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

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 -

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

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

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

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

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

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.