The USN is dragging its feet on 5th gen fighters.

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post19 Oct 2016, 08:29

Corsair1963 wrote:
Can you provide a source as I have never heard of "extra" jets that don't deploy??? As a matter of fact it's not uncommon for USN VFA Squadrons to not have enough serviceable aircraft to deploy. So, they often borrow aircraft from another squadrons that's not currently on deployment. So, if they had excess aircraft. That clearly wouldn't be an issue.........


Sorry, I don't have a source………but flying these things has been my job for the last decade, so that is the source. If you dig deep, you will find how badly the depot mx budget has been botched, and how many jets are just indefinitely down for major inspections/upgrades/you name it that aren't funded to be finished in a timely manner. Either way, when a squadron gets ready for deployment, they start getting trickle charged with jets that come from the depot, as well as other squadrons. The news would have you believe that we are robbing jets from one unit to fill another one's requirements, but that is only half the story. A given squadron has at least a handful of jets which are theoretically ready to replace the high hour jets coming off the last deployment. Again, not as simple or dire as the media would lead one to believe in all cases.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7070
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post19 Oct 2016, 15:45

35_aoa wrote:
Agree completely with you, however my comment is more directed to the crowd who thinks that such is the future……which I think we can all agree it is not, at least unless there is a major change in the DoD budget. As for the second point, sure, however by this point, we have invested so much money in the F/A-18 line, that it is hard to divest from it, and no doubt the Super Hornet was much easier to stomach for the bean counters than any other option.


People were saying the same thing about the super hornet... anyone want to raise their hands about who was predicting 100 plus Growlers and 500 super Hornets? Anyone? Just 4 legacy Hornet squadrons left? Everyone predicted the "super slow" hornet we were being told all the pilots loathed would get continued production and a great rep?

I don't know why it's so unthinkable that when super hornets go out of production, the worn Jets will need replacement with a new in production type. Isn't that exactly what we are witnessing with the legacy bug to super bug switches? Why is it so unforeseeable?

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-ann ... m-1.422513

Besides, The navy wouldn't just waste money would they? Lol just lol
Choose Crews
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 05:35

XanderCrews wrote:
35_aoa wrote:
Agree completely with you, however my comment is more directed to the crowd who thinks that such is the future……which I think we can all agree it is not, at least unless there is a major change in the DoD budget. As for the second point, sure, however by this point, we have invested so much money in the F/A-18 line, that it is hard to divest from it, and no doubt the Super Hornet was much easier to stomach for the bean counters than any other option.


People were saying the same thing about the super hornet... anyone want to raise their hands about who was predicting 100 plus Growlers and 500 super Hornets? Anyone? Just 4 legacy Hornet squadrons left? Everyone predicted the "super slow" hornet we were being told all the pilots loathed would get continued production and a great rep?

I don't know why it's so unthinkable that when super hornets go out of production, the worn Jets will need replacement with a new in production type. Isn't that exactly what we are witnessing with the legacy bug to super bug switches? Why is it so unforeseeable?

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-ann ... m-1.422513

Besides, The navy wouldn't just waste money would they? Lol just lol


I'm not saying the F-35 won't be built in reasonable numbers, just saying that the F/A-18E/F is going to be a significant part of the fleet for many years to come…….much like how my first love, the legacy has stuck around in significant numbers for all these years (until maybe a couple years ago). This will of course change in the coming decades, but right now, we are in a pretty sweet spot with an extremely capable jet (the SH) and a much more capable jet coming online (F-35). Those lot 30+ Rhinos aren't going anywhere for many more years.

About your NWU link, I lol too……..that was the worst uniform of all time. I'm saddened that I actually spent the money to buy one. $300 later (including buying black boots for it), I ended up never wearing it. Though I like the type 3's slightly better, I will not be buying a set ever. I'll show up in dress blues/whites before I shell out another dollar on some fad uniform that boat donkeys wear, which I think this too will end up being. Don't get me started on the end of enlisted rates…...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7540
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 06:32

XanderCrews wrote:
35_aoa wrote:
Agree completely with you, however my comment is more directed to the crowd who thinks that such is the future……which I think we can all agree it is not, at least unless there is a major change in the DoD budget. As for the second point, sure, however by this point, we have invested so much money in the F/A-18 line, that it is hard to divest from it, and no doubt the Super Hornet was much easier to stomach for the bean counters than any other option.


People were saying the same thing about the super hornet... anyone want to raise their hands about who was predicting 100 plus Growlers and 500 super Hornets? Anyone? Just 4 legacy Hornet squadrons left? Everyone predicted the "super slow" hornet we were being told all the pilots loathed would get continued production and a great rep?

I don't know why it's so unthinkable that when super hornets go out of production, the worn Jets will need replacement with a new in production type. Isn't that exactly what we are witnessing with the legacy bug to super bug switches? Why is it so unforeseeable?

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-ann ... m-1.422513

Besides, The navy wouldn't just waste money would they? Lol just lol


Honestly, I think some people just like to argue??? :bang:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7070
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 14:10

Corsair1963 wrote:
Honestly, I think some people just like to argue??? :bang:



I wasn't trying to argue for argument sake, I just misunderstood.

My apologies
Choose Crews
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post21 Oct 2016, 04:05

Corsair1963 wrote:
Honestly, I think some people just like to argue??? :bang:


It's all good. Truly, none of us know what will happen in the next decade. There isn't anyone who does. I think the question of how the F-35C will integrate into the carrier airwing structure is one of the million dollar questions in Naval Air right now.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3287
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post21 Oct 2016, 09:36

Once upon a time, before the homogenized SH CVW, there were multiple aircraft types lurking about the flight and hangar decks. It will be ok...
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post22 Oct 2016, 04:36

quicksilver wrote:Once upon a time, before the homogenized SH CVW, there were multiple aircraft types lurking about the flight and hangar decks. It will be ok...


yup, and hopefully we can get back to that point. "Mission Specialization" wasn't ever a bad thing for anything other than perhaps budget, and I think enough senior leaders are starting to realize that…..even if most were Hornet guys throughout most of their careers.
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post23 Oct 2016, 02:55

At this point I think multirole fighters are here to stay as the mainstay of military aviation, you may just have some designed more to one mission than the other but still able to do it all.
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post23 Oct 2016, 03:56

cosmicdwarf wrote:At this point I think multirole fighters are here to stay as the mainstay of military aviation, you may just have some designed more to one mission than the other but still able to do it all.


Seeing as how it takes decades and billions of dollars to get a plane off the ground (pun intended), it pretty much has to do everything to get funded.

It's not just military jets (although they're harder to build). Boeing took almost nine years from the announcement to the first flight of the 787. This stuff just keeps getting harder and harder.
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post23 Oct 2016, 05:05

cosmicdwarf wrote:At this point I think multirole fighters are here to stay as the mainstay of military aviation, you may just have some designed more to one mission than the other but still able to do it all.


Good point, however, I think smart decision making in the future might make specialization a thing, even between squadrons who fly the same TMS/MDS. The F/A-18 (for example) can legitimately perform about 10 million missions on paper. Okay, not quite that many, but there are a lot. Make two squadrons specialize in the various pure A/A missions, and the other two in the multitude of A/G missions to include all the esoteric weapons we like to talk about carrying. Everyone has a common background in CAS and DCA. Beyond that, you have folks that spend 90% of their time doing a few related missions. I think that would be good for all, even if the actual airplane you are flying is the same across the board. Just a thought from the peanut gallery.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post23 Oct 2016, 12:19

35_aoa wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:At this point I think multirole fighters are here to stay as the mainstay of military aviation, you may just have some designed more to one mission than the other but still able to do it all.


Good point, however, I think smart decision making in the future might make specialization a thing, even between squadrons who fly the same TMS/MDS. The F/A-18 (for example) can legitimately perform about 10 million missions on paper. Okay, not quite that many, but there are a lot. Make two squadrons specialize in the various pure A/A missions, and the other two in the multitude of A/G missions to include all the esoteric weapons we like to talk about carrying. Everyone has a common background in CAS and DCA. Beyond that, you have folks that spend 90% of their time doing a few related missions. I think that would be good for all, even if the actual airplane you are flying is the same across the board. Just a thought from the peanut gallery.

There is something to be said for taking advantage of economies of scale for the hardware, while specializing in training. There is also the "payloads over platforms" argument, where the payload your platform is carrying for a given mission does most of the specialization, as well as the JSF model of making variants of an underlying platform (and I imagine that the full maintenance and production commonalities between the A, B, and C aren't fully reflected in their common part count).
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7070
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post23 Oct 2016, 16:07

35_aoa wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:At this point I think multirole fighters are here to stay as the mainstay of military aviation, you may just have some designed more to one mission than the other but still able to do it all.


Good point, however, I think smart decision making in the future might make specialization a thing, even between squadrons who fly the same TMS/MDS. The F/A-18 (for example) can legitimately perform about 10 million missions on paper. Okay, not quite that many, but there are a lot. Make two squadrons specialize in the various pure A/A missions, and the other two in the multitude of A/G missions to include all the esoteric weapons we like to talk about carrying. Everyone has a common background in CAS and DCA. Beyond that, you have folks that spend 90% of their time doing a few related missions. I think that would be good for all, even if the actual airplane you are flying is the same across the board. Just a thought from the peanut gallery.



I think that's how some air arms do it. Was also my thought on getting specific via training, rather than platform
Choose Crews
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests