via Flight Global.
The documents released on 9 September list focus areas for individual TIMs, including modification of current aircraft and specifically names the Boeing F/A-18E/F and F-35C. Another of the meetings will focus on the possibility of building a new-start aircraft. The service is also asking for information on the projected technology readiness level of each proposal for 2020.Read the whole thing but it seems to me that the Navy is hedging its bets on two fronts. The first that the F-35 will be the failure I believe its destined to be and secondly, its getting ready for sequestration to continue.
Some possible modifications of the existing carrier-based fleet have already appeared. The navy has discussed stealth modifications to the F/A-18E/F, while GE has studied more powerful engines enabled by expanded inlets
The US budget is about to be pressured by several things....Obamacare not meeting budget goals, the economy not rebounding as predicted, a new war in the Middle East (so much for that peace dividend) and further social spending because of the lagging economy.
The Navy is the only service (well, besides the Army) that is planning actively for a worse case scenario. The Advanced Super Hornet might be the savior of the carrier air arm and not only its workhorse.
F/A-XX is a Super Hornet replacement while the F-35C was meant to be a Hornet replacement. Since modifying the F-35C is out of question, it is really between Advanced Super Hornet vs an all-new-jet. Given ongoing budget troubles, I guess Advanced Super Hornet will win.
ReplyDeleteIt's Super Hornet vs F-35C when they're competing for the same funding from the NAVAIR budget.
DeleteNoooo. Budget pressures are forcing the Navy to examine (unofficially) procuring additional SH or ASH as the near term solution to replace the legacy Hornet, instead of the F-35C - or possibly a split buy of SH/ASH and F-35Cs. At any rate, I don't think we'll see 260 F-35Cs for the Navy - given the budget pressures and high cost of the F-35C, some flavor of the SH/ASH looks much cheaper option.
ReplyDeleteGiven the economy, the number of active carriers (and thus, carrier air wings) depends on the ability to pay for them. I suspect: less carrier air wings over the long haul.
ReplyDeleteAs Eric and Charley mentioned, considering the economy and numbers that have to be bought to maintain some sort of air wings for all the carriers (plus or minus 250 jets buy), it might not be just the out right buy but how much USN is going to have to spend in operating costs....USN knows what it costs to operate the SH, ASH can't be that far off and they probably aren't optimistic about the F35C in the long run and how sustainable it is.
ReplyDeleteExcept for a few die hard fan boys, anybody realistically believe it's going to be as cheap to operate as an F18?
FYI the affordable care act is coming in better than expectations (http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108493/obamacare-premiums-lower-2015) so it depends on budget, and sequestration caps were breached in the budget deal last year so congress has already given more money than sequestration allows. If we continue to see falling deficits and lowering unemployment (albeit slowly).
ReplyDeleteF35c and F35b are the obvious sacrifices here. Harrier off LHx was a nice to have in the days before PGM. Even if F35b flew from LHx decks there is no way a major landing would take place without carrier cover and if the carrier is there then there is no reason from there why USMC fixed wing CAS missions couldn't be flown. The carrier is the naval enabler. For minor landings then a Burke or three would be enough cover. We already live in a age where the aeroplane is really just a transport for various missile families so stealth is a of little consequence. As I have said loads of times here the problem for the USN is it needs a cheap escort to provide NGS and carry other missiles into theatre. And it needs a proper next gen PDMS missile like the British SeaCeptor through out its fleet to replace the menagerie of PDMS it possesses.
ReplyDeleteSaying that there is evidence to suggest the USN is starting to shuffle around escort numbers for the day when the RN QEC comes in to service. But I can see that being enough to keep F35b afloat even if you lump in Italian and possible Spanish airframes. Push comes to shove I see the USN going all out to protect a CBG on each coast that is fully equipped.
Whatever the decision the US Navy makes concerning its carrier jets, it must do it quickly.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ibtimes.co.uk/poll-reveals-53-chinese-people-think-china-could-go-war-japan-1464828
- 93% of Chinese hate Japan.
- 87% of Japanese hate China.
- 53% of Chinese expect a war with Japan with the next 5 years.
As I have warned repeatedly, the US is automatically dragged into this Sino-Japanese War thanks to the mutual defense treaty. The days of Super Hornets dogfighting J-20s over Diaoyu Islands and Okinawa could come sooner than anyone anticipated.
Sir,
ReplyDelete"Best Fighter for Canada" is a very informative and well documented blog. His author has been promoting an open and fair competition for the replacement of the CF-18 and has been examining this issue from various interesting angles.
In his last post, (http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.co.il/2014/09/the-super-hornet-is-not-only-f-35.html) he mentions "a report stating that the Super Hornet is the only aircraft being considered by Canadian governments officials as a true alternative to the F-35 Lightning II".
After mentioning some weaknesses of the Super Hornet compared to his competitors, he explains why the Advanced Super Hornet would be a much better proposal and concludes that "if Canada were to select the Super Hornet, the Advance Super Hornet would certainly be the way to go".
The author expresses however some worries:
"While the USN has been "pleased" with Advanced Super Hornets thus far, it has yet to actually commit to upgrading its current or future fleet. With the F-35 program taking up most of the Pentagon fighter budget, there may not be any Advanced Super Hornets in the USN's future.
If Canada does decide to procure the Block III Rhino, it may very well be the only ones footing the bill for all those upgrades. While plenty of figures have been thrown around regarding these upgrades (usually and additional $10 million per copy) the true cost will ultimately depend on the number of aircraft built to that standard and how smoothly testing goes".
Then, if the US Navy just made its gambit to buy the Advances Super Hornet, it should alleviate these worries and reinforce the probability that Canada chose indeed the "Block III Super Hornet" as an alternative to the F-35.
The first concrete case in the death spiral you have foreseen?
If the USN officially committed the the ASH F-18 even in small numbers, it would also make it easier for Canada to commit to a purchase of up to 36 units as a bridge buy while things sort themselves out over the next 5 years in the fighter market.
DeleteThe USN has to be more serious about replacement aircraft than the air force because the usage rate or wear down on carrier aircraft is so high. Even right now those F-18 SHs on the Bush are "pounding the deck" as they sortie to launch airstrikes on ISIS. The reality is the USN will have to replace super hornets far sooner than the F-35C will ever be ready in numbers (if ever for that matter). Clearly the latest signal is that they are going to need ASH F-18s sooner rather than later.
ReplyDeleteHey Sol.
ReplyDeleteYou may want to read this:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-us-air-force-set-crash-landing-11249
Just a few thoughts. First off I really like this blog and find it very informative. Now to my main point as I have found a very interesting article that brought up some good points.
ReplyDeletehttp://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-f-35-savior-us-airpower-or-albatross-the-asia-pacific-11187
Now this article points out that the argument that the F-35 is a waste because it is taking too long, there are too many technical issues and is over budget were the same arguments made against planes like the F-15, F-14, F-16, AWACS, and the C-17. It also points out and I didn't check their source that in a recent exercise the F-35 has proven to be "Superior to 4th Generation Fighters" in air to air combat.
This article has actually put a glimmer of doubt in my mind as to if the plane is as bad as I originally thought
Imagine the F-35 with conforming fuel tanks like on this advanced super hornet giving it a range of 850 nautical miles to be stealthily fly in snipe at a formation of enemy SU-35s and then bug out taking out probably 18 SU-35s for a squadron of 12 F-35s. Not to mention this plane would to a great job doing weasel opening up corridors in enemy air defenses for helicopters and non stealth aircraft to move through.
Just some thoughts.