Comments on: Lawmakers Press Navy on F-18s

By: trojan113

trojan113 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:35:28 +0000

What is not covered is the track record of Lockheed. The setbacks of the F22 should be a stong indication of the projected delivery of the F35. Historically many new and developing weapon systems run overcost and behind schedule.
The “200 million dollar question”, can the Warfighter ccontinue to sustain or maintain national security with gapping holes in Air Support in the future???

The answer is simple, you take advantage of the best Tacair program running (FA-18) and leverage the costs of this program vs the current and future Defense budget shortfalls.…

By: fred d dodson

fred d dodson — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:16:01 +0000

dodson, 21 may 2009
The planes need to be bough. It is unconscionable to be that short of plane.

By: Schlappy

Schlappy — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:18:02 +0000

It would be nice to increase funding for additional Super Hornets instead of bailing out the auto industry…maybe the Navy should threaten to file bankruptcy.

By: Tony Conner

Tony Conner — Thu, 21 May 2009 11:11:29 +0000

The issue here is money and the DOD is getting cut to pay for the poor bankers who drove us into the second depression in US history. There isn’t enough money to buy F/A-18E/F’s and the F-35B/C in the forseeable future. The Air Force apparently has stated they can cover the US Navy tactical missions until new tactical aircraft are available. The Air Force will take longer to get on station, but I was in teh US Navy and their motto of hurry up and wait can go one step further. The US Navy is comitted the the F-35 at any price in terms of mission capability. The F-18E/F was a stop gap measure to begin with and the US Navy planners didn’t include it in their long term budgeting. If this fighter were exceptional then the US Navy would buy more to cover “gap” years.

By: Bilbo Baggins

Bilbo Baggins — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:53:53 +0000

Here Here IAN. well said, and in addition that JSF is going to be great! Our enemy will be looking over his shoulder all the time. Then, BOOM! right up the tail pipe! HA HA HA

By: Ian M. Guajardo

Ian M. Guajardo — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:01 +0000

It looks like the US Navy needs to purchase additional F/A-18E/F and G models to close the fighter gap.

There will be in dire need for additional fighter as a result of the delays in the delivery of the F-35 JSF. Due to this problem Congress should double the current allocations of F/A-18s.

Lets use the Stimulus money to purchase additional F/A-18s instead of giving anti-American pro communist organization called ACORN money to bring down this country! I rather spend the stimulus on F/A-18s which keeps high tech workers, truck drivers, A & P mechanics, engineers, instructors, scientists, and aviators working.

By: Britt

Britt — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:20:47 +0000

The answer is simple: Politics.

You see, No ADM is going to sit in front of Congress and tell them that a requirement has not been changed but that they are not funding the Navy to meet that requirement. That would get him cashiered. Our elected officials control the purse strings people. If the Navy says they need something and Congress agrees but does not fund it, then the Navy doesn’t get it. Simple. Duplicity at the top levels, is that a surprise to you?

By: jjdc

jjdc — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:11:25 +0000

Video of the questioning of ADM. Roughead here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiZo0OMm7Hk

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:03:58 +0000

Don’t need the airplanes huh? How many Air Force strike fighters were available in Afghanistan when that kicked off?

Always rememeber for every aircraft carrier deployed there will need to be one getting ready to deploy and one just back from deployment. Same for the aircraft and aircrew. And why would you put fewer airplanes on the best real estate in the world?

What does the President always ask when the crap hits the fan? Where’s our carriers?

DC2

By: jimbo

jimbo — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:42:00 +0000

someone needs to get their stuff together!
Change the policy to reflect what you need!
Law makers look at the pentagons requirements and see a gap… the pentagon needs to either shut the door on that requirement by changing that requirement… or explain why they have a requirement and its not being met?! sounds simple to me…

By: Charles Phillips, LtCol USAF Ret

Charles Phillips, LtCol USAF Ret — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:13:33 +0000

This idea of reevaluating after the QDR is just to delay refreshing our aircraft. Our aircraft are stretched to the limit and are aging. Even missions we can now cover are often being flown by old aircraft nearing the end of useful life.

We should spend some of this Stimulus money to give our airmen the reliable aircraft they need — to do the mission they are sent to do.