If you look at videos of DAS footage (like this one), there is a good level of detail, but at the finer levels it's noticeably blurry; it looks upscaled; note that the later half of the video shows a 60 degree wide FOV. If you take a still of the footage, it also doesn't really lose any real detail until you start going <500 pixels wide.

However EOTS is also considered to have a "high resolution". I know that the following is "empiric observation" at best but by looking at actual imagery from both EOTS and DAS it seems clear to me that the DAS resolution is considerably higher compared to EOTS resolution.


"High resolution" is a bit of a catch term for industry; SNIPER XR for example is a "high resolution" sensor (despite also being about 0.3MP - this is the 2000s era SNIPER XR, not the newest SNIPER ATP-SE pods) and EOTS is based off of it.

If this is true (DAS having a higher resolution than EOTS) than this can hardly considered a surprise at all since DAS is (also) used for navigation and therefore it should have higher resolution requirements (compared to EOTS) - actually this has a well known precedent in history with the Apache attack helicopter where there are also two IR sensors in this case the PNVS which has a higher resolution which provides the Night Vision (navigation) to the pilot and TADS with lower resolution compared to PNVS which provides targeting imagery (usually to the gunner).
And the Apache's PNVS can roughly be considered a "counterpart" of the F-35's DAS while TADS a counterpart of EOTS.


Don't forget that the F-35's pilot has a 1600x1200 night vision camera in the forehead of their HMDS; that's designed to be their primary night-navigation vision system; DAS is primarily a missile launch detection system.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 08:14
by neptune
...now that you have DAS and EOTS "worked out' add in the merged signals from the passive radar from the additional F-35s and you then have another capability that "No SBug" will ever implement. Stealth and Passive detection and tracking...the last thing the SBug will ever know is the missile warning from their threat receivers and self-protection jammers...... :twisted:

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 18:22
by blindpilot
neptune wrote:...now that you have DAS and EOTS "worked out' add in the merged signals from the passive radar from the additional F-35s and you then have another capability that "No SBug" will ever implement. Stealth and Passive detection and tracking...the last thing the SBug will ever know is the missile warning from their threat receivers and self-protection jammers...... :twisted:


Amen! and as I noted ..
blindpilot wrote:...
Folks are still measuring speed and range and ...Pixels! Fifth Gen doesn`t work that way.
... so they talk about speed and range and pixels... It`s called obfuscating.


So since the pixels didn`t work out I propose we help Boeing out with a different approach.

<MASSIVE Sarc On>
I notice that the F-18E/F has a height of 4.88 Meters, and normally we convert that to 16 feet ...
The F-35 height is 4.33 meters. or converted to 14.2 feet, but .2 feet is actually 2.4 inches ... so according to the rules of obfuscation, since the height of the F-35 does not round off to the exact number of inches we have to calculate to the nearest complete feet, and then add one foot to get an exact number. I read somewhere, that there is a vibration harmonic at 15 feet, that causes control problems at 90 degrees of AoA. Since the SH does not have this problem, the taller height of 16 feet is actually an advantage .. according to this stuff ... I read somewhere ...
<Sarc Off>

And you know what, it still doesn`t matter. The SH is dead in today`s world, and the F-35C isn`t. Assuming we care about things that actually matter.

MHO
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 18:32
by ricnunes
Dragon029 wrote:Don't forget that the F-35's pilot has a 1600x1200 night vision camera in the forehead of their HMDS; that's designed to be their primary night-navigation vision system; DAS is primarily a missile launch detection system.


Ok, after digging a bit more for information I noticed that the F-35's helmet itself also has an integrated Night Vision System (a small camera located in the center forehead part of the helmet).
I admit that I initially thought that the only night vision imagery in the F-35 (and projected to the pilot) came from DAS.

But I wouldn't say that DAS is primarily a missile launch detection system.
DAS is not only primarily "a missile launch detection system", but also primarily "a IRST system", primarily "weapons support and cueing", primarily "a Day/night navigation system", well you get the idea... :wink:
Well, in my opinion the most interesting part of DAS is that it hasn't only "one function" has many other sensors.


neptune wrote:...now that you have DAS and EOTS "worked out' add in the merged signals from the passive radar from the additional F-35s and you then have another capability that "No SBug" will ever implement. Stealth and Passive detection and tracking...the last thing the SBug will ever know is the missile warning from their threat receivers and self-protection jammers...... :twisted:


Yup, I couldn't agree more :)

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 19:23
by blindpilot
blindpilot wrote:...
And you know what, it still doesn`t matter. The SH is dead in today`s world, and the F-35C isn`t. Assuming we care about things that actually matter.


Really we just need to watch the news these days.With Baltic and Syrian and Iranian and North Korea IADS missiles sprouting up everywhere, and talk of bombing this and bombing that, the SH looks less and less like a first day attack system and more and more like a second week bomb truck.

Just evaluate how we think when we hear the news. Hmmm ..I guess Tomahawks are safe as long as ... did you hear whether the Russians intercepted any? ... no? ... good. I`m just not sure how good those missiles are any more unless you swarm them ... If they put the S-400 in Syria .... can we fly SHs still? ... do we have to accept the risk .. or do we need to launch DEAD sorties and take them out? ... This is getting dicey ....

Compare that with how we think about the stealth aircraft ...well a B-2 with a MOP could handle that ... Good thing we have F-22/35s now in the Baltics/Far East ... etc. etc.

We will still use cruise missiles as low risk first options. But the stealth force creates a totally different mind set/worry, than the F-16/18/15/SH options.

Doesn`t that say it all? Examine your own thoughts, concerns,when you hear the news ... bombing Syrian bases, attacking NK Nuclear sites, Patrolling the Baltics .. Do you think, "No Problem! We`ll just send in some Super Hornets!" ? I don`t think so.

I think we are just saying, "Let`s buy more second week bomb trucks." How much do we want to spend on that?

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 21:38
by neptune
blindpilot wrote:[quote="blindpilot.......well a B-2 with a MOP could handle that ....BP


...has any one ever speculated on how big the "hole" (a new geographical reference?) will be?.....and ..... is the second parachute drop "5 short handled shovels"?
:P

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2017, 08:11
by spazsinbad
Previous couple of pages this thread describe OBOGs issues - they continue for the T-45C & Hornets - LOX ME UP Scottie!

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/new- ... ht-limits/

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2017, 05:20
by spazsinbad
I'll plonk this 'budget article' here because it ain't over 'til its over becuz the President has to sign it be Fritag. :doh: :roll:
US lawmakers reach 2017 budget deal through September
01 May 2017 Joe Gould

"...The bill funds 74 F-35 fighter jets at $8.2 billion, with $1.1 billion for 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets — a dozen more than requested...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us- ... udget-deal

Omnibus Spending Bill Gives Navy $21B for Shipbuilding, $16B for Aircraft; Additional Aviation Maintenance Spending
01 May 2017 Megan Eckstein

"House and Senate appropriators reached an agreement to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year that includes a $593-billion defense spending package to allow the Navy and Marine Corps to continue with planned ship and aircraft procurement and readiness increases.

This bill represents a compromise between the House and the Senate appropriations committees’ Fiscal Year 2017 spending bills, plus some additional money from the Trump Administration’s March 2017 request for supplemental funding to address near- and mid-term readiness shortfalls – about $15 billion in supplemental spending, compared to the $30 billion the administration requested.

This spending bill would give the Navy a $21.2-billion shipbuilding account, well above the recent average, as well as an $16.1-billion aircraft procurement account....

...The Navy would be able to buy Boeing 12 F/A-18E-F Super Hornets and two additional Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighters to help deal with its fighter shortfall, as well as 11 Boeing P-8A Poseidon multi-mission maritime aircraft. The Marine Corps would receive funding for four additional Joint Strike Fighters – two F-35B short-takeoff and vertical-landing variants and two F-35C carrier variants to help accelerate the retirement of its aging fixed-wing inventory.

In all, this compromise bill gives the Navy $48.8 billion for procurement, compared to the $44 billion it requested for this year....

...In all, the Navy and Marine Corps received $16.1 billion for aircraft compared to their requested $14.1 billion, or two billion more...

...The government is now funded to run through Friday, May 5. This compromise bill was announced on Sunday, April 30, and due to the short timeline for passing the omnibus spending measure – which includes spending packages for defense and all other federal departments and agencies, all within a single bill – it is unlikely that any additional changes will be made. Both the House and Senate will have to pass the bill and send it to the president to sign before the end of the day on Friday to avert a government shutdown."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/05/01/omnibu ... more-25436

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2017, 10:28
by spazsinbad
OH well we look forward to the USN buying more shitebag hypoxia inducing SupaHornets to test the mettle of their pilots.
Cockpit Oxygen Episodes Sideline Navy Pilots Fighting ISIS
05 May 2017 Hope Hodge Seck

""ABOARD THE USS GEORGE H. W. BUSH, Persian Gulf -- The U.S.S. George H. W. Bush in January became the first East Coast-based carrier to deploy with a specialized piece of medical equipment aboard: a hyperbaric chamber, or "transportable recompression system," designed to treat pilots who experience hypoxia-like symptoms in the cockpit. Fewer than four months into the deployment, it has already been used twice for that purpose....

...In both incidents, the pilots involved were fortunate in that the episodes occurred near the carrier, allowing them to land quickly and seek treatment. If an episode had begun above an urban ground fight over Iraq or Syria, the available options might have been more limited, and certainly more complex. Having the recompression chamber aboard to treat pilots' symptoms was a measure that emerged from aviators' feedback, McCall said....

...McCall said the decision to deploy the system -- an egg-shaped pod six to seven feet long -- aboard the Bush was made just weeks before the carrier departed port. "That would not have happened without a dialogue from aviators in squadrons right to the three-star level," he said. "I'll be honest, we've moved that dialogue fairly quickly."

Other mitigation and detection measures also represent firsts for the carrier. McCall said the carrier was the first to deploy its fighters equipped with "slam sticks," small devices that measure cockpit air pressure and other factors, and can provide diagnostics following a mission....

...Another measure, designed to help pilots detect cockpit problems before they can physically feel them, is a true improvisation: the wearing of commercially available Garmin watches, equipped with altimeters and barometric sensors, that can be set to sound alarms when certain thresholds are reached...."

Source: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017 ... -isis.html

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2017, 10:31
by spazsinbad
Earlier in another thread (probably OBOGS for the F-35) there was OLD info about it. This PDF looks to be Newer - maybe.
On-Board Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS)
16 Jan 2008 Honeywell Life Support Systems

Existing applications of OBOGS
Honeywell systems have been in service for over 20 years and are currently used by many Air Forces worldwide on aircraft which include: • JSF F-35 • Eurofighter • F-22 • Hawk LIF • Nimrod • Gripen • PC-21 • B-1B • B-2B”

Source: https://aerocontent.honeywell.com/aero/ ... ystems.pdf (4Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2017, 18:41
by southernphantom
spazsinbad wrote:OH well we look forward to the USN buying more shitebag hypoxia inducing SupaHornets to test the mettle of their pilots.


I cannot believe that this problem has not been solved by now. This has been going on for years, and now affects the legacy Bugs as well. The Raptor hypoxia problem was at least comparatively simple...what a cluster****.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2017, 21:53
by pmi
spazsinbad wrote:OH well we look forward to the USN buying more shitebag hypoxia inducing SupaHornets to test the mettle of their pilots.


Classy.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2017, 00:18
by spazsinbad
Yes I am - No Shornet is not.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2017, 00:25
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:OH well we look forward to the USN buying more shitebag hypoxia inducing SupaHornets to test the mettle of their pilots.

Remember all the fuss about the F-22 OBOGS issues and "physiological issues"? The root cause had practically nothing to do with the OBOGS, and was a faulty BRAG valve.

As I'm sure you're aware, tactical jets pull enough Gs with a fast enough onset to literally take the pilots breath away. Poor breathing technique can cause or exacerbate physiological issues, resulting in acceleration atelectasis or general difficulty breathing.

The other thing to remember is there is a myriad of physiological symptoms (including hangover effects from too many beers! Quite unlikely though!) that would be relieved by Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, which is being used to treat the pilots suffering from hypoxia-like symptoms. BTW Treatment protocol for cockpit decompression is different than for hypoxia incidents.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2017, 01:21
by spazsinbad
USN Naval Aviation has dropped the ball on this issue for a long time. Sure it is difficult to diagnose cause for remedy however what is being done NOW should have been done years ago. I'll repost this PDF which has been posted before. There are a lot more APPROACH stories BEFORE 2011 that I have not bothered to search out - meanwhile.... page 12 this thread...

Same PDF posted here back in Dec 2016: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=358664&hilit=atelectasis#p358664
&/OR
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=21719&p=240494&hilit=atelectasis#p240494

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2017, 01:37
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:USN Naval Aviation has dropped the ball on this issue for a long time. Sure it is difficult to diagnose cause for remedy however what is being done NOW should have been done years ago.

Not disagreeing that the Navy dropped the ball on this one. I just think that saying "shitebag... SupaHornets" is a little off the mark, because for all we know, hypoxia like physiological issues could occur in a F-35 at some point in the near future.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2017, 01:42
by spazsinbad
Would 'smells like teen spirit' be better. I can say what I please within bounds to express my opinion and my opinion is lower than a snake duodenum on this issue. Why buy more FAULTY Super Hornets? And... So after 90,000+ flight hours this issue has NOT arisen for the F-35 HONEYWELL OBOGS? OMG the sky might fall - if we are predicting - this problem will get worse for the Hornets/Goshawk because the USN have been LATE to the PARTEH. It is odourless I guess - lack of spirit.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2017, 04:14
by southernphantom
neurotech wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:OH well we look forward to the USN buying more shitebag hypoxia inducing SupaHornets to test the mettle of their pilots.

Remember all the fuss about the F-22 OBOGS issues and "physiological issues"? The root cause had practically nothing to do with the OBOGS, and was a faulty BRAG valve.

As I'm sure you're aware, tactical jets pull enough Gs with a fast enough onset to literally take the pilots breath away. Poor breathing technique can cause or exacerbate physiological issues, resulting in acceleration atelectasis or general difficulty breathing.

The other thing to remember is there is a myriad of physiological symptoms (including hangover effects from too many beers! Quite unlikely though!) that would be relieved by Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, which is being used to treat the pilots suffering from hypoxia-like symptoms. BTW Treatment protocol for cockpit decompression is different than for hypoxia incidents.


I'm a pretty big Super Bug fan, so I'm not just slinging mud at a platform I dislike. Please examine what exactly is going on with these 'physiological events'. It's more than O2 getting cut off- there seems to be actual contamination in the supply.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2017, 04:26
by spazsinbad
'neurotech' you need to read about it: "...Poor breathing technique can cause or exacerbate physiological issues, resulting in acceleration atelectasis or general difficulty breathing...." This URL is a good start point - too much oxygen is the issue - under pressure - the pilot is recipient - not cause: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=21719&p=240494&hilit=atelectasis#p240494

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2017, 16:41
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:'neurotech' you need to read about it: "...Poor breathing technique can cause or exacerbate physiological issues, resulting in acceleration atelectasis or general difficulty breathing...." This URL is a good start point - too much oxygen is the issue - under pressure - the pilot is recipient - not cause: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=21719&p=240494&hilit=atelectasis#p240494

Thanks. I guess I worded my earlier comment poorly.

Acceleration atelectasis doesn't just happen, too much oxygen under pressure is what causes acceleration atelectasis. My point was that additional factors can play a role in why it occurs on specific flights. Poor breathing technique was definitely a factor in some Raptor physiological incidents, although resulting in acceleration atelectasis.

Even though the BRAG valve was determined faulty, there were a lot of unanswered questions.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2017, 16:54
by spazsinbad
The term/physical condition is independent of breathing technique. Acceleration atelectasis is the result of oxygen under pressure (whether too much or too little is probably irrelevant) the result is that lung tissue has oxygen replacing other gases when under G (often at low level) the lung collapses and then it is restored by the cough.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=21719&p=240494&hilit=atelectasis#p240494
"Physiology of Flight...Acceleration atelectasis is included in this section only because it occurs when an aviator is breathing 100 percent oxygen. The primary factor responsible for the atelectasis is probably the complete cessation of basilar alveolar ventilation under acceleration. There is also markedly increased blood flow to the basilar alveoli as opposed to the apical ones, along with a reduction in basilar alveolar volumes as the weight of the lung under acceleration compresses the bases against the diaphragm. With these factors acting in concert, and when the alveoli in question contain only oxygen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide, oxygen absorption (the main cause of acceleration atelectasis) leads to alveolar collapse, and atelectasis can occur very rapidly....

...acceleration atelectasis usually resolves itself in a few days with little or no treatment...."
http://www.operationalmedicine.org/Text ... Manual.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2017, 03:20
by spazsinbad
From 5min 40sec there is INFO about BLOCK III Super Hornet upgrades: [no mention of OBOGS] 07 Apr 2017


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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2017, 06:19
by neptune
https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/compa ... ar-BBATkia

Under Trump, Boeing's Super Hornet production set to double

It's been the backbone of naval aviation for four decades and now, as President Donald Trump has repeatedly called attention to the program, the F-18 is getting a second life. Last week, the final 2017 federal budget allotted $1.1 billion for 14 new Super Hornet fighter jets. While it wasn't the 24 fighter jets at $2.3 billion the president had proposed in his supplemental budget proposal, it marked a win nonetheless: the original Defense Department budget proposal, released early last year, had requested none. "We always thought that the Navy buying additional Super Hornets made sense because they need airplanes to last into the 2040s," said Dan Gillian, head of Boeing's (BA) F/A-18 and EA-18 programs. Of course Boeing would think that — and it may have made sense. Still, until recently, the F-18 program had been viewed by many to be a production line on life support, as newer planes including Lockheed Martin's (LMT) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter roll off assembly lines and into future U.S. carrier air wings.

Now, "St. Louis and the fighter business stays on for the next round of programs," said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at Virginia-based industry consultancy Teal Group. "It didn't look like that would be the case a year ago. Super Hornet orders had been expected to be down by end of decade." Boeing's St. Louis, Missouri-based F-18 assembly line complex is currently turning out EA-18G Growlers, the jamming planes outfitted from Super Hornets, for the fiscal 2015 budget year. That year the Navy only ordered Growlers. The following year's budget included five Super Hornets, but the 2017 budget that just passed through Congress is the one that will prove to be an inflection point. "Today we're producing two shipsets per month — Super Hornets and Growlers — in this factory," said Gillian, clad in safety goggles as he walks the plant floor, past stations stocked with workers and plane parts. "As we think about the U.S. Navy's demands for additional airplanes to address the Super Hornet shortfall, as we think about their international demands, we can see that going up to 3 or 4 per month sometime in the early 20s," he said. Boeing anticipates the U.S. Navy will purchase at least another 100 F/A-18s in the five budget cycles beginning with 2018, ensuring its place on aircraft carriers through the next two decades.

The long game, however, isn't the plane it's gearing up to manufacture for its 2016 and 2017 orders. Rather, it's the adoption of a new version called "Block III," which Boeing hopes the Navy will opt for before the decade is out. Block III has a longer life cycle, and more advanced avionics that would better complement the F-35C, EA-18G Growler, and other planes comprising the air wing. The aircraft would act as a smart "node" on the naval fighter "network," Gillian said. Block III is based off of the Advanced Super Hornet the company first unveiled in 2013, though today's version focuses less on stealth and more on capability. The general idea: a stealthy F-35 could conduct short-range reconnaissance??? and transmit that data back to the Super Hornet, which loaded with weapons, could pack the needed punch from farther away. It's this plane that Trump likely had in mind when he asked Boeing to price a "comparable" plane to the fifth generation, stealthy F-35 — a move that caused industry experts to balk but also spurred a Pentagon review of the two fighters' operational capabilities. Still Gillian is quick to stress that Boeing has been engaged in F/A-18 discussions with the Navy for years now, amid inventory shortages. Earlier this year, Navy officials disclosed that two out of every three F-18 fighter planes in its fleet are out of commission on any given day, awaiting repairs. They've been flown hard in a post-9-11 world, which coupled with maintenance backlogs tied to budget cuts, has resulted in a serious maintenance bottleneck for all planes. That coupled with delays for the naval variant of the F-35, which is now expected to be operational in 2018, and the Navy faces a fighter jet shortfall. This is the reason, analysts point out, the service has been pursuing more Super Hornet purchases as it pairs back F-35C orders — even before Trump entered the Oval Office. Aboulafia said over the past five years, the Navy has requested about five times as many Super Hornets as F-35Cs.

Boeing has also developed a service life modification program to extend flight hours from 6,000 up to 9,000 for the more than 560 planes the Navy already operates, as the oldest Super Hornets begin to hit that max threshold in 2018. Cost and timing will likely continue to dictate where future defense dollars go. "The F/A-18 is the legacy fighter and the F-35 is the new fighter. The new fighter is going to have some improvements over the legacy fighter. It's going to be stealthier… and have a longer range. But those factors come at a price and I think President Trump has made it very clear that he's looking for the lowest price possible," said John Eade, president and senior analyst at New York-based Argus Research. The Super Hornet currently costs between $70 million and $75 million, according to Boeing. An advanced version will add $3 million to that price tag. By comparison, the naval variant of the F-35 is $121 million, according to the most recent government contract. Boeing is pouncing on that cost component. In a one-page white paper obtained by Defense One, the company makes the argument for the Defense Department to buy more of its new advanced F/A-18s and fewer F-35Cs, suggesting the move would save tens of billions of dollars over 20 years.
:)

....latest update on the SBUG on May 2017

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2017, 06:32
by spazsinbad
"...as it pairs back F-35C orders..." Jeepers that is something I want to see and "...
"..."The F/A-18 is the legacy fighter and the F-35 is the new fighter. The new fighter is going to have some improvements over the legacy fighter. It's going to be stealthier… and have a longer range. But those factors come at a price and I think President Trump has made it very clear that he's looking for the lowest price possible," said John Eade, president and senior analyst at New York-based Argus Research. The Super Hornet currently costs between $70 million and $75 million, according to Boeing. An advanced version will add $3 million to that price tag. By comparison, the naval variant of the F-35 is $121 million, according to the most recent government contract...."

OMG no mention of OBOGS troubles - EVER! No mention of Full Rate Production FRP F-35C prices (just recent LRIP) for crying out loud - are we idiots? And 'some improvements' oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz - I give up.

AND if the President is such a cheapskate - looking at price only - why not buy gutted of avionics Super Hornet Tankers without OBOGS but LOX so that the 'real' supers can save the day with MORE FUEL - is he going to get a good deal on that?

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2017, 14:02
by steve2267
Someone needs to wisper in Pres Trump's ear that if he were to buy the F-35B for the Navy, rather than the SuperDupers... that he'd be getting a Rolls Royce-powered plane rather than the Supra which is GE-powered. You could then mention that he'd have the best of all worlds: F-35C's albeit in slightly smaller numbers, Supras to keep the Admirals (somewhat) happy, and the Rolls Royce Killer Bees to save the day.

(Seeing has how Mr. Trump had insisted on RR-power for his personal 757.)

This whole buy-more Supra Dupras is just :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2017, 23:42
by popcorn
I don't think Trump's lizard brain even ventures into the technical merits of any particular platform.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2017, 00:09
by sferrin
popcorn wrote:I don't think Trump's lizard brain even ventures into the technical merits of any particular platform.


And yet that "lizard brain" has done more good for this country in 4 months than Zero achieved in 8 years. I think an empty chair in the Oval Office would have done more good. God what a useless puke.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2017, 00:27
by popcorn
LOL

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2017, 14:50
by mixelflick
neptune wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/companies/under-trump-boeings-super-hornet-production-set-to-double/ar-BBATkia

Under Trump, Boeing's Super Hornet production set to double

It's been the backbone of naval aviation for four decades and now, as President Donald Trump has repeatedly called attention to the program, the F-18 is getting a second life. Last week, the final 2017 federal budget allotted $1.1 billion for 14 new Super Hornet fighter jets. While it wasn't the 24 fighter jets at $2.3 billion the president had proposed in his supplemental budget proposal, it marked a win nonetheless: the original Defense Department budget proposal, released early last year, had requested none. "We always thought that the Navy buying additional Super Hornets made sense because they need airplanes to last into the 2040s," said Dan Gillian, head of Boeing's (BA) F/A-18 and EA-18 programs. Of course Boeing would think that — and it may have made sense. Still, until recently, the F-18 program had been viewed by many to be a production line on life support, as newer planes including Lockheed Martin's (LMT) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter roll off assembly lines and into future U.S. carrier air wings.

Now, "St. Louis and the fighter business stays on for the next round of programs," said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at Virginia-based industry consultancy Teal Group. "It didn't look like that would be the case a year ago. Super Hornet orders had been expected to be down by end of decade." Boeing's St. Louis, Missouri-based F-18 assembly line complex is currently turning out EA-18G Growlers, the jamming planes outfitted from Super Hornets, for the fiscal 2015 budget year. That year the Navy only ordered Growlers. The following year's budget included five Super Hornets, but the 2017 budget that just passed through Congress is the one that will prove to be an inflection point. "Today we're producing two shipsets per month — Super Hornets and Growlers — in this factory," said Gillian, clad in safety goggles as he walks the plant floor, past stations stocked with workers and plane parts. "As we think about the U.S. Navy's demands for additional airplanes to address the Super Hornet shortfall, as we think about their international demands, we can see that going up to 3 or 4 per month sometime in the early 20s," he said. Boeing anticipates the U.S. Navy will purchase at least another 100 F/A-18s in the five budget cycles beginning with 2018, ensuring its place on aircraft carriers through the next two decades.

The long game, however, isn't the plane it's gearing up to manufacture for its 2016 and 2017 orders. Rather, it's the adoption of a new version called "Block III," which Boeing hopes the Navy will opt for before the decade is out. Block III has a longer life cycle, and more advanced avionics that would better complement the F-35C, EA-18G Growler, and other planes comprising the air wing. The aircraft would act as a smart "node" on the naval fighter "network," Gillian said. Block III is based off of the Advanced Super Hornet the company first unveiled in 2013, though today's version focuses less on stealth and more on capability. The general idea: a stealthy F-35 could conduct short-range reconnaissance??? and transmit that data back to the Super Hornet, which loaded with weapons, could pack the needed punch from farther away. It's this plane that Trump likely had in mind when he asked Boeing to price a "comparable" plane to the fifth generation, stealthy F-35 — a move that caused industry experts to balk but also spurred a Pentagon review of the two fighters' operational capabilities. Still Gillian is quick to stress that Boeing has been engaged in F/A-18 discussions with the Navy for years now, amid inventory shortages. Earlier this year, Navy officials disclosed that two out of every three F-18 fighter planes in its fleet are out of commission on any given day, awaiting repairs. They've been flown hard in a post-9-11 world, which coupled with maintenance backlogs tied to budget cuts, has resulted in a serious maintenance bottleneck for all planes. That coupled with delays for the naval variant of the F-35, which is now expected to be operational in 2018, and the Navy faces a fighter jet shortfall. This is the reason, analysts point out, the service has been pursuing more Super Hornet purchases as it pairs back F-35C orders — even before Trump entered the Oval Office. Aboulafia said over the past five years, the Navy has requested about five times as many Super Hornets as F-35Cs.

Boeing has also developed a service life modification program to extend flight hours from 6,000 up to 9,000 for the more than 560 planes the Navy already operates, as the oldest Super Hornets begin to hit that max threshold in 2018. Cost and timing will likely continue to dictate where future defense dollars go. "The F/A-18 is the legacy fighter and the F-35 is the new fighter. The new fighter is going to have some improvements over the legacy fighter. It's going to be stealthier… and have a longer range. But those factors come at a price and I think President Trump has made it very clear that he's looking for the lowest price possible," said John Eade, president and senior analyst at New York-based Argus Research. The Super Hornet currently costs between $70 million and $75 million, according to Boeing. An advanced version will add $3 million to that price tag. By comparison, the naval variant of the F-35 is $121 million, according to the most recent government contract. Boeing is pouncing on that cost component. In a one-page white paper obtained by Defense One, the company makes the argument for the Defense Department to buy more of its new advanced F/A-18s and fewer F-35Cs, suggesting the move would save tens of billions of dollars over 20 years.
:)

....latest update on the SBUG on May 2017


The 10 AMRAAM loadout is impressive, but the Navy buying 100 more SH's? Where does the madness end??

I understand the Navy needs new aircraft, but my God - how long have we been testing/perfecting the F-35? 15-20 years? This is ridiculous. The SH is a fine aircraft, but the Navy's fascination with the plane as all things to all missions is getting old. Scratch that. Not getting old, it is old.

And investing in yesterday's technology is never a recipe for success. Reduced RCS he's speaking to? How is that, given you have 12 AAM's and a targeting pod hanging off the thing? I dunno. I'm just tired of seeing Hornet's galore doing every conceivable mission. It is a jack of all trades, master of none. And when it eventually goes up air to air with a worthy foe, only the pilot training is going to save it.

The F-35 brings so much more capability, true stealth to the game plus has yet undisclosed game changers. The quote from the F-35 pilot about having SH's turn tail toward him b/c they can't see him is telling enough.

Enough with the Hornet mania! Time to move on...

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2017, 17:28
by neptune
mixelflick wrote:[....Enough with the Hornet mania! Time to move on...


Not to worry!, the SBug Mafia sees the "closing of the door" and the Naval Aviators "will notice their taskings" when the more prevalent F-35A/B's are pushed to carry the load. The F-35C cannot be ignored and as they trickle into the Navy fleet their capabilities will begin to be required/ depended on by the Carrier Air Wing commanders.

Sooner or later "Better" will prevail.
:)

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2017, 01:18
by neptune
mixelflick wrote:[.......The 10 AMRAAM loadout is impressive, ...... How is that, given you have 12 AAM's and a targeting pod hanging off the thing? .....


...I forget that the SBug and the F-35C could easily fly together with the SBug in the role of a "missile truck", thus not requiring targeting or upgraded avionics but a good data link for the missile status from the SBug to the F-35C. In actuality, the SBug could easily be converted to QF-18 (like an autonomous wingman) .... by Boeing as they currently do the retired F-16s from the Bone Yard.

...seriously, we are still at the stage of talking 2/4/6 amraams for the F-35C when 2 or 3 QF-18s could tag along 30 miles abeam and launch another 10-12 amraams each and RTB for reload, recycle etc., while the F-35C remains "on station".

....QF- would solve the OBOGs problem and the unnecessary seat systems and tactical avionics could relieve enough weight to allow a couple of more missiles....

:wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2017, 04:03
by Corsair1963
neptune wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/companies/under-trump-boeings-super-hornet-production-set-to-double/ar-BBATkia

Under Trump, Boeing's Super Hornet production set to double

It's been the backbone of naval aviation for four decades and now, as President Donald Trump has repeatedly called attention to the program, the F-18 is getting a second life. Last week, the final 2017 federal budget allotted $1.1 billion for 14 new Super Hornet fighter jets. While it wasn't the 24 fighter jets at $2.3 billion the president had proposed in his supplemental budget proposal, it marked a win nonetheless: the original Defense Department budget proposal, released early last year, had requested none. "We always thought that the Navy buying additional Super Hornets made sense because they need airplanes to last into the 2040s," said Dan Gillian, head of Boeing's (BA) F/A-18 and EA-18 programs. Of course Boeing would think that — and it may have made sense. Still, until recently, the F-18 program had been viewed by many to be a production line on life support, as newer planes including Lockheed Martin's (LMT) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter roll off assembly lines and into future U.S. carrier air wings.

Now, "St. Louis and the fighter business stays on for the next round of programs," said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at Virginia-based industry consultancy Teal Group. "It didn't look like that would be the case a year ago. Super Hornet orders had been expected to be down by end of decade." Boeing's St. Louis, Missouri-based F-18 assembly line complex is currently turning out EA-18G Growlers, the jamming planes outfitted from Super Hornets, for the fiscal 2015 budget year. That year the Navy only ordered Growlers. The following year's budget included five Super Hornets, but the 2017 budget that just passed through Congress is the one that will prove to be an inflection point. "Today we're producing two shipsets per month — Super Hornets and Growlers — in this factory," said Gillian, clad in safety goggles as he walks the plant floor, past stations stocked with workers and plane parts. "As we think about the U.S. Navy's demands for additional airplanes to address the Super Hornet shortfall, as we think about their international demands, we can see that going up to 3 or 4 per month sometime in the early 20s," he said. Boeing anticipates the U.S. Navy will purchase at least another 100 F/A-18s in the five budget cycles beginning with 2018, ensuring its place on aircraft carriers through the next two decades.

The long game, however, isn't the plane it's gearing up to manufacture for its 2016 and 2017 orders. Rather, it's the adoption of a new version called "Block III," which Boeing hopes the Navy will opt for before the decade is out. Block III has a longer life cycle, and more advanced avionics that would better complement the F-35C, EA-18G Growler, and other planes comprising the air wing. The aircraft would act as a smart "node" on the naval fighter "network," Gillian said. Block III is based off of the Advanced Super Hornet the company first unveiled in 2013, though today's version focuses less on stealth and more on capability. The general idea: a stealthy F-35 could conduct short-range reconnaissance??? and transmit that data back to the Super Hornet, which loaded with weapons, could pack the needed punch from farther away. It's this plane that Trump likely had in mind when he asked Boeing to price a "comparable" plane to the fifth generation, stealthy F-35 — a move that caused industry experts to balk but also spurred a Pentagon review of the two fighters' operational capabilities. Still Gillian is quick to stress that Boeing has been engaged in F/A-18 discussions with the Navy for years now, amid inventory shortages. Earlier this year, Navy officials disclosed that two out of every three F-18 fighter planes in its fleet are out of commission on any given day, awaiting repairs. They've been flown hard in a post-9-11 world, which coupled with maintenance backlogs tied to budget cuts, has resulted in a serious maintenance bottleneck for all planes. That coupled with delays for the naval variant of the F-35, which is now expected to be operational in 2018, and the Navy faces a fighter jet shortfall. This is the reason, analysts point out, the service has been pursuing more Super Hornet purchases as it pairs back F-35C orders — even before Trump entered the Oval Office. Aboulafia said over the past five years, the Navy has requested about five times as many Super Hornets as F-35Cs.

Boeing has also developed a service life modification program to extend flight hours from 6,000 up to 9,000 for the more than 560 planes the Navy already operates, as the oldest Super Hornets begin to hit that max threshold in 2018. Cost and timing will likely continue to dictate where future defense dollars go. "The F/A-18 is the legacy fighter and the F-35 is the new fighter. The new fighter is going to have some improvements over the legacy fighter. It's going to be stealthier… and have a longer range. But those factors come at a price and I think President Trump has made it very clear that he's looking for the lowest price possible," said John Eade, president and senior analyst at New York-based Argus Research. The Super Hornet currently costs between $70 million and $75 million, according to Boeing. An advanced version will add $3 million to that price tag. By comparison, the naval variant of the F-35 is $121 million, according to the most recent government contract. Boeing is pouncing on that cost component. In a one-page white paper obtained by Defense One, the company makes the argument for the Defense Department to buy more of its new advanced F/A-18s and fewer F-35Cs, suggesting the move would save tens of billions of dollars over 20 years.
:)

....latest update on the SBUG on May 2017


I believe the USN is paying $78 Million per Super Hornet for the most recent order. Now add ~ $3 Million more to be upgraded to the Blk III Standard and it's ~ $81 Million each.....Honestly, compared to the vastly more capable F-35C. Doesn't sound like much of a deal??? :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2017, 04:44
by SpudmanWP
Don't forget a few mil each for EFTs & LTPs which are not part of the flyaway price. Also, let's not forget the tank-mounted IRST which is certainly not part of the flyaway.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2017, 14:00
by mixelflick
neptune wrote:
mixelflick wrote:[....Enough with the Hornet mania! Time to move on...


Not to worry!, the SBug Mafia sees the "closing of the door" and the Naval Aviators "will notice their taskings" when the more prevalent F-35A/B's are pushed to carry the load. The F-35C cannot be ignored and as they trickle into the Navy fleet their capabilities will begin to be required/ depended on by the Carrier Air Wing commanders.

Sooner or later "Better" will prevail.
:)


Thanks and I agree: Once they see how good the F-35 is, they'll wish they bought more. The SH is a fine aircraft, but it's going to be a sitting duck for the S-300/400/500. Moreover, I don't see any overwhelming advantages vs. late model Flankers, the Rafale or Typhoon. Parity and perhaps a slight advantage in radar and weapons vs. the Russian jets but it's just too close for comfort.

Growing up, I took great pride in that our F-14's, 15's and 16's were miles better than their Mig-21/23/25 counterparts. And yes, they've dispatched of Mig-29's when the situation called for it. But I can't find that same obvious advantage in a SH vs. an SU-30SM or SU-35. Only time will tell if the Navy made the right decision...

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2017, 19:21
by luke_sandoz
SpudmanWP wrote:Don't forget a few mil each for EFTs & LTPs which are not part of the flyaway price. Also, let's not forget the tank-mounted IRST which is certainly not part of the flyaway.



USN bought two replacement Super Bugs in FY2017 . . . $184.9m. . . . $92.5m each.

Assume they were loaded, ready for full ops like the ones they replaced.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2017, 19:42
by SpudmanWP
That was the Gross Weapon System Cost.

The breakdown was $77.8mil for the Flyaway cost and $14.7mil for "2.6) Prod Eng Supt". Still no LTP, wing EFTs, or IRST.

The "1.2.2) Ancillary Equip" section includes "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."

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Docu ... 4_BOOK.pdf (page 55/56)

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

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2017, 20:27
by spazsinbad
Navy Reviews Physiological Episodes 24 Apr 2017 Chief of Naval Operations Public Affairs

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=100051


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

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2017, 21:14
by jessmo111
SpudmanWP wrote:That was the Gross Weapon System Cost.

The breakdown was $77.8mil for the Flyaway cost and $14.7mil for "2.6) Prod Eng Supt". Still no LTP, wing EFTs, or IRST.

The "1.2.2) Ancillary Equip" section includes "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."

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Docu ... 4_BOOK.pdf (page 55/56)


I wish someone would step up and point out how it takes a minimum of 2 Supers to do the job of 1 F-35.
Actually 2 planes and an extra pilot minimum.
You also will need extra tanking because of the demands of the short legged super. Boeing and the Navy are selling wolf tickets here. I only hope pilots don't die over an agenda. And why are we pitting the Superbug against the F-35 anyhow!? The F-35C was always meant to replace the legacy hornet! There is enough spin coming from Boeing and the DON, that a gravitational field should appear soon. Jesus H CHRIST!

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

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2017, 21:26
by SpudmanWP
jessmo111 wrote:I wish someone would step up and point out ....


It's been said, many, many times.

As they say... A picture is worth a thousand words.

Image

Another version:

Image

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 00:08
by jessmo111
So basically in a senario with the 2nd strike group on the bottom , you'd also need an ungoldy number of Hornets tanking? You need most of the Hornets on deck in fact, depending on range. A squadren of 20 hornets in a package would need 20 hornets buddy tanking. Or am I mistaken?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 00:22
by jessmo111
Excuse my ignorance as always, but wiki states that a squadren size like the tophatters, can fluctuate between 12 and 20+ airframes separated into flights. How many buddy tankers do you typically need to service a squadren of 20? Dont you need atleast 1/2 the number to atleast service the STACK in case of bolters?
Lets assume the Target is in the littoral, and is at least 500nm from the carrier. It would seem like even a marginal increase in internal caryy on the F-35C woyld go far. The navy knows this because we have a secondary dispute with the unmanned drone, making the same arguments.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 03:38
by madrat
Maybe they could carry conformal fuel tanks in the bay and still retain room for standoff ordnance.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 06:39
by jessmo111
madrat wrote:Maybe they could carry conformal fuel tanks in the bay and still retain room for standoff ordnance.
Its not the F-35C that needs all the gas its the hornet.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 16:17
by blindpilot
jessmo111 wrote:
madrat wrote:Maybe they could carry conformal fuel tanks in the bay and still retain room for standoff ordnance.
Its not the F-35C that needs all the gas its the hornet.


This line of discussion on the F-35C never ceases to amaze me. The aircraft in buttoned up stealth mode can carry 5,000 lbs of ordinance on a 700 plus mile mission. That is WWII B-17 type missions (4,500 lbs at nearly 800 miles).

Forget the F-18 s/hornets. This is impressive for any fighters, certainly beats the old F-4 missions etc.

So the design engineers finally come up with an attack fighter that can go 700 miles without drop tanks, with serious bomb load, and everyone is still talking range... It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Just go ahead and buy my Puffer Fighter ... You guys are nuts!
puffer fish 6th Gen.jpg
Do I have enough fuel Now? !!!!!!!!


MHO,
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 20:48
by jessmo111
Hey blind can you answer my questions about fuel loads for legacy birds?

1. I dont know the Natops regulations for reserve or for whats required to top off on a bolter.

2. I don't know how many tankers you need to top off a heavy stack of Hornets

3. I don't know how many fighters can be dedicated to tanking.

What I do know is that the 700nm range
Of the F-35C and the 300+ range of the SH are in stark contrast. The F-35C will require less tanking.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 22:08
by blindpilot
jessmo111 wrote:Hey blind can you answer my questions about fuel loads for legacy birds?

1.... Natops regulations for reserve ..
2.... how many tankers ... to top off...Hornets
3. ...ow many fighters ... dedicated to tanking.

there are answers here, but they vary, and I don't know without specing out the context... And even there, it doesn't matter. I flew a mission that waived all regs, all reserves, and we just had to "make it happen somehow,"...

What I do know is that the 700nm range
Of the F-35C
and the 300+ range of the SH are in stark contrast. The F-35C will require less tanking.


That's all you need to know. Your reply was spot on .. The entire discussion of F-35 range is just mind boggling to me. If they wanted 1,000 nm combat radius, it would have been in the requirements. It wasn't. But they didn't ask for "F-18E/F type" range either ... because THAT wasn't good enough... so basically ... SH range not good enough... F-35 currently exceeding the range requirements asked for ... What part of this is hard for some (BOING) to understand?

Again if they built a blimp the size of an oil tanker with 50,000 miles of range, these same critics would be asking .. "Where do I put the EFTs? We've always had to add EFTs to do anything ... "
Well new world ! You don't need EFTs on the 50k Blimp! we gave you all the fuel you asked for internally! If you wanted more ... well duh ... shoulda asked for it .. we design for 75,000 miles, if that's what you want ...

Interesting side note: We didn't always (actually rarely did) fill the KC's up to the brim. What are you supposed to do when you finish the training sortie 200 miles from base, giving 1 gallon each to some fighters? .... Fly a 300,000 lb gas tank in circles for a day, until it's safe to land?

MHO
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 23:05
by spazsinbad
Some idea of the 'how long is a piece of string' questions regarding USN recovery tankers (may also be tasked elsewhere).

From Same-Cycle Airborne Recovery Tanking Operations article in an old LSO School Newsletter from July 2011 (no longer available at original URL so won't post it) single PDF attached for easier reading that the same same .GIF below.
"...During the course of a typical C2X fly day, a 5-Wet tanker plan results in the following:
- 6 Tankers Configured to Make 5
- Average Available Mission Give: 3,000 to 4,000 pounds per Event
- Average Tanker Fuel Dump: 3,000 to 5,000 pounds
- Minimum Daily Fuel Required to Execute (Burn + Give + Dump): ~235,000 Pounds
- 20 Tanker Hours / 11 Tanker Sorties..."

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2017, 01:34
by jessmo111
So now we are getting somewhere.

The ARS includes an external 330 US gal (1,200 L) tank with hose reel on the centerline, along with four external 480 US gal (1,800 L) tanks and internal tanks, for a total of 29,000 lb (13,000 kg) of fuel on the aircraft.[53][54] On typical missions a fifth of the air wing is dedicated to the tanker role, which consumes aircraft fatigue life expectancy faster than other missions.[55]


And

These air wings are occasionally reassigned to different aircraft carriers based on carrier maintenance schedules. A modern air wing consists of roughly 1,500 personnel and 74–78 aircraft.

So 15+ Hornets dedicated to tanking throw in a few for redundancy and you have the equivalent of an entire squadren dedicated to tanking.
The more planes you need to task for a given mission, the more tankers. What you have here is a self licking ice cream cone.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2017, 03:14
by 35_aoa
There aren't anywhere near 15+ Rhinos configured as tankers in an airwing. You are talking about air plan lines, as if each event were a new jet, whereas jets are continually recycled within a squadron throughout the day, both for tanker duties, as well as combat flights. You normally have 2-3 tanker configured jets in each tanker squadron.......so 4-6 overall, flying continuously throughout the day......hot pit/hot seat kind of thing. The standards are airwing dependent, but most common I have seen is 2 good hoses day, and 2 plus a TTLR (Turning Tanker Last Recovery, i.e. a "turning spare" and ready to launch on alert once the other tankers are out of gas or recovered) at night. If you break that down, amongst those two squadrons, you are talking 2-3 out of 12 jets. Designated tanker squadrons get plussed up a jet or two for deployment for this reason. Typical non-tanker squadrons have 10-11 jets, which is close to what a tanker squadron has after TNK requirements are met. While these numbers are not as bad as one might conclude from this article, the real burn is what happens to an inventory of aircraft where a decent percentage are continually flown daily, throughout the day, logging more traps (especially in yo-yo ops), maybe 50% more in terms of actual flights than the rest of the fleet...........and traps, which are a life cycle tracked value. It presents an interesting problem when it comes to airframe lifetime management on the macro/fleet level.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2017, 12:40
by spazsinbad
Aahh BOING! has the answers & then some - they tell gobsmacking porkies - AS IF would be buyers be morons - yeah right.
Boeing Warns Against Long Stealth Fighter Development
18 May 2017 James Drew

"...The company says continuing to evolve the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet through “Block 3” beginning in fiscal 2019 and a potential “Block 4” follow-on modernization program as a complement to the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II is the most prudent path forward to satisfy an immediate need for greater numbers of strike fighters with advanced capabilities.

Boeing says low radar cross-section airframes are useful for the first day of war and flying into denied areas guarded by X-band radars. But the integrated air defense radars of potential adversaries such as Russia and China have moved into different bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as C-band and S-band. Buying into a next-generation stealth aircraft development program under F/A-XX might not be the best answer to meeting current and future threats, Boeing believes.

Boeing says new capabilities delivered in Super Hornet Block 3 will help it survive in high-threat regions. Those include new electronic support measures and jammers, as well as longer-range, higher-power radars and infrared detection.

“For the Navy, and I think for a lot of countries, don’t lock yourself into a 20-year development cycle and a platform you’re stuck with for X amount of years,” says Larry Burt, a former naval aviator and now Boeing’s director of global sales and marketing for global strike programs. “Don’t make a big revolutionary step. Keep evolving what you’ve got. You could keep evolving the mission systems, sensors and capability of the Super Hornet and maybe eventually put a new wrapper on it.”

Burt says low-observable aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 are extremely difficult to upgrade and install new capabilities without breaking the outer mold line, whereas traditional wing body designs like the F/A-18 and F-15 are relatively easy and cost-effective to upgrade. Aircraft survivability can be achieved through other means, Boeing says, pointing to the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (Idecm) Block IV system for the Super Hornet and Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System (Epawss) upgrade for the F-15.

Meanwhile, the energy output and computer processing power of modern active electronically scanned array radars, including the Super Hornet’s Raytheon APG-79 and F-15’s APG-63(V)3 and APG-82(V)1, are increasing the range at which low-observable threats can be detected and intercepted with air-to-air weapons. Those new types of fire control radars also are being fielded on fourth-generation aircraft by potential adversaries.

The long-range infrared search and track sensor being rolled out to the Super Hornet and being selected for the F-15 are also helping uncloak stealthy warplanes....

,,,Boeing’s comments on LO aircraft come as it tries to sell the Navy on another 120 Block 3 Super Hornets. The Pentagon is in the midst of a cost and capability analysis between the F/A-18 and F-35, ordered by the White House, that will inform future budgets and force structure decisions. The Navy’s carrier-based F-35C replaces legacy F/A-18C/D aircraft, not the Super Hornet. But the two aircraft still battle for annual budget appropriations.

“It’s not about one or the other,” Burt says. “Everything we’ve heard is that the Navy sees the Super Hornet and F-35 as essential.”...

...India, meanwhile, needs a new aircraft for its carriers. Boeing is working to validate the Super Hornet’s ski jump capability to ensure it can meet India’s needs, since U.S. jets are typically launched by catapult....

...The U.S. Navy is interested in most of Boeing’s proposed capability upgrades for Block 3, but Boeing confirms it has no plans to install the General Electric F414 “Enhanced Engine,” which provides 18% greater power compared to today’s model. “It’s an upgrade we’d encourage the Navy to do,” Burt says."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... evelopment

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2017, 01:35
by steve2267
Boeing Warns Against Long Stealth Fighter Development
18 May 2017 James Drew

“For the Navy, and I think for a lot of countries, don’t lock yourself into a 20-year development cycle and a platform you’re stuck with for X amount of years,” says Larry Burt, a former naval aviator and now Boeing’s director of global sales and marketing for global strike programs. “Don’t make a big revolutionary step. Keep evolving what you’ve got. You could keep evolving the mission systems, sensors and capability of the Super Hornet and maybe eventually put a new wrapper on it.”

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... evelopment


That's rich -- Boing telling the US Navy how to develop (or not) tactical aviation aircraft. Since when has Boing built any tactical fighter from scratch? Was the last one the P-26 Peashooter circa 1932?

Image

The SHornet first flew in '95, and MacDac didn't get swallowed by Boing until '97, so the SHornet is more MacDac, IMO, than it is Boing.

Perhaps the USN should take Burt's advice though, and say, "Mr. Burt -- you are entirely correct. And we've been locked into a 20 year development cycle now of this aircraft called the Super Hornet. And if we don't get out now, we're going to be stuck with this dog for several more decades. There's this new kid on the block -- the Lightning -- have you heard of it? You say you are "low observable"... but lemmee tell you... this sucker just can't be seen on today's radars. It makes all the EW and ECM functions that much more effective. And legs! This beauty has legs to die for! She'll go durn near 700nm with two and a half tons of bombs and A-A missiles. So we're availing ourselves of this opportunity to jump into the 21st century. Thanks for playing. Let us know if you have any revolutionary breakthroughs..."

Boeing Warns Against Long Stealth Fighter Development
18 May 2017 James Drew

Burt says low-observable aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 are extremely difficult to upgrade and install new capabilities without breaking the outer mold line, whereas traditional wing body designs like the F/A-18 and F-15 are relatively easy and cost-effective to upgrade. Aircraft survivability can be achieved through other means, Boeing says, pointing to the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (Idecm) Block IV system for the Super Hornet and Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System (Epawss) upgrade for the F-15.

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... evelopment


Say what? Has not the F-35 been designed with upgradability in mind? The US DOD opted for a spiral, concurrent development cycle. Have not the existing production and test aircraft been "upgraded" with tech refreshes (new avionics / computers) and software updates already? 2B? 3i? 3F? Each software load is itself an upgrade. No, maybe the F-35 is so easy to upgrade that it's too easy to overlook the fact that it has been upgraded continually throughout the development process. In fact, the F-35 is far, far easier to upgrade than legacy aircraft.

Boeing Warns Against Long Stealth Fighter Development
18 May 2017 James Drew

Meanwhile, the energy output and computer processing power of modern active electronically scanned array radars, including the Super Hornet’s Raytheon APG-79 and F-15’s APG-63(V)3 and APG-82(V)1, are increasing the range at which low-observable threats can be detected and intercepted with air-to-air weapons. Those new types of fire control radars also are being fielded on fourth-generation aircraft by potential adversaries.

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... evelopment


Yay! The SupraDupra's APG-79 AESA will get more powerful with time! Um... won't the F-35 APG-81 benefit at least as much (if not more because of its VLO characteristics) as the SupraDupra's radar? It's not like the SupraDupra radar is somehow going to make the F-35 'dar obsolete...

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2017, 02:02
by rheonomic
What the f*ck did Boeing do to Macair?

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2017, 05:46
by XanderCrews
Boeing didn't seem to mind long development for an LO aircraft when it came to bidding on the B-21. That was fine apparently

Serious manipulation In those statements as it is

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2017, 13:20
by hythelday
How long since Boeing started developing Pegasus, at how's it going along? One would think that turning an existing air frame into tanker would take considerably less time than a 5th gen fighter, alas...

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2017, 14:55
by XanderCrews
hythelday wrote:How long since Boeing started developing Pegasus, at how's it going along? One would think that turning an existing air frame into tanker would take considerably less time than a 5th gen fighter, alas...


Lol good point. Might explain their pessimism.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2017, 15:00
by XanderCrews
35_aoa wrote:There aren't anywhere near 15+ Rhinos configured as tankers in an airwing. You are talking about air plan lines, as if each event were a new jet, whereas jets are continually recycled within a squadron throughout the day, both for tanker duties, as well as combat flights. You normally have 2-3 tanker configured jets in each tanker squadron.......so 4-6 overall, flying continuously throughout the day......hot pit/hot seat kind of thing. The standards are airwing dependent, but most common I have seen is 2 good hoses day, and 2 plus a TTLR (Turning Tanker Last Recovery, i.e. a "turning spare" and ready to launch on alert once the other tankers are out of gas or recovered) at night. If you break that down, amongst those two squadrons, you are talking 2-3 out of 12 jets. Designated tanker squadrons get plussed up a jet or two for deployment for this reason. Typical non-tanker squadrons have 10-11 jets, which is close to what a tanker squadron has after TNK requirements are met. While these numbers are not as bad as one might conclude from this article, the real burn is what happens to an inventory of aircraft where a decent percentage are continually flown daily, throughout the day, logging more traps (especially in yo-yo ops), maybe 50% more in terms of actual flights than the rest of the fleet...........and traps, which are a life cycle tracked value. It presents an interesting problem when it comes to airframe lifetime management on the macro/fleet level.


Interesting post thank you

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

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2017, 13:09
by loke
If the SH is so crap compared to the F-35 why do they still order more?

I suspect it is because the F-35 can and will act as a "force multiplier" and will allow the SH to operate successfully for many many years to come. (and also because the SH is of course not crap).


As for range; CFTs will increase the combat range of the SH by 260 NM according to Boing.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... -Brief.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 02:25
by spazsinbad
Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Set to Answer Lingering Navy Acquisition Questions
22 May 2017 Megan Eckstein

"...Super Hornets v. Joint Strike Fighter
The Navy’s plans for its future air wing have long centered around having the fourth-generation F/A-18E-F Super Hornet and fifth-generation F-35C Joint Strike Fighter operating side-by-side. One a stealthy battle management tool and the other a lethal bomb truck, the Navy never intended to compete them against one another, until President Donald Trump on Dec. 22, 2016, suggested in a tweet that Boeing could develop a Super Hornet variant “comparable” to the JSF for a lower cost. As a result, Defense Secretary Mattis ordered a review of the two aircraft in a Jan. 26 memo. The budget should indicate how the Navy intends to move forward.

Hypoxia Concerns
The Navy has a growing problem with breathing-related issues for fighter jet pilots – both hypoxia, in which pilots cannot get enough oxygen or receive contaminated oxygen from their masks, and cabin pressure issues that can lead to decompression sickness. The number of so-called physiological episodes is increasing at an increasing rate and affecting all the Navy’s jets: legacy F/A-18 Hornets, F/A-18E-F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers and T-45C Goshawk trainers. Navy leadership has vowed to address this in a resource-unconstrained manner, taking whatever steps are necessary to find the root of the problem, so this budget could give some indication of how the Navy intends to do that."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/05/22/fiscal ... -questions

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 06:37
by Corsair1963
I am really confused! If, the USN ordered more F-35C's in the next budget. They wouldn't hit the production floor until 2018 at the earliest. Which, is when 3F will be ready. So, why do they need to hold off on buying F-35C's then???
:bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 11:13
by spazsinbad
An explanation is here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=53112&p=368230&hilit=LaGrone#p368230
"...The service is also making a modest aviation buy, requesting about $1 billion, or 7 percent, less than the FY 2017 enacted budget.

The $15.2-billion budget pays for four F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighters – two less than planned – and 20 F-35B of the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff and vertical-landing variant, for a total of $3.7 billion in JSF expenditure. Rounding out tactical aviation, the Navy is set to buy 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

Luther said the reduction in the F-35C totals routed more money to personnel, equipment, logistics and more for the F-35C to keep its initial operational capability declaration on track.

“We had to make hard choices. We maintained the readiness accounts and we had to balance somewhere,” Luther said.
“We tried to hold the line the best we could in our procurement accounts… but reducing two F-35s allowed us to maintain the IOC in ’18 for the F-35C.”..."

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 13:35
by maus92
Corsair1963 wrote:I am really confused! If, the USN ordered more F-35C's in the next budget. They wouldn't hit the production floor until 2018 at the earliest. Which, is when 3F will be ready. So, why do they need to hold off on buying F-35C's then???
:bang:


The Navy is still studying the proper mix of capabilities vs. cost. The MQ-25 (and a further derivative) and longer ranged weps (and the availability of a comparable alternative like the Block 2/3 SH) are affecting the order book for the F-35C. The F-35C is viewed as a very expensive platform that is somewhat limited in development potential - new weapons must fit in the bays, new apertures have to be validated - all because physical stealth needs to be maintained to get value out of the F-35C platform. Boeing's proposal of a future Block 4 configuration of the Super Hornet instead of F/A-XX informs the direction the Navy is likely to go. Payloads over platforms.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 14:36
by bumtish
You need a block 4 SH upgrade for going bomb truckin' for the C?

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 15:17
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:An explanation is here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=53112&p=368230&hilit=LaGrone#p368230
"...
Luther said the reduction in the F-35C totals routed more money to personnel, equipment, logistics and more for the F-35C to keep its initial operational capability declaration on track.

We had to make hard choices. We maintained the readiness accounts and we had to balance somewhere,” Luther said.
“We tried to hold the line the best we could in our procurement accounts… but reducing two F-35s allowed us to maintain the IOC in ’18 for the F-35C.”..."


For those not familiar with balancing Procurement with Readiness, a simple explanation.

If you have 500 aircraft, but half of them are broken and in maintenance with no spares, you only have 250 aircraft to deploy.
That "COULD" theoretically be fixed with procurement of shiny new aircraft. But that costs $$ and you don't get 250 aircraft over the weekend, even with lotsa $$$.

But you need aircraft to put on the two CVNs off of Korea, yesterday... and for one in the Middle East and maybe for one in the North Atlantic, and one in the Med .. and one for .... You run out of your 250 working aircraft very quickly, and squadrons of 12 becomes 10 becomes 9 becomes ... and the pilots back in the states have no aircraft and they can't train to, "stay proficient."

It's ugly. The quickest fix in time and $$ is to get some DA#% spare parts, fix the broken aircraft, and train up the stateside pilots and .. "readiness." I can get 250 aircraft fairly quickly (faster than buying them) short term that way. I cannot buy F-35 Cs or SH s fast enough to fix this in the present.

That's the present. Short term, I can also look downstream, and know absolutely, because I have data, that my working 250 aircraft are going to be 200 becoming 150 ... in the near predictable future, and even spare parts won't help adding hours to overworked remnants. That has to be stopped immediately. The load needs to be shared with aircraft dead on the ramp somewhere/somehow. Get parts! Fix aircraft! Now! "Readiness"

Finally navigating the long term, getting something like SH s with existing pilot training and infrastructure can hold the line while the urgent readiness disaster is remedied. That has to be mapped into a transition of training and infrastructure buildout of the purchases of the new "better" F-35 Cs. You can't push out the procurement "IOC" and solve the problem. (all the Hornets/SHs might have way more than 8,000 hrs right before they crash.)

That''s the balancing act the Navy (and Air Force) are trying to achieve. As for the USMC, they just went all in long ago, and they will not have Hornets/SHs to man the CVNs because they (F-18A/Cs) are all broken (just scavenging parts from museums and hangar queens), and all $$$ and effort is full bore F-35B/Cs. That may help the Navy in the long run, but unless it's a Harrier or a Bee, the Marines won't be there. (Hopefully their C's can be among the first CVN F-35 squadrons available.)

You can count all the -2 Cs,... +12 SHs ... purchases you want to, but the description above is the war being waged, and I am not qualified to say the Navy is not taking the best solution available, .. after the war, sequestration (& Obama) train wrecks that were created in the US military. The USMC .. at some risk .. is trying to push through before the President says he needs 300 USMC fighters today in N Korea. (that's their nightmare) ... Because they won't be there until tomorrow.. The Navy has to recognize that as well, as their own shortfalls. (Hoping perhaps the USMC aggressiveness with the F-35s will help fill in the back side earlier, as long as N Korea and Iran will hold off for a few months)

FWIW
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 18:15
by neptune
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... st-437547/

F-35 remains on track in Trump request

24 May, 2017
SOURCE: Flightglobal.com
BY: Leigh Giangreco Washington DC

With a Defense Department review of Lockheed Martin F-35 and Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet still ongoing, procurement for the Joint Strike Fighter remained steady in the president’s fiscal year 2018 budget request. The Defense Department is requesting 70 F-35s this budget cycle (LRIP12?), including 46 F-35As for the US Air Force, 20 F-35Bs for the US Marine Corps and four F-35Cs for the US Navy. The USAF requested 46 F-35As, two more than number forecasted for fiscal year 2018 in the service’s five year defense plan released last year. The air force requested 43 F-35As in its FY17 budget, but Congress granted a total of 48 F-35As in the final FY17 budget. The US Navy requested four F-35Cs and 20 F-35Bs for the US Marine Corps. The navy decreased its procurement of the carrier variant F-35 in an effort to balance readiness accounts and maintain initial operational capability for the carrier variant in 2018, navy officials say.

“Approximately two more years of system development and demonstration work remain to achieve an operational requirements document compliant Block III configured aircraft,” according to the US Navy’s FY18 budget documents.
The navy is tacking to complete flight tests in 2018 and should achieve initial operational capability (IOC) between August 2018 and February 2019, according to a F-35 Joint Program Office spokesman. In December, then JPO executive officer Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan told reporters flight testing would complete sometime between November 2017 and February 2018. If SDD stretches beyond February 2018, the JPO is prepared to take funding from the follow-on modernization program and allocate the money for SDD, Bogdan said.

Meanwhile, the navy’s budget did not reference any plans for its future fighter program, the FA-XX. The service is waiting on the results of a strategic review, planned to release in August or September, before jumping into the Super Hornet replacement program.
:)

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 21:29
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:If the SH is so crap compared to the F-35 why do they still order more?


The simple answer is, Its the Super Hornet or nothing right now. There are longer answers that go back to the navy botching all of their procurement through the late 1980s and early 1990s but we are not going to get into that.

Another reason was the US Sequestration shut down Major maintenance overhauls on the Super Bug, and at the same time the Navy continues to overfly their hours. So you have a combo of airplanes being used up and in need of replacement much sooner. In some cases its faster to buy new jets rather than wait for the old ones to be fixed.

I suspect it is because the F-35 can and will act as a "force multiplier" and will allow the SH to operate successfully for many many years to come. (and also because the SH is of course not crap).


its basically the only replacement fighter that can be ordered in the numbers the USN needs. Crap or not is immaterial. Its the best tool because its the only tool

Cool brochure! Has it really been that long since the Advanced Super Hornet flew around with metal shapes attached to it? Seems like it was only yesterday this "F-35 killer" took to the skies and got precisely zero orders.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 03:56
by spazsinbad
Earlier peeps had conniptions about USN NavAv being S L O W to take up new technology and we have had several answers why. No answers in this video - just confirmation that Y E S - NavAv is S L O W (Ten Years After - I'm Going Home) Homie.


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

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 23:57
by spazsinbad

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

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 01:52
by marauder2048
*IF* the Navy were slowly introducing a high-end UCLASS in FY18 (as was the original plan) along with
the F-35C + some advanced payloads while budgeting for future payloads there would be little problem.

But the Navy isn't just slow it's practically stationary: the Navy is planning to have
a version of MALD at IOC sometime in the 2020's.

OASuW Increment II was deferred entirely; there's no Harpoon-ER or JSOW-ER.
Most of the other payloads under development had hits to their budget.

I'm moderately excited about AARGM-ER but it's long overdue and still a dull echo of
where HSAD was nearly a decade ago. And in any event, only F-35 is able to employ
it fully; the glorified unmanned S-3 (MQ-25) had its budget cut by ~ 50%.

So in the payloads vs. platforms debate the Navy has really elected to do neither.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 04:19
by XanderCrews
marauder2048 wrote:
So in the payloads vs. platforms debate the Navy has really elected to do neither.


But it's such a snazzy little slogan

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

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 21:52
by spazsinbad
Super Hornets see boost in new US budget request
26 May 2017 Leigh Giangreco

"President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would add funding to buy up to 74 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets through 2022, or 60 more than planned in previous budget forecasts.

The Navy is requesting 14 Super Hornets in Fiscal 2018 to mitigate the service’s strike fighter shortfall, officials said this week. In addition, Trump’s budget proposal inserts new plans to procure 23 more F/A-18E/Fs in FY2019, 14 in FY2020, 14 in FY2021 and 15 in FY2022. The recent request not only includes funding for new Super Hornets, but also advanced procurement dollars to address advanced capabilities.

While Boeing celebrated the intended purchase of new F/A-18E/Fs as a sign that the Trump administration would commit to funding Super Hornets year after year, the status of the five-year funding plan is not settled. During a budget rollout briefing this week, Pentagon officials warned that procurement numbers beyond FY2018 would be subject to change following the outcome of a defence strategy review due this August. John Roth, the Pentagon's deputy comptroller, emphasised that the long-term budget was not informed by strategy or policy.

“We have focused on getting a budget ready for FY2017 and then we pivoted to get '18 done to meet this date as well, the secretary has not spent anytime looking beyond '18,” he says...." [More at Jump]

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... st-437672/

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

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2017, 02:05
by spazsinbad
"The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an $89,000,000 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for incorporation of the Block II Infrared Search and Track System (IRST) in the F/A-18 E/F aircraft. This contract includes the initial design and development, procurement of prototyping hardware, technical risk reduction efforts, integrated product support, and technical reviews of IRST Block II with the F/A-18E/F aircraft to support the system through the preliminary design review. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida (86 percent); and St. Louis, Missouri (14 percent), and is expected to be completed in April 2020. Fiscal 2017 research, development, test, and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $21,000,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was noncompetitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-17-C-0024)." https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... vDelivery/

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 10:55
by spazsinbad
This budget bollocks will mean something to some people but I just see it as more argybargy & one day a budget appears.
US Navy unfunded requirements list totals $4.8 billion
02 Jun 2017 Christopher P. Cavas

"WASHINGTON -- Aircraft top the U.S. Navy’s 2018 unfunded priorities list sent to Congress this week, as the service seeks $2.7 billion to buy 24 more planes. The aircraft are part of an overall $4.8 billion, 48-item Navy list of needs left out of the $171.5 billion Navy FY 2018 budget sent to the Hill on May 23....

...The list, Servello added, “proposes critical enablers and capabilities including additional Super Hornets to replenish combat-worn aircraft and increase strike fighter inventories; F-35s and unmanned systems to accelerate advanced capabilities; as well as submarine and surface ship modernization to improve and sustain lethality and survivability. Investments in shore readiness are key to preventing further degradation of facilities, docks and airfields after years of underfunding. “All items on the list are executable in fiscal year 18," Servello declared.

The aircraft include 10 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet strike fighters, four F-35C carrier-variant Joint Strike Fighters, six P-8A Poseidon multi-mission maritime patrol aircraft, and four CMV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft for the carrier-onboard-delivery role. The list includes $105 million in spares for the aircraft...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us- ... 48-billion

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 09:50
by spazsinbad
US Navy Sends Congress $5.3B Wishlist of Planes, Ships and More
01 Jun 2017 Marcus Weisgerber

"The 48-item ‘unfunded priorities list’ arrived a week after the service’s $172 billion budget request for 2018.

The U.S. Navy is asking Congress to consider providing an extra $5.3 billion for planes, ships, missiles, and dozens of smaller projects that did not make it into the 2018 budget request sent to lawmakers last week.

Notable items on this year’s edition of the “unfunded priorities list” include 10 F/A-18 Super Hornets ($739 million), six P-8 Poseidon subhunting planes ($1 billion), four F-35C Joint Strike Fighters ($540 million), five Ship-to-Shore Connector hovercraft ($312 million), and four CMV-22 Ospreys ($392 million), according to a copy of the list obtained by Defense One. Those four items account for about $2.7 billion, half of the total request.

Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, sent the 48-item list to Congress on Wednesday. “The FY 2018 unfunded priorities list predominantly accelerates the recovery of readiness and wholeness of today’s fleet,” Richardson wrote. “As well, it proposes some critical enablers and advanced capabilities.”...

...The list went to Congress eight days after the Navy sent over its $171.5 billion 2018 budget request.

That larger request asks for 14 Super Hornets, seven P-8s, four F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, three Ship-to-Shore Connectors and six Ospreys. The Super Hornet and Poseidon are both made by Boeing. Boeing and Bell Helicopter jointly make the V-22. Lockheed Martin and others make the F-35 and the Ship-to-Shore Connector is made by Textron."

Source: http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2017 ... re/138326/

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 10:04
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...Aircraft top the U.S. Navy’s 2018 unfunded priorities list sent to Congress this week, as the service seeks $2.7 billion to buy 24 more planes.... The aircraft include (10) F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet strike fighters, (4) F-35C ....]


Now (2017) that the Navy has accepted the Ford/ CVN-78 (F-35C capable), it will have to figure out how to deploy (2020) for operations with both the SBug and F-35C on the same flight deck.

Today, CVW-2 is sailing with Carl Vinson/ CVN-70 with 65 a/c (of which (10) F-18C will be replaced by the F-35C).

I don't see the F-35C flying "tanker" for the SBugs.
:wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 16:44
by spazsinbad
U.S. Navy’s $5.3B Wish List: Super Hornets, P-8, F-35
01 Jun 2017 Lara Seligman

"After hinting at a large buy of Boeing F/A-18s earlier this year, President Donald Trump’s first Pentagon budget request disappointed many defense hawks by essentially sticking to the previous administration’s plans for naval aviation. But now, the U.S. Navy is asking Congress directly to fund a boost in Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-35 procurement to address the strike fighter shortfall.

In a $5.3 billion wish list of items submitted to Congress June 1, the Navy is asking for 10 additional Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets, six more Boeing P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft, and four extra Lockheed Martin F-35Cs. This “unfunded priorities list,” obtained by Aviation Week, is par for the course of annual budget negotiations.

This year, the Navy wants $739 million to buy 10 additional Super Hornets in fiscal 2018, bringing the total to 24; [74 Million each?] $1 billion for six more P-8s, bringing the total to 13; and $540 million for four extra F-35C carrier variants, bringing the total to eight. [135 Million each?] The list also includes $392 million for four additional Bell-Boeing CMV-22B Ospreys for the carrier-onboard-delivery mission, bringing the total to 10 for fiscal 2018.

In an accompanying letter sent to the defense congressional committees, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said the list “predominantly accelerates the recovery of readiness and wholeness of today’s fleet” as well as proposing “some critical enablers and advanced capabilities.” He singled out the Super Hornet boost, saying the additional fighters are needed to replenish combat-worn aircraft and increase ready available strike fighter inventories.

Meanwhile, the additional F-35Cs will level the fiscal 2017 to 2019 procurement ramp and continue to mitigate the Navy’s strike fighter shortfalls, according to a description of items accompanying the list...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy ... s-p-8-f-35

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2017, 20:59
by spazsinbad
Because we have USN/USMC OBOGS problems in this thread both SHornet & Goshawk (& now F-35A elsewhere LUKE) I'll stick this ongoing USN/USMC OBOGS story here - NOTICE LOX rears its UGLY HEAD! When will HARRIERS be infected?
Navy, Marines Still Struggling with T-45C Trainer Oxygen System Failures
07 Jun 2017 Sam LaGrone

"WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Navy and Marine Corps are still struggling with oxygen system problems that have plagued the Navy’s carrier training aircraft and have clogged both services’ pipeline of new pilots, the commander of Naval Air Systems Command said during a Wednesday congressional hearing.

Testifying before the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee, Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags said the service was exploring two courses of action in light of an increase in physiological episodes that has prevented the full operation of the service’s fleet of T-45C Goshawk trainers since a partial stand-down in late March. Reports of illnesses and negative physiological effects from T-45 Goshawk instructors and students spiked to 47 incidents per 100,000 flight hours in 2016 – a four-fold increase over 2012 numbers, according to figures provided in the Navy’s written testimony.

In tandem the Navy is working to identify the failures in the On-Board Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS) that have plagued the Goshawks and take corrective actions for the long-term, as well as outfit the T-45s with “alerting and protective measures” to get the planes back to full operation in the short term.

“We’re doing those two things in parallel, one is not waiting for the other,” Grosklags said at the hearing.

Additionally, he said in response to a question, the Navy is considering replacing today’s OBOGS with an older liquid oxygen system (LOX) to provide air to pilots, but he called that a “longer-term solution.” Grosklags said he needs something to get the Goshawks back in the air in a matter of weeks, whereas the LOX solution could take months....

...“This system has worked fine for 20-plus years. Something happened,” Davis said. “It’s the same box in the [AV-8B] Harrier. It’s the same OBOGS box and we don’t have a problem in Harriers. So what’s different? What is different in the T-45s?”

The results of a fleet-wide study into the physiological episode issue — led by U.S Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Scott Swift — is due to do be briefed later this month."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/06/07/navy-m ... m-failures

Introduce LOX and one has the fun aspect of the A-4 series of aircraft (amongst other LOX oldies): COUGH COUGH COUGH [once was good enough however YMMV] then the VALSALVA MANEUVER.
“...a high concentration of oxygen at low altitudes can lead to “absorption atelectasis,” in which too much oxygen can wash away necessary nitrogen within the lungs and cause lung tissue to collapse.”...
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 497809.xml

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2017, 04:21
by southernphantom
Would it be possible to blend the pure O2 with ram air to avoid that?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2017, 04:34
by spazsinbad
Yes - cabin air (wherever it comes from) plus LOX at some percentage of total. For example the RNZAF changed their A-4K Skyhawk LOX system into a similar cabin air/LOX input when the change was made to the KAHU modifications I believe. AFAIK it was similar to the Sea Venom / Macchi MB326H [RAN/RAAF] system (oxygen mask & input). Otherwise the Venom/Macchi did not use LOX AFAIK / IIRC but bottled oxygen under pressure - I guess I should look it up eh.

Recently the RNZAF A-4K KAHU 'NATOPS' PDF was sent to me so the NEW Oxygen System details are in the attached .GIF.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 00:45
by popcorn
Looks like no F414-EPE. Not surprising as the Navy has been prioritizing reliability, engine efficiency and reduced maintenance expense over performance.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-navy-appro ... 59545.html

U.S. Navy Approves Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet Upgrades


The U.S. Navy has decided to fund Boeing's fighter division to upgrade the service's F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornets to the "Block III" configuration... The new configuration will improve the heads-up display and computing capabilities of the Super Hornet, while also modestly upgrading the stealth and radar cross section. The multirole fighter will receive "advanced network architecture" in the form of a new computer called the Distributed Targeting Processor Network (DTPN). A large new display in the cockpit will help pilots monitor the additional information they receive. New Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) will also improve the Super Hornet's information pipeline so more data can be transmitted to and from the jet.

The improvements to stealth include possible low-observable coating, and new Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) are planned to replace the Super Hornet's current external fuel tanks. The CFTs will improve radar cross section slightly, but they are primarily intended to reduce aerodynamic drag. The Navy is also planning a long-range infrared sensor for the Super Hornet for early threat detection.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 01:22
by spazsinbad
Interesting last four paragraphs from 'popcorn' post above:
"...The primary goal of the upgrade is to make the Super Hornet play nicely with the Navy's incoming F-35C. The carrier variant of the F-35 is the last of the F-35s to enter service, as it has not reached initial operating capability (IOC) like the Marine and Air Force jets have. When the Navy starts flying the fifth-generation fighters, their air coverage will have a lot more incoming data to share and analyze with various aircraft.

The Navy is looking to dominate air space with fleets of Block III Super Hornets, EA-18s, F-35Cs, as well as E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning planes. The computing upgrades to the Super Hornets in the field will ensure that all the aircraft can communicate over the same network to get the best picture of the battlefield.

"You can have an F-35 in its very stealthy way doing a deep-strike mission with Super Hornet providing air superiority at that same range, or you can have Super Hornet carrying large standoff weapons that F-35 cannot carry, with F-35 providing some air cover," Gillian told Aviation Week.

The arrival of the F-35 has sent air warfare strategists back to the drawing board to develop the most effective packages to capitalize on the new fighter's capacity to soak up information and transmit it to other aircraft in the formation. For the F-35C to work at full capacity, the Navy has decided the trusty F/A-18 Super Hornet needs to be a little smarter."

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 01:44
by popcorn
Waiting with bated breath the cost of the Blk 3 SH.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 01:53
by 35_aoa
In other news, which I bet Spaz might be interested in, I flew my first 2 night "magic carpet" (PLM) approaches to das boat a couple nights ago. It was life altering. I know most of you all are interested in tactical upgrades, but this non-tactical system probably just revolutionized modern carrier aviation as much as angled decks and steam catapults did 60 years ago.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 01:54
by neurotech
popcorn wrote:Waiting with bated breath the cost of the Blk 3 SH.

It'll depend on the block buy deal. At low rates, It could top easily $100m, but with a good multi-year purchase plan, more like $85-90m each.

Most of the Block III costs are in non-recurring engineering.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 02:34
by spazsinbad
:notworthy: Thanks '35_aoa' - hope all continues to go well - may your carpet have no fluff. Must be MAGIC indeed. Just wait until you are in the F-35C & able to see in the dark! DAS gut. Your Charlie will be delta flight path. :cheers: :crazypilot:

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 03:21
by 35_aoa
spazsinbad wrote::notworthy: Thanks '35_aoa' - hope all continues to go well - may your carpet have no fluff. Must be MAGIC indeed. Just wait until you are in the F-35C & able to see in the dark! DAS gut. Your Charlie will be delta flight path. :cheers: :crazypilot:


I probably won't be around long enough for that, but the future is bright, Rhino or whatever we end up calling the F-35 on the ball.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 02:05
by talkitron
Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years

https://news.usni.org/2017/06/13/navy-i ... -shortfall

The Navy’s written testimony to the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee notes the “Fiscal Year 2018 President’s Budget requests $1.25 billion in [the Navy’s aircraft procurement account] for 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft” and that, “with the support of Congress, we will also procure a minimum of 80 additional Super Hornets across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and continue modernization plans to address continuing warfighter demand for advanced tactical aircraft. These additional procurements begin to mitigate the decline in [the Department of the Navy’s] strike fighter inventory and enable older aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades and rework to extend their service life.”


“I get the question a lot, tell me about this F-35 versus F-18. And I say, it’s not a versus. The complementary nature of both these aircraft in the future for our Navy, our aircraft carrier Navy, is very exciting.”

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 02:11
by talkitron
On F/A-18E/F numbers, the 2017 Navy Program Guide states "The FY 2016 program of record is 584 aircraft." If we add 80 to that, we get 664 Super Hornets in addition to the 160 E/A-18G Growlers. This is getting to be an absurd number, in my opinion, particularly when the F-35C will hit IOC in the next year or two. I love how we debate Canadian and European acquisition programs for tiny numbers of aircraft while the US Navy casually plans to buy 80 legacy aircraft (OK, some will be Block III) to resolve maintenance issues with the previous 584 Super Hornet airframes in addition to the 601 or so regular Hornets in "service and test roles" in the Marines and Navy.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 02:16
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'talkitron' was just reading some of the good things said about the F-35C in that article so they are excerpts below.
Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years
13 Jun 2017 Megan Eckstein

"...However, the Navy’s testimony today confirms the plans within its aviation procurement justification documents – that the service wants to buy 14 in 2018 for $1.25 billion , 23 in 2019 for $1.95 billion, 14 in 2020 for $1.35 billion and 14 in 2021 for $1.27 billion and 15 in 2022 for $1.28 billion....

...Many have speculated that future F/A-18 procurement would be a signal of the Navy moving away from the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lighting II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter. President Donald Trump’s December 2016 tweet pitting the two airframes against one another only increased speculation – as did Defense Secretary James Mattis’ subsequent memo ordering a review of the two aircraft and the ability to add improvements to the Super Hornet to make it comparable to the Joint Strike Fighter.

At the SASC hearing today, Navy Director of Air Warfare (OPNAV N98) Rear Adm. DeWolfe Miller made clear that the Navy would not be choosing between the two.

“I get the question a lot, tell me about this F-35 versus F-18. And I say, it’s not a versus. The complementary nature of both these aircraft in the future for our Navy, our aircraft carrier Navy, is very exciting.”...

...The F-35C is still awaiting the 3F software upgrade before beginning final test and evaluation and working towards reaching initial operational capability. Grosklags said at the hearing that “in terms of the (software) development process, we’re on very solid ground.”

“As we want to get to the final 3F software configuration before we introduce the aircraft in the Navy, we’re very closely watching the stability. And we have seen over the last year to 18 months the in-flight stability go from where they were having to system-reset or having to do something with the system in-flight from about every five hours, to the most recent software release is about every 40 hours, which is more than acceptable for us right now,” he said.

Miller said that early shipboard testing of the F-35C with previous software increments already looked promising. After about 150 carrier landings, the F-35C has seen a 100-percent rate of successfully landing on the carrier, with none of them catching the first of four arresting wires, which is typically the most dangerous of the four to catch.

“It was a dream to bring aboard,” Miller said. On the plane’s capability, he said “the fact that we’re getting super-sonic stealth, data fusion, the sensor-netting that this airplane is going to be able to provide, it adds capability, lethality and survivability, not just to the air wing but to the entire carrier strike group – the way we integrate it with our Aegis ships and our Baseline 9 configuration, the way we fight it alongside our .. E-2D [Advnaced Hawkeyes] and with the capability of a [EA-18G] Growler.”"

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/06/13/navy-i ... -shortfall

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 03:11
by nutshell
How many AAMs fired from an Aegis cruise, can the F35 guide remotely?

That feature must be scary for potential enemies: the F35 is not a force multiplier: it's literally and exponential function.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 03:57
by SpudmanWP
nutshell wrote:How many AAMs fired from an Aegis cruise

None, however.. it can have a metric butt ton of SAMs :roll:

, can the F35 guide remotely?

Yes

That feature must be scary for potential enemies

Yes

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 04:30
by blindpilot
nutshell wrote:How many AAMs fired from an Aegis cruise,

(as above "S"AMs), I once did a quick what if spread sheet for a Nimitz class Task Force fleet. Assuming a healthy load of other missiles (Tomahawk, Harpoon, ASROC, some SM3 ABM etc.*) the fleet could have over 300 SM6's, and if ESSMs (they use AMRAAM systems) can also be controlled, another 500 or so, ignoring all the Rolling Airframe missiles, there could be close to 1000 missiles theoretically launched by a single F-35,
can the F35 guide remotely?

Yeah ... a bunch... BUT I believe the APG-81 is set to engage 6 targets at a time. Not sure the add-on capability "DAS and fire and forget" might give however. It would take a month of salvo's and a few air refuelings but ... that's close to an unlimited magazine. (Would give the pilot's trigger finger, carpal tunnel syndrome before the time he could finish. They'd need 2 F-35s to play tag out, so they could work the cramps out)
That feature must be scary for potential enemies: the F35 is not a force multiplier: it's literally an[SIC] exponential function.

You think?!! :shock: :shock:

MHO
BP

PS 1,000 SM-6s and ESSMs at $1 1/2 to $4M each would probably trigger some alert in Congress however. And you wonder why US Navy ships cost $"Billion"s...?
* actual launch tubes for standard escort group is over 1300 missiles, up to over 1500 if a lot of quad pack ESSMs are stuffed. Note: China doesn't have that many aircraft ... and that's just one of 10/11 CTF ... so 3,000 in two carrier groups, etc. etc.
To your original question an Aegis cruiser if it loaded all quad pack ESSMs would have 488 "AMRAAM type" missiles. The standard load out is about 80 "SM-6 type" missiles.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 05:35
by SpudmanWP
believe the APG-81 is set to engage 6 targets at a time. Not sure the add-on capability "DAS and fire and forget" might give however.


You're thinking 4th Gen Federated systems :roll:

I'll have to dig, but in a video of an F-35 Sim, the instructor said that the F-35 can maintain 100+ "SA" (Situational Awareness) tracks, 16 A2G "WG" (Weapons Grade) tracks, and 8 A2A WG tracks.

As soon as the 1st SAM hits, the next target that has an SA track would be upgraded to WG. This is also "per F-35" so a group would multiply the tracks.

It's at the 1:30 mark

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 07:32
by blindpilot
SpudmanWP wrote:
believe the APG-81 is set to engage 6 targets at a time. Not sure the add-on capability "DAS and fire and forget" might give however.


You're thinking 4th Gen Federated systems :roll:
...the instructor said that the F-35 can maintain 100+ "SA" (Situational Awareness) tracks, 16 A2G "WG" (Weapons Grade) tracks, and 8 A2A WG tracks.
As soon as the 1st SAM hits, the next target that has an SA track would be upgraded to WG. This is also "per F-35" so a group would multiply the tracks...


Absolutely!
The other sensors and platforms (actually all together as a system of systems) contribute to the 8 times X WG tracks, and one gone, next up, is definitely part of the SA/fusion/management features. I did not mean to imply (or restrict) the "engagement" to "6 targets, and then count to 60 or whatever, cycle another 6 targets." The APG-81 however apparently will only be "engaging" (controlling/updating) 6 of the 16/8 "defending A2A missiles" (not targets) at any given instant in time. Again also, A2G laser tracking, and DAS/EOTS/ESM contributions are not included in this "6" number of the radar itself. In fact we don't know what created the WG track. That's part of the overall fused SA management. Target data could also be handed off to "fire and forget" weapons release, and cycled out for the next one up. The "6" is a radar only limit (probably software/performance decided) in the "talking to the missile" function. That's an FYI radar spec. It can certainly switch from one group or missile to another, and back etc. depending on overall system programming. In that regard the 16/8 is probably an artificial software limit as well.

A flight of F-35s can probably send to target as fast as the fleet can launch them, but I would propose the "command pickup" of the APG-81 is in groups of six per radar, rolling onto the new missiles, at some pace. That's the spec. Grabbing missile seven while setting aside missile one, does not mean the first WG track has been abandoned. And apparently that's true up to 8 constant A2A WG, with a queue of 100+ targets being prioritized by the system. I suspect the designated 8 could be dynamic before impact as well, changing one for another depending on changing threat assessment. But we don't know the software. That limit may well be a capricious pilot workload imposed decision. We did a similar threat assessment, display management, set up at almost the same number (7-11) with NORAD missile tracking, strictly based on psychological studies, even when we had many more tracks than that.

To the question, the pilot will be "pulling the trigger/clicking the mouse" very fast up to 1,000 missiles in his "magazine." That's an intimidating thought for those who think they will just "salvo" the carrier dead. If the fleet is nervous, they can bring in another carrier group, and its F-35s and bump it up to 3,000.

And in the midst of this discussion, we have just ignored the F-35 and S/Hornet aircraft's on board missiles. They might play along too. I also ignored the fleet's point defense RAM missiles (42 or so per carrier). And that's ignoring the RAM/AMRAAM reloads available in the battle. You don't kill a carrier in the 5th gen world, with a couple, or even hundreds, of SCUDS and bombers, especially since the F-35 probably took out the SCUD launcher/bombers on the ground before, or soon after, the scenario started.

MHO
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 08:35
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'talkitron' was just reading some of the good things said about the F-35C in that article so they are excerpts below.
Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years
13 Jun 2017 Megan Eckstein

"...However, the Navy’s testimony today confirms the plans within its aviation procurement justification documents – that the service wants to buy 14 in 2018 for $1.25 billion , 23 in 2019 for $1.95 billion, 14 in 2020 for $1.35 billion and 14 in 2021 for $1.27 billion and 15 in 2022 for $1.28 billion....

...Many have speculated that future F/A-18 procurement would be a signal of the Navy moving away from the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lighting II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter. President Donald Trump’s December 2016 tweet pitting the two airframes against one another only increased speculation – as did Defense Secretary James Mattis’ subsequent memo ordering a review of the two aircraft and the ability to add improvements to the Super Hornet to make it comparable to the Joint Strike Fighter.

At the SASC hearing today, Navy Director of Air Warfare (OPNAV N98) Rear Adm. DeWolfe Miller made clear that the Navy would not be choosing between the two.

“I get the question a lot, tell me about this F-35 versus F-18. And I say, it’s not a versus. The complementary nature of both these aircraft in the future for our Navy, our aircraft carrier Navy, is very exciting.”...

...The F-35C is still awaiting the 3F software upgrade before beginning final test and evaluation and working towards reaching initial operational capability. Grosklags said at the hearing that “in terms of the (software) development process, we’re on very solid ground.”

“As we want to get to the final 3F software configuration before we introduce the aircraft in the Navy, we’re very closely watching the stability. And we have seen over the last year to 18 months the in-flight stability go from where they were having to system-reset or having to do something with the system in-flight from about every five hours, to the most recent software release is about every 40 hours, which is more than acceptable for us right now,” he said.

Miller said that early shipboard testing of the F-35C with previous software increments already looked promising. After about 150 carrier landings, the F-35C has seen a 100-percent rate of successfully landing on the carrier, with none of them catching the first of four arresting wires, which is typically the most dangerous of the four to catch.

“It was a dream to bring aboard,” Miller said. On the plane’s capability, he said “the fact that we’re getting super-sonic stealth, data fusion, the sensor-netting that this airplane is going to be able to provide, it adds capability, lethality and survivability, not just to the air wing but to the entire carrier strike group – the way we integrate it with our Aegis ships and our Baseline 9 configuration, the way we fight it alongside our .. E-2D [Advnaced Hawkeyes] and with the capability of a [EA-18G] Growler.”"

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/06/13/navy-i ... -shortfall



Honestly, I would rather have 60 F-35C's. Which, could equip three CVW's than 80 Super Hornets. Which, will be useless against future Chinese and Russian Stealth Fighter post-2025/30.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 09:05
by popcorn
blindpilot wrote:PS 1,000 SM-6s and ESSMs at $1 1/2 to $4M each would probably trigger some alert in Congress however. And you wonder why US Navy ships cost $"Billion"s...?


...which explains why the Navy is putting money into developing cheap HVPs fired from 5-in. deck guns (and EMRGs down the road) to reverse the cost equation in favor of the defense.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 22:01
by neptune
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ue-438236/


“No diagnosis” on pilot oxygen issue

14 June, 2017
BY: Leigh Giangreco
Washington DC


US Navy pilots flying T-45 Goshawk trainers and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets continue to struggle with oxygen problems, yet the service has found no root cause to date. The navy grounded its T-45s indefinitely after pilots reported oxygen deprivation. T-45 instructors, but not students, were allowed returned to flying in April but under restrictions. The navy forced instructor pilots to fly under 5,000ft altitude and maintain 2g manoeuvres, an envelope that would not require the use of the use of the on board oxygen generator system (OBOGS). During a 13 June Senate hearing, Vice Adm Paul Grosklags, commander of Naval Air Systems Command, told members of Congress that the T-45 pilots often experience breathing gas issues while the F/A-18 pilots report pressurization problems.

“We’re not doing well on the diagnosis,” Grosklags told senators this week. “To date, we have been unable to find any smoking guns.” Despite testing, the navy has not been able to discover a contaminant in the breathing gas, he says. Several aircraft are undergoing testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, where the service has examined every single component in breathing gas path out of the aircraft from the engine to the mask, he adds. Even after extreme testing, the navy has not found what it considers the cause of contamination or an element being released into the gas.

In the meantime, the US Navy could hemorrhage students if the service does not solve the issue by this fall. The service has not flown any training events with students since March, delaying a crop of about 25 undergraduate pilots per month. By the end of the June, the service will delay 75 students moving to the next squadron, Grosklags says. The US Marine Corps represents about a third of the navy’s production, says the USMC’s deputy commandant for aviation, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis. “I need to have students loading those up in September,” Davis says. “We have a problem with numbers.”

Meanwhile, 48 F-35A aircraft are still grounded at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona after pilots reported hypoxia symptoms. Davis is not aware of hypoxia issues on the US Navy and USMC’s F-35C and F-35B variants but is watching the incident closely, he says.

Both service and industry officials have not indicated they will abandon the OBOGS, the same system fielded on the F-22, F-35 and T-45, which have all experienced oxygen issues. Boeing is conducting a root cause analysis with the US Navy and has made some progress on the oxygen issue, Boeing executive vice president Leanne Caret said 14 June. When asked whether industry is considering stepping away from OBOGS, Caret said the root cause should be found first. “Nothing’s off the table,” Caret says. “But we don’t want to predetermine, that’s the worst thing you can do. This is a serious issue for our pilots.”
:oops:

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2017, 04:37
by spazsinbad
Navy Can’t Find ‘Culprit’ Of T-45s Suspected Hypoxia; Mattis Pledges Afghan Strategy
13 Jun 2017 Colin Clark

"WASHINGTON: The Navy, hasn’t been able to process 25 prospective pilots for each of the last three months as it struggles to find the cause of what may be hypoxia episodes afflicting many T-45 pilots, has not been able to ferret out what is causing them to suffer from headaches and other symptoms.

Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags, the head of Naval Air Systems Command, testified to the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee this afternoon that the Navy has analyzed all the systems feeding air to its pilots in T-45s and has “not been able to discover a culprit.” So far 75 pilots have not been able to qualify.

You could see the frustration on the admiral’s face as he spoke. Problems like this can be very difficult to figure out — it took the Air Force several years before it reliably demonstrated it had fixed hypoxia problems with the F-22 — and, as you can see from the chart below, there have been sharp increases in reported incidents since 2014 for the T-45s and all but one of the F-18 models. [???]

Even so, Grosklags told the subcommittee he thought pilots would be back to flight training in “weeks, not months” thanks to an array of prophylactic measures the Navy plans to implement so pilots can identify problems before they become life threatening.

CHART:"“Physiological episodes” caused by problems with air supply have risen dramatically for both the Navy’s T-45 Goshawk trainers and all variants of its F-18 Hornet strike fighters. (Navy data)"
http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/u ... 24x761.png


Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/navy ... -strategy/

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2017, 05:45
by SpudmanWP
Wonder what happened in 2014/2015?

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2017, 08:14
by Dragon029
The air campaign against ISIS did begin in August 2014; perhaps the issues are tied to the increase in tempo and coincidentally, the jets being maybe ~5 years older since they last saw this kind of usage.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 01:35
by talkitron
Here is a followup article saying the 80 new Super Hornets are possibly just the beginning of an even larger order. So I guess a total of 660 Super Hornets in addition to 160 Growlers will not be enough! Some other good info is quoted below.

Navy’s Planned 80 Super Hornet Buy Could Grow After New Pentagon Strategy Review

https://news.usni.org/2017/06/15/navys- ... grow-based

However, a combination of the intense operational use of current aircraft and unpleasant discoveries during the Navy’s service life extension program (SLEP) for the F/A-18 A-D Hornet program pushed the new buy, Stackley said.

“What we discovered was that they’re in worse shape than we had planned and estimated so we’re turning them faster was more of a challenge than we forecasted. We were discovering a lot more weren’t going to make it to the fleet. Some of these were just going to be attrited,” he said.

“So when we look ahead to the Super Hornet, we’re packing that planning up front and better so that we’re better positioned for the throughput but when you do the math in terms of how many Super Hornets will be out of reporting in the depots then we have to have some mitigator in terms of additional aircraft to meet our fleet replacement… If you do that math and all of the modeling assumptions and you add from what you learned off of the legacy F-18 SLEP program, we concluded that we needed about 80 additional aircraft to insure that we get through this period of time in better shape than what we’re experiencing now with the legacies.”

The modernization effort, dubbed Block III, is set to be funded starting in FY 2018 as part of a $264.9 million over the next five years to improve the characteristics of the Super Hornet.

While Boeing has offered a variety of options for the Block III effort, USNI News understands the bulk of the money will be used to fund additional conformal fuel tanks. The tanks fit along the fuselage and can extend the range of a Super Hornet by 120 nautical miles, Boeing officials told USNI News in May.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 02:50
by madrat
I'm starting to think there is more human element to this OBOGS issue than a single magic bullet scientific explanation. Without filtering out candidates ill fit for flight, you're shoving them through the system. Attrition that should have naturally weeded out weaker candidates hasn't taken place. And the stats seem to correlate with the change in 'politics' that come with filling slots.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 02:57
by 35_aoa
madrat wrote:I'm starting to think there is more human element to this OBOGS issue than a single magic bullet scientific explanation. Without filtering out candidates ill fit for flight, you're shoving them through the system. Attrition that should have naturally weeded out weaker candidates hasn't taken place. And the stats seem to correlate with the change in 'politics' that come with filling slots.


I'm curious about the point that you are trying to make here?

On the subject, I will say that there is a very heightened awareness of the issue right now, and there has been for the last few years across the fleet. I don't think that caution is a bad thing, but I do think this mentality has probably created more than a couple "false positives", potentially skewing the stats/data. Good on them for doing the right thing if feeling weird, but there are a lot of times when I feel weird and it isn't anything to do with OBOGS/ECS/anything other than me. I will say I have personally had one hypoxia "episode" in flight, and have had a multitude of rapid decompressions that didn't resolve into any physiological problem.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 04:43
by madrat
Nepotism and other crony forms of politics can skew candidates from those that survive best through rigorous training to a population that best fits the social-political landscape. Someone's kid probably failed some forms of testing and suddenly that method became improper. It wasn't improper for anything save it ran a candidate out that someone really wanted in. The political landscape across the services has changed dramatically about the same time all these problems with OBOGS and hypoxia blossomed.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 09:46
by spazsinbad
Posted first in the udder thred but posted here also becauz already mentioned T-45C/BOING! stuff OBOGaLOGs here.
US Navy seeks next-generation oxygen system for T-45s
15 Jun 2017 Leigh Giangreco

"The US Navy and industry will pursue a next-generation on board oxygen generator system (OBOGS) while the service implements fixes to mitigate persistent oxygen and pressurization issues on its Boeing/BAE Systems T-45 trainers and Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets....

...In parallel with ongoing mitigation efforts, industry will install breathing air pressure warning for aircraft fitted with the solid state oxygen monitor (CRU-123) this month and develop a next-generation OBOGS known as GGU-25.

T-45’s current OBOGS is made up of Cobham’s oxygen concentrator (GGU-7), an oxygen monitor (CRU-99) and an aircrew-worn breathing air regulator (CRU- 103).

The CRU-123 is a digital upgrade to the current CRU-99 and will be able to deliver information on both temperature and oxygen pressure to pilots, Moran says. Cobham is looking at the redesigned OBOGS as a potential replacement for the legacy system if the navy’s mitigation efforts do not work, he adds. The effort also includes adding a larger capacity emergency oxygen system on the T-45 to eliminate the current way the navy uses on board oxygen today....

...Meanwhile, the Navy is sharing its findings on hypoxia issues with the US Air Force, which recently experienced oxygen problems on Lockheed Martin F-35As at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. The Defense Department has asked the navy for information on the hypoxia study and will determine whether the F-35 effort should merit an independent or can follow on the navy’s effort, Moran says."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -4-438277/

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 19:12
by spazsinbad
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE T-45 AND FA-18 PHYSIOLOGICAL EPISODES [REPEATED HERE for Good Reason]
10 Jun 2017 USN

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Comprehensive Review (CR) examined the facts, circumstances and processes surrounding the recent Physiological Episodes (PEs) involving T-45 and FA-18 aircrew, including how these issues have been addressed...."

Source: http://www.navy.mil/local/pes/Comprehen ... w%20PE.pdf (6.1Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2017, 21:29
by spazsinbad
The Navy is Issuing Every F/A-18 Pilot A Garmin Watch. Here's Why. [ALWAYS BEST TO READ IT ALL AT URL]
16 Jun 2017 Hope Hodge Seck

"The newest weapon in the Navy's fight to prevent physical episodes that endanger fighter pilots in the cockpit is an off-the-shelf watch that can measure air pressure and altitude.

Military.com has learned that the Navy plans to equip every pilot who flies an F/A-18 Hornet or E/A-18G Growler a Garmin Fenix 3 watch, a sleek wrist-wearable device that retails for around $450. Navy Air Forces Commander Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker released a message to the force in January announcing that he had authorized the devices for deploying strike fighter squadrons 34 and 37, which both fly the older F/A-18C Hornet, rather than the E/F Super Hornet.

Since then, the Navy has ordered enough of the watches for all Hornet and Growler squadrons, Naval Air Forces spokeswoman Cmdr. Jeannie Groeneveld told Military.com Thursday. "We aim to have 100 percent of our fleet squadrons equipped with the watches by August," she said via email....

...While those in the T-45 community have speculated that mysterious hypoxia-like episodes in the cockpit are caused by a contaminant on the aircraft's onboard oxygen generation system, most F/A-18 episodes have been attributed to environmental control system issues and cabin pressurization malfunctions, according to the report.

And that's where the watches may come in handy. The watches, the report notes, were purchased for all F/A-18 crew based in Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia, because the cabin altimeter gauge of their aircraft was difficult to read due to its size and location, and "its audible warnings are ineffective through the flight envelope."

The watches, once issued to pilots, will alert them when cabin altitude reaches a preset threshold, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Kara Yingling told Military.com. Essentially, the devices could provide pilots with an additional early warning to prevent cabin pressure problems from reaching a crisis point....

...The altimeter watch concept does have its detractors, however. "These watches have not undergone [Naval Air Systems Command] testing for accuracy and dynamic range for this application," the authors of the new report warn. "NAVAIR engineers expressed concern these watches could provide a false sense of security."

Navy officials continue to look for ways to solve the problem of physiological episodes -- an issue that has claimed the lives of four Hornet pilots over the course of decades, according to recently released data.

Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran, who ordered the recent review, told reporters Thursday that a slew of efforts were still underway to detect existing problems and to ensure that onboard oxygen generation systems were providing pilots with clean, dry, non-contaminated air. If all else fails, the Navy may order aircraft to be equipped across the board with a new, next-generation onboard oxygen generation system, Moran said.

We have been dealing with hypoxic events in naval aviation for as long as we've had high-performance jets," Moran said. "What we're seeing, though, is a trend in the wrong direction.""

Source: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017 ... s-why.html

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2017, 03:01
by spazsinbad
Over the years I have given up my 'pilot' faskination with watches. RAN FAA had a good reliable easy to read large watch face & that was all that was needed then in cockpit - not even a stopwatch. Anyway today the range of watches - 'mazin'.

fēnix® 3 HR (more expensive at $550 but more likely given modes)
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/545480 OR https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/160512
"...The built-in altimeter provides elevation data to accurately monitor ascent and descent..."

https://static.garmincdn.com/en/product ... /cf-lg.jpg
&
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... mbnail.jpg ????????????????????

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2017, 20:22
by outlaw162
Military.com has learned that the Navy plans to equip every pilot who flies an F/A-18 Hornet or E/A-18G Growler a Garmin Fenix 3 watch, a sleek wrist-wearable device that retails for around $450.


Why not just equip each aircraft with the watch(es) and an adjustable wrist band to fit any/all pilots/NFOs?

The plane captain could make sure it/they were hung on the boarding ladders prior to pilot/crew arrival at the jet....

....pilot/crew would still be responsible for donning them properly of course. :doh:

"...The built-in altimeter provides elevation data to accurately monitor ascent and descent..."


So now it's the fault of 'inaccurately' monitored aircraft indicating systems. What a stellar fix!

What BS..... :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2017, 22:23
by outlaw162
You used to be able to recognize a 'fighter pilot' by his big watch. Now.....

.....you'll be able to tell by the watch 'chime' when his/her three minute egg is done or a particular cabin altitude has been reached.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2017, 22:25
by 35_aoa
First US kill since Kosovo that I'm aware of.......brought to you by the Super Hornet.....

https://www.rt.com/news/392941-us-led-c ... ian-plane/

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2017, 23:40
by nutshell
Seriously thinking of getting one of these Garmin watch, 320€ here in Italy. Not even THAT expensive. :drool: :drool:

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2017, 00:47
by outlaw162
Possibly the USN special will have a custom 'ringtone/altitude alert' (credit the "Police")........

"Every move you make, every breath I take, I'll be watching you."

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2017, 01:31
by madrat
The Garmin increased the combat record in one day.

Imagine if they had used Polar, Golfbuddy, Suuntu, or TomTom. The batteries would have been dead before takeoff. Seriously, the model they chose is a good survival gear addition to their kit. They just won't be ordering enough to really afford to make a custom version for the military.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2017, 02:29
by white_lightning35
Was the pilot wearing is watch when he got that kill in syria? Maybe they should make it standard issue for all pilots for luck.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2017, 09:34
by spazsinbad
All Shornet USN Aircraft Aircrew will be wearing the fēnix. Meanwhile BOING! CEO is worried - somebody better be....
Hypoxia Worries ‘Top Issue’ For Boeing Defense CEO; Cobham Tech Unveiled
18 Jun 2017 Colin Clark

"PARIS: Boeing Defense’s new CEO, Leanne Caret, told me this afternoon that investigating suspected hypoxia cases is “a top priority for Boeing,” and she is receiving weekly briefings on the issue....

...Caret says Boeing is “really focused on a root cause” and is taking a rigorous systemic approach to study the issue. They’ve brought in medical personnel and others — whom she wouldn’t describe in detail except as experts — to advise the company. She really started getting involved in June last year....

...Leonard [Brig. Gen. Brook Leonard, pilot instructor at Luke and commander of the 56th Fighter Wing] said there was a specific altitude at which the symptoms manifested themselves in the F-35A but he was not willing to say what it was to avoid tilting the investigation one way or another. To make sure the pilot community knows what’s happening and has confidence in how the Air Force is handling the issue, Leonard said they held a town hall meeting for pilots’ spouses.

He said one of the things the Air Force is considering is monitoring pilot’s blood oxygen levels in flight so they can combined that with the “exquisite data” already available about the plane’s performance. That might allow the service to make decisions with greater confidence.

Also, Leonard did not sound very impressed with the F-35’s On Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS), which skims air off the engine intake — an unlimited supply as long as the aircraft keeps flying — then purifies, cools and concentrates it for the pilots to breathe.

“We do think the OBOGS system is not as robust as it could be, but it does meet the minimum standard,” he said, without elaborating.

Meanwhile, at the Paris Air Show, Cobham will be unveiling a new testing system tomorrow for these so-called physiological events.

They’ve already delivered the first Inhalation Gas Sensor to the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, the company says in a release. It’s the first part of a two-stage system that will include an exhalation sensor block. They will capture environmental, oxygen system performance, and pilot physiological data “to help discern root cause of debilitating physiological events that continue to plague aircrew safety and mission readiness.”

“To unravel the mystery of root cause, we will start by creating a comprehensive mosaic of information that will simultaneously zero in on how the oxygen source equipment is performing, what the cockpit environmental conditions are around the pilot, and monitor the pilot’s physiological data captured in exhaled breath. This data will then be analyzed for correlations to physiological episodes and hypoxia-like symptoms that may have occurred during flight to ultimately help determine root cause,” Stuart Buckley, VP for business development and sales at Cobham Mission Systems, says in a statement. Perhaps this is the system Leonard mentioned, but I’m not sure.

The F-35 Joint Program Office is leading the investigation into the root causes of the suspected hypoxia incidents and is supporting the folks at Luke...."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/hypo ... -unveiled/

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 02:43
by spazsinbad
HAMMER TIME (fēnix) - CAN'T TOUCH THIS....
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/19/kremli ... an-fighter

Image
Image
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 14:24
by steve2267
35_aoa wrote:First US kill since Kosovo that I'm aware of.......brought to you by the Super Hornet.....

https://www.rt.com/news/392941-us-led-c ... ian-plane/


Saw that in the news. Any word on whether it was a Sidewinder, slammer, or guns? If it was "immediate", I'm guessing it was an AIM-120. Slightly curious it wasn't a Raptor, but then again, I have no idea how the planes are deployed, and am (also) guessing the Super Hornet was closest aircraft at the time (right place at the right time). Good on da pilot...

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 15:33
by XanderCrews
35_aoa wrote:First US kill since Kosovo that I'm aware of.......brought to you by the Super Hornet.....

https://www.rt.com/news/392941-us-led-c ... ian-plane/




There must be some kind of mistake!!

THE U.S NAVY'S GREATEST MISTAKE

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The path that the United States Navy has chosen to take regarding its
future aviation assets puts it in a dangerous position. It is my belief
that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not a capable aircraft to be given
the role of sole offensive aircraft on board USN carriers. When we look
at the Super Hornet which I prefer to call the Stupid Hornet we see an
aircraft that first and foremost is the 'losing' aircraft in the USAF
LWF competition, we see an aircraft that has been redesigned twice and
still cannot get rid of it's fuel shortage problems. This aircraft
should not even have existed, and was in fact rejected by the USN in the
late 80's and now its defending US carriers. The USN claims that the
Super Hornet is, "a most deadly foe in both beyond-visual-range and
close-in engagements," (VADM John Nathman, Naval Aviation News,
March-April 2000) to put it plainly that's the biggest load of bull****
I've ever heard. Lets compare the Super Hornet to the other new aircraft
out there. The Super Hornet doesn't carry Phoenix, so immediately it's
down to medium range, it doesn't have an IRST or UHF radar so it must
use active radar and can't detect stealth aircraft, it has no thrust
vectoring so it's not as maneuverable as other new fighters, it doesn't
have super cruise, in fact it can't even reach Mach 1 below 10 ,000ft,
so it can't get away from any opponents, old and new, and it has a
marginal fuel load so it can get very far anyway. The latest generation
of fighters includes the F/A-22, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, MiG 1-44,
Su-37, and a number of new Chinese and Indian fighters. The Super Hornet
is inferior to all of these aircraft as well as to the Su-27, MiG-29,
F-14 and F-15. So in actual fact the USN is going to rely on a
re-designed hand-me down loser from the LWF competition to 'project
power' for the next 20 years, though how far it can project power
remains to be seen as the Super Hornet has such a small radius of
action. The U SN has 'remedied' the lack range by changing its doctrine
to littoral conflicts, we'll see how that works after silkworm missiles
hit the carriers. The employment of the Hornet as a tanker is quite
frankly a joke, not only because it has such a poor fuel load in the
first place but also because it's airframe is not suitable to be
fuel-efficient. The aircraft barely has enough fuel for itself let alone
other aircraft. It amazes me just how stupid and blind the current USN
leaders are. The future CVW will be made up of just Hornets and the way
the USN is going they'll probably put a radome on top of it and replace
the E-2 Hawkeye with it. The aircraft that the Hornet and Super Hornet
have or are replacing include, the A-7, A-6, S-3, EA-6B and the F-14.
Wow, an aircraft that isn't much better than an F-16 is taking the place
of all these superior aircraft, so why the hell is the USN developing
the JSF they all-ready have their all can do fighter, or maybe they
realize that the Super Hornet is just an inferior 4th generation fighter
trying to disguise itself as a 5th generation fighter. With India and
China both keen to develop carrier fleets, that will surely carry
aircraft better that the pathetic Super Hornet, the USN could find
itself in a comprising position. The Super Hornet puts the USN firmly on
the road to, lets by a ****ty aircraft and hope we don't have to fight
anyone with better planes,' remember the USN cannot fight foes like
Afghanistan and Iraq forever. When the Tomcats are gone the USN will
find they have the best carriers in the world and the most useless
aircraft in the world operating from them. The Super Hornet decision
could very well lead to the end of US Naval Aviation. If the Super
Hornet was so suited to the USN's needs then why would a Naval Officer
make the following statement.

"Even with the arrival of the F/A-18E Super Hornet in the force, the
F-14 remains 'the platform of choice for precision targeting'. It has
longer range than the Super Hornet, and the LANTIRN targeting pod is
superior to the Nite Hawk the F/A-18Es carry" [CAPT Scott Swift, deputy
commander CVW-14, 2003]

Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002): ° "The (F/A-18E/F)
aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights
with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and
we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat

The F-14 Tomcat, unlike the Hornet, has never been favored among those
that provide funding, I don't know why, maybe because good old ****ie
Cheney had some quarrel with the higher ups at Grumman. Now that fool is
the Vice President. For example the F-14 entered service in 1972 with an
interim engine and yet the first serious upgrade only took place in the
late 80's with the F-14B and D, the F/A-18 entered service in 1984 and
just three years later a new variant, the F/A-18C was flying. To top it
all **** cancelled further F-14D production in 1990, leaving the Navy
with the planned Super Hornet, which was never intended to replace the
F-14, because it was simply a stupid idea. In fact the Super Hornet
replacing the F-14 is similar to how the British Government wants to
replace the Harrier FA2's with GR9's. At least the Iranians have had the
brains to keep this jet flying for as long as it can. Current aviators
may claim that the Super Hornet is, "an exceptio nal aircraft with
superb combat capability and growth potential," (CDR T.W. Huff. USN,
Flight Journal, pg.28, June 2002) but the very fact that this debate
exists, that a fighter (re-) designed in the 1990's can even be compared
to a fighter designed in the late 60's (the Tomcat) is testament to the
fact that many doubt the capabilities of the Super Hornet. The politics
involving aircraft procurement in the Pentagon has resulted in the USN
being forced to operate a dog for the next 20 years and to get rid of
some of its most valuable air assets. The Super Tomcat 21 would have
been a far better and cheaper aircraft than the Super Hornet. Had that
aircraft been procured this debate would not exist. There would be no
debate as to whether the Tomcat 21 was better than the Super Hornet.
Further more it would have been a cheaper aircraft to develop and
purchase when compared to the Super Hornet's $76 million price tag, a
lot more than the more capable F-14D ($50 million). In the e arly 90's
when the F-14D was cancelled and the Super Hornet was just a paper
airplane the estimated R & D costs for the F/A-18E/F was $3 billion and
eventually the program overran to a cost of $9 billion to produce an
aircraft less capable than the F-14D. It must be noted that the F-14D's
R & D dollars had already been spent and the aircraft already existed
when the Super Hornet was nothing more than a drawing. In my view that's
a real waste of taxpayer money. Also one cannot say the F-14 cannot
carry standoff missiles like SLAM, because F-14D's can easily be
modified to support these weapons. The F/A-18E/F is an aircraft with a
new wing, fuselage and empennage, and is thus a new aircraft, F/A-18C's
cannot be modified to Super Hornet status yet the USN proposed this
aircraft as a 'modification program' when clearly it's only a Hornet by
name. When new aircraft are proposed they need Congress approval and the
Super Hornet never got that approval and is thus an illegal aircraft.
What a scandal! The USN made a huge mistake by not pursuing the Tomcat
21/ASF-14, an aircraft that would have had a glass cockpit, better
radar, stealth enhancements, supercruise, thrust-vectoring, more fuel
(and range), less maintenance and incorporated all of the present and
proposed features of the F-14D. It would have cost less than the Super
Hornet, had 90% the capability of the ATF at 60% of the cost and would
have kept the USN air wings capable and effective well into this
century. For decades the USN has developed and operated aircraft that
were the best in their fields, the F-4, A-6 and the F-14 and it is thus
sad to see that the best that the Navy can develop and field today
doesn't even approach the capability of an F-14.

Navy statement (as of March 2001): "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet .... Leading
Naval Aviation into the 21st Century. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a
winner... it's affordable... and it's flying today, exceeding every
operational goal. F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter
aircraft of today and tomorrow."

The first part of this statement could have been said about the F-14D 10
years earlier! "F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter aircraft
of today and tomorrow." Clearly the author of this statement was smoking
something when he wrote this!

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the Super Hornet (in an Associated
Press article in late 2001): "Its the same old Hornet ****, repackaged,
which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can
never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator
mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing,
there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come
anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks
intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the
liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this
aviation masterpiece rot in hell."

This statement is from a VF-102 pilot on that squadron's final Tomcat
cruise and is the most honest statement I've ever read regarding the
Super Hornet debacle.

During the Gulf War the USN was almost ignored by the USAF, but once
F-14's got Lantirn they became the primary strikers of Desert Fox and
Bosnia, placed ahead of F-15E's, while also playing major roles in
Afghanistan and Gulf War 2. Once the Tomcat's are gone the USN could
find itself being ignored again. The Super Hornet simply cannot compete
with F-15E's, F/A-22's and the proposed FB-22. The USN has now
accelerated the retirement of the F-14 to mid-2007 supposedly to save
money. I don't see how that works as money has just been spent on the
F-14's to give them Lantirn capability and most recently JDAM
capability. In addition to this, Tomcats were upgraded with DFCS and
some cockpit enhancements were made such as the PTID. Now having just
spent this money the Navy is going to retire this aircraft, which is
just ridiculous. VF-2 is the next squadron to convert onto the god awful
Stupid Hornets. It doesn't make sense that a unit flying top of the
range F-14D's has to convert while other squadrons remain flying F-14A's
(VF-154, VF-211). I don't think that those D's are going to new
squadrons, after all what happened to the F-14B's when VF-102 converted?
It just exhibits the idiocy prevailing in current USN leadership.
Unfortunately it's too late for anything, except maybe for the loss of a
USN carrier, to get the powers that be to change the doomed course that
Naval Aviation is flying so blindly into. One thing is for sure though
is that the Super Hornet will never be a legend. F-4's, A-6's and the
F-14 will remain legends in the USN. In particular the F-14 has a
mystique and prowess about it that is unmatched, that's one of the
reasons why so many people around the world don't want to see it go.
However when the Super Hornet finally goes out of service (hopefully
soon) no-one, absolutely no-one will care, the Super Hornet will not be
legend, just an expensive piece of junk the Navy operated for a while,
that's it, no-one will care. Indeed the day that the last F-14 is
retired will be the darkest day in U.S Naval Aviation history.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 16:19
by mk82
XanderCrews wrote:
35_aoa wrote:First US kill since Kosovo that I'm aware of.......brought to you by the Super Hornet.....

https://www.rt.com/news/392941-us-led-c ... ian-plane/




There must be some kind of mistake!!

THE U.S NAVY'S GREATEST MISTAKE

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The path that the United States Navy has chosen to take regarding its
future aviation assets puts it in a dangerous position. It is my belief
that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not a capable aircraft to be given
the role of sole offensive aircraft on board USN carriers. When we look
at the Super Hornet which I prefer to call the Stupid Hornet we see an
aircraft that first and foremost is the 'losing' aircraft in the USAF
LWF competition, we see an aircraft that has been redesigned twice and
still cannot get rid of it's fuel shortage problems. This aircraft
should not even have existed, and was in fact rejected by the USN in the
late 80's and now its defending US carriers. The USN claims that the
Super Hornet is, "a most deadly foe in both beyond-visual-range and
close-in engagements," (VADM John Nathman, Naval Aviation News,
March-April 2000) to put it plainly that's the biggest load of bull****
I've ever heard. Lets compare the Super Hornet to the other new aircraft
out there. The Super Hornet doesn't carry Phoenix, so immediately it's
down to medium range, it doesn't have an IRST or UHF radar so it must
use active radar and can't detect stealth aircraft, it has no thrust
vectoring so it's not as maneuverable as other new fighters, it doesn't
have super cruise, in fact it can't even reach Mach 1 below 10 ,000ft,
so it can't get away from any opponents, old and new, and it has a
marginal fuel load so it can get very far anyway. The latest generation
of fighters includes the F/A-22, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, MiG 1-44,
Su-37, and a number of new Chinese and Indian fighters. The Super Hornet
is inferior to all of these aircraft as well as to the Su-27, MiG-29,
F-14 and F-15. So in actual fact the USN is going to rely on a
re-designed hand-me down loser from the LWF competition to 'project
power' for the next 20 years, though how far it can project power
remains to be seen as the Super Hornet has such a small radius of
action. The U SN has 'remedied' the lack range by changing its doctrine
to littoral conflicts, we'll see how that works after silkworm missiles
hit the carriers. The employment of the Hornet as a tanker is quite
frankly a joke, not only because it has such a poor fuel load in the
first place but also because it's airframe is not suitable to be
fuel-efficient. The aircraft barely has enough fuel for itself let alone
other aircraft. It amazes me just how stupid and blind the current USN
leaders are. The future CVW will be made up of just Hornets and the way
the USN is going they'll probably put a radome on top of it and replace
the E-2 Hawkeye with it. The aircraft that the Hornet and Super Hornet
have or are replacing include, the A-7, A-6, S-3, EA-6B and the F-14.
Wow, an aircraft that isn't much better than an F-16 is taking the place
of all these superior aircraft, so why the hell is the USN developing
the JSF they all-ready have their all can do fighter, or maybe they
realize that the Super Hornet is just an inferior 4th generation fighter
trying to disguise itself as a 5th generation fighter. With India and
China both keen to develop carrier fleets, that will surely carry
aircraft better that the pathetic Super Hornet, the USN could find
itself in a comprising position. The Super Hornet puts the USN firmly on
the road to, lets by a ****ty aircraft and hope we don't have to fight
anyone with better planes,' remember the USN cannot fight foes like
Afghanistan and Iraq forever. When the Tomcats are gone the USN will
find they have the best carriers in the world and the most useless
aircraft in the world operating from them. The Super Hornet decision
could very well lead to the end of US Naval Aviation. If the Super
Hornet was so suited to the USN's needs then why would a Naval Officer
make the following statement.

"Even with the arrival of the F/A-18E Super Hornet in the force, the
F-14 remains 'the platform of choice for precision targeting'. It has
longer range than the Super Hornet, and the LANTIRN targeting pod is
superior to the Nite Hawk the F/A-18Es carry" [CAPT Scott Swift, deputy
commander CVW-14, 2003]

Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002): ° "The (F/A-18E/F)
aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights
with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and
we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat

The F-14 Tomcat, unlike the Hornet, has never been favored among those
that provide funding, I don't know why, maybe because good old ****ie
Cheney had some quarrel with the higher ups at Grumman. Now that fool is
the Vice President. For example the F-14 entered service in 1972 with an
interim engine and yet the first serious upgrade only took place in the
late 80's with the F-14B and D, the F/A-18 entered service in 1984 and
just three years later a new variant, the F/A-18C was flying. To top it
all **** cancelled further F-14D production in 1990, leaving the Navy
with the planned Super Hornet, which was never intended to replace the
F-14, because it was simply a stupid idea. In fact the Super Hornet
replacing the F-14 is similar to how the British Government wants to
replace the Harrier FA2's with GR9's. At least the Iranians have had the
brains to keep this jet flying for as long as it can. Current aviators
may claim that the Super Hornet is, "an exceptio nal aircraft with
superb combat capability and growth potential," (CDR T.W. Huff. USN,
Flight Journal, pg.28, June 2002) but the very fact that this debate
exists, that a fighter (re-) designed in the 1990's can even be compared
to a fighter designed in the late 60's (the Tomcat) is testament to the
fact that many doubt the capabilities of the Super Hornet. The politics
involving aircraft procurement in the Pentagon has resulted in the USN
being forced to operate a dog for the next 20 years and to get rid of
some of its most valuable air assets. The Super Tomcat 21 would have
been a far better and cheaper aircraft than the Super Hornet. Had that
aircraft been procured this debate would not exist. There would be no
debate as to whether the Tomcat 21 was better than the Super Hornet.
Further more it would have been a cheaper aircraft to develop and
purchase when compared to the Super Hornet's $76 million price tag, a
lot more than the more capable F-14D ($50 million). In the e arly 90's
when the F-14D was cancelled and the Super Hornet was just a paper
airplane the estimated R & D costs for the F/A-18E/F was $3 billion and
eventually the program overran to a cost of $9 billion to produce an
aircraft less capable than the F-14D. It must be noted that the F-14D's
R & D dollars had already been spent and the aircraft already existed
when the Super Hornet was nothing more than a drawing. In my view that's
a real waste of taxpayer money. Also one cannot say the F-14 cannot
carry standoff missiles like SLAM, because F-14D's can easily be
modified to support these weapons. The F/A-18E/F is an aircraft with a
new wing, fuselage and empennage, and is thus a new aircraft, F/A-18C's
cannot be modified to Super Hornet status yet the USN proposed this
aircraft as a 'modification program' when clearly it's only a Hornet by
name. When new aircraft are proposed they need Congress approval and the
Super Hornet never got that approval and is thus an illegal aircraft.
What a scandal! The USN made a huge mistake by not pursuing the Tomcat
21/ASF-14, an aircraft that would have had a glass cockpit, better
radar, stealth enhancements, supercruise, thrust-vectoring, more fuel
(and range), less maintenance and incorporated all of the present and
proposed features of the F-14D. It would have cost less than the Super
Hornet, had 90% the capability of the ATF at 60% of the cost and would
have kept the USN air wings capable and effective well into this
century. For decades the USN has developed and operated aircraft that
were the best in their fields, the F-4, A-6 and the F-14 and it is thus
sad to see that the best that the Navy can develop and field today
doesn't even approach the capability of an F-14.

Navy statement (as of March 2001): "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet .... Leading
Naval Aviation into the 21st Century. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a
winner... it's affordable... and it's flying today, exceeding every
operational goal. F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter
aircraft of today and tomorrow."

The first part of this statement could have been said about the F-14D 10
years earlier! "F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter aircraft
of today and tomorrow." Clearly the author of this statement was smoking
something when he wrote this!

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the Super Hornet (in an Associated
Press article in late 2001): "Its the same old Hornet ****, repackaged,
which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can
never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator
mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing,
there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come
anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks
intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the
liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this
aviation masterpiece rot in hell."

This statement is from a VF-102 pilot on that squadron's final Tomcat
cruise and is the most honest statement I've ever read regarding the
Super Hornet debacle.

During the Gulf War the USN was almost ignored by the USAF, but once
F-14's got Lantirn they became the primary strikers of Desert Fox and
Bosnia, placed ahead of F-15E's, while also playing major roles in
Afghanistan and Gulf War 2. Once the Tomcat's are gone the USN could
find itself being ignored again. The Super Hornet simply cannot compete
with F-15E's, F/A-22's and the proposed FB-22. The USN has now
accelerated the retirement of the F-14 to mid-2007 supposedly to save
money. I don't see how that works as money has just been spent on the
F-14's to give them Lantirn capability and most recently JDAM
capability. In addition to this, Tomcats were upgraded with DFCS and
some cockpit enhancements were made such as the PTID. Now having just
spent this money the Navy is going to retire this aircraft, which is
just ridiculous. VF-2 is the next squadron to convert onto the god awful
Stupid Hornets. It doesn't make sense that a unit flying top of the
range F-14D's has to convert while other squadrons remain flying F-14A's
(VF-154, VF-211). I don't think that those D's are going to new
squadrons, after all what happened to the F-14B's when VF-102 converted?
It just exhibits the idiocy prevailing in current USN leadership.
Unfortunately it's too late for anything, except maybe for the loss of a
USN carrier, to get the powers that be to change the doomed course that
Naval Aviation is flying so blindly into. One thing is for sure though
is that the Super Hornet will never be a legend. F-4's, A-6's and the
F-14 will remain legends in the USN. In particular the F-14 has a
mystique and prowess about it that is unmatched, that's one of the
reasons why so many people around the world don't want to see it go.
However when the Super Hornet finally goes out of service (hopefully
soon) no-one, absolutely no-one will care, the Super Hornet will not be
legend, just an expensive piece of junk the Navy operated for a while,
that's it, no-one will care. Indeed the day that the last F-14 is
retired will be the darkest day in U.S Naval Aviation history.


Ouch!!! I guess the Superbug did pretty well in the real world then :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 19:10
by magitsu
steve2267 wrote:Saw that in the news. Any word on whether it was a Sidewinder, slammer, or guns? If it was "immediate", I'm guessing it was an AIM-120. Slightly curious it wasn't a Raptor, but then again, I have no idea how the planes are deployed, and am (also) guessing the Super Hornet was closest aircraft at the time (right place at the right time). Good on da pilot...

Saw these on twitter during the day: 6 miles out, 1st miss and 2nd shot the rear off. Chute seen. Pilot in SDF custody. None fully confirmed though, just journo tweets. So I'd say Sidewinder x2.

There was also a F-15 kill today on a similar Iranian drone than a little while ago.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 22:26
by spazsinbad
MEET THE NEW BOSS - NOT THE SAME AS THE OLD BOSS....
Dunford Touts F-35 as ‘Not Just a Better F-18 or Bomb Truck’
20 Jun 2017 Richard Sisk

"Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford said Monday that the F-35 is “not just a better F-18” but a “transformational” aircraft that will change the way the U.S. conducts war. “The short answer is it’s a critical program,” Dunford said of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in response to questions at a National Press Club lunch.

“I believe it is not just a better F-18 [Super Hornet] or a better bomb truck,” he said, but rather a transformational platform “both in its ability to deliver its ordnance as well as its ability to serve literally as a server in the sky.” “It is going to transform the way we fight,” Dunford said, despite well-documented continuing cost overruns and engineering problems that have slowed its deployment....

...“The impact of air superiority provided by our F-35s is integral to supporting our warfighters and NATO allies,” Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said in a statement...."

Source: https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/06/20/dunf ... omb-truck/

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 23:38
by popcorn

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 01:13
by spazsinbad
:doh: "...sky-on-skin friction..."? wattle they think of next? How much can a koala bear? So much like the F-35 thingamabob the first Shornet IRST must have been ...? Welcome to IRST upgrade city y'all - join the F-35 innit. :applause:

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 18:51
by mixelflick
XanderCrews wrote:
35_aoa wrote:First US kill since Kosovo that I'm aware of.......brought to you by the Super Hornet.....

https://www.rt.com/news/392941-us-led-c ... ian-plane/




There must be some kind of mistake!!

THE U.S NAVY'S GREATEST MISTAKE

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The path that the United States Navy has chosen to take regarding its
future aviation assets puts it in a dangerous position. It is my belief
that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not a capable aircraft to be given
the role of sole offensive aircraft on board USN carriers. When we look
at the Super Hornet which I prefer to call the Stupid Hornet we see an
aircraft that first and foremost is the 'losing' aircraft in the USAF
LWF competition, we see an aircraft that has been redesigned twice and
still cannot get rid of it's fuel shortage problems. This aircraft
should not even have existed, and was in fact rejected by the USN in the
late 80's and now its defending US carriers. The USN claims that the
Super Hornet is, "a most deadly foe in both beyond-visual-range and
close-in engagements," (VADM John Nathman, Naval Aviation News,
March-April 2000) to put it plainly that's the biggest load of bull****
I've ever heard. Lets compare the Super Hornet to the other new aircraft
out there. The Super Hornet doesn't carry Phoenix, so immediately it's
down to medium range, it doesn't have an IRST or UHF radar so it must
use active radar and can't detect stealth aircraft, it has no thrust
vectoring so it's not as maneuverable as other new fighters, it doesn't
have super cruise, in fact it can't even reach Mach 1 below 10 ,000ft,
so it can't get away from any opponents, old and new, and it has a
marginal fuel load so it can get very far anyway. The latest generation
of fighters includes the F/A-22, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, MiG 1-44,
Su-37, and a number of new Chinese and Indian fighters. The Super Hornet
is inferior to all of these aircraft as well as to the Su-27, MiG-29,
F-14 and F-15. So in actual fact the USN is going to rely on a
re-designed hand-me down loser from the LWF competition to 'project
power' for the next 20 years, though how far it can project power
remains to be seen as the Super Hornet has such a small radius of
action. The U SN has 'remedied' the lack range by changing its doctrine
to littoral conflicts, we'll see how that works after silkworm missiles
hit the carriers. The employment of the Hornet as a tanker is quite
frankly a joke, not only because it has such a poor fuel load in the
first place but also because it's airframe is not suitable to be
fuel-efficient. The aircraft barely has enough fuel for itself let alone
other aircraft. It amazes me just how stupid and blind the current USN
leaders are. The future CVW will be made up of just Hornets and the way
the USN is going they'll probably put a radome on top of it and replace
the E-2 Hawkeye with it. The aircraft that the Hornet and Super Hornet
have or are replacing include, the A-7, A-6, S-3, EA-6B and the F-14.
Wow, an aircraft that isn't much better than an F-16 is taking the place
of all these superior aircraft, so why the hell is the USN developing
the JSF they all-ready have their all can do fighter, or maybe they
realize that the Super Hornet is just an inferior 4th generation fighter
trying to disguise itself as a 5th generation fighter. With India and
China both keen to develop carrier fleets, that will surely carry
aircraft better that the pathetic Super Hornet, the USN could find
itself in a comprising position. The Super Hornet puts the USN firmly on
the road to, lets by a ****ty aircraft and hope we don't have to fight
anyone with better planes,' remember the USN cannot fight foes like
Afghanistan and Iraq forever. When the Tomcats are gone the USN will
find they have the best carriers in the world and the most useless
aircraft in the world operating from them. The Super Hornet decision
could very well lead to the end of US Naval Aviation. If the Super
Hornet was so suited to the USN's needs then why would a Naval Officer
make the following statement.

"Even with the arrival of the F/A-18E Super Hornet in the force, the
F-14 remains 'the platform of choice for precision targeting'. It has
longer range than the Super Hornet, and the LANTIRN targeting pod is
superior to the Nite Hawk the F/A-18Es carry" [CAPT Scott Swift, deputy
commander CVW-14, 2003]

Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002): ° "The (F/A-18E/F)
aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights
with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and
we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat

The F-14 Tomcat, unlike the Hornet, has never been favored among those
that provide funding, I don't know why, maybe because good old ****ie
Cheney had some quarrel with the higher ups at Grumman. Now that fool is
the Vice President. For example the F-14 entered service in 1972 with an
interim engine and yet the first serious upgrade only took place in the
late 80's with the F-14B and D, the F/A-18 entered service in 1984 and
just three years later a new variant, the F/A-18C was flying. To top it
all **** cancelled further F-14D production in 1990, leaving the Navy
with the planned Super Hornet, which was never intended to replace the
F-14, because it was simply a stupid idea. In fact the Super Hornet
replacing the F-14 is similar to how the British Government wants to
replace the Harrier FA2's with GR9's. At least the Iranians have had the
brains to keep this jet flying for as long as it can. Current aviators
may claim that the Super Hornet is, "an exceptio nal aircraft with
superb combat capability and growth potential," (CDR T.W. Huff. USN,
Flight Journal, pg.28, June 2002) but the very fact that this debate
exists, that a fighter (re-) designed in the 1990's can even be compared
to a fighter designed in the late 60's (the Tomcat) is testament to the
fact that many doubt the capabilities of the Super Hornet. The politics
involving aircraft procurement in the Pentagon has resulted in the USN
being forced to operate a dog for the next 20 years and to get rid of
some of its most valuable air assets. The Super Tomcat 21 would have
been a far better and cheaper aircraft than the Super Hornet. Had that
aircraft been procured this debate would not exist. There would be no
debate as to whether the Tomcat 21 was better than the Super Hornet.
Further more it would have been a cheaper aircraft to develop and
purchase when compared to the Super Hornet's $76 million price tag, a
lot more than the more capable F-14D ($50 million). In the e arly 90's
when the F-14D was cancelled and the Super Hornet was just a paper
airplane the estimated R & D costs for the F/A-18E/F was $3 billion and
eventually the program overran to a cost of $9 billion to produce an
aircraft less capable than the F-14D. It must be noted that the F-14D's
R & D dollars had already been spent and the aircraft already existed
when the Super Hornet was nothing more than a drawing. In my view that's
a real waste of taxpayer money. Also one cannot say the F-14 cannot
carry standoff missiles like SLAM, because F-14D's can easily be
modified to support these weapons. The F/A-18E/F is an aircraft with a
new wing, fuselage and empennage, and is thus a new aircraft, F/A-18C's
cannot be modified to Super Hornet status yet the USN proposed this
aircraft as a 'modification program' when clearly it's only a Hornet by
name. When new aircraft are proposed they need Congress approval and the
Super Hornet never got that approval and is thus an illegal aircraft.
What a scandal! The USN made a huge mistake by not pursuing the Tomcat
21/ASF-14, an aircraft that would have had a glass cockpit, better
radar, stealth enhancements, supercruise, thrust-vectoring, more fuel
(and range), less maintenance and incorporated all of the present and
proposed features of the F-14D. It would have cost less than the Super
Hornet, had 90% the capability of the ATF at 60% of the cost and would
have kept the USN air wings capable and effective well into this
century. For decades the USN has developed and operated aircraft that
were the best in their fields, the F-4, A-6 and the F-14 and it is thus
sad to see that the best that the Navy can develop and field today
doesn't even approach the capability of an F-14.

Navy statement (as of March 2001): "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet .... Leading
Naval Aviation into the 21st Century. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a
winner... it's affordable... and it's flying today, exceeding every
operational goal. F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter
aircraft of today and tomorrow."

The first part of this statement could have been said about the F-14D 10
years earlier! "F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter aircraft
of today and tomorrow." Clearly the author of this statement was smoking
something when he wrote this!

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the Super Hornet (in an Associated
Press article in late 2001): "Its the same old Hornet ****, repackaged,
which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can
never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator
mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing,
there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come
anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks
intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the
liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this
aviation masterpiece rot in hell."

This statement is from a VF-102 pilot on that squadron's final Tomcat
cruise and is the most honest statement I've ever read regarding the
Super Hornet debacle.

During the Gulf War the USN was almost ignored by the USAF, but once
F-14's got Lantirn they became the primary strikers of Desert Fox and
Bosnia, placed ahead of F-15E's, while also playing major roles in
Afghanistan and Gulf War 2. Once the Tomcat's are gone the USN could
find itself being ignored again. The Super Hornet simply cannot compete
with F-15E's, F/A-22's and the proposed FB-22. The USN has now
accelerated the retirement of the F-14 to mid-2007 supposedly to save
money. I don't see how that works as money has just been spent on the
F-14's to give them Lantirn capability and most recently JDAM
capability. In addition to this, Tomcats were upgraded with DFCS and
some cockpit enhancements were made such as the PTID. Now having just
spent this money the Navy is going to retire this aircraft, which is
just ridiculous. VF-2 is the next squadron to convert onto the god awful
Stupid Hornets. It doesn't make sense that a unit flying top of the
range F-14D's has to convert while other squadrons remain flying F-14A's
(VF-154, VF-211). I don't think that those D's are going to new
squadrons, after all what happened to the F-14B's when VF-102 converted?
It just exhibits the idiocy prevailing in current USN leadership.
Unfortunately it's too late for anything, except maybe for the loss of a
USN carrier, to get the powers that be to change the doomed course that
Naval Aviation is flying so blindly into. One thing is for sure though
is that the Super Hornet will never be a legend. F-4's, A-6's and the
F-14 will remain legends in the USN. In particular the F-14 has a
mystique and prowess about it that is unmatched, that's one of the
reasons why so many people around the world don't want to see it go.
However when the Super Hornet finally goes out of service (hopefully
soon) no-one, absolutely no-one will care, the Super Hornet will not be
legend, just an expensive piece of junk the Navy operated for a while,
that's it, no-one will care. Indeed the day that the last F-14 is
retired will be the darkest day in U.S Naval Aviation history.


Couldn't agree more. Give that man a cigar...

At the rate we're going, expect the Hawkeye Hornet coming to a carrier near you.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 19:15
by Dragon029
What is the source of that wall of text anyway (I'm guess it's a PDF based on the spacing)? I'd love to be able to cite it as an example.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 20:05
by spazsinbad
I cannot believe this wall of text is cited with just one/two liner replies - PUHLEEZ - just your two liner replies will be OK.

Go HERE for the wall of text cited without formatting: http://www.anft.net/f-14/guestbook-04.htm UGLY

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2017, 08:33
by spazsinbad

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2017, 09:44
by popcorn
Looks like AIM-9X on the Super Hornets...

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2017, 15:33
by steve2267
popcorn wrote:Looks like AIM-9X on the Super Hornets...


Yes, but can't they park a pair of AMRAAMs on the fuselage stations? From that video capture angle, all the stuff hanging from the wings would seem to block view of AMRAAMs, no?

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2017, 18:07
by Dragon029
See the above article; they fired an AIM-9 of some kind from half a mile away, likely a 9X based on footage of Rhinos in Syria like Popcorn showed, but the Su-22 deployed flares and the AIM-9 missed (bad angle?). They then followed that with an AIM-120 (presumably a C) which successfully took down the Sukhoi.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2017, 23:42
by XanderCrews
Dragon029 wrote:What is the source of that wall of text anyway (I'm guess it's a PDF based on the spacing)? I'd love to be able to cite it as an example.


Was originally looking for this gem:

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1008443

Stout moved on to criticize the F-35, and even posted here explaining his thoughts.

There is also a wonderful thread here i need to find where Eric Palmer bashes the SH left right and center and of course Airpower Australia had their thoughts on it too.

Now you could say "yeah it's just one though and a Syrian su-22 at that" well, the way these guys made it sound the thing would be smoked by a Shturmovick

Why do I care? Because the arguments have not changed at all, only the name: F-35. For as much as people whine about LM, these guys are the real B**l$hit peddlers. And when they are proven wrong they don't go away, they double down on the next program

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2017, 02:30
by quicksilver
Good find. I saw the long article above and assumed it was by either Jay Stout (USMC Ret) or Paul Gilchrist (USN Ret). Istr both being adamantly against SH at the time.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2017, 16:06
by spazsinbad
Lawmakers Slam U.S. Navy For ‘Insufficient’ Hypoxia Response
28 Jun 2017 Lara Seligman

"... highlight Congress’ concern over the issue, which has cost the lives of at least four F-18 pilots and caused many “close calls.”

“I do not offer this amendment lightly. I know many members support extended production of F-18 aircraft and that the Navy has significant F-18 readiness problems and needs new aircraft,” Tsongas said. “I offer this amendment because the Navy’s recently published report included several major findings that I think all members should be aware of as we consider F-18 production in the future.”

House authorizers included $1.8 billion in their version of the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act to buy 22 new F/A-18s for the Navy.

“What’s occurring in the Navy is absolutely unacceptable... This is absolutely critical for our pilots, and it also goes to the confidence of the pilots, the ability of a pilot to know that their system is going to operate and they are not putting their lives at risk,” said Rep. Mike Turner (R) of Ohio, chairman of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. “Their response has been insufficient.”

The Navy’s report, signed by Adm. Scott Swift, commander of Pacific Fleet, failed to identify a root cause of the incidents, but laid out a series of recommendations to begin addressing the problem.

In the T-45 community, the Cobham-built Onboard Oxygen Generator System (Obogs) seems to be the culprit, according to Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran.

The Navy has identified several modifications it hopes will fix the problem, according to the report: install a water separator into the Obogs bleed air line to filter out any moisture from the air flow; redesign and install a bleed air valve to purge the system from water coming off the engine; deliver and field the CRU-123 monitor system to monitor the air coming out of the Obogs; and explore options to filter contaminants.

The Navy also redesigned the mask to make it easier for pilots to switch from Obogs to breathing cabin air or vice versa, and T-45 instructor pilots are currently doing testing this configuration, Moran said.

In the F/A-18 fleet, on the other hand, the problem is not just the Obogs, but also pressurization, Moran said. The Navy will conduct an Environmental Control System (ECS) “reset,” looking at all of the subcomponents and piping of the ECS to determine where the problem is, he said."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/lawmake ... a-response

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2017, 03:18
by spazsinbad
House Armed Services Committee Debates Hypoxia,...
29 June 2017 Megan Eckstein

..."Tsongas [Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the tactical air and land forces subcommittee] spoke about the Navy’s PE report, noting that the report ties four pilot deaths to physiological episodes and finds that the Onboard Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) integration with the rest of the jet is not sufficient to “consistently provide high-quality breathing air.”

“The situation we now face is a difficult one: we know we need more F-18 aircraft, but we also now know that the Navy has concluded the F-18’s design in a critical area of aircraft life support is flawed and must be redesigned,” she said....

...TACAIR subcommittee chairman Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) voiced support for her work on the issue. He said the HASC took some small steps on the issue of physiological episodes in this year’s bill but that a lot of work remained.

“In this bill we have a provision demanding that the Navy aggressively take action to address this, we’ve asked the Air Force to expedite hypoxia research, and we also have put $10 million in for the Navy’s aircrew systems development program that is a sensing program to determine whether low oxygen levels or toxins are present,” he said. “This is a very serious issue. … We certainly know that in the time we’ve been working with the Navy, their response has been insufficient and we’re going to continue to work to ensure that we are focused on what this is, a pilot safety issue.”..."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/06/29/house- ... e-schedule

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2017, 23:28
by spazsinbad
Probably at least one fix for the T-45C OBOGS problem has been found - we await the Hornet/SHornet fixes for whatever.
Navy T-45 Trainers Will Return To Flight In July With Air Supply Fix
30 Jun 2017 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...One mystery was that the T-45 used the exact same OBOGS, built by Cobham, as other aircraft that were having no problems. Now, Navy investigators believe they have traced at least part of the problem: While the oxygen generator itself seems okay, the T-45s didn’t have anything installed to scrub excess moisture from the air going into the OBOGS.

“The system operates much better with cooler and drier air. All the other airplanes in the fleet that use OBOGS or systems like them all have some component in the system that eliminates moisture,” Shoemaker told the local Meridian Star. “That was missing in the T-45.”

The Navy is now testing the moisture elimination system — a “water separator” — to ensure it doesn’t interfere with air flow. It’s also checking the air cooling system, introducing new maintenance procedures, and installing sensors to monitor air quality.

Navy Lt. Leslie Hubbell provided a partial list of fixes:..." [lahdedah]

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/navy ... upply-fix/

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 03:17
by geforcerfx
Boeing Wins! Navy Will Buy Its Advanced Super Hornet

Also known as the "F/A-18XT" and "Block 3 Super Hornet," Boeing's Advanced Super Hornet is an upgrade of the company's current F/A-18E/F fighter jets. Among other improvements, the new design features "advanced network architecture" and "advanced cockpit displays" on the inside, and conformal fuel tanks -- adding 100 to 120 nautical miles to the plane's range, and providing a stealthier radar profile -- on the outside. The new design is not as stealthy as a Lockheed Martin F-35C. But at a mooted price of $79 million, the Advanced Super Hornet is also a heckuvalot cheaper than the $122 million price tag that Lockheed hangs on an F-35C.

Citing a "detailed blueprint" obtained from the U.S. Navy, Aviation Week reports that the Navy is planning to invest roughly $265 million upgrading F/A-18s to Boeing's new design between 2019 and 2022. And this could be only a down payment on further spending. AW's read is that the Navy's decision means that "Boeing's Super Hornet line has a future beyond the 2020s."

rest of the article at the source

http://host.madison.com/business/invest ... 02a16.html

it's a investment site so they are looking at the financial side not the military capability side of it.

They are quoting this article from early June

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft ... per-hornet

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 03:37
by spazsinbad
I didn't answer the quiz nor sign up so - clickbait. Is not the theme already covered in the AvWEAK article in JUNE? Looks like 'popcorn' quote & subsequent covers that topic: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=369413&hilit=approves#p369413

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2017, 23:16
by spazsinbad
We are going to miss you Jon.
Lt. Gen. Jon Davis on Marine Corps Aviation Readiness, Modernization
14 Jul 2017 Megan Eckstein

"...Still, the Marine Corps continues to face questions about why it hasn’t joined the Navy in buying F/A-18E-F Super Hornets as a band-aid until the F-35 can be fully fielded. Without directly addressing this criticism that seems to pop up every year during budget season, Davis wrote that “our 5th gen jet (the F-35) can be quickly configured to a 4th gen bomb truck… The last thing the USMC needs is another 4th gen aircraft program – especially one that can’t be based on an amphib, a [light carrier] like [the Royal Navy’s HMS Queen Elizabeth], or short expeditionary strips ashore. Predicting the future is always difficult- even the smartest of the smart guys get it wrong. We have no idea where we will be fighting or against who in 2025. The USMC has to be ready for the toughest fight. The real question ought to be – why are we building any more 4th gen birds? What we buy in 2025 will be with us for 30-40 years – 4th gen Hornets in 2055-2065? The smarter move is to build 5th gen now.”..."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/07/14/lt-gen ... ernization

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2017, 03:21
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:We are going to miss you Jon.
Lt. Gen. Jon Davis on Marine Corps Aviation Readiness, Modernization
14 Jul 2017 Megan Eckstein

"... We have no idea where we will be fighting or against who in 2025. The USMC has to be ready for the toughest fight. The real question ought to be – why are we building any more 4th gen birds? ... ”..."



Concur !!!

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2017, 21:27
by neptune
.....sorry but I can't let this pass;

" USMC bought 380+ 4th generation level of effort aircraft for our low end fight. They are the AH and UH-1s. And our 5th gen jet can be quickly configured to a 4th gen bomb truck.... The last thing the USMC needs is another 4th gen aircraft program -- especially on that can't be based on an amphib...."
Gen. Jon Davis
USMC ret.


....for those that can't grasp; The USMC only purchases 4th gen as helo's!
:)

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2017, 23:08
by blindpilot
neptune wrote:.....sorry but I can't let this pass;

" USMC bought 380+ 4th generation level of effort aircraft for our low end fight. They are the AH and UH-1s. And our 5th gen jet can be quickly configured to a 4th gen bomb truck.... The last thing the USMC needs is another 4th gen aircraft program -- especially on that can't be based on an amphib...."
Gen. Jon Davis
USMC ret.


....for those that can't grasp; The USMC only purchases 4th gen as helo's!
:)


Not sure what your point here was, and I may be agreeing with you. (Is the Osprey 5th gen for rotorcraft?) But to clarify.

First the Yankee, Zulu, and King (CH53K) are legitimate state of the art rotorcraft, modern rotors and hubs, hingeless/rigid/20mm plus armor, 200 mph, GE T700/38's installed in signature suppression installations and 20mm plus armor, and modern avionics and cockpit (Comm/GPS/EGI,Hellfire/Longbow +, glass plus HMD 3rd gen IR) The only thing they lack is tilt rotor and the Marines are anything BUT reluctant to press tilt rotor. It wouldn't exist at all, without them. We'll see how that evolves with the FVL (V-280 et al) down the road.
Secondly, the H-1s have 84% parts commonality and that maximizes sustainability and maintenance efficiency, and will integrate well into 5th gen mesh networks etc. That is for aircraft aimed at the low end fights, and/or under cover of fifth gen fighters.
Third, If we consider the MV-22s as a "rotorcraft equivalent 5th Gen," (not sure what gen helos track, high speed?, weapons?) those will evolve with the USMC leading. This despite the Army's FVL activities. If those mature, I'm sure the marines will assess what they might bring.

But yes, the Yankee/Zulu are not Mach 1.6, stealth platforms. The SA part is less certain however. I think Davis' evaluation and statements are pretty clear the USMC is leaning forward into the modern threats, and their 4th gen (low threat) resources (helo's) also lean into the realities of the modern 5th gen battlefield. The F/A-18 E/F's just don't fit into that focus.

MHO
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2017, 23:55
by neptune
[quote="blindpilot"][...] I may be agreeing with you. [..(Is the Osprey 5th gen for rotorcraft?) But to clarify. ...Secondly, the H-1s have 84% parts commonality and that maximizes sustainability and maintenance efficiency, and will integrate well into 5th gen mesh networks etc. That is for aircraft aimed at the low end fights, and/or under cover of fifth gen fighters....
But yes, the Yankee/Zulu are not Mach 1.6, stealth platforms. The SA part is less certain however. I think Davis' evaluation and statements are pretty clear the USMC is leaning forward into the modern threats, and their 4th gen (low threat) resources (helo's) also lean into the realities of the modern 5th gen battlefield. The F/A-18 E/F's just don't fit into that focus.
...

....yes, yes you have the sense of it, but IMHO 5th gen is about enabling the fleet; not just "fast movers", but improving the SA for "all" parties, be it the lowly boot, to the vehicle, to the CAS to the TAC Air to the boats; "ALL"
....regarding Jon's (Gen.) the 77 versions/modifications of the Osprey; it is a work in progress; what all can it do? But it is currently not 5th gen because it is not enabling the SA for the fleet. It could be another user, if and when the Corp adds the data links to facilitate bi-directional contributions; same for the H-1s. Bankin' and yankin' is not what 5th gen is about but enabling SA for the "best" tactical picture that promotes success.
...."the edge" like the brief comment about "Intepid Tiger II", about SA; no it is not an EA-18G but that is not required. A sledge hammer vs. the surgeons knife. The Corp, as Naval Infantry is the 911 first responder. It is about establishing a beach-head for "all" to use and a leverage point against the enema. The F-35 "Bee" and the SA it provides to all "users" that speak the "lingo", minimizing the surprises.
:)

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 01:14
by popcorn
If 5Gen = Transformational then the MV-22 fits bill.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 01:24
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:If 5Gen = Transformational then the MV-22 fits bill.


True

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 04:19
by quicksilver
Google 'fighter aircraft generations' and find the USAF slide that explains same. Has nothing to do with RW aircraft or tiltrotors...

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 05:03
by spazsinbad
5th Generation Fighters USAF - Carlisle 29 Feb 2012
Air Force Generations of Key Fighter Aircraft
https://www.slideshare.net/prayukth1/us ... en-fighter (PDF 1.2Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 05:46
by blindpilot
quicksilver wrote:Google 'fighter aircraft generations' and find the USAF slide that explains same. Has nothing to do with RW aircraft or tiltrotors...


Duh! I think those in the conversation know this, and saw the chart before 2012,.. but hey, for the lurkers I guess.

The discussion and issue is looking at the system of systems, how the USMC is approaching recapitalization, and where the rotor craft fit into this scheme.

So the question at hand is whether the fact that the USMC ... oh let's pick something silly ... has a cute little ATV to fit into the Osprey, whether that means they bought an ATV and have abandoned "5th Gen only." The answer proposed, is "of course not." Whatever generation folks use for the helicopters, the Yankee and Zulu are designed and provided to integrate in a 5th gen system of systems. They have major improvements in SA over previous choppers. They have major sensor upgrades etc. etc. And the discussion is how do the Osprey/Yankee/Zulu fit into a 5th Gen paradigm shift?

The baseline is "Why would anyone purchase "4th Gen" stovepipe systems (aircraft) in today's battle environment?" The connection made was that for low/medium intensity battle spaces, the USMC has bought Yankees and Zulus. That's their only notional accommodation to "4th Gen aircraft." But that's not buying "4th Gen" aircraft.

And make no mistake about it. Boeing would not hesitate to make a marketing statement such as, "Hey! they bought a little ATV, they can/should buy Super Hornets!!!! It's a synergy and not a competition. " NOT!!! The USMC isn't buying 4th gen anymore. There is no place for SHs in their plans. Period.

FWIW,
BP
PS I expect the last 4th gen aircraft operational in the USMC to be a Harrier, and the AV8 is nigh near 3rd gen ... except like the Osprey, it has been transformational which is the "grammatical/dictionary" definition of a new generation.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 07:01
by neptune
......further enhance the fleet’s readiness, situational awareness and tactical capabilities, .....
while others are stumbling and fumbling around with a-a and a-g tags and "handling", others are continuing to
get " we basically have a God's Eye View of what's going on"...

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53269


....take a look next door...while you puzzle this.
:wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2017, 14:32
by spazsinbad
A never-ending story with puzzlements aplenty for all concerned - perhaps with lessons for the Shornets &/or F-35s.
Toxic Air From T-45 Engine May Be Poisoning U.S. Navy Pilots
17 Jul 2017 Lara Seligman

"In the search for the root cause of a recent spike in hypoxia-like cockpit incidents that leave student pilots disoriented and short of breath, the U.S. Navy is beginning to look more closely at the quality of the air that comes off the McDonnel Douglas T-45 Goshawk’s engine and feeds into the oxygen generator system....

...The Navy says it is now looking “very closely” at the quality of the bleed air coming off the T-45’s engine as a possible source of the problem, and plans to begin testing a sample of uninstalled engines using “comprehensive” contaminant detection methods this month, the service confirmed to Aviation Week....

...Although there are many possible reasons for the incidents, aircrew reports seem to support the theory that the symptoms seen in the T-45 are caused by a toxin in the airflow. In incidents of true hypoxia—known as hypoxic hypoxia, or a lack of oxygen flow to the lungs—symptoms abate once pilots use the emergency oxygen. But many T-45 pilots had persistent symptoms that sometimes lasted for hours after landing—in one instance, the pilot could not even remember landing, said one congressional staffer familiar with the issue.

These symptoms fall in line with what is called histotoxic hypoxia, which occurs when the body’s tissues are not able to use the oxygen that has been delivered to them, and is often caused by a contaminant in the airflow.

The rapid onset or the delayed recognition of the symptoms in some cases led many T-45 pilots to speculate that what they experienced was histotoxic hypoxia due to a contaminant, according to the Navy’s report.

“Histotoxic hypoxia symptoms are highly variable across individuals, may not be immediately recognized, and 100% emergency oxygen may not quickly alleviate the symptoms,” the report states....

...The Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet and EA-18G Growler fleets have also been plagued by incidents of hypoxia, as well as the Air Force’s F-35As at Luke AFB, Arizona."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/toxic-a ... avy-pilots

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2017, 19:34
by outlaw162
Saturday morning Guard drill weekend, I would occasionally have histotoxic hypoxia. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2017, 22:17
by spazsinbad
I hope you mean you have it on parade? And you fall flat on your face forward like every good brit bearskin guardsman. :mrgreen:

JEEPERS I would not like you to experience that in the air. I have mentioned my carbon monoxide poisoning early on when basic training in a rotary piston Winjeel. Waiting for my always late instructor with the engine idling but this time with a tail wind pushing exhaust over the open canopy. Once in the air I was MUCH MORE DOPEY than usual which the instructor noticed so he suggested we return to Point Cook. Then he took over landed and sent me to the sick bay where they did a blood test to note my elevated carbon monoxide and other contaminants intake - otherwise I would have failed. And I felt as sick as a dog.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2017, 23:00
by outlaw162
CH3 CH2 OH histotoxic hypoxia.....Jeremiah Weed, etc. (Not CO)

Helped me avoid parades.

They still aren't having any problems with my kid's T-6 OBOGS just down the road from Kingsville....so I still maintain the food at the Kingsville Club and possibly associated airborne residual gases may be the culprit. The O2 generator units are somewhat different however....maybe the Goshawks could just switch to the Texan II system. :D

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 23:08
by spazsinbad
:inlove: 8) Callsign of Capt. Sara Joyner was 'BATTLE AXE' when at top of the CAW - you go girl! :crazypilot: :applause:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013 ... 025&rank=1
UPDATED: Navy Seeing Success Collecting Data on Physiological Episodes; Taps Former Air Wing Commander to Lead Effort
09 Aug 2017 Megan Eckstein

"...oxygen pressure monitors were put on several dozen T-45 trainers, and students and instructors have been flying with them all summer. “We’re getting those warnings that we never had before, so indications of low oxygen pressure in certain flight regimes,” he said. “What we’ve got to get away from is reliance on [individual perceptions and self-reporting], and more from data. So putting sensors on these airplanes so we can collect data and get a richer understanding of what’s going on.”

With the additional sensors on the planes, “we’re able to collect the kind of data that may – and I say may – give us some insight into what would be causing lack of oxygen to the pilot, which causes hypoxic events. So I think that’s all good. And there are other monitors that we’ve put in place in the T-45s. A whole host of what we would call refresh rates on the F-18s that we hope to bring back some youth in the Environmental Control System on the F-18, see if that helps reduce the number of PE events, pressurization events especially. So all of that data is being collected while we continue to fly, and we’re keeping a very close look on PE events and what happens,” Moran said. “We have response teams that go out now; if a pilot experiences an event, we know what protocols to provide to both take care of the aircrew but also to measure what happened to try to make some determination about root cause. Root-cause analysis continues, and it’s mining down into many different branches of evidence to find out what we can to try to determine what is the true cause. And we may find out that there are multiple causes here and we’ll have to address all of them.”

[Capt. Sara] Joyner comes to this new job from serving as the Navy Senate Liaison in the Office of Legislative Affairs, but her background is as an F/A-18 pilot who commanded Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 3 and Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 105. The 1989 U.S. Naval Academy graduate and Maryland native began her career flying the A-4E Skyhawk before moving to the Hornet. She has also worked in the air warfare directorate as the Joint Strike Fighter requirements officer – working directly for Moran, who was the air warfare director at the time – and she was named a senior fellow in the CNO Strategic Studies Group.

“She’s got all the right things. If I had to go pluck somebody out by their resume, I’d go, well that’s a pretty good pick right there,” Moran said. “I know her personally and have a lot of confidence in her. I know she’ll do a great job.”

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/08/09/navy-t ... ion-effort

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 18:38
by spazsinbad
Single engine of two hazards - pilot safe though thank goodness - Super Hornet dinged for sure - runway closed at Bahrain:

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/12/nimitz ... e-ejecting

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 22:32
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:Single engine of two hazards - pilot safe though thank goodness - Super Hornet dinged for sure - runway closed at Bahrain:

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/12/nimitz ... e-ejecting

That jet is clearly a F/A-18E but the Navy is reporting a damaged F/A-18F from VFA-22 that hit the round down during an aborted carrier landing.
"FA-18F impacted round down with right horizontal stabilator upon landing. Diverted successfully."
I'd be curious what the LSO and Air Boss had to say. Maybe the Navy will release the PLAT video without a FOIA request.

Three class A mishaps (F-5N, F/A-18E & F/A-18F) within days is worrying. Also, an MV-22 was lost with several fatalities. There is suggestions that the decrease in flight hours due to budget concerns is related to the increased mishap rate.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 23:43
by spazsinbad

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 00:50
by 35_aoa
neurotech wrote:Three class A mishaps (F-5N, F/A-18E & F/A-18F) within days is worrying. Also, an MV-22 was lost with several fatalities. There is suggestions that the decrease in flight hours due to budget concerns is related to the increased mishap rate.


There is a belief, perhaps somewhat superstitious, that mishaps happen in sets of threes. I used to call it BS, but throughout the years, I've seen this be true quite often.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 00:53
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:UhOH - I'll see what can be found out about it all - photo: https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/upl ... 269354.jpg

SH demonstrating high AOA capability... :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 01:20
by spazsinbad
35_aoa wrote:
neurotech wrote:Three class A mishaps (F-5N, F/A-18E & F/A-18F) within days is worrying. Also, an MV-22 was lost with several fatalities. There is suggestions that the decrease in flight hours due to budget concerns is related to the increased mishap rate.


There is a belief, perhaps somewhat superstitious, that mishaps happen in sets of threes. I used to call it BS, but throughout the years, I've seen this be true quite often.

'35_aoa' Yeah but when do you start counting? And is it ONLY USN aircraft or do you include USMC? Let me know when the next group of three starts. Is it from today for USN? 'neurotech' counts as above but we have no info about rampstrike. Was the rampstrike a 'Class A'? I would say accidents happen when perhaps lots of variables, including above, are in play.

I cannot open this .PPT file right away but it is here for 'USN Mishap Stats' includes recent rampstrike info:

http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/D ... _Stats.ppt (2.7Mb)

Where do we start counting for CLASS A? Counting backwards is easy but how about we start now? PDF of PPT below

Another Class A summary PDF attached: http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/D ... maries.pdf (32Kb)
Navy Short Narratives
USN AVIATION CLASS A MISHAPS (includes UAS/UAV, FRMs and AGMs not included in the Flight Slide)
9 Aug 2017: (25 Miles South of Key West, FL) F-5N went down over water. Pilot ejected safely.
5 Aug 2017: (North Island NAS, CA) F/A-18F struck round down with right horizontal stabilator upon landing. Diverted
successfully.
6 Jul 2017: (Bay of Bengal) F/A-18F engine borescope plug backed out in flight causing hot air to burn to engine bay and aircraft skin.
8 Jun 2017: EA-18G starboard wing damaged during spread when it traversed 40 degrees beyond the normal down position. (AGM)
6 Apr 2017: (Off the Coast of Guam) MH-60R collided with water on initial takeoff from ship. No injuries.
1 Apr 2017: (Philippine Sea) F-18E lost on approach to landing on carrier. Pilot ejected without injury prior to water impact.
9 Jan 2017: (NAS Norfolk, VA) Three E-2C aircraft damaged in an engine oil related event. (AGM)
7 Jan 2017: (NAS Meridian, MS) T-45 crashed following a BASH incident on takeoff. Both crewmembers ejected. No fatalities.
8 Dec 0216: (Kadena AFB, Japan) Tow bar separation resulted in aircraft/tow collision with damage to nose gear and lower fuselage of P-8A. (AGM)
6 Dec 2016: (NAS Whidbey Island, WA) Canopy on EA-18G exploded/jettisoned resulting in severe injuries to 2 personnel. (AGM)
1 Nov 2016: (Upper Mojave Desert Region) F/A-18F struck a tree while instructor pilot was conducting a currency flight event. Returned to base safely. No injuries.
3 Oct 2016: (Tinker AFB, OK) E-6B #2 engine sustained compressor blade damage due to bird ingestion. Aircraft landed safely. No injuries."

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 18:46
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote: 'neurotech' counts as above but we have no info about rampstrike. Was the rampstrike a 'Class A'? I would say accidents happen when perhaps lots of variables, including above, are in play.

Probable 'Class A' and listed in AvSummary. They don't typically list probable Class B or C mishaps.

I'm not 100% certain of the regs, but Class A usually requires a JAGMAN investigation, and a possible FNAEB for the crew involved. If a mishap is under-reported, and becomes a Class A, the fallout is significantly worse for the chain of command.

As for this F/A-18F rampstrike, replacing the horizontal stab and actuator is not a $2m+ repair. NAVAIR inspection requirements may result in a somewhat lengthy stay at NAS North Island, with the labor cost added to the mishap total that could exceed $2m threshold. The Navy considers any airframe cracks to be a downing discrepancy, requiring structural component replacement. There are Super Hornets at depot with a red stripe on them, which short of a major SLEP program, permanently grounded.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 21:51
by neptune
neurotech wrote:.... There is suggestions that the decrease in flight hours due to budget concerns is related to the increased mishap rate.


....legacy of 'bama just keeps on giving, "when will it ever end!!"
:doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 23:14
by neurotech
neptune wrote:
neurotech wrote:.... There is suggestions that the decrease in flight hours due to budget concerns is related to the increased mishap rate.


....legacy of 'bama just keeps on giving, "when will it ever end!!"
:doh:

As much as I avoid politics... Do you honestly think Congress will authorize significant increase to the base Defense budget just because Pres. Trump is now in the White House?

SecDef Carter tried to use Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funds to mitigate the budget issues, but Congress limited the OCO fund usage.

The decrease in flight hours is due to Congress cutting depot/SLEP funds, and this could be somewhat reversed in less than 24 months, if Congress fully supported it. The Navy has requested additional funds in FY2018 for the F/A-18 depots, so this might be changing soon. At this point, the Navy needs both new F/A-18E/Fs and more depot funds.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 01:21
by talkitron
neurotech wrote:As much as I avoid politics... Do you honestly think Congress will authorize significant increase to the base Defense budget just because Pres. Trump is now in the White House?

SecDef Carter tried to use Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funds to mitigate the budget issues, but Congress limited the OCO fund usage.

The decrease in flight hours is due to Congress cutting depot/SLEP funds, and this could be somewhat reversed in less than 24 months, if Congress fully supported it. The Navy has requested additional funds in FY2018 for the F/A-18 depots, so this might be changing soon. At this point, the Navy needs both new F/A-18E/Fs and more depot funds.


I think there is a difference between the budget cuts in 2013, sequestration, and the situation now. The budget cuts in 2013 had long lasting consequences on military depot activity through, for example, skilled workers being laid off and then moving onto other jobs. The funds to hire new workers might be there now; it is just time consuming to ramp up given the previous disruptions.

There is no powerful coalition of opponents in Congress to an increase in the military budget. Democrats are opposed to paying for such an increase with cuts to non-military, domestic spending. Therefore, Democrats in the Senate might filibuster such a spending increase. A more likely scenario is that the government issues debt to pay for spending increases rather than cutting non-military, domestic spending.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 20:57
by talkitron

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 18:12
by spazsinbad
GOBsmacking news about Shornet carrier suitability for Indian Ski Jump carriers contained in this 'ShornetsIII' frIndia tale.
Boeing outlines India F/A-18 E/F offering
30 Aug 2017 Greg Waldron

"...In a video interview with Indian defence site Livefist, Dan Gillian, vice president, F/A-18 & EA-18 programmes at Boeing, said the Super Hornet is capable of operating from India's existing carriers, having determined this through simulations with the Indian Navy. "We think we can move around the deck, be fully operational, be very mission capable with a relevant weapons load out to give the navy what they need," Gillian told Livefist...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-440676/

Indian Navy Carrier Jet War Hots Up, Boeing Focuses Fire
28 Aug 2017 Shiv Aroor

"The Indian Navy’s multirole carrier borne fighter (MRCBF) contest just got a little hotter with Boeing today making it a point to amplify and detail the F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornet’s ‘full compatibility’ with India’s current and future aircraft carriers. The company asserted today that the aircraft requires ‘no modifications’ to operate ‘with meaningful weapons loadouts’ from the ski-jump of the INS Vikramaditya, Vikrant-class and follow on aircraft carriers, adding a dimension of intrigue and intensity to a contest that is widely being seen as a direct dogfight with the Dassault Rafale. We’ll go into the significance of today’s comments in a moment, but first, here’s a quick video where we catch up with Boeing’s Vice President on the Super Hornet programme, Dan Gillian.... [then lots of details prolly irrelevant]

...Boeing says it is looking forward to putting into action what it has done in detailed simulations since at least 2008. The last time anything close to this capability happened was when a legacy F-18 Hornet took off from a ski-jump in the eighties....
VIDEO: 28 August: "Is the Super Hornet ski-jump compatible, what loads, how does it compare with the Rafale, etc? OnThe Boeing Company F/A-18 pitch to the Indian Navy, our quick chat with Dan Gillian, VP on the Super Hornet programme + some of your questions answered. https://www.facebook.com/Livefist/video ... 796168905/


Source: https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/08 ... -fire.html

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 01:41
by spazsinbad
This 'Aviation FLAG Panel' video from TAILHOOK 2017 starting from minute 55 (use slider) has OBOGS info from the bigg'un:

https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017 ... /162523085 [answer ENDS at minute 60 for T-45C & Hornets]

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 04:11
by spazsinbad
Another SAFETY video from HOOK17 will have OBOGalogs innit with the new OXYchief speakin'.

Safety Centre Briefing
https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017 ... /162480333

'2nd half' (starts 9min 30sec) of video will have 'CLUTCH' Joyner speaking about PEs along with another chap + questions.

Relevant questions about PEs stop at minute 36.

GRAPHIC: PE Investigation & Adjudication Process

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 08:30
by spazsinbad
OhBoy it is difficult to get F-35Cs on deck in the near future: https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017 ... /162483994

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 09:06
by spazsinbad
Block III Supa Horny from TAILHOOK 2017 video: https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017 ... /162483994

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 15:42
by SpudmanWP
spazsinbad wrote:OhBoy it is difficult to get F-35Cs on deck in the near future:


It's a self-inflicted wound.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 16:05
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:OhBoy it is difficult to get F-35Cs on deck in the near future:


It's a self-inflicted wound.


I don't follow. With 77 aircraft there would be room for 10-15 more F-35s ondeck. :-?

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 16:50
by SpudmanWP
"Self-inflicted wound" means that the slow ramp up of F-35C procurement is entirely of the USN's making.

By 2025 they could have nearly a 50/50 mix if they wanted it, at least 33/66.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 05:32
by spazsinbad
A few of the briefings at HOOK'17 seemed to be using out of date slides with the briefers not being really on top of their brief. For example the USMC briefer did not include the extra F-35Bs for USMC in his short F-35 brief whilst admitting he was really a legacy Hornet guy so we can understand he was given old slides and talked briefly from them - unnerstan? :mrgreen:

Meanwhile here is a NAN Summer 2017 Naval Aviation News story which contradicts what was prolly an old slide that we have all just commented upon. I dunno - the misinformation out there is astounding and I don't claim to know shite. :drool:
Navy Announces Plan for First Operational F-35C Squadron
31 Aug 2017 Andrea Watters

"The Navy plans to deploy its first operational F-35C squadron in 2021 with the aim of enabling future carrier strike groups (CSG) and numbered fleets to engage a wide range of rapidly evolving threats, according to the Navy’s F-35C Fleet Integration Plan released in July.

The future carrier air wing will include two squadrons of F-35Cs and two F/A-18E/F Super Hornet squadrons. The deployment plan is based on an asset allocation study of the most efficient and effective composition of strike fighters, according to Rear Adm. Roy J. Kelley, director, Joint Strike Fighter Fleet Integration Office....

...“To balance modernization and readiness, the Navy is committed to selecting the right procurement ramp for F-35C to balance strike-fighter inventory management with the cost and time required to field advanced capabilities,” Kelley said.

The Navy’s long-term objective is to form 20 F-35C squadrons by the early 2030s, two squadrons for each of its 10 carrier air wings. The strategy will call for the continued procurement of low-rate, initial-production aircraft and the implementation of the enhanced capabilities of Block 3F software....

...As technologies advance, the future air wing must adapt and increase its capacity to contribute to the sea control mission with both kinetic and non-kinetic operations. The F-35C will be the CSG’s first choice in such contested environments, providing a “day-one” strike capability.

While the day-one capability will allow the F-35C to perform at the “tip of the spear,” its interoperability within the carrier air wing and unique ability to support and augment already fielded legacy platforms will be essential to sustaining the Navy’s combat lethality, Kelley said.

In the near term, legacy aircraft will continue to make up a majority of the carrier air wing, but the information collected by F-35Cs will enhance the effectiveness and survivability of all sea, air and land platforms throughout the battle space. If the carrier air wings of tomorrow are to outpace the proliferation of rapidly evolving threats, F-35C capabilities must achieve high levels of interoperability with existing ships and aircraft within CSGs and the numbered fleets.

Follow-on modernization for the F-35C program will continue to advance F-35C’s capabilities—weapons integration, electronic warfare and real-time information sharing—to improve the aircraft’s lethality and survivability across all mission sets. The full integration of these capabilities within the CSG, combined with the F-35C’s ability to distribute this information across multiple platforms within the fleet, is the cornerstone of how the Navy of the future will fight and win, Kelley said."

Source: http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... -squadron/

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 07:46
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote:A few of the briefings at HOOK'17 seemed to be using out of date slides with the briefers not being really on top of their brief.


I noticed that too.

For example, the CVW Composition for 1998 lists VAQ-5 as 5 x EA-18G.

Apparently, the Super Hornet can do tanking, strike, jamming and time-travel...

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 16:37
by blindpilot
marauder2048 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:A few of the briefings at HOOK'17 seemed to be using out of date slides with the briefers not being really on top of their brief.

I noticed that too.
For example, the CVW Composition for 1998 lists VAQ-5 as 5 x EA-18G.
Apparently, the Super Hornet can do tanking, strike, jamming and time-travel...

Good catch,

... and the Super Hornet won WW II as well! Don't cha know! ... oooh ooh, ... except it's Boeing immediate predecessor, the mighty P-26 Peashooters helped shooting down those 2 Zeros in the Philippines in 1941! Boeing is definitely pulling out all the stops. They've brainwashed the Naval Power Point slide makers. "Here Ensign, I've gone ahead and made this pretty slide for you to use...."

Sheeze! If I had been that sloppy as an officer, I would have been long frozen at some Aleutian radar site. What has happened to the kids these days?

MHO,
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 16:48
by SpudmanWP
blindpilot wrote: "Here Ensign, I've gone ahead and made this pretty slide for you to use...."


They learned it from Washington where lobbyists "help" Congressmen write the laws.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 16:49
by sferrin
blindpilot wrote:Sheeze! If I had been that sloppy as an officer, I would have been long frozen at some Aleutian radar site. What has happened to the kids these days?

MHO,
BP


Today there are no losers or winners. Everybody gets a trophy. :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 19:26
by talkitron
The US Navy obsession with buying tons more Super Hornets makes Canada's interest in a handful of Super Hornets look quaint. I don't know why the Navy needs to wait until 2021 to deploy a single F-35C squadron on a carrier.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 19:38
by SpudmanWP
Deploying to a carrier is a lot more complex than deploying to an airfield. At sea you can't bring in a bunch of LM techs or increase your parts & support footprint without affecting the rest of the ship. They need to be completely squared away before going to sea.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 19:40
by spazsinbad
SOME MORE GRIST FOR THE Super Hornet Price MILL... $677 million divided by 14 say (yes total Es & Fs) equals? ........?
Boeing to manufacture additional F/A-18s for U.S. Navy
14 Sep 2017 Stephen Carlson

"Sept. 14 (UPI) -- Boeing Co. has received a $676.6 million modification to an existing contract for the production of F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter aircraft for the U.S. Navy.

The modification, announced Wednesday by the Department of Defense, provides for the manufacture of six lot 41 F/A-18E and eight F/A-18F fighter jets. The production run is expected to be completed by February 2019...."

Source: http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/09 ... 505406579/

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 19:57
by sunstersun
ugh, just order F35C's faster.



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

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 20:27
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 21:33
by marauder2048
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.


$48M is just airframe & ancillaries.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 21:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
No engines or radar or EW equipment etc you mean?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 22:12
by SpudmanWP
Do they award the Engines separately like they do for the F-35?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 22:28
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:No engines or radar or EW equipment etc you mean?


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

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 22:36
by playloud
Wasn't that a modification to an existing contract? Are all those jets net-new, or are they adding... let's say 5 jets to an existing order?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 22:46
by SpudmanWP
It's new jets being added on to an existing multi-year contract.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 22:59
by marauder2048
SpudmanWP wrote:Do they award the Engines separately like they do for the F-35?


Historically, for the SuperBug, everything from the engines to the towed decoys
was awarded under separate contracts.

AFAIK, the F-35 is just two contracts: aircraft and engines.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 23:46
by maus92
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 electronics systems, for ~$60M URF.

FY17 Super Hornet buys this year had no advance procurement contract; there was an earlier contract let this year that had 7 Growlers and 5 -Es. This new purchase leverages off the earlier contract, but there is no MYP in place. The earlier purchase are Lot 40 jets using FY16 funding, this new purchase will be Lot 41 jets using FY17 funds.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 23:59
by neurotech
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."

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 00:29
by marauder2048
maus92 wrote:for ~$60M URF.
FY17 Super Hornet buys this year



But somebody has always told us to use the Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost which for the FY17 birds is $94.3 million.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 08:01
by 35_aoa
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 08:25
by quicksilver
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 15:47
by SpudmanWP
The entire SH Program has been the epitome of obfuscation from day one.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 17:42
by neptune
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 19:13
by blindpilot
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

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 19:25
by marauder2048
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 19:34
by neurotech
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 19:43
by neurotech
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 20:26
by marauder2048
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2017, 04:13
by 35_aoa
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2017, 05:40
by maus92
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.)

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 17:41
by spazsinbad
I wonder how the Canaduckduckduckians are going to deal with the OXY issues? Anyhoo CAPT JOYNER HOOK '17 says this:


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

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 21:29
by magitsu
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2017, 20:59
by spazsinbad
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

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2017, 21:26
by neptune
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 17:08
by spazsinbad
Text from the fillum at TAILHOOK 2017 about CAPT Joiner & others solving the PE for Shornet/Growlers and everyfing.
At Tailhook, leaders describe efforts to resolve physiological episodes [LONG POST BEST READ at SOURCE]
28 Sep 2017 NAVAIR Headquarters

"RENO, Nev. – At the 61st annual Tailhook Convention, Navy leaders and experts outlined the Naval Aviation Enterprise’s ongoing efforts to address challenges to readiness.

“Readiness is our No. 1 priority, and right behind that—our No. 1 safety priority—is solving the physiological episodes,” Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, commander, Naval Air Forces and the Air Boss, told his audience during the convention’s final panel discussion Sept. 9.

During the Safety Discussion Panel the previous day, moderator Rear Adm. Scott Dillon, commander, Naval Safety Center, said the center is supporting physiological episode (PE) mitigation efforts by more effectively and more quickly providing feedback to the fleet as individual episodes are investigated.

“We took a step in that direction in 2017 by participating in six physiological episode briefings across fleet concentration areas,” Dillon said. “And we have more plans in place for how we’re going to increase the feedback that we provide the fleet.”...

...In the meantime, his team is pursing Joyner’s goal of providing near-term solutions for pilots by improving the altimeter, expanding the emergency oxygen bottle in the seat and changing the way the aircraft responds to certain inputs. Ultimately, the long-term goal is to devise a system for the cockpit that will tell a pilot when something has gone awry with the cockpit’s airflow or pressurization and initiate an automatic backup system, Kindley said.

“I am committed to finding a solution, but our speed has to be tempered by a solution that doesn’t adversely impact the human and aviation system,” Joyner said. “We ask a lot of our aircrew, and the aircraft they fly are highly complex and highly capable. We need to make sure both the person and the machine have what they need to successfully complete the mission.”

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6649

VIDEO is repeated from previous page post this thread for those not seen it yet....


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

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 17:43
by mixelflick
This is the problem with the Navy's love affair with F-18's. These "physiological episodes" have the potential to impact the whole fleet. And when you operate an all Hornet Navy...

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2017, 14:34
by spazsinbad
See post about new measures/devices for T-45C here: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53485
Cockpit Episodes Continue After Navy T-45s Resume Training Flights
29 Sep 2017 Hope Hodge Seck

"After a series of mitigating measures implemented in August, Navy T-45 Goshawks are back on duty as fighter trainers officials said Friday. But a handful of physiological episodes in the cockpit since then — the very problem that forced the Navy to place stringent limits on T-45s in April — have leaders taking a closer look at the role subjective human factors play in the in-flight incidents....

...New episodes
Since those measures were implemented in August, however, about four additional cockpit episodes have been documented. These episodes, Joyner said, share a telling commonality: in the two-seater aircraft, one of the aircrew experienced problems, and the other did not. In addition, she said, measurement devices reported that oxygen and air pressure remained at normal levels.

“When we went through, we were able to really review and find human factors and also physiological responses when people are under stress and how they breathe. And we’re working right now to make sure we’re incorporating that training as well for the aviators,” Joyner said. “So I would say more of what we’ve seen to date has been physiologically based response, but the aircraft overall has seemed to be well supporting the human in the loop.”

In addition, she said, new measurement devices have yet to find any evidence of cockpit air contaminants that would present a concern for aircrew. With recent incidents, Joyner said, evidence points to the human rather than the machine as the source of the issue....

...‘No Fixing the Human’
For those on the Navy’s team to diagnose and fix physiological episodes, the determination that human factors are sometimes the source presents its own levels of complexity....

...Efforts continue to pinpoint the cause of the surge in cockpit episodes affecting the T-45, as well as causes of hypoxia-like episodes in the F/A-18 Hornet. But as officials probe both human and mechanical factors contributing to problems in the air, it appears one outcome of the Navy’s assessment may be a more cautious approach to entering the cockpit in the first place.

“Maybe there are times when they shouldn’t go in a jet and they can self-recognize before they take off the ground that this is not the day for them to go airborne,” Joyner said. “It’s sort of a dual approach.”

Source: https://www.defensetech.org/2017/09/29/ ... g-flights/

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2017, 03:41
by spazsinbad
Some progress on these poxy issues under pressure for the Hornets & T-45Cs - good one - nice work y'all y'all. BZ
Valve may lead to cabin pressure problems in Super Hornets, Growlers
05 Oct 2017 Jeff Schogol

"The Navy has identified a valve that may be causing problematic pressure changes in F/A-18E and F Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers during flight, said a Navy officer who is spearheading the service’s efforts to stop the glaring trend of failures in critical aircraft systems. “We’re not declaring victory, but we are declaring that we found something to fix and we’re fixing it,” said Capt. Sara Joyner, who has been selected for advancement to rear admiral.

Meanwhile, the Navy has determined that problems that led to the grounding of T-45 training jets earlier this year stem from the aircraft’s small engine not producing enough oxygen flow for the pilots, said Joyner....

...Starting in 2018, the Navy will add a heater blanket to the valve so it won’t freeze, she said. Navy officials will also test other aircraft components to systematically eliminate any possible problematic factors.

With the T-45s, Navy officials found that, at certain points, the oxygen levels for pilots were dipping too low, such as when training jets decelerate or descend, Joyner said. That’s because the oxygen system uses bleed air generated by the aircraft’s relatively small engine.

“It has always been a system where it has had just enough flow, but not a huge margin over the flow that it needed,” Joyner said. “So, any leak — or maybe the engine is tuned a little bit lower for the RPM it’s providing — any of these changes in the aircraft cumulatively could begin to decrease that flow amount.”

The T-45’s engines are also powering an increasing number of systems that are meant to prevent pilots from breathing contaminants, and “that also dropped our flow a little bit,” she said...."

Source: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... -growlers/

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2017, 23:06
by spazsinbad
Some body mention upgrades to F-35s? Lordy Lordy Lordy - here are some 'possible unknown upgrades' to Super Hornets.
Boeing Examining High-Use Super Hornets to Validate Life-Extension Plans; Already Buying Material, Setting Up Facility
18 Oct 2017 Megan Eckstein

"...Finally, the company is still in talks with the Navy about incorporating capability improvements into the life-extension program. “The Navy has said SLM is not your traditional SLEP program, it’s their comprehensive service life [modification] program. So to focus solely on getting the structure to survive but not focusing on capabilities is, I think, shortsighted, is what they’ve said,” Sears said.

Boeing believes its Block 2 aircraft – the majority of Super Hornets flying today, and the configuration coming off the production line today – are the best candidates for the Block 3 capability upgrade. The Navy is in talks with the company about introducing a package of upgrades into the new production line in late 2020, Sears said, with planning and engineering taking place between now and then. Retrofitting the upgrades into the planes going through the SLM process could piggyback off that planning and start a few years after being inserted into the production line.

“It’s a great opportunity to insert capability like the Block 3 in a method that is least impactful to the fleet, so that when an aircraft is returned with an extended life it’s also got the right capabilities for the next decade,” Sears said."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/10/18/boeing ... g-facility

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2017, 01:27
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:......“It’s a great opportunity to insert capability like the Block 3 in a method that is least impactful to the fleet, so that when an aircraft is returned with an extended life it’s also got the right capabilities for the next decade,” Sears said."..


....so this is like adding GPS to my Super Cub or my 57 Chevy!

...is this yet another upgrade for AMC Type 4? (more great ideas from the F-35C)
:)

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2017, 10:53
by spazsinbad
BOING! are so cute about NOT FOCUSING ON LO because they can't - end of story - but they are so kind NOT TO FOCUS.
Stealthy Super Hornet In Cards As Boeing Plans Major Overhaul
18 Oct 2017 Lara Seligman

"...The work primarily will focus on structural upgrades to the airframe and certain subsystems, but also could include capability enhancements to bring the older aircraft up to the newest Block III standard, Sears said.

One option is a new low-observable (LO) coating and radar-absorbent material (RAM) improvements in certain locations on the aircraft to increase its stealth, Sears said. “There are various degrees of LO enhancement,” Sears said of the upgrade. “We’ve played within that spectrum, but there’s certainly an LO piece of Block III.”

It is not clear just how stealthy the newest Block III Super Hornets that roll off the production line in 2020 will be compared to the fleet’s primary stealth fighters, Lockheed Martin’s F-22 and F-35. The Navy funded “advanced signature enhancements” in its fiscal 2018 budget request, but Boeing has said the Block III upgrade is not primarily focused on LO.

“At some point we drew a line that would allow us to be stealthy enough in a balanced survivable way to be effective, and that is what we think we have,” said Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager. “The F-35 is a stealthier airplane, but we have a balanced approach to survivability, including electronic warfare and self-protection.”...

...On a given day, just 52% of all in-reporting Navy F/A-18s can fly, including 44% of legacy Hornets and a slightly higher portion of the newer Super Hornets, 54%. These numbers reflect just how hard the Navy has flown the aircraft over the last 15 years, according to Adm. Bill Moran, vice chief of naval operations.

In the short-term, inducting Super Hornets into the SLM will reduce the number of aircraft the Navy has available for operations. But without the SLM, those aircraft are headed for the boneyard soon anyway, Sears argued. “SLM gives them the opportunity to go back to the fleet,” he said....

...Over the course of the SLM, which is slated to run through fiscal 2028, Boeing and the Navy plan to overhaul more than 400 Super Hornets, a Boeing spokesman said...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/stealth ... r-overhaul

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2017, 11:04
by popcorn
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/10/17/ew.aspx

Navy to enhance electronic warfare receivers on board the EA-18G aircraft

The U.S. Navy is working with Northrop Grumman to enhance the airborne electronic attack system for the AN/ALQ-218(V) 2 receiver on the EA-18G aircraft so that forces can more quickly detect enemy signals.

These updates to are designed to provide Navy warfighters with the latest generation of airborne electronic attack capabilities. While in the field, these aircraft can be operated from the ground or the air. They are used primarily to jam, or suppress, radars and communications to protect from, and disable, hostile signals or electronic attacks.

The AN/ALQ-218(V) 2 receiver allows the EA-18G aircraft to surpass other Navy aircraft, such as the F/A-18F, in electronic warfare capability. This system is a radar warning receiver system that provides advanced electronic support measures and an electronic intelligence sensor system. The system enhances the Navy's ability to recognize immediate threats and provides data for longer term operational planning.

In the battlefield the AN/ALQ-218 is the first system able to detect, identify, and locate enemy sources by analyzing sources of radio frequency emissions, according to Northrop Grumman officials. This technology allows warfighters to make quicker and more intelligent decisions, which provides maximum protection to friendly forces, according to the company.

More...

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2017, 22:48
by spazsinbad
Boeing pitches souped-up Super Hornets during upcoming life extension
19 Oct 2017 Valerie Insinna

"...“What SLM allows is, while we have the aircraft open to do the life extension mod, we can go ahead and apply the provisionings for the conformal fuel tanks, the advanced cockpit station and also the advanced networking [system],” he said. The company could also apply low observable coating to the aircraft to help reduce the aircraft’s signature.

Sears couldn’t provide a specific price tag for inserting the Block 3 mods into SLM, but acknowledged that there would be an additional cost to develop retrofit kits as well as “a few million” dollars more per plane to make the relevant changes.

While the Navy plans to invest $267.9 million over the next five years to develop Block III technologies, which would roll off the line as new Block III Super Hornet jets as early as 2020, it currently has not sought out money to bring its older F/A-18E/Fs to the more advanced configuration. However, Navy budget documents note that the service intends to transition “Block II Fleet aircraft (lots 26 and up)” to Block III during SLM.

“We haven’t necessarily seen the funding for the retrofit piece of it yet, but I think it is in their plan to do Block II to Block III conversions,” Sears said....

...the company will not have the Block III retrofit kit ready until the early 2020s, which mean that the first SLM jets would get those upgrades at a later date. The Super Hornet SLM effort is set to take about 10 years, with as many as 50 aircraft going through the process modifications per year starting in 2023, according to the company...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/10 ... extension/

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2017, 23:39
by talkitron
Sounds like there is a lot of budget negotiation to happen in the 2020s about funding Block III upgrades. The Navy has a lot of budget priorities, including pressure to increase the number of total ships, so we will see what happens.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2017, 05:06
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin to Upgrade IRST21 Sensor System for U.S. Navy Fighter Aircraft
19 Oct 2017 LM PR

"ORLANDO, Fla., Oct. 19, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) recently received two contracts to upgrade its IRST21 sensor system for use on the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F fleet. Lockheed Martin’s IRST21 sensor system is mounted in the nose of the U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F’s centerline fuel tank and uses infrared search and track technology to detect and track airborne threats.

Awarded by aircraft prime contractor Boeing, the Block II contracts provide up to $100 million for developing advanced software, performing hardware upgrades and delivering prototypes. These efforts will further enhance IRST21's proven detection, tracking and ranging capabilities in radar-denied environments.

"The U.S. Navy's strategic block upgrade program enables us to continue advancing our technology and rapidly deliver it to the warfighter," said Paul Lemmo, vice president of Fire Control/Special Operations Forces Contractor Logistics Support Services at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "We are excited to implement the Block II upgrades and enhance IRST21's performance."..."

Photo: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/586346 ... Oct_17.jpg

Source: http://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-10- ... assets_117

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 09:47
by spazsinbad
IRSTwhile initial BLOCK 1 IRSTs will perhaps only be used for training - heaven forfend - bring out the TROLLS - UNITED!
US Navy upgrades IRST for Super Hornet fleet
20 Oct 2017 Leigh Giangreco

"The US Navy is upgrading its Boeing F/A-18E/F fighters with an improved Lockheed Martin IRST21 sensor system, allowing the Super Hornet fleet to see and detect farther....

...An older version of IRST, a passive air-to-air radar system that detects airborne threats in radar denied environments, exists on the US Navy’s Boeing F/A-18E/F fleet and international F-15 aircraft. While some international customers mount their IRST systems on top of an aircraft, the US Navy install their long-range, thermal sensor inside the Super Hornet’s centerline fuel tank.

“It’s really a configuration of the aircraft itself, it can be mounted anywhere on the aircraft there’s no real rationale as to performance where you put it on the aircraft,” David Starr, senior programme manager at Lockheed, tells FlightGlobal....

...Starr says. The navy’s long term plan is to field 170 Block 2 sensors across its Super Hornet fleet.

The Block 2 upgrades are part of the navy’s ongoing IRST programme. As part of the technical development phase, Lockheed will deliver low rate initial production lots 1 and 2 to the service in 2019. Those lots will be used for testing, training and tactics development, and include 18 legacy sensors embedded in fuel tanks Starr says. In 2022, Lockheed will deliver Block 2 engineering, development and manufacturing assets.

Block 1...could be fielded, right now they’re explicitly for test,” he says. “But right now the navy is debating whether they would like to field those going forward in the future.”"

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-442388/

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 17:08
by outlaw162
the US Navy install their long-range, thermal sensor inside the Super Hornet’s centerline fuel tank.


Is the tank still jettisonable? :shock:


edit: "Hey you back there, RIO lad, our radar's acting flaky, get me something on the IRST."

"But sir, you jettisoned that prior to the merge."

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 14:25
by mixelflick
outlaw162 wrote:
the US Navy install their long-range, thermal sensor inside the Super Hornet’s centerline fuel tank.


Is the tank still jettisonable? :shock:


edit: "Hey you back there, RIO lad, our radar's acting flaky, get me something on the IRST."

"But sir, you jettisoned that prior to the merge."


Good question! Why put it on a fuel tank in the first place? Why not on one of the fuselage stations??

About the dismal availability rate for both legacy and Super Hornets, I thought the F-18 was a breeze to maintain? All those years they kept saying the F-14 was a hangar queen...

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 16:01
by SpudmanWP
Putting it on one of the fuselage stations would severely limit its FOV to the other side.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 17:06
by outlaw162
And the upward FOV is not?

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 17:20
by SpudmanWP
outlaw162 wrote:And the upward FOV is not?


Upward FOV is less important in the intercept role. It's the same reason why the F-35 and J-20 have the IRST below the nose but with un-inhibited side-to-side FOV.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 18:33
by outlaw162
I thought all these radar denying, super cruising, kinematic-minded dudes and dudettes were going to generally be up in the stratosphere. :D

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2017, 08:22
by spazsinbad
Detailed report on PEs in Hornets & Goshawks (F-35s mentioned in passing). BEST READ IT ALL AT SOURCE.
U.S. Military Tackles Vexing Issue of Physiological Episodes
27 Oct 2017 Bill Carey

"The U.S. military has confirmed one thing: the physiological episodes (PEs) that pilots occasionally experience because of oxygen deprivation or decompression sickness present a “complex, perplexing issue,” to use the Navy’s words. A spate of recent incidents involving high-performance Navy as well as Air Force jets suggests that PEs are a recurring condition the services need to manage and not a problem they can simply fix.

There is also a wild card in the deck—the human in the loop known as the pilot. “There is no fixing the human; every human reacts differently to every situation,” Capt. Cliff Blumenberg, head of the Navy’s aerospace medicine branch, told reporters during a September teleconference. “Even the same person in the same aircraft on different days or different flights might experience a physiologic episode at one time and maybe not the next flight. It depends on what you’re doing, how hydrated you are, how well rested you are, what else is going on in your life. Do you have a mild cold that you didn’t recognize?”...

...Honeywell Aerospace, which supplies OBOGS on the F-35 and F-22 fighters as well as on other U.S. and international aircraft, referred questions on the F-35 to manufacturer Lockheed Martin."



Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... l-episodes

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2017, 11:46
by spazsinbad
ANOTHER long article about USN PEs best read at source - for the detailed info innit.
Fear Of Losing Oxygen Puts U.S. Fighter Pilots On Edge
01 Nov 2017 Lara Seligman

"...The Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet, EA-18G Growler and T-45 Goshawk trainer as well as the Air Force’s new F-35A fleets have seen a significant surge in these so-called physiological episodes (PE) over the last few years. In the F/A-18 and EA-18G communities, the number of PEs increased almost eightfold from 2009 to 2016 and as of October was up to 108 for 2017 alone (see graph). In the T-45 fleet, PEs increased from just one in 2009 to 38 in 2012, and 29 have occurred so far this year (see graph). There were just 10 PEs in F-35As in 2006-16; in 2017, the Joint Program Office so far has recorded another 10, doubling the overall number reported (see infographic)....

...On the F-35A, one constant in the three most recent incidents at Luke AFB may prove key to solving the problem. In each of the incidents, initiating the backup oxygen system did not immediately ease pilots’ symptoms. This indicates that the problem is not true hypoxia, says Col. Ben Bishop, commander of the Air Force’s 56th Operations Group and an F-35 pilot.

Bishop believes pilots could be experiencing hypercapnia due to restricted breathing, potentially caused by the life-support system. He does not think the cause is hyperventilation.

“I think there might be something based on how the machine and the human are interacting that’s altering the breathing,” Bishop says.

The team is looking at all flight equipment for an indication of something that would restrict pilot breathing and taking steps to make the life-support system as robust as possible, he says. Already, the Air Force has made a number of changes to flight equipment to mitigate the potential for restrictions of breathing, including reducing the weight of the flight vest to making breathing easier and making changes to the exhalation valve on the mask to prevent sticking.

Bishop is confident the problem is not caused by air contamination or an OBOGS fault. There are no indications of carbon monoxide or other toxins on the ramp or during pilot examinations, he says. And recent testing of the OBOGS found the system is generating enough oxygen to safely support the pilot.

While initially there was a lot of concern in the pilot community at Luke over the PEs, pilots have begun to regain confidence both in the leadership and in the F-35, Bishop says. Today, although pilots realize the team may never find a single “smoking gun,” they have high confidence that in the event of a PE, they will be able to turn on the backup oxygen system and safely recover the aircraft, he stresses.

“We are not going to make any pilot that’s not comfortable flying the aircraft—who doesn’t have confidence in the F-35’s life-support system—we’re not going to make them fly,” Bishop says. “Up to this point, pilot confidence has been high enough that everyone has been able to return to fly.”"



Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/fear-lo ... ilots-edge

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2017, 15:30
by steve2267
I'm too lazy to spend an hour googling and searching, so I'll just ask...

Just what qualifies as a physiological event (PE)? Obviously, if a pilot passes out, that would be a significant PE. But what if a pilot notices a tingling on the back of his hand or in his fingertips? Does that count as a PE here?

I recall going for my ride in the altitude chamber at Pederson AFB. My personal sign was tingling in the middle tops of my thighs at 21,000 ft. I was still talking, could still understand a question and make a reply and later I could still read my writing, though it was a bit shaky / sloppy. But tingling in my thighs was my "take note" sign.

A year or two later I flew nonstop from Denver (KAPA) down to Tucson in a Bonanza. To save time (I was late), I filed IFR and flew as direct a route southwest over the Rockies. I recall flying at atleast 16,500' and, while I had a couple oxygen bottles with me, I flew without O2 for a little while, all while monitoring my O2 levels with a pulsoximeter. I saw my O2 levels drop to the high 80s (88-89), but found that with slow, deep breathing, I could get my O2 level to 92-93 easily. Then I put my canula back on. I never once felt the tingling in my thighs.

While I do not discredit the reports coming out from professional military pilots, and while I do not intend to belittle or demean the seriousness of truly life threatening PE events, I have to ask (for clarification if nothing else): are all the PE events being reported truly life threatening, super significant events? Has everyone become hyper vigilant over reporting PEs that every little thing is being reported, when in the past it was nothing?

Rather than a Garmin altitude watch, personally I'd rather have a pulseoximeter sensor (and backup) wired into my flightsuit with an easy to read indicator on the instrument panel or in my HUD / HMDS. Some sort of "Take me to the o-club, HAL" button would be nice.

Now I may be full of sh*t, and probably am. If so, disregard everything I've written. If each of these events is an "OMG... I can't breathe!" event, then yes, this is very serious.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2017, 15:53
by spazsinbad
Ha! I'm not bovvered eva (to search the interrabble) just search here & youse'll find a heap o'info about PEs dontcha know.

I think it is clear from various statements (I'm looking at the CAPT Joyner USN video) that PEs are a lot of things - that is part of the problem and why they are called PEs Physiological Events which can be a range of aircrew experiences. As Joyner mentions categorizing PEs was problematic until recently - reporting was all over the shop then difficult to manage reports until her new bureaucracy has standardized and investigated (ongoing) with various methodologies/corrections.

Sure you have experienced some symptoms and that is commendable that you did some training and education on the matter however one must realise that the fast jet environment is unique (except for spacecraft & pressure suits or diving).

IF one reads the material here (perhaps someone could collect it into one PDF to post here - it is 0145 my time so not me) then one may realise that there are many factors at work to manufacture a PE - what is the question again....?

OH OK you have gone to the extreme of the 'pilot passing out' (is that on wings graduation parade?) to other symptoms which I won't call minor because they are not - they are symptoms of something potentially life threatening in the fast jet enviromnet (finger tingling or blue finger tips for example).

Some new aircrew under training may report a PE when perhaps it is not a 'PE' but some other anxiety however if one is anxious in a fast jet environment - except for good cause - then one needs to reconsider being a fast jet pilot perhaps. Anyway better to be safe than sorry - IF IN DOUBT PUNCH OUT! - is my favourite saying from 40 odd years ago now. Always good to talk about it in the here and now rather than in some fanciful afterlife when lessons learnt probably irrelevant.

To be realistic always good to declare an emergency perhaps which can be downgraded to something lesser if required - no one needs to be embarrassed about reporting a problem. So I had an A4G Fire Warning Light which did not extinguish immediately the throttle was closed (out in the never never boondocks of Oz - the vast desert) so my wingie came up to have a look - no fire and the light went out as throttle increased to keep flying so my initial MAYDAY was downgraded to a PAN and everybody cleared out for me to land from a straight in approach to a NON NAS Nowra runway. No big deal.

After several investigations & further fire warning incidents it was found to be a cracked engine shroud IIRC - this incident described earlier in another thread I think but right now my brain is mush at 0215.

I have mentioned seeing another A4G pilot acting weird in flight / radio calls when in formation with an instructor at my back in a TA4G. The other guy was hyperventilating with the oxy under pressure getting to him. Calls to calm down were heeded and he got himself under control and we returned to base ASAP - calm and cool as cucumbers to talk about it.

I'm not only lazy but tired as all getout so I'll finish on that note - maybe I'll get a second wind tomorrow - PE and all.

PE stood for Physical Exercise in my era.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2017, 18:35
by outlaw162
But tingling in my thighs was my "take note" sign.


Some new aircrew under training may report a PE when perhaps it is not a 'PE' but some other anxiety


Go back, go back....it's a trap. :)

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2017, 21:00
by spazsinbad
The title of this already posted 27 page PDF perhaps misleading - it is about PEs especially REAL HYPOXIA USN incidents.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=358664&hilit=acceleration+atelectasis#p358664

27 page PDF download 5.6Mb: download/file.php?id=23979

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2017, 21:37
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:I'm too lazy to spend an hour googling and searching, so I'll just ask...

Just what qualifies as a physiological event (PE)? Obviously, if a pilot passes out, that would be a significant PE. But what if a pilot notices a tingling on the back of his hand or in his fingertips? Does that count as a PE here?


It might; depends on whether he or she chooses to declare it as such.

steve2267 wrote:I recall going for my ride in the altitude chamber at Pederson AFB. My personal sign was tingling in the middle tops of my thighs at 21,000 ft. I was still talking, could still understand a question and make a reply and later I could still read my writing, though it was a bit shaky / sloppy. But tingling in my thighs was my "take note" sign.


Mine was always my fingernails. They would start to turn blue. Hence, I cut the fingertips off of my gloves (which also gave me more tactile precision wrt which knob or switch I was touching without looking at said knob/switch.)

steve2267 wrote:While I do not discredit the reports coming out from professional military pilots, and while I do not intend to belittle or demean the seriousness of truly life threatening PE events, I have to ask (for clarification if nothing else): are all the PE events being reported truly life threatening, super significant events?


No.

steve2267 wrote:Has everyone become hyper vigilant over reporting PEs that every little thing is being reported, when in the past it was nothing?


Yes.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2017, 03:55
by neptune
quicksilver wrote:
steve2267 wrote:....

steve2267 wrote:Has everyone become hyper vigilant over reporting PEs that every little thing is being reported, when in the past it was nothing?
..

....there is a hole in the ground in Alaska with a F-22A in it, that we would desperately like to avoid, ever again!
:salute:

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2017, 16:26
by steve2267
neptune wrote:....there is a hole in the ground in Alaska with a F-22A in it, that we would desperately like to avoid, ever again!
:salute:


That is why this is a serious matter and not to be taken lightly. And yet, the number of cases of PE's have gone through the roof. It makes me wonder if the TA-45, F/A-18C/D/E/F, F-35's have been broken all along, or, if not, then what changed? I don't think it helped matters that the F-22 had a real problem, the pilots reported or treated it as such, and yet were poo-pooed by the service that there was no problem when in fact there was. I think it is an area that may not have been paid as much attention to in the past as it is now. Pilots are becoming hyper-vigilant, and now there is an avalanche (perhaps too strong a word) of new data / reports that have to be sifted through. But the press runs around predicting, as usual, that the sky is falling.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2017, 17:16
by quicksilver
OBOGGS has been around in some form for a long, long time (like, decades) and has been used on many aircraft. The F-22 got the most press but it was hardly the first suspected case of pilot hypoxia.

When people are encouraged to report everything...they are going to report everything. The media is incapable of distinguishing between actual cases of hypoxia and reported 'physiological events' because they dont fully understand the difference between a reportable PE and real hypoxia and they dont have access to the case data that distinguishes the differences.

Should pilots report? Sure, helps figure out if there is something wrong in the various systems and if something is wrong, come to the best solution(s).

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2017, 17:36
by maus92
outlaw162 wrote:
the US Navy install their long-range, thermal sensor inside the Super Hornet’s centerline fuel tank.


Is the tank still jettisonable? :shock:


edit: "Hey you back there, RIO lad, our radar's acting flaky, get me something on the IRST."

"But sir, you jettisoned that prior to the merge."


The center fuel tank can be jettisoned, whether or not an IRST is installed. But that tank is never jettisoned except in an emergency. The tank can also be swapped with / to other Super Hornets as deployments dictate, as it was with the TCS on the F-14As.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2017, 01:26
by spazsinbad
‘A Terrifying Experience’: Senator Discusses Navy Hypoxia Demo [TRY 1st Night Deck Landing for TERRIFYING] :devil:
07 Nov 2017 Hope Hodge Seck

"A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee has introduced a bill calling for the secretary of the Navy to report to Congress every quarter on the service’s efforts to find answers regarding pilot hypoxia-like incidents. It’s a problem, she said, that became much more real and pressing to her after being put through a flight hypoxia simulation during a recent visit to Naval Air Station Norfolk, Virginia.

Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, told reporters at her Capitol Hill office that her visit had included an orientation flight in an F/A-18 Hornet, one of the aircraft platforms most significantly affected by a spike in “physiological episodes” in the cockpit....

...Ernst said she participated in a hypoxia simulation in which she was strapped into a reduced-oxygen breathing device, or ROBD, a mask that allows the amount of oxygen flow to be controlled and reduced. The symptoms she experienced, she said, were “textbook.” “My face got hot and flushed, my fingers started tingling, I got numb. My legs started tingling. It was very hard to concentrate,” she said. “And they put us through a battery of questions and we had to answer. It was horrible.”

The experience, Ernst said, changed her perspective on the gravity of the problem and added to her conviction that the Navy should be required to make regular reports on its efforts to find the cause of the episodes and address it....

...She said she didn’t have any additional recommendations about how the Navy should conduct ongoing studies about the causes of the episodes, but said she supported precautionary steps while flight operations continued.

Earlier this fall, the head of the Navy’s new Physiological Episode Action Team, Rear Adm. Sara Joyner, briefed the media about steps the service is taking to solve the problem, including the installation of new oxygen monitoring systems aboard the T-45 and improved systems to replace parts likely to fail in aging Hornets...."

Source: https://www.defensetech.org/2017/11/07/ ... oxia-demo/

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2017, 05:18
by outlaw162
At least the actual flight went well.

You might more cheaply be able to use a pillow for the ROBD.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2017, 13:45
by ricnunes
maus92 wrote:The center fuel tank can be jettisoned, whether or not an IRST is installed. But that tank is never jettisoned except in an emergency.


And guess what?? Just like any other external fuel tank! Or do you believe that any external fuel tank is jettisoned "lightly"?
ANY and EVERY external fuel tank is ONLY jettisoned in emergency situations (It doesn't matter if it has IRSTs attached or not)! External fuel tanks - even the ones that only carry fuel - still costs money (and are relatively expensive) and as such they are always available in limited numbers.

So, the point still remains:
Are you going to jettison an expensive and above all, "sensitive" piece of equipment (IRST) even in an emergency situation just because it is attached to an external fuel tank?
Even if the answer is a yes - That's PLAIN STUPID nonetheless!

maus92 wrote:The tank can also be swapped with / to other Super Hornets as deployments dictate, as it was with the TCS on the F-14As.


And?? Does this make this arrangement less stupid?

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2017, 19:18
by lamoey
spazsinbad wrote:
‘A Terrifying Experience’: Senator Discusses Navy Hypoxia Demo [TRY 1st Night Deck Landing for TERRIFYING] :devil:
07 Nov 2017 Hope Hodge Seck

...Ernst said she participated in a hypoxia simulation in which she was strapped into a reduced-oxygen breathing device, or ROBD, a mask that allows the amount of oxygen flow to be controlled and reduced. The symptoms she experienced, she said, were “textbook.” “My face got hot and flushed, my fingers started tingling, I got numb. My legs started tingling. It was very hard to concentrate,” she said. “And they put us through a battery of questions and we had to answer. It was horrible.”
Source: https://www.defensetech.org/2017/11/07/ ... oxia-demo/


I have had those exact feelings twice in my life. Once while driving home from work, suffering from a sudden, surprise case of kidney stone pain. The other was during an extremely rough landing in a DeHavilland Twin Otter. Only on the third attempt did the pilot successfully land it, in close to hurricane force wind. After the fact I felt both cases was me entering a state of shock.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2017, 19:34
by outlaw162
Somehow I can't get out of my head a picture of her with the mask on looking like Darth Vader....

"Luke, I am your mother." :shock:

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 16:40
by spazsinbad
More POXY stories from AvWEAK:
Podcast: Combat Aircraft Safety
09 Nov 2017 Jen DiMascio, Guy Norris and Lara Seligman | Aviation Week & Space Technology

The U.S. military’s pilots have reported an increasing number of physiological episodes, such as a lack of oxygen. Aviation Week’s Pentagon Editor Lara Seligman discusses the latest in this ongoing problem and some of the potential solutions. Plus, Senior Technology Editor Guy Norris describes the Automated Integrated Collision Avoidance System developed by Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Air Force, which is being designed to prevent F-16 crashes in mid-air and with the ground.”

Source: http://aviationweek.com/air-combat-safe ... aft-safety

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2017, 02:35
by popcorn
https://news.usni.org/2017/11/09/physio ... back-norma

Physiological Episodes Down in the Navy After Slew of Changes; New Pilot Production Rate Nearly Back to Normal

lWASHINGTON, D.C. — The Navy’s multi-pronged efforts to address hypoxia, decompression sickness and other physiological episodes (PEs) in its F-18 and T-45 aircrew are showing positive results, with the number of PE events down in most aircraft types and the T-45C Goshawk trainers set to resume full operations by the end of the month, according to the commander of Naval Air Forces.

Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker told USNI News today that “the trends right now on the physiological episodes are very good.”

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2017, 03:57
by spazsinbad
Only one-third of Super Hornets ready to ‘fight tonight’ as of October, admiral says
09 Nov 2017 Geoff Ziezulewicz

"Just a third of the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornets were fully mission-capable and ready to “fight tonight” as of October, the head of Naval Air Forces told Congress on Friday. Only half of the service’s 542 Super Hornets were flyable as of last month, Vice Adm. Troy Shoemaker told the House Subcommittee on Readiness at a hearing on aviation readiness...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-n ... iral-says/

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2017, 04:24
by outlaw162
with the number of PE events down in most aircraft types


You know, except for the required annual visit, from my experience there was a 'general reluctance' among pilots to have anything to do with the flight surgeon. Possibly that point of view is making a comeback.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2017, 04:54
by spazsinbad
That would be my experience also but overcome at the time by having two navy surgeon lieutenants becoming pilots, one flying helicopters the other the A4G - but not learning how to use weapons - just flying (Hippocratic oath and all that). This was the early 1970s - the jet doc went on to a long career in the Navy medical-wise (I guess he swapped to helos).

At the time the jet doc converted to the A4G he researched the 'pure oxygen under pressure at low level cough' we had & explained it to us of course. As I mentioned one pilot was affected more than others - he died crashing into sea from LOW.

acceleration atelectasis is the phrase to medically describe the condition (especially at low level).

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 09:13
by spazsinbad
:roll: Just when you thought it was safe to suck OBOGS (or whatever they have in TEXAS) :drool: T-6 is not a deep 6 one hopes.
T-6 aircraft operations on pause at Vance
16 Nov 2017 By James Neal

"Vance Air Force Base confirmed Friday it has temporarily pulled its T-6 Texan II training aircraft from flight operations.
In a press release, the base said the 71st Flying Training Wing's more-than 100 T-6 aircraft were placed on an "operational pause" after several "physiological incidents" in the aircraft. The press release stated the action was taken Wednesday
"after a fourth physiological event occurred since Nov. 1."

According to base officials, four instructor pilots and one student pilot assigned to Vance have reported physiological incidents while flying this month. "In each case, the aircraft's backup oxygen system operated as designed, and the pilot followed the correct procedures, landing the aircraft safely," the press release stated. The press release did not specify the nature of the physiological incidents, and Vance Public Affairs said further details were not available Friday....

...Currently, the local flying operational pause is limited to Vance Air Force Base T-6 Texans. Because the incidents are limited to the T-6 airframe, T-1 Jayhawk and T-38 Talon flight operations will continue...."

Source: http://www.enidnews.com/news/state/t–aircraft-operations-on-pause-at-vance/article_f9ee5014-1996-5f55-95b2-cf5a46601d47.html

"...A.7 T-6A Texan II
The OBOGS on the T-6A consists of the OC1132 Oxygen Concentrator (Figure A-7 below). This concentrator consists of two beds of packed 13X zeolite with a 0.01 micron inlet filter and a 0.1 micron outlet filter on the zeolite beds. Its functioning is similar to that on the F-15E with the exception that its plenum is sized at 300 cubic inches (in). The unit size is approximately 13 x 9 x 10 inches.

The T-6A has had a low rate of reported hypoxia incidents. Early system reliability was degraded to 967 hours MTBF due to problems with a faulty slide valve and a pressure reducer. Recent reliability is much improved. No unknown cause incidents have been reported...." http://www.airforcemag.com/DocumentFile ... 020112.pdf (3.8Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 17:47
by outlaw162
:D

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 18:11
by outlaw162
Gone

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 18:25
by spazsinbad
:devil: :doh: TEXAS was just my joke - think Kansas, another joke? I'm Australian and rather everything was in HAWAII! :roll: 8)

Personally I'm really not interested in this TEXAN aircraft however NATOPS manuals interest me so here is the T-6B:

http://www.grayskies.info/DOWNLOADS/NAV ... _w_IC6.pdf (25.8Mb)

USAF T-6A TEXAN Flight Manual: http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/produ ... 11-248.pdf (4.6Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 03:03
by maus92
ricnunes wrote:
maus92 wrote:The center fuel tank can be jettisoned, whether or not an IRST is installed. But that tank is never jettisoned except in an emergency.


And guess what?? Just like any other external fuel tank! Or do you believe that any external fuel tank is jettisoned "lightly"?
ANY and EVERY external fuel tank is ONLY jettisoned in emergency situations (It doesn't matter if it has IRSTs attached or not)! External fuel tanks - even the ones that only carry fuel - still costs money (and are relatively expensive) and as such they are always available in limited numbers.

So, the point still remains:
Are you going to jettison an expensive and above all, "sensitive" piece of equipment (IRST) even in an emergency situation just because it is attached to an external fuel tank?
Even if the answer is a yes - That's PLAIN STUPID nonetheless!

maus92 wrote:The tank can also be swapped with / to other Super Hornets as deployments dictate, as it was with the TCS on the F-14As.


And?? Does this make this arrangement less stupid?


I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 03:26
by marauder2048
maus92 wrote:
And?? Does this make this arrangement less stupid?


I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.


But we've been constantly told that outer mold line changes are
relatively cheap and easy for the Super Hornet.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 05:34
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote::roll: Just when you thought it was safe to suck OBOGS ....


....sorry to upset the parade! I just discovered that Boeing can solve "ALL" of the OBOGS problems for just $2mil per a/c, with QF-16s 9G drones plus $500 for each pilot's Barcalounger.
:D

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 11:18
by ricnunes
maus92 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
maus92 wrote:The center fuel tank can be jettisoned, whether or not an IRST is installed. But that tank is never jettisoned except in an emergency.


And guess what?? Just like any other external fuel tank! Or do you believe that any external fuel tank is jettisoned "lightly"?
ANY and EVERY external fuel tank is ONLY jettisoned in emergency situations (It doesn't matter if it has IRSTs attached or not)! External fuel tanks - even the ones that only carry fuel - still costs money (and are relatively expensive) and as such they are always available in limited numbers.

So, the point still remains:
Are you going to jettison an expensive and above all, "sensitive" piece of equipment (IRST) even in an emergency situation just because it is attached to an external fuel tank?
Even if the answer is a yes - That's PLAIN STUPID nonetheless!

maus92 wrote:The tank can also be swapped with / to other Super Hornets as deployments dictate, as it was with the TCS on the F-14As.


And?? Does this make this arrangement less stupid?


I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.


Precisely and probably for the first time I actually agree with you!

There are (SH) fanboys out there (such as YOU) who thinks that the Super Hornet is much less expensive than the F-35 despite being proven over and over again that the Super Hornet is just as expensive as a F-35 while the F-35 is far more effective. Yes for some reason these some fanboys (such as YOU) are so fanatic that don't understand the concept of "cost effectiveness" - The F-35 being far more effective but costing almost the same what does it makes it? The answer is: "more cost effective" - It seems that the "cost effectiveness" concept is completely ALIEN to some fanboys (such as YOU).

Moreover, those same fanboys (such as YOU) seem to believe that hanging an IRST in the tip of an external fuel tank is a effective way (not only cost effective but effective as a whole) compared to embedding it internally on the aircraft's airframe... :doh:

So it seems that it's you who does not doesn't understand the "stupid" concept of "cost effectiveness" neither the concept of "effectiveness in general". :roll:

P.S. - It's funny that YOU come here accusing others of being fanboys - You don't have mirrors at home, right??
Look, I said this to you in the past and I'll repeat it not: I used (and I still am) a Super Hornet fan - But trying to compare the Super Hornet to the F-35 in terms of cost effectiveness and effectiveness as a whole is just plain pathetic!!
I learned my lessons in the past when I believed that the Super Hornet had a fighting against for example the F-22. But I learned how wrong I was - You should do the same!
And so, why on Earth are you here if you're not willing to learn?? I guess that this alone not only makes you a (Super Hornet) fanboy but a troll as well :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 15:05
by hythelday
quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:
At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...


Oh boy, you are gonna do good on this forum. Have fun, enjoy it while it lasts.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 19:00
by marauder2048
quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:
Moreover, those same fanboys (such as YOU) seem to believe that hanging an IRST in the tip of an external fuel tank is a effective way (not only cost effective but effective as a whole) compared to embedding it internally on the aircraft's airframe..


At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...


The Block I IRST for the Super Hornet is already outdated at IOC which is why the Navy
is skipping full-rate production of Block I and proceeding directly to Block II.

The LRIP Block I IRST systems are supposed to be retrofitted to the Block II configuration
when Block II arrives in April of 2020.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 22:31
by ricnunes
quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:
Moreover, those same fanboys (such as YOU) seem to believe that hanging an IRST in the tip of an external fuel tank is a effective way (not only cost effective but effective as a whole) compared to embedding it internally on the aircraft's airframe..


At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...


The F-35 IRST outdated, LOL
Care to share a source?? :roll:

Anyway, another troll strikes back it seems :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2017, 18:36
by playloud
ricnunes wrote:
quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:
Moreover, those same fanboys (such as YOU) seem to believe that hanging an IRST in the tip of an external fuel tank is a effective way (not only cost effective but effective as a whole) compared to embedding it internally on the aircraft's airframe..


At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...


The F-35 IRST outdated, LOL
Care to share a source?? :roll:

Anyway, another troll strikes back it seems :roll:

He is referring to the fact EOTS is over 10 years old.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newest-us ... older-jets
The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter’s primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs.

“EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth,” said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. “I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.”


Of course, the issue is vastly overstated, and a new EOTS is looking to land in Block 4.2.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2017, 18:49
by sferrin
maus92 wrote:I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.


It escapes me how jettisoning an IRST into the drink is "cost effective". Perhaps you could explain?

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2017, 20:15
by ricnunes
playloud wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...


The F-35 IRST outdated, LOL
Care to share a source?? :roll:

Anyway, another troll strikes back it seems :roll:

He is referring to the fact EOTS is over 10 years old.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newest-us ... older-jets
The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter’s primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs.

“EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth,” said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. “I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.”


Of course, the issue is vastly overstated, and a new EOTS is looking to land in Block 4.2.


Yes, I know and understand where his "rambling" is based on.
However the fact that the EOTS will eventually be replaced by a newer version doesn't make the current EOTS "outdated", specially and above all the IRST function.
If I'm not mistaken the improved EOTS will bring improvements into imagery (FLIR/EO targeting part) but it's unknown if the IRST function will be improved at all in the new improved EOTS. Remember that he was talking about EOTS.
That's what I would like to see him addressing :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2017, 20:20
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:
maus92 wrote:I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.


It escapes me how jettisoning an IRST into the drink is "cost effective". Perhaps you could explain?


Even worse:
It escapes me how jettisoning an IRST above and into enemy territory is "cost effective". Perhaps he could also explain this as well :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2017, 20:24
by marauder2048
The complaints about EOTS are not related to search and track capability
but target-id and lead-laser capability. Advanced pods still have trouble with the
former and the latter is a complete non-issue for practically
any laser guided weapon built in the last decade.

The point for this conversation is that EOTS at present is superior to ATFLIR
which is the Navy's primary podded solution; the separate IRST Block I
pods in LRIP are pretty much only useful for training.

Lets revisit this in 2020 when the Navy may:

1. Have Sniper-ATP on the deck
2. Have IRST Block II on the deck

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2017, 21:57
by SpudmanWP
ricnunes wrote:but it's unknown if the IRST function will be improved at all in the new improved EOTS. Remember that he was talking about EOTS.
Of course it will since better sensors & a larger aperture will allow for better detection and quicker ID of a target.


Image

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2017, 00:24
by ricnunes
SpudmanWP wrote:
ricnunes wrote:but it's unknown if the IRST function will be improved at all in the new improved EOTS. Remember that he was talking about EOTS.
Of course it will since better sensors & a larger aperture will allow for better detection and quicker ID of a target.


Sure ok and I stand corrected (what you say makes sense). However this doesn't mean that the current EOTS is outdated, does it?

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2017, 00:44
by SpudmanWP
ricnunes wrote:However this doesn't mean that the current EOTS is outdated, does it?
I would never and have never said that.


Some people seem to be under the impression that just because something "can" be better means that it's "outdated" or "obsolete". They are of course, wrong.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 03:14
by spazsinbad
Four page PDF about PE matters attached :
Navy Leaders Describe Efforts to Resolve Physiological Episodes
Naval Aviation News - Fall 2017

Slam Stick Success
"Integration of a Slam Stick data logger is one initiative in the Naval Aviation Enterprise’s collect-and-analyze-data effort to address physiological episodes (PEs). Designed to measure and record vibrations, temperature and air
pressure, the Navy is using the device to measure cabin pressure changes over time in F/A-18A-D Hornet, F/A-18E-F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft. The small, lightweight sensor can be placed virtually anywhere in an aircraft. Its rugged enclosure and wide temperature operating range allow its use in tough environments. U.S. Navy photo by Fred Flerlage" Photo: SLAM STICK USN OXY PE TEST Device

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... 17_web.pdf (7.6Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 14:54
by mixelflick
Oh how I long for the day when all these Hornets/SH's/Super Duper Hornets get converted to.... QF-18 Target Hornets(tm)!!!

At which point I will revel in watching them blasted to smitherines by AIM-9x, AIM-120 and gun kills. I'd further propose giving the A-10 drivers some GAU-8 30mm time with them, firing those lovely depleted uranium rounds.. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 15:20
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.


Some estimates put the cost of naval avaition as 10 times more expensive than land based counterparts.

This is exacerbated further when considerations like strategic bombers are factored in. A single B-1 for example can carry more bombs than dozens of fighters, even more than naval fighters that must be more weight conscious.

How cost effective is is to buy airplanes that have no future or place in a high threat environment? DoT&E and multiple naval aviators have said the super hornet won't work against high threat environments.

But a fanboy will buy them anyway, because the navy can't manage their fleet or field suitable replacements

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 16:43
by SpudmanWP
DU will just poke clean holes through them... I want to see some 30mm PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds.

I want to see some boom boom....

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 21:21
by steve2267
SpudmanWP wrote:DU will just poke clean holes through them... I want to see some 30mm PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds.

I want to see some boom boom....


If you are going that route, I'd like to see a comparison between that 30mm PGU-13/B HEI round and the Norwegian NAMMO 25mm APEX round. The Norskeman seem to have come up with quite the round in the APEX.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 21:21
by marauder2048
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.


Some estimates put the cost of naval avaition as 10 times more expensive than land based counterparts.

This is exacerbated further when considerations like strategic bombers are factored in. A single B-1 for example can carry more bombs than dozens of fighters, even more than naval fighters that must be more weight conscious.


LRASM carriage on the B-1b and the Super Hornet really permits some direct (and unfavorable)
comparisons in terms of land-based vs. carrier-based ASuW.

LRASM on P-8 looks especially attractive since I've read CPFH estimates of $4,200 for the P-8.
You might then see carrier aviation shift towards providing escort (and possibly SEAD)
for land-based ASuW aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 21:34
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.


Some estimates put the cost of naval avaition as 10 times more expensive than land based counterparts.

This is exacerbated further when considerations like strategic bombers are factored in. A single B-1 for example can carry more bombs than dozens of fighters, even more than naval fighters that must be more weight conscious.


LRASM carriage on the B-1b and the Super Hornet really permits some direct (and unfavorable)
comparisons in terms of land-based vs. carrier-based ASuW.

LRASM on P-8 looks especially attractive since I've read CPFH estimates of $4,200 for the P-8.
You might then see carrier aviation shift towards providing escort (and possibly SEAD)
for land-based ASuW aircraft.



Stock the carriers with escorts (bet the NATF would be useful about now) and bring the heavies from further back? That'd be an interesting concept. It would certainly alleviate the need to drag escorts thousands of miles with the bombers.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 01:09
by madrat
Why wouldn't S-3 be a viable carrierborne asset to compare to P-8? Or better still, an automated system that could endure 20 missions coming off a carrier.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 13:31
by tincansailor
Sounds like some of the arguments that have been made against carriers over the last 90 years. Aircraft Carriers can do a few things heavy bombers can't. Defend the fleet for one. It's a moving target, as opposed to a fixed one. It's tactical aircraft are better able to preform CAS because they can be in more places at the same time, SAR, and SEAD missions. They are much more survivable over enemy territory.

B-52s, or B-1s will probable never be sent into any environment where SAMs are operational, or anywhere were enemy fighters could be active. P-8s will avoid the same things, which includes naval SAMS. Carrier strike aircraft will fly right into the teeth of enemy defenses, their more expendable. With all do respect to land based pilots anyone who takes off, and lands on a pitching deck has a high sense of adventure. When the F-35C enters service those carriers will become just that more effective.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 18:24
by XanderCrews
tincansailor wrote: Defend the fleet for one.


Defend the fleet from what? The US Navy is not an "anti navy" force. There is no near peer navy.

It bombs land targets like everyone else but at a much greater expense, now.


It's tactical aircraft are better able to preform CAS because they can be in more places at the same time, SAR, and SEAD missions.


not that black and white at all.


The 7th BW kept a bomber in the air over Afghanistan every minute of its deployment.


The airmen of the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron and 9th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit provided more than 25 percent of the total fixed-wing close-air support coverage for coalition ground forces in Afghanistan every day by launching the most B-1 sorties executed on a single deployment in more than 10 years of sustained conflict.

Over the course of the six-plus month deployment, the squadron flew more than 770 combat sorties, encompassing over 9,500 hours, to provide 24 hours of coverage every day.

They also responded to more than 500 troops-in-contact situations, with the enemy as close as 300 meters from friendly forces, and another 700 priority air requests, delivering more than 400 weapons on target.


You can compare that to the 4 tanking its takes to get a pair of Super Hornets over friendly troops for 30 minutes. which brings up another point

THE NAVY HAS NO ORGANIC TANKING AND RELIES ON AIR FORCE BIG WING TANKERS.


The main advantage of the Carrier is close proximity to targets and ground troops. In terms of loiter, weapons, and range? one could say land based assets have a huge advantage.

In iraq we had hornets launching from hundreds of miles away to be over the target. In the meantime land based Harriers are 5 minutes away. OR heaven forbid air force F-16s that are stationed in Iraq proper. Using CVNs in the middle east has bascially been about the most convoluted and expensive way to put warheads on foreheads. But boy we will did it anyway and have Navy folks like Maus telling us how wasteful we are.

Even 35_aoa here who is a navy pilot has mentioned its wasteful, and I would have loved to see a land based carrier wing in Iraq, but then people question why we need CVNs so that wasn't going to happen.


Youre confusing Fighter Vs bomber

With Bomber vs CVN.

Anything a Navy Fighter can do, a land based fighter can do. In fact some could argue that the land based fighter does more, better.

CVNS ARE NOT UNIQUE IN THEIR ABILITY TO USE FIGHTERS.

They are much more survivable over enemy territory.


debatable. espeically as the Super Hornet and Growler are coming under fire for survivability.

B-52s, or B-1s will probable never be sent into any environment where SAMs are operational,


False. Kosovo 1999

or anywhere were enemy fighters could be active.


False again.

Carrier strike aircraft will fly right into the teeth of enemy defenses, their more expendable.


Youre confusing carrier strike aircraft with strike aircraft. fighter/attack Aircraft need not be launched from a carrier to do fighter/attack things. Which is the point I tried to make above.

In fact last I checked it was USAF fifth gen F-22s leading the charges.


With all do respect to land based pilots anyone who takes off, and lands on a pitching deck has a high sense of adventure.


Hooray for adventure. It also means navy pilots spend far more time on taking off and landing than they do combat training. but people have been brainwashed to suck them off like they're Astronauts. one could say taking a B-1 into areas where SAMs are active takes "a high sense of adventure." too. only in the navy do people get so much credit for LANDING.


You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to say "Boy this is hard!" and "look how expensive this is!" and "look how brave!! even landing is hard!" then say "but cost is irrelevant, and none of the additional difficulty should be questioned" REALLY? A Ford carrier costs... what, $13 billion alone? Its not wrong to start talking cost vs effectiveness after being hit with that number.

CVNs have advantages that other things don't and I get that. But people act like any cost then is justified, CVN aviation has a very high cost comparative to other things. If we want to maintain that, then great.

But lets not get high and mighty about "saving" money and "fanboys" while writing CVNs and the Navy blank Checks. People act like the CVNs and CVWs are beyond questioning and the only way to do things and thats BS. As a Marine we have to defend and justify everything we do and everything we buy right down to our new service rifles. But the Navy gets whatever because in 1986 they made a great propaganda film?

I don't think so. The Marines are going to get off the ships as fast as possible to stay with the Grunts and move with them. The navy will still be launching strikes from 700 miles away while relying on constellations of USAF Tankers to get them there. I think thats bordering on absurdity, frankly.

So I wouldn't start spouting off on the ability of the CVN to render quick help because that really depends. In Korea a CVN is king. In Afghanistan? Launching and flying that distance is ridiculous, but damned if they don't try it anyway. so they can do a show of force, hang out for 20 minutes and then start the 6 hour trek back.

Maus' position is that retrofitting an IRST to a fuel tank as kind of half-a$$ed band aid fix is a wonderful cost saving notion while ignoring the elephant in the room because RAH RAH Navy

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 18:38
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:Anything a Navy Fighter can do, a land based fighter can do. In fact some could argue that the land based fighter does more, better.

CVNS ARE NOT UNIQUE IN THEIR ABILITY TO USE FIGHTERS.


However they ARE unique in their ability to use fighters where land bases aren't in a convenient location or have been bombed out of existence.

XanderCrews wrote:Even 35_aoa here who is a navy pilot has mentioned its wasteful, and I would have loved to see a land based carrier wing in Iraq, but then people question why we need CVNs so that wasn't going to happen.


Much like people asked why we needed B-1Bs since they weren't used in Desert Storm, or why we needed F-22s since they weren't used in Afghanistan. And now we have F-22s hitting drug labs in Afghanistan.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... hanistant/

What a waste of precious F-22 airframe hours.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 18:57
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Anything a Navy Fighter can do, a land based fighter can do. In fact some could argue that the land based fighter does more, better.

CVNS ARE NOT UNIQUE IN THEIR ABILITY TO USE FIGHTERS.


However they ARE unique in their ability to use fighters where land bases aren't in a convenient location or have been bombed out of existence.



I don't disagree with that. I said they had unique capabilities. I would also point out that a CVN, is NOT the only way to launch a fighter from a ship...


in pure government wisdom, when the option is.

A. CVNs
B. Heavy Bombers
C. A constellation of bases all over the globe for fighters
D. All of the above.

We pick all of the above of course.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 19:16
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Anything a Navy Fighter can do, a land based fighter can do. In fact some could argue that the land based fighter does more, better.

CVNS ARE NOT UNIQUE IN THEIR ABILITY TO USE FIGHTERS.


However they ARE unique in their ability to use fighters where land bases aren't in a convenient location or have been bombed out of existence.



I don't disagree with that. I said they had unique capabilities. I would also point out that a CVN, is NOT the only way to launch a fighter from a ship...


No, but as numerous studies have shown, it is the best way.

XanderCrews wrote:in pure government wisdom, when the option is.

A. CVNs
B. Heavy Bombers
C. A constellation of bases all over the globe for fighters
D. All of the above.

We pick all of the above of course.


Why wouldn't we? You can't really pack up a land base and move it to a new location in a matter of weeks, or even days, like you can with a carrier. Land based fighters can't follow bombers for thousands of miles without an assload of tankers.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 21:01
by optimist
I was actually looking for the aussies building an airfield in something like 2 days, before the first plane lands. This is a US force construction in australia

edit..found it, it was 36 hours http://app.defencejobs.gov.au/impossibleairfield/

part 1 of 3


this was the us one.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 22:27
by spazsinbad
The video text says 'review last 30 days' - text below video youtube says 'time: 14 days' - someone has hallucinated music.

No fighter jets were harmed by this airfield. Info taken from the now second video listed above. Have not seen the first.

Now in the 1st video above it is stated that the airfield will take a C-17 aircraft (designed for semi-prepared/rough fields).

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 23:36
by optimist
I think the exercise could have been 30 days?
The Aussie made field was done in 36 hours.
The runway for a fighter has 'matting', from one of your posts spaz
viewtopic.php?t=16017

pics of a AM-2 mat runway in Astan
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=AM-2 ... 42&bih=614
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 00:21
by spazsinbad
And it does take some time to lay the AM-2 matting depending on variables - personnel numbers/matting availability etc.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 04:16
by sferrin
How long does it take if you have artillery raining down 24/7?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 06:08
by optimist
Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 06:19
by steve2267
sferrin wrote:How long does it take if you have artillery raining down 24/7?


Khe Sanh?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 07:25
by sferrin
optimist wrote:Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.


Are you saying you don't know the difference between some Afghani "army" shelling your position and the PLA doing it? BTW would you kindly explain to me how the USMC gets to the place to setup this "expeditionary force airfield"?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 08:03
by optimist
"A Marine expeditionary force (MEF), formerly known as a Marine amphibious force, is the largest type of a Marine air-ground task force. A MEF is the largest building block of United States Marine Corps combat power."

The SLD USMC link was on the last page, but here's another
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-expeditionar ... rations-2/
The Expeditionary Airfield Capability: A Core USMC Competence for Global Operations

http://www.imef.marines.mil/
Marine Expeditionary Force
MISSION
I MEF provides the Marine Corps a globally responsive, expeditionary, and fully scalable Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF), capable of generating, deploying, and employing ready forces and formations for crisis response, forward presence, major combat operations, and campaigns.


Amphibious Warfare Ship Inventory Minimum Requirement: 33
11 LHD or LHA / 11 LPD / 11 LSD or LX(R)

Maritime Prepositioning Force Inventory Minimum Requirement: 14
6 T-AK / 4 T-AKR / 2 T-AKE / 2 MLP

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 10:43
by tincansailor
But lets not get high and mighty about "saving" money and "fanboys" while writing CVNs and the Navy blank Checks. People act like the CVNs and CVWs are beyond questioning and the only way to do things and thats BS. As a Marine we have to defend and justify everything we do and everything we buy right down to our new service rifles. But the Navy gets whatever because in 1986 they made a great propaganda film?

I don't think so. The Marines are going to get off the ships as fast as possible to stay with the Grunts and move with them. The navy will still be launching strikes from 700 miles away while relying on constellations of USAF Tankers to get them there. I think thats bordering on absurdity, frankly.

So I wouldn't start spouting off on the ability of the CVN to render quick help because that really depends. In Korea a CVN is king. In Afghanistan? Launching and flying that distance is ridiculous, but damned if they don't try it anyway. so they can do a show of force, hang out for 20 minutes and then start the 6 hour trek back.

Maus' position is that retrofitting an IRST to a fuel tank as kind of half-a$$ed band aid fix is a wonderful cost saving notion while ignoring the elephant in the room because RAH RAH Navy

[/quote]

Ok I will grant you CVNs are redundant in the ME. I will further grant you CVNs are now dependent on USAF tanker assets for any long range operations. That however is a temporary oversight on the part of the navy that is being corrected. Lets do a thought experiment and assume you were the Supreme Warlord of the United States, and we scraped all our CVNs because their just not cost effective. What would happen?

I assume the money from naval aviation would be divided between the army, and the USAF. Sounds like what they wanted to do in the late 40s. When the army, and the air force got divorced they ganged up on the navy, and wanted to eliminate both naval, and marine aviation. Land based aviation was so much more cost effective, and the nuclear armed B-36 Bomber would render all conventional forces insignificant to the strategic balance of power.

So lets say the army gets two more divisions, two more aviation brigades, and some new wiz bang missile systems. The air force gets ten new wings. Just to show your magnums the navy may get a few more amphibious warfare ships, that can carry F-35Bs. Settling aside the political effect of not having carriers to deploy to trouble spots, what else would happen?

So now the expanded USAF will provide AWACS, and fighter coverage for any surface action groups that enter the range of hostile aircraft, and anti-ship cruise missiles. The USAF will also provide the same protection for all amphibious forces, and convoys sailing within range of hostile bombers. The USAF would take over the F/A-18G, since they operate the 390th Electronic Combat Squadron, and operate with VAQ-129. I assume as Supreme War lord you would upgrade to Growlers? The change from today would be the air force would have to pay for the aircraft.

In a Korean conflict airfields in SK would come under heavy attack. In 1950 most of our airfields were overrun. We had to base most of our air force assets in Japan. Navy, and marine aviation saved the day. Fortunately the navy successfully resisted the army, and air forces efforts to eliminate navy, and marine aviation. Oh the army also wanted to eliminate the marine corps altogether. "What do we need the Marine Corps for anyway? We didn't have them in Europe, and most of the ground troop that fought in the Pacific were army troops." If our bases in the ROK are badly damaged the same thing might happen.

In a conflict with China our carriers give us mobility. China would have to disperse forces to cover their whole coast, and into the South China Sea. Land based heavy bombers can only come from a few bases, which are subject to attack, and we just don't have that many of them. Carriers would come in handy in any conflict in the Indian Ocean. Even Northern Russia is vulnerable to carrier attack. In the Cold War we had plans for a six carrier attack on the Red Banner Fleet in Murmansk.

I'm sure the USAF would have no objection to taking on all these new missions, that the navy handles now. I'm sure they could preform them much more cost effectively then the navy does them. Of course they would need to learn some things like over water navigation, SAR operations in the middle of an ocean, open new bases so their fighters can cover all these areas,but those are only small matters. With all the money we would save by getting rid of the those inefficient carriers, we could pay for the USAF to take on all these missions, and have plenty of money left over. Sorry I don't think so.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 15:49
by sferrin
optimist wrote:"A Marine expeditionary force (MEF), formerly known as a Marine amphibious force, is the largest type of a Marine air-ground task force. A MEF is the largest building block of United States Marine Corps combat power."

The SLD USMC link was on the last page, but here's another
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-expeditionar ... rations-2/
The Expeditionary Airfield Capability: A Core USMC Competence for Global Operations

http://www.imef.marines.mil/
Marine Expeditionary Force
MISSION
I MEF provides the Marine Corps a globally responsive, expeditionary, and fully scalable Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF), capable of generating, deploying, and employing ready forces and formations for crisis response, forward presence, major combat operations, and campaigns.


Amphibious Warfare Ship Inventory Minimum Requirement: 33
11 LHD or LHA / 11 LPD / 11 LSD or LX(R)

Maritime Prepositioning Force Inventory Minimum Requirement: 14
6 T-AK / 4 T-AKR / 2 T-AKE / 2 MLP



It was a rhetorical question. If you want to get those ships anywhere near the beach guess who has to go in first to take down the defenses and provide air cover. That's right, the CVBGs. Even gators, when they get the F-35B, won't have the degree of control over the air as a CVBG with its E-2Ds, F-35Cs, Growlers, and SM-6.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 16:41
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.



We also defer to the navy in matter of ground warfare as well

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 16:55
by XanderCrews
tincansailor wrote:Ok I will grant you CVNs are redundant in the ME. I will further grant you CVNs are now dependent on USAF tanker assets for any long range operations. That however is a temporary oversight on the part of the navy that is being corrected.



Temporary? It's been like that for decades and will continue. In fact it would actually be made worse again at near peer adversary s as the CVN isn't getting any closer and the CVN is always going to be limited by fighter sized tankers. Unless you want to bring back the "whale."

As always I appreciate the history lesson, my point is simply watching a deep blue service selfish squid like maus go on about cost effectiveness and fanboyism is darkly funny.

I'm not saying we do away with CVNs what I am saying is we take a seriously look at their employment. Is the cost worth it? I will say yes but let's not pretend it's not a high cost.

In the meantime the USN has become a second class air force. Why is the navy supposed to be the first on the scene yet the USAF is kicking down the door? Is the navy the fat donut cop who secures the scene until SWAT shows up? If so why are we paying him more than SWAT?

The only thing more expensive than a first class air force is a second class air force. 2nd place in combat is dead last. Right?

The super hornet can't handle high threat, yet we have carriers specifically for the highest threats? Like china?

So we've got multibillion dollar ships equipped with POS fighters and that's not a wa$te??

My whole point is that I challenge the notion that the navy is somehow fiscally responsible because its not buying rhe F-35 but is responsible for buying an aircraft that can't handle their prime adversary in China

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 18:57
by neptune
sferrin wrote:.... Even gators, when they get the F-35B, won't have the degree of control over the air as a CVBG with its E-2Ds, F-35Cs, Growlers, and SM-6.


....please consider that a possible effort could be undertaken to consider revising the LPD reference designed L(X)-R, for the addition of VLS (SM-6?) as both LPD 27 & 28 are revision designs for cost improvement and assessment for the L(X)-R final design. The VLS could be revised to the existing LPDs, adding even more anti-air/ship protection and ground support.

.."if it floats, it fights"

...A possible version/ Ro-Ro for the ever versatile MV-22B as an E-2D (jr.), could allow the MEF to address, in a fashion your
list of CVBG deficiencies. Then the "10" become "20ish?".

The "Bee" is making changes that were not considered possible, in the planning of the design!
:wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 19:31
by sferrin
neptune wrote:
sferrin wrote:.... Even gators, when they get the F-35B, won't have the degree of control over the air as a CVBG with its E-2Ds, F-35Cs, Growlers, and SM-6.


....please consider that a possible effort could be undertaken to consider revising the LPD reference designed L(X)-R, for the addition of VLS (SM-6?) as both LPD 27 & 28 are revision designs for cost improvement and assessment for the L(X)-R final design. The VLS could be revised to the existing LPDs, adding even more anti-air/ship protection and ground support.

.."if it floats, it fights"

...A possible version/ Ro-Ro for the ever versatile MV-22B as an E-2D (jr.), could allow the MEF to address, in a fashion your
list of CVBG deficiencies. Then the "10" become "20ish?".

The "Bee" is making changes that were not considered possible, in the planning of the design!
:wink:



I see lots of hand-waving but nothing that exists and/or hasn't already been looked at and found wanting.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 19:32
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
optimist wrote:Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.



We also defer to the navy in matter of ground warfare as well


Are you seriously going to suggest it's as easy to setup an airbase in enemy territory as it is to float a CVBG there?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 20:03
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
optimist wrote:Probably not as long, as setting one up behind enemy lines.
I don't have the heart to tell them. Can you guys flick an email to the marines and tell them their core USMC Competence for Global Operations, the expeditionary force airfields are useless. They should pick up what's left of the 8 million square feet that was in Astan and go home. I don't know the total in the ME.



We also defer to the navy in matter of ground warfare as well


Are you seriously going to suggest it's as easy to setup an airbase in enemy territory as it is to float a CVBG there?


I'm told landing on a CVN is the toughest thing a pilot can do so....


And Define easy?

Is it easy to train, maintain, and build fleets of ships with highly specialized aircraft and pilots?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 20:28
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:Is it easy to train, maintain, and build fleets of ships with highly specialized aircraft and pilots?



So let me just see if I'm clear here. You're actually saying we should get rid of CVNs and rely solely on building airbases on enemy territory after we've somehow miracled away their forces?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 22:14
by optimist
sferrin wrote:It was a rhetorical question. If you want to get those ships anywhere near the beach guess who has to go in first to take down the defenses and provide air cover. That's right, the CVBGs. Even gators, when they get the F-35B, won't have the degree of control over the air as a CVBG with its E-2Ds, F-35Cs, Growlers, and SM-6.

I'm not making a case against CVB, The air land expeditionary force are part of the fleet. It's not either or, is that where the push back is coming from.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 23:55
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Is it easy to train, maintain, and build fleets of ships with highly specialized aircraft and pilots?



So let me just see if I'm clear here. You're actually saying we should get rid of CVNs and rely solely on building airbases on enemy territory after we've somehow miracled away their forces?


I didn't said get rid of CVNs.

I'm saying let's take an honest look at the cost and effort put into them to basically bomb shore targets right along side land based fighters . And maybe there are better or more cost effective ways of doing that.


What if we cut CVNs by 1/3 and pumped that money into heavy bombers? Or land based fighters? Ford costs 13 billion alone. Any idea how many strategic bombers that could net you? Strategic bombers that don't also require loads of other surface ships as well to help do their job?

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 01:07
by XanderCrews
An addition to the above:


The navy and maus don't get to claim some moral high ground on cost effectiveness.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 01:32
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Is it easy to train, maintain, and build fleets of ships with highly specialized aircraft and pilots?



So let me just see if I'm clear here. You're actually saying we should get rid of CVNs and rely solely on building airbases on enemy territory after we've somehow miracled away their forces?


I didn't said get rid of CVNs.

I'm saying let's take an honest look at the cost and effort put into them to basically bomb shore targets right along side land based fighters . And maybe there are better or more cost effective ways of doing that.


What if we cut CVNs by 1/3 and pumped that money into heavy bombers? Or land based fighters? Ford costs 13 billion alone. Any idea how many strategic bombers that could net you? Strategic bombers that don't also require loads of other surface ships as well to help do their job?



The problem with that is there's a minimum rate you need to maintain for efficiency and it's already about there. If you cut the build rate your CVN fleet will shrink, unit cost will go up (death spiral), and so forth. They're actually trying to find a way to make the CVN fleet bigger. All the numbers have been crunched ad nauseum and the CVN always comes out on top when all things are taken into account.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 03:06
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Is it easy to train, maintain, and build fleets of ships with highly specialized aircraft and pilots?



So let me just see if I'm clear here. You're actually saying we should get rid of CVNs and rely solely on building airbases on enemy territory after we've somehow miracled away their forces?


I didn't said get rid of CVNs.

I'm saying let's take an honest look at the cost and effort put into them to basically bomb shore targets right along side land based fighters . And maybe there are better or more cost effective ways of doing that.


What if we cut CVNs by 1/3 and pumped that money into heavy bombers? Or land based fighters? Ford costs 13 billion alone. Any idea how many strategic bombers that could net you? Strategic bombers that don't also require loads of other surface ships as well to help do their job?


The Ford Class will become cheaper with every ship. While, the cost to operate them will be far lower than the proceeding Nimitz Class Carriers.

In addition it's not like the Carriers aren't in high demand. So, honestly any talk about cutting them is totally unfounded.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 03:53
by steve2267
Doesn't the requirement to fight two conflicts at the same time kind of dictate the number of carriers the USN requires? Or the fact that the US has the Atlantic to the East, and the Pacific to the West? If one needs four carriers to effectively fight a regional conflict, that leaves four carriers to be in training workups, and one carrier to be in overhaul for 1-2 years. Or maybe it's two carriers on station, two in transit to/from station, four in workups, and one in overhaul.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 13:04
by tincansailor
I didn't said get rid of CVNs.

I'm saying let's take an honest look at the cost and effort put into them to basically bomb shore targets right along side land based fighters . And maybe there are better or more cost effective ways of doing that.


What if we cut CVNs by 1/3 and pumped that money into heavy bombers? Or land based fighters? Ford costs 13 billion alone. Any idea how many strategic bombers that could net you? Strategic bombers that don't also require loads of other surface ships as well to help do their job?

[/quote]

[/quote]I'm glad you appreciate my references to history. I hope it shows how all these arguments are nothing new. I take it your coming from an air force prospective? Your not understanding navy, and maritime requirements. The navy is responsible for a lot more then striking land targets. It's strategic responsibilities are actually greater then the USAF.

The navy defends the shores of America, from all threats. It protects our supply lines to our oceanic possessions, That includes routes to Alaska, Hawaii, Pacific islands, and those semi American Spanish speaking people in Puerto Rico. The navy protects the shipping routes to our allies, that we would use to reinforce them in wartime. In fact it's responsible for protecting all world wide shipping. The navy also shares responsibilities with the USAF for missile defense, and nuclear deterrence.

A common misunderstanding is that the ships in a Battle Group are there to defend the carrier. That is incorrect, they defend each other. A CVBG is a unit, with each ship using it's capabilities in coordination with the Group, and the aircraft from the carrier. Since people on the forum spend so much time talking about the F-35, and the E-2D, and questions of fleet defense it's strange to hear someone questioning the need for carriers in naval warfare.

Until the B-21 enters production over 80% of our bomber force will be none stealth. If we build 100 of them half will still be none stealth. They need lots of supporting aircraft. Fighters, tankers, AWACS, and EW aircraft, to keep them safe. The only heavy bomber that could attack targets in Kosovo was the B-2, where it accounted for 33% of all targets destroyed in the conflict. Yes I agree we should have built a lot more then 21 B-2s. The original 132 would have been a good number.

You suggest we cut our carrier force by 1/3. Current plans call for 11 carriers, under your plan we would have 7. With 7 carriers 2 would be unavailable at any given time, leaving us with 5 deployable. 1 is based in the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean, 1 in Japan. 1 in the Atlantic, 1 in the Pacific, and 1 you can put where you want. Not much of a surge capacity is it?

the strain on ships, and crews would make it almost imposable to mass more then 2 carriers in one place. It would take months of preparation, and planning to bring 3 together, and then only for a brief period of time. Can you cover the rest of the worlds oceans with 2 carriers? Things are tight enough with 10 or 11, 7 would be unworkable. Forget it if we had two conflicts at the same time.

As far as your assertion that the navy is building a second class air force, I think your being unfair. Yes the navy is deficient in tankers, but they have some capacity, and new options are presenting themselves. Your main complaint is the slowness in deploying the F-35C, and that the F/A-18E/F cannot survive in defended air space. Navy leadership disagrees. They think their Super Hornets supported by Growlers, and using stand off weapons, and decoys can handle the current threat. The F-35C is coming, and in future years will make up about 1/3 of naval strike aircraft.

Over the next 10 years most air force tactical aircraft will still be 4th generation. In 2027 will the USAF be a second class air force? The navy has been calling for more F/A-18s because they have a sever fighter shortfall. I have no doubt that in 2025 the navy will be calling for more F-35Cs. By the late 2020s the navy will want to retire their oldest Super Hornets, and replace them with F-35Cs with what I imagine will be Block 6 software. By then fighters maybe armed with lasers, a whole different paradigm.

IMHO the future of naval aviation looks much brighter then you think. The F/A-18 may not be a stealth aircraft but it is at least as survivable as the F-15, and F-16. It's RCS is a lot smaller then ether of them, and the Growlers will be there to support them. The ASH is a major upgrade, and again the F-35C will be joining the fleet next year. Have a little faith that the aircraft carrier will soldier on doing good service, and that 10-11 is the minimum size of the fleet.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 17:50
by XanderCrews
tincansailor wrote:
I'm glad you appreciate my references to history. I hope it shows how all these arguments are nothing new. I take it your coming from an air force prospective? Your not understanding navy, and maritime requirements. The navy is responsible for a lot more then striking land targets. It's strategic responsibilities are actually greater then the USAF.

The navy defends the shores of America, from all threats. It protects our supply lines to our oceanic possessions, That includes routes to Alaska, Hawaii, Pacific islands, and those semi American Spanish speaking people in Puerto Rico. The navy protects the shipping routes to our allies, that we would use to reinforce them in wartime. In fact it's responsible for protecting all world wide shipping. The navy also shares responsibilities with the USAF for missile defense, and nuclear deterrence.

A common misunderstanding is that the ships in a Battle Group are there to defend the carrier. That is incorrect, they defend each other. A CVBG is a unit, with each ship using it's capabilities in coordination with the Group, and the aircraft from the carrier. Since people on the forum spend so much time talking about the F-35, and the E-2D, and questions of fleet defense it's strange to hear someone questioning the need for carriers in naval warfare.

Until the B-21 enters production over 80% of our bomber force will be none stealth. If we build 100 of them half will still be none stealth. They need lots of supporting aircraft. Fighters, tankers, AWACS, and EW aircraft, to keep them safe. The only heavy bomber that could attack targets in Kosovo was the B-2, where it accounted for 33% of all targets destroyed in the conflict. Yes I agree we should have built a lot more then 21 B-2s. The original 132 would have been a good number.

You suggest we cut our carrier force by 1/3. Current plans call for 11 carriers, under your plan we would have 7. With 7 carriers 2 would be unavailable at any given time, leaving us with 5 deployable. 1 is based in the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean, 1 in Japan. 1 in the Atlantic, 1 in the Pacific, and 1 you can put where you want. Not much of a surge capacity is it?

the strain on ships, and crews would make it almost imposable to mass more then 2 carriers in one place. It would take months of preparation, and planning to bring 3 together, and then only for a brief period of time. Can you cover the rest of the worlds oceans with 2 carriers? Things are tight enough with 10 or 11, 7 would be unworkable. Forget it if we had two conflicts at the same time.

As far as your assertion that the navy is building a second class air force, I think your being unfair. Yes the navy is deficient in tankers, but they have some capacity, and new options are presenting themselves. Your main complaint is the slowness in deploying the F-35C, and that the F/A-18E/F cannot survive in defended air space. Navy leadership disagrees. They think their Super Hornets supported by Growlers, and using stand off weapons, and decoys can handle the current threat. The F-35C is coming, and in future years will make up about 1/3 of naval strike aircraft.

Over the next 10 years most air force tactical aircraft will still be 4th generation. In 2027 will the USAF be a second class air force? The navy has been calling for more F/A-18s because they have a sever fighter shortfall. I have no doubt that in 2025 the navy will be calling for more F-35Cs. By the late 2020s the navy will want to retire their oldest Super Hornets, and replace them with F-35Cs with what I imagine will be Block 6 software. By then fighters maybe armed with lasers, a whole different paradigm.

IMHO the future of naval aviation looks much brighter then you think. The F/A-18 may not be a stealth aircraft but it is at least as survivable as the F-15, and F-16. It's RCS is a lot smaller then ether of them, and the Growlers will be there to support them. The ASH is a major upgrade, and again the F-35C will be joining the fleet next year. Have a little faith that the aircraft carrier will soldier on doing good service, and that 10-11 is the minimum size of the fleet.


I'm a Marine, not air force. and I have about no faith in the navy.