Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

[Mike[_7_]]

Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

DefenseNews.com
April 16, 2007

Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Boeing is floating a proposal to sell the U.S. Navy more F/A-18E/F
Super Hornets, just in case Lockheed Martin¹s F-35 Lightning II
suffers further production delays, according to company officials.

The Chicago-based aviation and defense giant "would love to do another
multiyear contract" that would give the sea service "about 100 more
jets than the current planned buy," said Bob Gower, Boeing¹s vice
president for F/A-18 programs.
The Navy's existing deal with Boeing runs through 2009 and covers 42
Super Hornets annually.

The Navy is slated to buy its final 21 E/Fs in 2012, bringing the
total purchased to 108 between 2008 and 2013, according to service
budget documents that accompanied the 2008 spending plan sent to
Congress in February.

Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
"inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.

"The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
congressional aide said.

The current fly-away cost of an F/A-18E/F ‹ the production price tag,
not including development ‹ is $53.8 million. Gower said the company
might be able to get that under $50 million if the Navy ordered 42
more jets annually over four years.
Boeing¹s Gower said three main things were leading to an aircraft
shortage:

The F-35 carrier version¹s often-slipped in-service date, which is now
set for 2015.

Production slips mean the Navy will buy fewer JSFs.

Unanswered questions about the remaining lifespan of -A, -B, -C and -D
model Hornets, and how many newer Super Hornets might replace them.

Though it remains unclear how Congress will react to the idea of
buying more Super Hornets for the Navy, defense authorizers last year
suggested service officials give it some thought.

"The committee recommends that the Navy consider buying additional F/
A-18E/Fs to mitigate the known shortfall, while allowing the Navy to
transition to the JSF as soon as feasible," House and Senate conferees
wrote in the report that accompanied the 2007 National Defense
Authorization Act.

"The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

"The magnitude of the problem, and the procurement cost to avoid a
shortfall in the carrier air wing force structure, is entirely
dependent on when the Navy determines that its F/A-18A/Cs are at the
end of their service life," states the conference report.

A Navy tactical-aircraft study due in coming months will help shape
plans. Several analysts said that if the study predicts another F-35
delay, the Navy could be left with few options but to buy more Super
Hornets.

While the Super Hornets lack many of the F-35's futuristic systems,
Gower noted the F/A-18E/Fs have received the new Active Electronically
Scanned Array radar and other upgrades. Combined with the EA-18G
Growler electronic
warfare aircraft, F/A-18s will be able to "take on the threats
expected through 2020 and beyond," Gower said.

Buying additional Super Hornets also would allow the Pentagon to avoid
‹ for a few years, at least ‹ having only one U.S. fighter
manufacturer. Lockheed Martin is producing the Pentagon's two next-
generation combat jets, the F-22A Raptor and the JSF.

"We are headed for a fighter monopoly," said Loren Thompson of the
Lexington Institute. DoD officials might warm to the idea of buying
more F/A-18s so that Boeing is "still in the game" for at least a few
more years, he added.

Boeing officials have been quick to downplay any talk of a pending
Super Hornet-JSF fight, even when asked about the company's plan to
jockey for funding with the high-profile F-35 program. Gower stressed,
"this is not the F-18 vs. the F-35; this is about the F-18 vs. the
threat."

Foreign Super Hornet sales also might push off the coming monopoly.
Boeing is seeking pieces of upcoming fighter purchases in India,
Japan, Switzerland and Malaysia.

JSF partner Australia recently sent ripples across the defense
community when it announced plans to purchase Super Hornets as a hedge
against F-35 delays.

[Henry J Cobb]

Mike wrote:
....
> Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
> commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
> One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
> service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
> tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
> "inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.
>
> "The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
> fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
> congressional aide said.
....
> "The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
> in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
> aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

-HJC

[Fred J. McCall]

Henry J Cobb > wrote:

:Mike wrote:
:...
:> Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
:> commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
:> One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
:> service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
:> tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
:> "inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.
:>
:> "The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
:> fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
:> congressional aide said.
:...
:> "The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
:> in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
:> aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

If it can be gotten wrong, it seems that Mr Cobb will succeed in
getting it wrong.

:If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
:Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

1) Lots of Marines already fly Hornets.

2) The JSF the Marines need to buy as an AV-8B replacement is a
different JSF than the one the Navy needs to buy for carrier ops.

:2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
:my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

Why do you think the Hornet is designated F/A-18, Mr Cobb?

Hint: Hornets are an attack aircraft and already drop a lot of bombs
and such.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[[email protected]]

On Apr 21, 10:51Â*pm, Mike > wrote:
> Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy
>
> DefenseNews.com
> April 16, 2007
>
> Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy
>
> By JOHN T. BENNETT
>
> Boeing is floating a proposal to sell the U.S. Navy more F/A-18E/F
> Super Hornets, just in case Lockheed Martin¹s F-35 Lightning II
> suffers further production delays, according to company officials.
>
> The Chicago-based aviation and defense giant "would love to do another
> multiyear contract" that would give the sea service "about 100 more
> jets than the current planned buy," said Bob Gower, Boeing¹s vice
> president for F/A-18 programs.
> The Navy's existing deal with Boeing runs through 2009 and covers 42
> Super Hornets annually.
>
> The Navy is slated to buy its final 21 E/Fs in 2012, bringing the
> total purchased to 108 between 2008 and 2013, according to service
> budget documents that accompanied the 2008 spending plan sent to
> Congress in February.
>
> Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
> commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
> One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
> service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
> tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
> "inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.
>
> "The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
> fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
> congressional aide said.
>
> The current fly-away cost of an F/A-18E/F ‹ the production price tag,
> not including development ‹ is $53.8 million. Gower said the company
> might be able to get that under $50 million if the Navy ordered 42
> more jets annually over four years.
> Boeing¹s Gower said three main things were leading to an aircraft
> shortage:
>
> The F-35 carrier version¹s often-slipped in-service date, which is now
> set for 2015.
>
> Production slips mean the Navy will buy fewer JSFs.
>
> Unanswered questions about the remaining lifespan of -A, -B, -C and -D
> model Hornets, and how many newer Super Hornets might replace them.
>
> Though it remains unclear how Congress will react to the idea of
> buying more Super Hornets for the Navy, defense authorizers last year
> suggested service officials give it some thought.
>
> "The committee recommends that the Navy consider buying additional F/
> A-18E/Fs to mitigate the known shortfall, while allowing the Navy to
> transition to the JSF as soon as feasible," House and Senate conferees
> wrote in the report that accompanied the 2007 National Defense
> Authorization Act.
>
> "The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
> in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
> aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.
>
> "The magnitude of the problem, and the procurement cost to avoid a
> shortfall in the carrier air wing force structure, is entirely
> dependent on when the Navy determines that its F/A-18A/Cs are at the
> end of their service life," states the conference report.
>
> A Navy tactical-aircraft study due in coming months will help shape
> plans. Several analysts said that if the study predicts another F-35
> delay, the Navy could be left with few options but to buy more Super
> Hornets.
>
> While the Super Hornets lack many of the F-35's futuristic systems,
> Gower noted the F/A-18E/Fs have received the new Active Electronically
> Scanned Array radar and other upgrades. Combined with the EA-18G
> Growler electronic
> warfare aircraft, F/A-18s will be able to "take on the threats
> expected through 2020 and beyond," Gower said.
>
> Buying additional Super Hornets also would allow the Pentagon to avoid
> ‹ for a few years, at least ‹ having only one U.S. fighter
> manufacturer. Lockheed Martin is producing the Pentagon's two next-
> generation combat jets, the F-22A Raptor and the JSF.
>
> "We are headed for a fighter monopoly," said Loren Thompson of the
> Lexington Institute. DoD officials might warm to the idea of buying
> more F/A-18s so that Boeing is "still in the game" for at least a few
> more years, he added.

It's not a fighter monopoly, it's Lockheed's
idiot Battlespace monopoly.
Which since the Pentagon knew about since 1960,
and have done nothing about it since,
that's also why in the era of cruise missiles, GPS.
Masers, nano-tech, broadband, and Predators
carriers even still come preconditioned on
GM's delivery schedule.





>
> Boeing officials have been quick to downplay any talk of a pending
> Super Hornet-JSF fight, even when asked about the company's plan to
> jockey for funding with the high-profile F-35 program. Gower stressed,
> "this is not the F-18 vs. the F-35; this is about the F-18 vs. the
> threat."
>
> Foreign Super Hornet sales also might push off the coming monopoly.
> Boeing is seeking pieces of upcoming fighter purchases in India,
> Japan, Switzerland and Malaysia.
>
> JSF partner Australia recently sent ripples across the defense
> community when it announced plans to purchase Super Hornets as a hedge
> against F-35 delays.

[Flashnews]

You have to look at this in a slightly different way

(1) Everybody is at fault for expecting too much from the JSF, the three
variants have made it just to hard to do on schedule; many knew it long
ago but the inertia of the large program just kept unsubstantiated
optimistic claims piling up until they had to "show it". A true legacy
of past programs (the F-18 itself BTW) in the one program that was to
bring change. To argue that now will be like trying to talk with
Gonzales about why he fired the Federal Attorneys - gobbledygook and
everything BUT a demonstration of leadership and command. The
application of Hora's Horror is well underway, that is the continuing
dilution of accountability by bringing in more and more of the
organization until it looks like it all happened as an act of God. This
also may be the last comment on the gravestone of the American Empire -
but - let's just say we have the power to really think "solutions"

(2) The war between the Navy and Marine Corps over aviation is real (as
expressed) and clearly making a shambles of all the hollow "joint" and
"brotherhood" discussions. They are not alone however, the Army and Air
Force are also pulling apart and what is really weird is that after five
years we still have not focused upon the kinds of air vehicles we need
to win a counter-insurgency or COIN war. Considering that in World War
II the US went from biplanes to jets in less than four years this mess
is atrocious and unacceptable to our society - it is hallmarked by the
fact that General Franks finds it perfectly normal to desert his Army
and make a million dollars - how in the hell can we criticize the
British POW's - but that is another story yet it reflects the same
cancer of character and honor. Old farts like me ask who in the hell
"fathered" these people, are they all abused having been born into total
ignorance of values.

(3) The balance to canceling the JSF is: Do it selectively - F-35B
STOVL first, then merge the other two into one CTOL - and then refurbish
the JFK (CVA-67) for the Marine Corps not as a carrier (to compete with
the CVN's) but as a new class of conventional amphibious assault
aviation command ships with the Kitty Hawk standing in reserve.

- JSF is then slid a decade deliberately and merged with many of the
high tech programs to produce the one strike fighter of choice for Navy,
Marine, USAF, and allies that will face the new tactical environment
dealing with China, North Korea, Iran and any state holding new high
threat IADS and air defense systems. The present JSF does nothing
better than legacy aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios and it can
not out pace the F-22, or the F-15 for that fact except yet unproven
stealth issues.

- A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws, gutted
of at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new hospital
ship was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would run the
vessel and much of the engineering and supply could be contractor.
Marines, SOF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all be provided
C4ISR planning areas with build-up/tear-down living areas in bays and
rooms created by gutting. The O-3 level would become for instance a
farm of briefing and planning rooms being fed by the IOIC turned COAC

- the Air Wing would be a large mix of new Marine VMFA F/A-18F/G's,
perhaps one Navy VF F/A-18E, E-2C and S-3's converted to be dedicated
tankers and specific support craft for them. More V-22 and CH-53 for SOF
types and it all fill in with a new Expeditionary Battle Group made up
of LHA's and LHD's with twice as many MV-22's and paid for by the JSF
savings and the LHA(R) savings that is no longer needed

- the Battle Group is run with the Navy but it is not Navy and it
is attached to the European (Atlantic) Command to be joined by the UK
and French commando ships and perhaps assault carriers. The US Navy can
continue with their CVN's for high tempo open seas ops not requiring
Marines and getting back one air wing

- the net result is that the Marines gain 50% more aircraft, dump
the old ones and get 100% more MV-22's



"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
> ...
>> Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
>> commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
>> One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
>> service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
>> tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
>> "inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.
>>
>> "The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to
>> buy
>> fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts,
>> one
>> congressional aide said.
> ...
>> "The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable
>> gap
>> in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
>> aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.
>
> If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced
> into Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.
>
> 2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
> my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."
>
> -HJC

[Mark Andrew Spence]

"Flashnews" > wrote in message
et...
> You have to look at this in a slightly different way

.. . .
>
> - A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws, gutted of
> at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new hospital ship
> was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would run the vessel and
> much of the engineering and supply could be contractor. Marines, SOF, FBI,
> CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all be provided C4ISR planning areas with
> build-up/tear-down living areas in bays and rooms created by gutting. The
> O-3 level would become for instance a farm of briefing and planning rooms
> being fed by the IOIC turned COAC
>

This is the first time I have heard this proposal re the JFK.

Is it your own idea, or are other groups advocating it as well?

M.S.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 22, 2:55 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
> You have to look at this in a slightly different way
>
> (1) Everybody is at fault for expecting too much from the JSF, the three
> variants have made it just to hard to do on schedule; many knew it long
> ago but the inertia of the large program just kept unsubstantiated
> optimistic claims piling up until they had to "show it". A true legacy
> of past programs (the F-18 itself BTW) in the one program that was to
> bring change. To argue that now will be like trying to talk with
> Gonzales about why he fired the Federal Attorneys - gobbledygook and
> everything BUT a demonstration of leadership and command. The
> application of Hora's Horror is well underway, that is the continuing
> dilution of accountability by bringing in more and more of the
> organization until it looks like it all happened as an act of God. This
> also may be the last comment on the gravestone of the American Empire -
> but - let's just say we have the power to really think "solutions"
>
> (2) The war between the Navy and Marine Corps over aviation is real (as
> expressed) and clearly making a shambles of all the hollow "joint" and
> "brotherhood" discussions. They are not alone however, the Army and Air
> Force are also pulling apart and what is really weird is that after five
> years we still have not focused upon the kinds of air vehicles we need
> to win a counter-insurgency or COIN war. Considering that in World War
> II the US went from biplanes to jets in less than four years this mess
> is atrocious and unacceptable to our society - it is hallmarked by the
> fact that General Franks finds it perfectly normal to desert his Army
> and make a million dollars - how in the hell can we criticize the
> British POW's - but that is another story yet it reflects the same
> cancer of character and honor. Old farts like me ask who in the hell
> "fathered" these people, are they all abused having been born into total
> ignorance of values.

Well, Franks would probably find it perfectly
normal to return to civilization. Since it's morons
in London and Washington who abandoned things in Dunkirk.
And the uneducable D-Day idiots have been constantly
abandoning things for like 60 years now.



>
> (3) The balance to canceling the JSF is: Do it selectively - F-35B
> STOVL first, then merge the other two into one CTOL - and then refurbish
> the JFK (CVA-67) for the Marine Corps not as a carrier (to compete with
> the CVN's) but as a new class of conventional amphibious assault
> aviation command ships with the Kitty Hawk standing in reserve.
>
> - JSF is then slid a decade deliberately and merged with many of the
> high tech programs to produce the one strike fighter of choice for Navy,
> Marine, USAF, and allies that will face the new tactical environment
> dealing with China, North Korea, Iran and any state holding new high
> threat IADS and air defense systems. The present JSF does nothing
> better than legacy aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios and it can
> not out pace the F-22, or the F-15 for that fact except yet unproven
> stealth issues.
>
> - A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws, gutted
> of at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new hospital
> ship was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would run the
> vessel and much of the engineering and supply could be contractor.
> Marines, SOF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all be provided
> C4ISR planning areas with build-up/tear-down living areas in bays and
> rooms created by gutting. The O-3 level would become for instance a
> farm of briefing and planning rooms being fed by the IOIC turned COAC
>
> - the Air Wing would be a large mix of new Marine VMFA F/A-18F/G's,
> perhaps one Navy VF F/A-18E, E-2C and S-3's converted to be dedicated
> tankers and specific support craft for them. More V-22 and CH-53 for SOF
> types and it all fill in with a new Expeditionary Battle Group made up
> of LHA's and LHD's with twice as many MV-22's and paid for by the JSF
> savings and the LHA(R) savings that is no longer needed
>
> - the Battle Group is run with the Navy but it is not Navy and it
> is attached to the European (Atlantic) Command to be joined by the UK
> and French commando ships and perhaps assault carriers. The US Navy can
> continue with their CVN's for high tempo open seas ops not requiring
> Marines and getting back one air wing
>
> - the net result is that the Marines gain 50% more aircraft, dump
> the old ones and get 100% more MV-22's
>
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > Mike wrote:
> > ...
> >> Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
> >> commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
> >> One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
> >> service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
> >> tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
> >> "inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.
>
> >> "The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to
> >> buy
> >> fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts,
> >> one
> >> congressional aide said.
> > ...
> >> "The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable
> >> gap
> >> in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
> >> aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.
>
> > If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced
> > into Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.
>
> > 2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
> > my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."
>
> > -HJC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Henry J Cobb]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Henry J Cobb > wrote:
> :If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
> :Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.
>
> 1) Lots of Marines already fly Hornets.

How many fly Super Hornets?

-HJC

[Flashnews]

Actually the idea, similar to bringing back a battleship and using more
LHA's then LHA(R)'s is a cost saving approach that tied to killing the
LCS (done for all the good reasons) moving to the DD(X) even more good
reasons and carefully looking again at the CVN-21 would save some 15 to
20 billion dollars almost instantly

The original argument for the JFK was a political one to save Mayport
and the Florida jobs but the Navy was very serious about killing it
knowing full well that it would produce results they did not want - the
new nuclear Navy was the plan and the CVA would not fit and they were
right about this. So the nuclear carrier force developed into a high
speed open ocean race club where Hornet maintainability could be
exploited to the full and two carriers with additional crew could do the
work of the traditional three - not bad and should be continued - but
what about the littorals and COIN

However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to
keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick
wall in sustainability and flat out speed - the trumped deck was said to
cost $600 million and four years ago that was an enormous cost that made
the Navy happy they could put the conventional aberration to bed. Well
as it would, CVN21 costs went from 3 to 5 to 7 and now heading for $10
billion and suddenly the $600 million for the JFK looks real cheap. The
enter the LHA(R) and the Marines looking at it as their trump card out
of Naval aviation with an all STOVL force their own ships and a new
small carrier with a tactical fighter complement - ooops - did I say
"small carrier" - holy **** says the Navy this is not what we want so
they went pushing to get the Marines into the F/A-18E/F business so a
common Marine and Navy aviation would service all 10 big carriers -
Marine said no, dug in their heals and it all went to rest on the JSF
program. Had the F-35B been on schedule and working (you can bet the
Navy test and evaluation people really are doing a good job with this
one) and the LHA(R) not turned into greed-city things might have gone
nice for the Marines and the Navy would enter the new world with a death
fight over large nuclear or small conventional carriers - which in short
is a loose lose situation because sooner if not real soon the submarines
will replace carriers as the most dominate capital ship as the carriers
did the battleships in 1941.

So you ask - how can the Marines save themselves from themselves -
because you see the group of Marine generals who fathers the JSF and the
LHA(R) idea are determined to end Marine tactical aviation then
acquiesce to the Navy's insistence of merging the aviation branches and
right now Marine F-18 squadrons fly at reduced G and about one a year
will retire with no replacement and the Harriers are a toss up for
anyone. On the training side more and more Marines lose currency or even
familiarization with the carrier.

So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and
may be done in the next administration.
The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to
the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN
which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the
JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the
Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22
production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the
ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as
a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the
A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what -
the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now
is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased
against doing what is needed for COIN.

In short - the whole shipbuilding world is a mess but it may be more
from the fact that we do not know where our Naval forces are going while
they seem to be on Pluto looking for a mission - the war is right in
front of them ready to make toast of the thin-skinned and under
protected ships


"Mark Andrew Spence" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Flashnews" > wrote in message
> et...
>> You have to look at this in a slightly different way
>
> . . .
>>
>> - A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws,
>> gutted of at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new
>> hospital ship was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would
>> run the vessel and much of the engineering and supply could be
>> contractor. Marines, SOF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all
>> be provided C4ISR planning areas with build-up/tear-down living areas
>> in bays and rooms created by gutting. The O-3 level would become for
>> instance a farm of briefing and planning rooms being fed by the IOIC
>> turned COAC
>>
>
> This is the first time I have heard this proposal re the JFK.
>
> Is it your own idea, or are other groups advocating it as well?
>
> M.S.
>
>
>
>

[Henry J Cobb]

Flashnews wrote:
> So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
> aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
> aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and
> may be done in the next administration.
> The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to
> the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN
> which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the
> JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the
> Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22
> production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the
> ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as
> a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the
> A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what -
> the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now
> is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased
> against doing what is needed for COIN.

Like this?

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/navy_fleet_070422w/
Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier
Enterprise into an “afloat forward staging base” for special operations
forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed converting four
more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into multimission guided
missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs.

-HJC

[Flashnews]

Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they used
the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law" that
all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship would
be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a nuclear
ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so
there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument
could be made about that option also.

You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the
show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy driving
the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the literature
just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and you
would wonder if there was even a Navy.



"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Flashnews wrote:
>> So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
>> aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
>> aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and
>> may be done in the next administration.
>> The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look
>> to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with
>> COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural
>> sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is
>> always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This
>> also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still
>> exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but
>> ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new
>> platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as
>> some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could
>> directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the
>> planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for
>> COIN.
>
> Like this?
>
> http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/navy_fleet_070422w/
> Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier
> Enterprise into an “afloat forward staging base” for special
> operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed
> converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into
> multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs.
>
> -HJC

[[email protected]]

On Apr 22, 7:46 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
> Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they used
> the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law" that
> all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship would
> be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a nuclear
> ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so
> there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument
> could be made about that option also.
>
> You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the
> show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy driving
> the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the literature
> just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and you
> would wonder if there was even a Navy.

But, that's always been true with the idiot marines,
which is why they're still the ONLY military
service that publishes Gazettes rather than
robots.



>
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in m...
>
>
>
> > Flashnews wrote:
> >> So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
> >> aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
> >> aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and
> >> may be done in the next administration.
> >> The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look
> >> to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with
> >> COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural
> >> sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is
> >> always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This
> >> also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still
> >> exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but
> >> ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new
> >> platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as
> >> some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could
> >> directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the
> >> planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for
> >> COIN.
>
> > Like this?
>
> >http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/navy_fleet_070422w/
> > Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier
> > Enterprise into an "afloat forward staging base" for special
> > operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed
> > converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into
> > multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs.
>
> > -HJC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Flashnews]

Hey I be one of those guys - be nice



> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 22, 7:46 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
>> Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they
>> used
>> the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law"
>> that
>> all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship
>> would
>> be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a
>> nuclear
>> ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so
>> there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument
>> could be made about that option also.
>>
>> You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the
>> show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy
>> driving
>> the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the
>> literature
>> just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and
>> you
>> would wonder if there was even a Navy.
>
> But, that's always been true with the idiot marines,
> which is why they're still the ONLY military
> service that publishes Gazettes rather than
> robots.
>
>
>
>>
>> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in
>> m...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Flashnews wrote:
>> >> So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
>> >> aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
>> >> aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible
>> >> and
>> >> may be done in the next administration.
>> >> The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to
>> >> look
>> >> to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal
>> >> with
>> >> COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural
>> >> sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is
>> >> always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet.
>> >> This
>> >> also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability
>> >> still
>> >> exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but
>> >> ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new
>> >> platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter
>> >> as
>> >> some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could
>> >> directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that
>> >> the
>> >> planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for
>> >> COIN.
>>
>> > Like this?
>>
>> >http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/navy_fleet_070422w/
>> > Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier
>> > Enterprise into an "afloat forward staging base" for special
>> > operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed
>> > converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into
>> > multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs.
>>
>> > -HJC- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

[Jerry[_3_]]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:25 UTC, "Flashnews" >
wrote:

> However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to
> keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick
> wall in sustainability and flat out speed

I don't know where you got that. The reason for dumping the JFK was
primarily that her arresting gear had degraded into uselessness and
would cost a huge wad to replace. Secondarily, ships with high
pressure oil-fired boilers and steam turbines are virtually extinct.
The boiler tech (BT) rating is defunct with propulsion machinery
either going gas turbine, nuclear, or (in the future) electric. It's
not just the number of boilers that counts, it's the fact that there
ARE boilers that counts.

This proposal is just about as sensible as the local yokel who wanted
to anchor the JFK off the coast instead of building a new outlying
landing field (OLF).

Let cleaning fire-sides die a praiseworthy death---
Jerry
--

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Flashnews
> writes
>we need a new platform a cross between the
>A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it -

Ah, yes. The concept that would darken the skies with its wings on the
morning of Day 1 of the war... and blot out the sun with parachutes by
the afternoon of Day 1.

Getting down low into the AAA and IR-SAM envelope in a slow airframe
without _lots_ of expensive electronics is called "Operation Hasty
Suicide", which is why even the A-10 keeps getting more DAS and more
standoff weapons and why AH-64s rapidly amended their tactics.

>In short - the whole shipbuilding world is a mess but it may be more
>from the fact that we do not know where our Naval forces are going while
>they seem to be on Pluto looking for a mission - the war is right in
>front of them ready to make toast of the thin-skinned and under
>protected ships

I'd advise a quick review of 1940s and 1950s naval weapon testing. The
reason ships lost their armour plate, was because the threat moved from
gun-armed Sverdlov-class cruisers (lobbing ninety-pound shells to a
dozen miles, with maybe one shot in fifty hitting) to Kynda-class
cruisers (lobbing five-ton missiles to three hundred miles, with most of
them hitting). You can't wear enough armour to ignore hits from post-WW2
weapons: to be confident of remaining capable, you have to "not be hit"
for long enough to take out the enemy's ability to fight. WW2-style
armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact...


--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

[Mike Kanze]

>2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

FCLPs, more likely. <g>

--
Mike Kanze

"I would love to change the world, but I can't find a diaper large enough."

- Anonymous

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message ...
Mike wrote:
...
> Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
> commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
> One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
> service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
> tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
> "inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.
>
> "The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
> fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
> congressional aide said.
...
> "The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
> in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
> aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

-HJC

[RAP Flashnet]

Jerry the JFK hull would last decades, what you are saying that costs "a
huge wad" turns out to be quite affordable once you consider the $7-10
billion for a new CVN and the $3-4 billion for the LHA(R). I am just so
facinated at how smart you are on these things. Would it be possible that
oil-fired boilers would be just what an assault ship would want, especially
one that is anchored for weeks off of someone's coastline - maybe even
Virginia so carquals could occur.
And steam turbines are not extinct by a long shot and the arresting gear
issue is one thast is refurbished on every carrier SLEP but in the case I
suggested much of the normal deck work will go away as will much of the
available interior. Now if you going to tell me that this new Navy we are
seeing with just about every major new design type falling into enormous
cost overruns, engineering difficulties, and flat out bad construction from
bad design - well shucks cusion let's just keep pouring money on this fire
cuz that's the way we do it here. GMAFB


"Jerry" > wrote in message
news:EsFkI7LVLls8-pn2-Xx4Uz71obNbi@localhost...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:25 UTC, "Flashnews" >
> wrote:
>
>> However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to
>> keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick
>> wall in sustainability and flat out speed
>
> I don't know where you got that. The reason for dumping the JFK was
> primarily that her arresting gear had degraded into uselessness and
> would cost a huge wad to replace. Secondarily, ships with high
> pressure oil-fired boilers and steam turbines are virtually extinct.
> The boiler tech (BT) rating is defunct with propulsion machinery
> either going gas turbine, nuclear, or (in the future) electric. It's
> not just the number of boilers that counts, it's the fact that there
> ARE boilers that counts.
>
> This proposal is just about as sensible as the local yokel who wanted
> to anchor the JFK off the coast instead of building a new outlying
> landing field (OLF).
>
> Let cleaning fire-sides die a praiseworthy death---
> Jerry
> --
>

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

> I'd advise a quick review of 1940s and 1950s naval weapon testing. The
> reason ships lost their armour plate, was because the threat moved from
> gun-armed Sverdlov-class cruisers (lobbing ninety-pound shells to a
> dozen miles, with maybe one shot in fifty hitting) to Kynda-class
> cruisers (lobbing five-ton missiles to three hundred miles, with most of
> them hitting). You can't wear enough armour to ignore hits from post-WW2
> weapons: to be confident of remaining capable, you have to "not be hit"
> for long enough to take out the enemy's ability to fight. WW2-style
> armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact...
>

Paul, armour capabilities is not one of my strong points. Can you elucidate
on why WWII armour might make things worse?
thx

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Harry Andreas
> writes
>In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>WW2-style
>> armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact...
>
>Paul, armour capabilities is not one of my strong points. Can you elucidate
>on why WWII armour might make things worse?

In an underkeel detonation (influence-fuzed mine or torpedo) armouring
the hull stiffens it. So, instead of fairly vigorous movements, flexing,
and whipping - like the USS PRINCETON in 1991 - you get more transmitted
shock, which tends to do more damage to systems mounted to the hull.
PRINCETON set off two mines, was significantly damaged, but was able to
get key systems back up, resume her duties as AAWC and await relief and
a tug back to Bahrain: two months after that she returned to the US
under her own power (though she did need a fair bit of repair)

HMS Belfast ran over a mine in late 1939, was similarly sized to
PRINCETON, suffered nineteen casualties, mostly broken legs and ankles
from the shock, and had such serious shock effects that her torpedo
tubes were thrown off their mounts. (She also had major problems from
cast-iron pipes and machinery bases shattering, but that was an issue
quickly designed out of ships). It was the end of 1942 before she
returned to service.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

[[email protected]]

> In message >, Flashnews
> > writes
>
> >we need a new platform a cross between the
> >A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it -


Aren't UCAV's like Predator/Reaper already evolving to fulfill
that role?

http://www.defense-update.com/products/p/predatorB.htm

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

> In message >, Harry Andreas
> > writes
> >In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:

> In an underkeel detonation (influence-fuzed mine or torpedo) armouring
> the hull stiffens it. So, instead of fairly vigorous movements, flexing,
> and whipping - like the USS PRINCETON in 1991 - you get more transmitted
> shock, which tends to do more damage to systems mounted to the hull.
> PRINCETON set off two mines, was significantly damaged, but was able to
> get key systems back up, resume her duties as AAWC and await relief and
> a tug back to Bahrain: two months after that she returned to the US
> under her own power (though she did need a fair bit of repair)
>
> HMS Belfast ran over a mine in late 1939, was similarly sized to
> PRINCETON, suffered nineteen casualties, mostly broken legs and ankles
> from the shock, and had such serious shock effects that her torpedo
> tubes were thrown off their mounts. (She also had major problems from
> cast-iron pipes and machinery bases shattering, but that was an issue
> quickly designed out of ships). It was the end of 1942 before she
> returned to service.

Thanks

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[[email protected]]

> If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
> Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

Though I respect your opinions, Mr Cobb, I cannot agree with you in
one point:

When the venerable A-6 Intruder was retired, Carrier Air Wings were
left with 36 Navy strike fighter squadrons (equipped either with F-14A/
B/D or with F/A-18A/C). Four squadrons were missing to form 10 full
CVWs with 4 squadrons each, so four Marine squadrons were transferred
to fill the gap.

The original plan to buy 548, or even more, Super Hornets called for
re-establishing 4 squadrons (as far as I know at least VA-75 Sunday
Punchers were considered to transition to F/A-18), to make those
Marine squadrons redundant in CVWs and free for land-based deployment
again. So, that's quite opposite to what you said...

Buying more F/A-18E/Fs at the moment seems the only reasonable idea.
Boeing is wise enough to suggest that, but decision-makers might be
not wise enough to accept...


> 2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
> my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

As far as I understand, recent years all strikefighter aircraft
available - doesn't matter if F-14, or Navy F/A-18, or Marine F/A-18s
flew missions like CAS or FAC(A) in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Introducing F/A-18E/F makes the open way to combine tanker, CAP and
ASuW missions in a single plane, thus increasing availability of
aircraft for littoral warfare.

So I cannot understand really what is the problem...

The only answer coming to my mind is a difference between training to
carrier-based and land-based deployments.

Best regards,
Jacek

[Henry J Cobb]

wrote:
> Introducing F/A-18E/F makes the open way to combine tanker, CAP and
> ASuW missions in a single plane, thus increasing availability of
> aircraft for littoral warfare.
>
> So I cannot understand really what is the problem...
>
> The only answer coming to my mind is a difference between training to
> carrier-based and land-based deployments.

My fear is that stripping the strike aircraft off of the gators while
land based squadrons are depleted to fill the big decks will leave the
Marines to repeat The Battle Off Samar with a different outcome.

There is no alternative to the F-35B.

-HJC

[[email protected]]

Coming back to the small deck vs. large deck and F-35B issue:

Rust-eaten CV 67 does not seem to be the right choice. If CVN 65 was
indeed switched to the joint USN/USMC "floating forward airfield"
role, I think it would be just a kind of a single experiment - like
with one of older assault ships (USS Inchon?) being converted into a
large mine-hunting ship with helicopters on board - more than a serial
solution.

On the other hand, with fewer squadrons/aircraft embarked, now there
is more place on Nimitz-class carriers for possible USMC or special
ops helicopters (as it was already made in the mid-1990s aboard USS
Theodore Roosevelt).

And as for F-35B, I think it is a matter of comparison between costs
and capabilities that will decide if the STOVL version is produced or
not, either making it the first supersonic STOVL fighter in service,
or dooming it to share Yak-141 fate.

Best regards,
Jacek

superhornet at o2 dot pl


On 25 Kwi, 14:20, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
> My fear is that stripping the strike aircraft off of the gators while
> land based squadrons are depleted to fill the big decks will leave the
> Marines to repeat The Battle Off Samar with a different outcome.
>
> There is no alternative to the F-35B.
>
> -HJC

[rstro]

sure there is/.........
call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14



"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Introducing F/A-18E/F makes the open way to combine tanker, CAP and
>> ASuW missions in a single plane, thus increasing availability of
>> aircraft for littoral warfare.
>>
>> So I cannot understand really what is the problem...
>>
>> The only answer coming to my mind is a difference between training to
>> carrier-based and land-based deployments.
>
> My fear is that stripping the strike aircraft off of the gators while land
> based squadrons are depleted to fill the big decks will leave the Marines
> to repeat The Battle Off Samar with a different outcome.
>
> There is no alternative to the F-35B.
>
> -HJC

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, rstro >
writes
>sure there is/.........
>call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14

Useless gold-plated junk dependent on radar (which never works) and
missiles (worse than useless). How many missile kills in the Korean War?
QED.

Get *real* aircraft. Re-equip the USN with F6F Hellcats.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

[j*c*d*a*t*a@/gmail.com]

Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
prevent part sales to Iran.



On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
> sure there is/.........
> call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>

[Bob Urz]

wrote:

> Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
> prevent part sales to Iran.
>
>
>
> On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
>
>>sure there is/.........
>>call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>>
>
>
NO QF-14 DRONES ?????????? ;)

BOB


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[j*c*d*a*t*a@/gmail.com]

It would be too complex to have a QF-14.

On Apr 27, 10:47 pm, Bob Urz > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
> > prevent part sales to Iran.
>
> > On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
>
> >>sure there is/.........
> >>call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>
> NO QF-14 DRONES ?????????? ;)
>
> BOB
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[rstro]

actually that is incorrect-
a number( I have no idea how many) are marked as "War Reserves" and will be
manintained in storage at AMARC


" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
> prevent part sales to Iran.
>
>
>
> On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
>> sure there is/.........
>> call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>>
>

[j*c*d*a*t*a@/gmail.com]

Perhaps however, where are you get the parts once the F14As - over a
hundred of them at AMARC - goes the shredder?

Here's the article

http://tailhookdaily.typepad.com/tailhook_daily_briefing/2007/04/calling_all_f14.html




On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
> actually that is incorrect-
> a number( I have no idea how many) are marked as "War Reserves" and will be
> manintained in storage at AMARC
>
> " > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
> > prevent part sales to Iran.
>
> > On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
> >> sure there is/.........
> >> call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14

[rstro]

scary thought-we can't trust them to make sure the parts stay here--so they
destroy them-
makes you wonder about security--


" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Perhaps however, where are you get the parts once the F14As - over a
> hundred of them at AMARC - goes the shredder?
>
> Here's the article
>
> http://tailhookdaily.typepad.com/tailhook_daily_briefing/2007/04/calling_all_f14.html
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
>> actually that is incorrect-
>> a number( I have no idea how many) are marked as "War Reserves" and will
>> be
>> manintained in storage at AMARC
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
>> > prevent part sales to Iran.
>>
>> > On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
>> >> sure there is/.........
>> >> call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>
>

[j*c*d*a*t*a@/gmail.com]

WOW! My last post looked like I had brain fade.

LOL

Good point about security. I guess you can't trust your own military
either. Burt you know, if the F-14 parts being sold to Iran news did
not make to the mainstream media would they have done this?


.... My crystal ball says, "Not on your life."

On Apr 29, 11:49 am, "rstro" > wrote:
> scary thought-we can't trust them to make sure the parts stay here--so they
> destroy them-
> makes you wonder about security--
>

[[email protected]]

Quite strangely, U.S. Marine Corps never bought F-14, so it looks the
last *real* aircraft they operated was F-4 Phantom, or maybe A-6
Intruder... And now they strongly oppose against F-35C, fighting hard
for the all-STOVL force.

Best regards,
Jacek


On 28 Kwi, 00:17, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> In message >, rstro >
> writes
>
> >sure there is/.........
> >call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>
> Useless gold-plated junk dependent on radar (which never works) and
> missiles (worse than useless). How many missile kills in the Korean War?
> QED.
>
> Get *real* aircraft. Re-equip the USN with F6F Hellcats.
>
> --
> The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
> warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
> by fools.
> -Thucydides
>
> Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

[Daryl Hunt]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, rstro >
> writes
> >sure there is/.........
> >call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>
> Useless gold-plated junk dependent on radar (which never works) and
> missiles (worse than useless). How many missile kills in the Korean War?
> QED.

The only Three things that our 15 and 16 drivers repected on the F-14 was
the extra set of eyes, the first turn during the wings sweeping forward and
the Phoenix system that costs way too much to use. The F-35 can out turn
the 14 no matter what, the Superhornet can do the Top Cap with Amrams just
fine and the days of the need for two sets of eyes is all but gone. Plus,
the 14 was taken out of service because it became too expensive per flying
hour to continue. Too bad, JAG had some nice footage of it.

But let's face it, in it's day, the 14 was the 800 lb gurrilla for Top Cap
over the Carrier Group but age bit it in the ass.

>
> Get *real* aircraft. Re-equip the USN with F6F Hellcats.

I vote for the F3F myself.

[Flashnews]

You know considering how the Navy chose to deliberately go about
destroying anything and everything "old" that would interfere with their
plan to modernize the Navy - a politically motivated behavior seen in
the demise of the Convair B-58 Hustlers as a retribution act to match to
the destruction of all the Northrop Flying Wings. I am not so sure the
Iranians can really get or want those F-14 parts from AMARC (if it were
even possible) but it is possible that the F-14D could be refurbished
into an even stronger jet that would embarrass first the F/A-18 and then
much worse the F-35, especially given its failing components and
subsystems. The methodology is all the same - over kill the hype about
how old and broken the airframe is, selectively shut down spares and key
component supply, and make the program look like a mess. The F-14D can
still fly circles around all other Navy fighters and if it would be
given some of the reliability and maintainability upgrades evident in
the E/F as well as the AESA upgrade from the F-35 - well the old Turkey
would smile a new light on Naval Air. As long as anyone can look back
the present breed of Naval air leadership is petrified - absolutely
paranoid - of not only that it can't do the Tomcat's job with what's
left but what the F-14 could still grow beyond itself. The demise of
the Tomcat will be the date in which carrier aviation became
unbalanced - with new fast nuclear ships and a weak unsupportive air
wing - thus bringing the submarine one notch closer to replacing the
surface fleet as the critical combatant lead. "Choose Wisely" and they
did not -


" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Perhaps however, where are you get the parts once the F14As - over a
> hundred of them at AMARC - goes the shredder?
>
> Here's the article
>
> http://tailhookdaily.typepad.com/tailhook_daily_briefing/2007/04/calling_all_f14.html
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
>> actually that is incorrect-
>> a number( I have no idea how many) are marked as "War Reserves" and
>> will be
>> manintained in storage at AMARC
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
>> > prevent part sales to Iran.
>>
>> > On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
>> >> sure there is/.........
>> >> call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>
>

[Flashnews]

there was one F-14 for the Marine Corps just being transferred from the
Navy to VMFA-531 at Miramar and in days the Marine Corps (Gen Tom Miller
DCSAir) cancelled the program for the reasons that did drive the Corps
into the quest of their own ships and aircraft so not to share deck
responsibilities with the Navy on Navy missions. At this time it was the
Harrier "B" Program. Not sure if the transfer actually happened but the
first 2 squadrons were forming up to take on their Tomcats. It was a
sad day, Mike Gunther (F-14 lead instructor on to ACMI fame) came into
the ready room and said "Any Marines in the brief" - after the "yea,
yea", a simple "You're outta here"... and it was over.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Quite strangely, U.S. Marine Corps never bought F-14, so it looks the
> last *real* aircraft they operated was F-4 Phantom, or maybe A-6
> Intruder... And now they strongly oppose against F-35C, fighting hard
> for the all-STOVL force.
>
> Best regards,
> Jacek
>
>
> On 28 Kwi, 00:17, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> In message >, rstro
>> >
>> writes
>>
>> >sure there is/.........
>> >call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>>
>> Useless gold-plated junk dependent on radar (which never works) and
>> missiles (worse than useless). How many missile kills in the Korean
>> War?
>> QED.
>>
>> Get *real* aircraft. Re-equip the USN with F6F Hellcats.
>>
>> --
>> The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and
>> its
>> warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting
>> done
>> by fools.
>> -Thucydides
>>
>> Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
>
>

[j*c*d*a*t*a@/gmail.com]

A friend of mine was a part the USMC to "look over" the F-14. His
impressions from a technician' s POV was the plane was a horrible
design for maintaining.


On May 2, 9:50 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
> there was one F-14 for the Marine Corps just being transferred from the
> Navy to VMFA-531 at Miramar and in days the Marine Corps (Gen Tom Miller
> DCSAir) cancelled the program for the reasons that did drive the Corps
> into the quest of their own ships and aircraft so not to share deck
> responsibilities with the Navy on Navy missions. At this time it was the
> Harrier "B" Program. Not sure if the transfer actually happened but the
> first 2 squadrons were forming up to take on their Tomcats. It was a
> sad day, Mike Gunther (F-14 lead instructor on to ACMI fame) came into
> the ready room and said "Any Marines in the brief" - after the "yea,
> yea", a simple "You're outta here"... and it was over.
>

[j*c*d*a*t*a@/gmail.com]

Interesting theory and I have heard something similar back in 2004 or
2005. I don't know how much of this is true however.

On May 2, 9:41 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
> You know considering how the Navy chose to deliberately go about
> destroying anything and everything "old" that would interfere with their
> plan to modernize the Navy - a politically motivated behavior seen in
> the demise of the Convair B-58 Hustlers as a retribution act to match to
> the destruction of all the Northrop Flying Wings. I am not so sure the
> Iranians can really get or want those F-14 parts from AMARC (if it were
> even possible) but it is possible that the F-14D could be refurbished
> into an even stronger jet that would embarrass first the F/A-18 and then
> much worse the F-35, especially given its failing components and
> subsystems. The methodology is all the same - over kill the hype about
> how old and broken the airframe is, selectively shut down spares and key
> component supply, and make the program look like a mess. The F-14D can
> still fly circles around all other Navy fighters and if it would be
> given some of the reliability and maintainability upgrades evident in
> the E/F as well as the AESA upgrade from the F-35 - well the old Turkey
> would smile a new light on Naval Air. As long as anyone can look back
> the present breed of Naval air leadership is petrified - absolutely
> paranoid - of not only that it can't do the Tomcat's job with what's
> left but what the F-14 could still grow beyond itself. The demise of
> the Tomcat will be the date in which carrier aviation became
> unbalanced - with new fast nuclear ships and a weak unsupportive air
> wing - thus bringing the submarine one notch closer to replacing the
> surface fleet as the critical combatant lead. "Choose Wisely" and they
> did not -
>

[Flashnews]

of course it was - but that didn't make it less the terror of the sky -
just cost more to fly it and that meant people too




" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>A friend of mine was a part the USMC to "look over" the F-14. His
> impressions from a technician' s POV was the plane was a horrible
> design for maintaining.
>
>
> On May 2, 9:50 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
>> there was one F-14 for the Marine Corps just being transferred from
>> the
>> Navy to VMFA-531 at Miramar and in days the Marine Corps (Gen Tom
>> Miller
>> DCSAir) cancelled the program for the reasons that did drive the
>> Corps
>> into the quest of their own ships and aircraft so not to share deck
>> responsibilities with the Navy on Navy missions. At this time it was
>> the
>> Harrier "B" Program. Not sure if the transfer actually happened but
>> the
>> first 2 squadrons were forming up to take on their Tomcats. It was a
>> sad day, Mike Gunther (F-14 lead instructor on to ACMI fame) came
>> into
>> the ready room and said "Any Marines in the brief" - after the "yea,
>> yea", a simple "You're outta here"... and it was over.
>>
>

[Flashnews]

It is demanded in the procurement "process" - to get new you must show
that the old is no longer relevant and there
problem is some folks try to help that along




" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Interesting theory and I have heard something similar back in 2004 or
> 2005. I don't know how much of this is true however.
>
> On May 2, 9:41 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
>> You know considering how the Navy chose to deliberately go about
>> destroying anything and everything "old" that would interfere with
>> their
>> plan to modernize the Navy - a politically motivated behavior seen in
>> the demise of the Convair B-58 Hustlers as a retribution act to match
>> to
>> the destruction of all the Northrop Flying Wings. I am not so sure
>> the
>> Iranians can really get or want those F-14 parts from AMARC (if it
>> were
>> even possible) but it is possible that the F-14D could be refurbished
>> into an even stronger jet that would embarrass first the F/A-18 and
>> then
>> much worse the F-35, especially given its failing components and
>> subsystems. The methodology is all the same - over kill the hype
>> about
>> how old and broken the airframe is, selectively shut down spares and
>> key
>> component supply, and make the program look like a mess. The F-14D
>> can
>> still fly circles around all other Navy fighters and if it would be
>> given some of the reliability and maintainability upgrades evident in
>> the E/F as well as the AESA upgrade from the F-35 - well the old
>> Turkey
>> would smile a new light on Naval Air. As long as anyone can look
>> back
>> the present breed of Naval air leadership is petrified - absolutely
>> paranoid - of not only that it can't do the Tomcat's job with what's
>> left but what the F-14 could still grow beyond itself. The demise of
>> the Tomcat will be the date in which carrier aviation became
>> unbalanced - with new fast nuclear ships and a weak unsupportive air
>> wing - thus bringing the submarine one notch closer to replacing the
>> surface fleet as the critical combatant lead. "Choose Wisely" and
>> they
>> did not -
>>
>

[rstro]

tell that to the carrier group when Chinese cruise missles are coming over
the horizon-- remember the Super Bug's AESA radar still is not working
properly--so......are you tell me a Super Bug with non ASEA radar and
AMRAAMS can handle that--oh--let's make that single seater F-18E .....
are there any drivers who have handled both the F-14D and Super Bug--what's
your view???



"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In message >, rstro >
>> writes
>> >sure there is/.........
>> >call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14
>>
>> Useless gold-plated junk dependent on radar (which never works) and
>> missiles (worse than useless). How many missile kills in the Korean War?
>> QED.
>
> The only Three things that our 15 and 16 drivers repected on the F-14 was
> the extra set of eyes, the first turn during the wings sweeping forward
> and
> the Phoenix system that costs way too much to use. The F-35 can out turn
> the 14 no matter what, the Superhornet can do the Top Cap with Amrams just
> fine and the days of the need for two sets of eyes is all but gone.
> Plus,
> the 14 was taken out of service because it became too expensive per flying
> hour to continue. Too bad, JAG had some nice footage of it.
>
> But let's face it, in it's day, the 14 was the 800 lb gurrilla for Top Cap
> over the Carrier Group but age bit it in the ass.
>
>>
>> Get *real* aircraft. Re-equip the USN with F6F Hellcats.
>
> I vote for the F3F myself.
>
>

[[email protected]]

On 4 Maj, 05:38, "rstro" > wrote:
> tell that to the carrier group when Chinese cruise missles are coming over
> the horizon-- remember the Super Bug's AESA radar still is not working
> properly--so......are you tell me a Super Bug with non ASEA radar and
> AMRAAMS can handle that--oh--let's make that single seater F-18E .....
> are there any drivers who have handled both the F-14D and Super Bug--what's
> your view???

Certainly not a driver of any plane mentioned, but some observations
of mine:
1) Correct - AESA radar may surely be apt to show some deficiencies at
this phase of its introduction. Therefore I belive alternative FLIR/
IRST systems must still be developed.
2) I don't think AIM-54 would be a better solution against balistic or
cruise missiles than newest models of AIM-120, not so speedy, but more
agile, more modern, and you could take more of them with not making
your plane flying like a brick with 5,000 pounds of air-to-air
ordnance.
3) Certainly two-seaters are more capable than single-seat fighters,
but I guess you could find some guys with a lot of experience from
F-14 days in those F/A-18Es;-)
4) Recent years the number of AEGIS ships per a carrier group doubled,
Standard and TBMD programs were run, whereas the size of the air wing
was reduced - so the entire philosophy of defending the Boat must be
different...

[Henry J Cobb]

wrote:
> On 4 Maj, 05:38, "rstro" > wrote:
>
>>tell that to the carrier group when Chinese cruise missles are coming over
>>the horizon-- remember the Super Bug's AESA radar still is not working
>>properly--so......are you tell me a Super Bug with non ASEA radar and
>>AMRAAMS can handle that--oh--let's make that single seater F-18E .....
>>are there any drivers who have handled both the F-14D and Super Bug--what's
>>your view???
>
>
> Certainly not a driver of any plane mentioned, but some observations
> of mine:
> 1) Correct - AESA radar may surely be apt to show some deficiencies at
> this phase of its introduction. Therefore I belive alternative FLIR/
> IRST systems must still be developed.

The Super Hornet already has FLIR.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/atflir/
"Raytheon’s Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared pod delivers
pinpoint accuracy and NoDoubt™ reliability for air-to-air and
air-to-ground mission support."
....
"Planned enhancements include:"
....
"Automatic target recognition"

Er, well give them a few years to work out the bugs and the super bugs
will be able to automatically alert the pilots should they actually spot
any cruise missiles. No doubt.

-HJC

[[email protected]]

Nice link. Thanks! I was not aware of the fact that web page was
updated.

But frankly, I am quite surprised: here I'd rather expect to see some
comments that F/A-18 FLIR pods (no matter if AAS-38 NITE Hawk, or this
one) were worth nothing in comparison with Tomcat's LANTIRN ;-)))

Also, part of the Tomcats had IRST (some of F-14A and all F-14D, IIRC)
- similar device to be added in Super Hornets as a part of "Block III"
modification as late as around 2012 or 2013.

What's more, the whole sensor suite is going to be capable to see the
same target when needed.

Best regards,
Jacek

On 4 Maj, 15:03, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
>
> The Super Hornet already has FLIR.
>
> http://www.raytheon.com/products/atflir/
> "Raytheon’s Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared pod delivers
> pinpoint accuracy and NoDoubtâ„¢ reliability for air-to-air and
> air-to-ground mission support."
> ...
> "Planned enhancements include:"
> ...
> "Automatic target recognition"
>
> Er, well give them a few years to work out the bugs and the super bugs
> will be able to automatically alert the pilots should they actually spot
> any cruise missiles. No doubt.
>
> -HJC

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "rstro"
> wrote:

> tell that to the carrier group when Chinese cruise missles are coming over
> the horizon-- remember the Super Bug's AESA radar still is not working
> properly--so......are you tell me a Super Bug with non ASEA radar and
> AMRAAMS can handle that--oh--let's make that single seater F-18E .....
> are there any drivers who have handled both the F-14D and Super Bug--what's
> your view???

While the APG-71 has more radar range than the APG-73 (mechanically scanned
radar), don't sell the APG-73 short. It is well matched to the AIM-120 missile
and while it may not have all the bells and whistles of the AESA radar, the
system performance (against aircraft) of the radar with the missile is
certainly
competitive with the system performance of the APG-71 with the AIM-54.
I realize that statement may drive F-14 lovers to a frenzy, but it's true
nonetheless.
It's the end-game that matters, not the individual performance of one
aspect of the system.
The APG-73 with AIM-120 (IMO without getting technical ) is a better
system than either the APG-71 with AIM-54 (lack of missile flexibility)
or APG-71 with AIM-7 (goodnesss me...where to start...)
When the fleet gets APG-79 things will get even better.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article om>,
wrote:

> Nice link. Thanks! I was not aware of the fact that web page was
> updated.
>
> But frankly, I am quite surprised: here I'd rather expect to see some
> comments that F/A-18 FLIR pods (no matter if AAS-38 NITE Hawk, or this
> one) were worth nothing in comparison with Tomcat's LANTIRN ;-)))

Probably because even the F-14 apologists realize that the F/A-18's
ATFLIR has twice the range and 3X better resolution.
2 generations (IIRC) newer FPA technology.

> Also, part of the Tomcats had IRST (some of F-14A and all F-14D, IIRC)
> - similar device to be added in Super Hornets as a part of "Block III"
> modification as late as around 2012 or 2013.
>
> What's more, the whole sensor suite is going to be capable to see the
> same target when needed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur