Pressure Builds for More Hornets; Multi-Year OK Likely

Pressure Builds for More Hornets; Multi-Year OK Likely

Congressional pressure on the Pentagon to buy more F/A-18 E/Fs and use multi-year authority continues to build, with Sen. Kit Bond being the latest to leap on the bandwagon at today’s Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing.

Bond sent a St. Patrick’s Day letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging use of the multi-year authority and he pressed the Navy’s top leaders on the need for more Hornets. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the Navy believes Boeing’s February proposal for a multi-year deal meets the “threshold” for multi-year savings. The numbers are being reviewed by the Office of Secretary of Defense’s CAPE and Mabus told me a decision should be forthcoming in a few weeks, “sometime in April.”

The debate is sure to grow more heated with the news last week that the Navy and Marines were forced to red stripe — ground — 104 Hornets of models A through D. While it isn’t clear yet whether some of these planes will be pulled off the line there are already flight restrictions on the fleet of older Hornets. And that, a congressional aide noted, means the service life extension programs being considered for the Hornet may have to be scaled back.


The congressional aide, who follows the Hornet debate, said there are “No specifics on how many will be permanently grounded. Inspections ongoing. The big concern is that even after the visual inspection, there are still G limits on the planes until they get electronically inspected. This red stripe certainly raises questions about the Navy trying to SLEP legacy Hornets to 10,000 flight hours. There are all kinds of holes in the Navy’s plan to reduce the strike fighter shortfall. You can expect to hear more about it in the near future.”

However, Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, told reporters after today’s hearing that very few — half a dozen — of the grounded planes have shown serious cracks that warrant concern. The grounding, he said, is actually giving the Navy the chance to do more detailed inspections earlier than it had planned. And it should not deter the planned SLEP, he claimed.

The other big story of the hearing was the Navy’s careful efforts to fend off attacks on the Littoral Combat Ship’s request for proposal. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, where the aluminum-hulled trimaran LCS is built, criticized the Navy for not taking life cycle costs into consideration and urged Mabus and Roughead to “amend” the RFP.

“A lot of us are concerned that the pending RFP does not appear to take capability and life cycle costs into consideration,” Shelby said.

Mabus deflected Shelby, saying the Navy “has a lot of confidence in this RFP. It’s well written and well designed.” Asked by a reporter about the chances for a bid protest and how the Navy might handle one, Roughead said “a protest would be extraordinarily disruptive” to the service.

Join the Conversation

Will these be the proposed block III version if they are built? If the congress authorizes 50–75 new Super Hornets for the navy, it will be beneficial for both the Navy and Marine Corps. With 50–75 new Super Hornets, the navy could replace an equivalent amount of F-18’s. These F-18’s could be used as spare parts for the rest of the fleet.

The airframes are the big concern, carrier take offs and landings are torture on frames and suspensions.

I think the Navy should wait until this Block III Super Hornet emerges before deciding to purchase any more. Hopefully it will be powered by the more powerful F414 EPE or the design P&W proposed for the Super Hornet a few years ago.

How does this fit in with the F-35 JSF program?

The Hornet is a great bird, very capable.

Great, lets buy more junk planes. The Hornet, aka the Wildcat of the 21st century.

If we are hearing about this now our young people already need them NOW. Freedom is not free, If our pilots are happy with this equipment package and we all know that our pilots are the best. That should be all we need too know right now. We have to think ahead better. We don’t need to be Arm-Chair Generals! If you are not there you don’t know. Does any Veteran remember this?

Wildcat my rearend more like the Corsair of the 21st century! Best bird the Navy / Marine Corps has ever flown!
sgtyates
Sgt USMC
veteran

What are you taking about.…The Hornet has proven itself many times over and is certainly not junk.

@ fireboss: The F-35 is facing more delays, and production isn’t expected to start until the latter half of the decade. In the mean time, the Navy and Marine Corps need airworthy jets…

Junk??? Did he say junk?? What an idiot he is, let me tell you,the F/A-18 is one of the besy aircraft ever built and being designed by northrop, the winning team who brought us the F-5 which is still a hotrod 50 years later, i expect the F/A-18 to do well for another 20 years but with that said , with this new S-300 missile made by the russians,and purchased by the iranians that will shoot down any and all aircraft accept the F-22, All purchases of new aircraft should be carefully scrutinized until we can come ups with countermemasures against that @#$% S-300 missile. Fix and update the old aircraft first is what I say. oh and yes scrap the F-35, What a P.O.S. that thing is, the harrier is just as good and costs a 10th as much.

I was the new Russian X-50 which is a sleath figher, I like the F/A-18 but I would have to fly around in it, just to understand the Hornetss are good fighter aircraft. used by Marine Navy, mostly Navy, but it’s a better investment for now, Similary F-16 have been around, they are already globalized in other parts of the country it’s not like the thing is a secret just more international.

I had to break news, but a American stealth fighter was shot down, somewhere is Serbia, few years ago

I would say instead of the Hornet mass production, why not F-22 mass production, In cost dufference, cost can be lowered if orders of F-22 were by bulk at a fix price contract from the manufacturer or country (USA).

China and Russia are now in ambition to design and mass produce 4th to 5th generation jet planes. In order to have a balance of power we and our allies should put their interest on 5th generation F-22’s and F-35’s to balace the air dominance in the Asia, Pacific, Europe and Arab countries.

That was an F-117. A relatively slowmoving fighterbomber. Additionally the problem in Serbia than was that NATO used the same “corridors” to attack Serbia on a number of occasions. Making it easy for defenders to predict where the planes would be. So it wasn’t a technical limitation as such, atleast as much a human one.

With that said, stealth != invisible planes, they can penetrate enemy airspace easier but will still be at risk against a relatively technologically advanced enemy. Thats why there are wild weasel teams, cruisemissiles and standoff missiles. To either take out or put distance between the plane and ground defences.

AFAIK the hornet is certainly not junk. While it may not have had the range, features (phoenix) and topgun factor of the f-14 tomcat or suggested bombcat it is a versatile allround plane that only got better in the biggger and newer versions.

Now had the plane (f-18) been going massively up against an technologically and numerically equal enemy with mig-29’s and su-27’s, then the pilots might have been wishing for an F-15 or F-16 (or now F-22 or F-35). But I’m not pilot and can’t vouch for it’s maneuverability.

Then again if that were the case the shit had allready hit the fan for us (as a non american but living in a NATO country).

Because we are using the Hornet in his Air to Ground (ATG) role now. The F-22 is not carrier based nor have a credible ATG capabilities.

The F-18E/F was a stop gap measure until the F-35B/C was available, now the F-18A-D has structural problems changes the entire plan. The F-18E/F still has alot of operational problems, but they were overlooked since it was going to be augmeted with the new F-35. The F-18E/F is larger and not as manuverable as the older F-18C/D models. As long as the US Navy and Marines aren’t using them for
air to air combat, the F-18E/F will work just fine. As a previous post pointed out, newer generation Russian fighters can defeat the F-18E/F. The F-35B/C still has alot to prove, but it is more like the F-18C/D in size
and weight. Still it is doubtful that teh US Navy can resist buying more F-18E/F models at Boeings new price.

The Hornet is the Best Navy plane I’ve ever flown except the most recent update of the SwampCat, which is basically a flying semi-submersible tank. Since, however, most of our current theatres are pretty much land-locked, Renewing the Hornet contracts would be our best option for the forseeable future, since the F-35 handles almost as s%!**y as a goddamned WARTHOG!

China is letting us use their airbases in a limited capacity, and has been since 9/11 — ample range for the f-22… you do the math.

The hornet is one of the few defense success stories that is actually on-time and under budget. It is a very capable craft and maybe the Marines would do well buying some to replace some of their older airframes instead of waiting another 10 years for the F-35 STOVL.

Most S-300 aren’t too much of a problem. The dangerous ones are the final versions of the S-300 and the S-400.

The F-35 will be a great replacement for the F-16, AV-8, and F/A-18 (normal Hornet) if we can get the cost under control and fix a few issues. However that doesn’t mean we should abandon our “high end” fighters like the F-22, which should be replacing the F-15. The Navy should have a similar fifth gen air-superiority fighter in the works.

Being an A-10 fan, the Warthog does not handle poorly at all. In fact it has a much smaller turn radius than most fighters. The F-35 was said to have handled well in testing, but the problem is that because we canceled the F-22 (and the Navy has no similar program) we are expecting far too much of the F-35. As a result Lockheed and other developers are trying to stuff every fancy new electronic system into the thing.

William C.

I have it from a senior Lockheed official that the F-36, unlike the F-22, actually had a requirement that it be able to defeat S-300 and S-400s. That is part of the senor suite. It’s why the plane doesn’t need the super-fast flying ability of the F-22.

ClancD,

F-35 production HAS ALREADY BEGUN.

***

Tony C,

No the F/A-18E/F was not a stop gap to anything. It was the low cost/risk A-6 replacement Congress forced on the USN after to cancellation of the A-12. The F-35C is the USN replacement for the F/A-18A-D. Although obviously having a CAW that was once F-14s, F/A-18A-Ds & A-6s go to a CAW of F/A-18E/Fs & F-35Cs is going to result in the ‘traditional’ roles of the aircraft within the CAW change. My guess is that the F/A-18E/Fs & F-35Cs will share ALL fighter/attack roles.

***

Chris,

The F-35B IOC is STILL 2012. The USMC does not have that much longer to wait…

You bring up a good point, I meant they should purchase some to replace their oldest airframes, not to abandon the F-35 STOVL altogether

Actually the Super Hornet was planned to be an interim solution until the A/F-X came online. A/F-X was a multi-role steath fighter program that emerged after the A-12 and the NATF were cancelled.

WHY DID WE RETIRE F –14 ’ S ? , BECAUSE WE HAVE FRICKEN IDIOTS IN CHARGE OF THIS COUNTRY !

Compared too today’s Other fighters, they are more better then F-14’s, which had a logical hardware controling it’s stealth, kind of makes me think with the Harrier, British made, but those things are widow makers, I seen C-130’s, C-141’S, C-4 Globmaster, couple of cessna’s with the Black Knights, with a whole 82nd Air Bourne but no F-16’s, cause it landed on a C-130 while it was taking off, A-4’s no issue wih that it’s alright, and a whole deployment when we were bombing Iraq in 2002, 2003. But the trainer could not fly cause the engine fell off, and it landed in a ditch.

sjp,

I’ve got no idea what your post was about, but I enjoyed it all the same.

I am telling you about my big war experience in the USAF, which I don’t like discussin anymore, cause it they had it out for me.

I agree With Chris, I have read about the F-35A/B/C/D Models back in 2002, which would just have one air craft which is more dominant in control, and if I was a pilot these day’s I know the F-14 is out of the question cause of it’s computer control wing retraction is obsolete, either the place is stealthier, and the f-35 has thrust vectoring which makes it roll on a ball. You gotta love it, I want to get into one of those thing’s if not it then a cargo, let me pilot anything, and no it can’t be made out of wood fuselage.

I agree With Chris, I have read about the F-35A/B/C/D Models back in 2002, which would just have one air craft which is more dominant in control, and if I was a pilot these day’s I know the F-14 is out of the question cause of it’s computer control wing retraction is obsolete, either the place is stealthier, and the f-35 has thrust vectoring which makes it roll on a ball. You gotta love it, I want to get into one of those thing’s if not it then a cargo, let me pilot anything, and no it can’t be made out of wood fuselage.

There is no F-35D, nor does the F-35 have thrust vectoring for maneuverability (just for VTOL, in the B variant).

USAF experience? There’s a lot of things wrong:

The F-14 does not possess stealth or RCS features. The US Air Force did not operate F-14’s, that would be the US Navy.

The C-4 was not called the Globemaster, that would be the Douglas C-74 Globemaster, DouglasC-124 Globemaster II, and the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. The Grumman C-4 was called the Gulfstream.

The US Navy stopped using A-4’s in frontline fighting in 1975, and kept them for adversary training up to 2003. The US Marine Corps also stopped using the A-4’s in the mid-1980’s, retiring the last frontline A-4’s in 1994 while keeping some for adversary training up until 1999.

Because the airframes were getting old, they had a low (and becoming lower) flight hour to maintenance hours ratio, the phoenix aim-54 was after 30 years of service still something of an unknown, just the swingwing adds complexion to the machine, the design and performance was designed pre mig-29 and su-27 (and their newer models) and so on and so on…

Don’t quote me on this but I seem to remember that for every hour an F-14 flew it required 30 hours of maintenance. Around double the maintenance of other fighters.

Most if not all modern fighter engagements have been won before the merge. The block II SH / AIM-120C/D is lethal in this regimen, and will be for some time to come (10+ years.) Future strike packages will involve heavy use of long range self guided munitions and EW to counter the S-300/400 threat. Also, remember that the F-35 low observable qualities are optimized for the frontal aspect of the aircraft. As a F-35 nears and passes a radar, it becomes visible, especially to VHF band radars. The compromise which is the F-35C may not be worth its cost to the Navy, particularly when you can not afford to replace worn out aircraft on a 1 to 1 basis..

More F18s? Why am I not surprised Congress thinks this a good idea and our DoD flag officer leadership is not exactly in step with them. It’s about jobs.….first and foremost, it’s about jobs. National security is priority number 1b. Really gets folks fired up.…but, it’s all about jobs.

Who remembers when Sam Nunn pushed the Marine Corps to buy “several” more C-130s when Sen Nunn was leading the SASC? The Marines were not overly keen on the idea because the “life cycle sustainment tail” was not fully funded. This time, it would be wise for DoD to press for the LCS dollars to sustain any additional aircraft.

Just an observation.

Probably many reasons for the F14 being retired, but one of the more significant reasons was its cost to maintain.…both the actual cost ($) and the TIME required for maintenance. I forget what the ratio of maintenance hours to flight hours was, but it was very significant compared to the F18. And too, the F14 was “easier” and “less costly” to maintain than the F4.

I suppose the F35 is pitched as even less costly to maintain (relatively) and has a higher flight to maintenance ratio than the F18.

the f-18s (legacy is being repaired constantly) E/F models have a high problem due to corrosion and delamination ( salt is not good for composite materials)

Yes, it is junk. The new Flankers will out turn, out Accelerant and basically out fly it. They will get into a turning fight, the Flanker will vector it’s thrust, turn tighter and with a AA-11, blow the Hornet right out of the air.

And what stops the Super Hornet pilot from just looking at the Flanker (JHMCS) and firing off an AIM-9X? Providing the Flanker gets past the AIM-120s…

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement