Fighter Gap May Shrink After Wars

Fighter Gap May Shrink After Wars

The Navy held a conference call with reporters today to shoot down any rumors that it’s going soft on the carrier version (F-35C) of the Joint Strike Fighter in favor of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

The Navy and Marines planned buy remains 680 JSFs, Manazir said. How many of that total will ultimately be the carrier version F-35C or the Marine’s short take-off and landing version F-35B, remains a topic of discussion between the two services.

The Navy intends to buy 124 Super Hornets in a multiyear purchase plan between FY 2010–2013, for a grand total of 515 F/A-18E/F/G aircraft, said Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, head of naval aviation programs. But the fact that the Navy continues to buy large numbers of Super Hornets does not mean it doesn’t plan to buy even more F-35s, a true “game changing” fifth-generation stealth aircraft, he said.


The Navy and Marines planned buy remains 680 JSFs, Manazir said. How many of that total will ultimately be the carrier version F-35C or the Marine’s short take-off and landing version F-35B, remains a topic of discussion between the two services.

The Navy has expanded the capabilities of the Super Hornet to about “4.2-ish” generation capability, Manazir said, which is the limit of how much it can be upgraded. While some 5th generation low observable features are built into the Super Hornet, the fact that its weapons hang-off the wings, it cannot internally store weapons, means it has upper limits of stealthiness.

“The F-35Cs sensor fusion, data fusion and the stealth characteristics… allow it to get in there on day one of an anti-access denial kind of a fight,” Manazir said.

The Navy plans to operate the JSF and Super Hornet in combination, covered by an E-18G in a jamming role, to maximize the abilities of both aircraft. While functioning as a stealthy strike aircraft able to penetrate enemy air defenses the F-35C will also operate as a communications “node” on the Navy’s battle network, providing and transporting data to other ships and aircraft.

On the much-discussed Navy tactical strike fighter shortfall, Manazir said the worst case projections see the shortfall sitting at about 177 aircraft peaking in 2017. By tweaking “mitigation levers” — which includes how long older versions of the F-18 continue to fly, the delivery rate of new Super Hornets, how soon F-35s can begin to roll off the production line in large numbers and the demand from combatant commanders for carrier strike – that shortfall can be reduced to about 100 aircraft.

The current demand for F/A-18A-D flying off carriers in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is “what is really stressing us right now,” he said. “If that demand signal was to decrease at some point then it would mitigate some of that shortfall.”

The Navy’s projections of a strike fighter shortfall are based on models that assume the Navy will continue flying carrier missions in support of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels, Manazir said.

Asked if the expected drawdown in U.S. forces from Iraq, and thus reduced flight hours for carrier aviation in the Central Command area, could erase that shortfall, he said that any change in the “demand signal” would change that shortfall number. “I can’t predict that it will drop,” he said.

Asked if he would rule out buying more Super Hornets to reduce that shortfall, Manazir said right now the Navy is focused on extending the life of the “legacy fleet” of F/A-18A-Ds.

The Navy’s long-range aircraft force structure requirements are based on the current fight, that is Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a heavier fight against a “near-peer competitor,” he said.

The first flight of the F-35C is planned for some time in the next couple of weeks and the aircraft’s initial operational capability remains 2016, Manazir said. “It should be in [Patuxent River] by the end of the summer and actively participating in flight tests.”

“We continue to closely observe and interact with the contractor Lockheed Martin, and tell them what our requirements are.” Those requirements have not changed, he said. The Navy plans to field ten F-35C in the first squadron.

Join the Conversation

Good Evening Folks,

This announcement follows a pattern. If the Navy feels that they have to explain this to the media its a strong that knives have been sharpened. The F-35 is dead.

To those who were not around a year ago this is the same as what happened to the NLOS-CS, it was safe, a done deal, separated from the FCS.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Wait a minute, now. Who the heck is the “near peer competitor” supposed to be? There isn’t one! Neither Russia or China is a “near peer”. Who else is there? Canada? How about a little real world thinking here?

A 4.2 generation max Super Hornet?!? That’s all that Rear Adm Mike Manazir will give the USN?? Wow, now that’s news! Maybe Rear Adm. Manazir can tell India and Brazil et al while he’s at it to scratch any advanced SuperHornet model from their respective selection lists (?) — due to the fact it can’t meet their requirements for at least 4.5? (I’d love to have a beer with Mike and discuss smart, hybrid-upgrade potential of the Super).

Re: reduced “demand signals”, once OIF and OEF wind down (prior to F-35C’s IOC date of 2016)… perhaps there could be far less demand for the very expensive, speculative 680 F-35B/C buys going forward, given a squadron size requirement of 10 a/c and no need for USMC to fly VLO close air support a/c (once air sufficiency has been achieved)??

Perhaps Congress will contemplate whether the ‘gap’ can be more economically closed with additional $55m Super Hornets, ‘tweaked’ to a 4.5 configuration (?) — which could also be converted into fleet “node” capability?

Note to Congress: Please end the defunct, old defense acquisition process now and take the lead!!

Byron, the navy says they’re committed to a 5th Gen aircraft, one that’s going into flight testing soon along with the USAF and USMC models, and that’s a sure sign of the F-35’s demise?? In what universe is that obvious?

Olof, a near peer competitor would certainly be China or Russia. The future can be very hard to predict. Better to be prepared. And in ten years 4th Gen aircraft will be as obsolete as a P-51 in 1955.

Bryon’s right, the crash of the F-35 is near, and the signs of the notorious death spiral are everywhere.

I’m sure some arm twisting and butt kicking was initiated by Mr. Gates prior to this conference with the press. Heaven forbid, someone might have an original thought outside the party line on the Joint PowerPoint Fighter.

I’m sure that HASC is completely underwhelmed by all of this BS!

That is some pretty impressive recreational drugs there admiral.…

“The F-35Cs sensor fusion, data fusion and the stealth characteristics… allow it to get in there on day one of an anti-access denial kind of a fight,” Manazir said.”

This is just not true. This is the job of the F-22.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009–01.html

My 30 years of experience in this acquisition system (and watching this system) tell me that a conference call that reaffirms the committment to a system often precedes the cancellation of the system. Almost certainly the numbers of F-35s are about to radically cut, with the resulting rise of the per-copy costs. Haven’t we seen this many times before??? At what cost per copy will we decide to skip this generation to invest in future technology?
Sure there are predictions of obsolescence of the E/F-18 — I could easily dig up predictions of the obsolescence of the B-52! And yet that darn thing is still one of our front line aircraft. Of course we HAD to have the B-1 since the venerable B-52 was about to be obsolete. Similar arguments were voiced about the B-2.
Look for the Air Force to try to buy more F-15s…

Wow, the Navy givse a conference confirming their support of the F-35C and you people think it means the massive F-35 program is going to suddenly implode?

If any variant of the F-35 is cancelled, it would be the F-35C. But for that to happen the Navy would have to say they don’t want it.

Good Morning Folks,

To Olof. What is being referred here with the use of the word “peers” is a scale that the the DoD published last year regarding threats.

The top tier was a “Peer Military” and the second level was a “Near Peer”. Both categories were left blank. The next level was regional threats and that included the UK, EU, Japan, South Korea, all friendly countries to the US.

The next level was emerging regional powers that included among others Brazil, South Africa, Iraq, Iran, China, The Russian Federation, India, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Pakistan.

Not accounted for if I recall was Ukraine or Israel.

With Boeing seeing the chance to sell the USN/USMC another 700 “very profitable” A/F-18’s EF and G’s and the possibility of an Air Force order for the F-15 “Strike Eagle”, I don’t see a place for the F-35 at a price factor of X2 or better then the Boeing products in the picture.

The Boeing products are more then good enough to meet any current or projected threats well into mid century. This along with the faster then expected development of UAV’s make the still in testing and development F-35 obsolete before it goes into production.

I would think that it wouldn’t be far fetched to say that Boeing has there “reps” visiting members and mentioning the economics and proven in combat virtues of the Boeing products.

If as Colin suggest Mr. Gates is looking to leave the administration in the near future, what better parting gift then to dump the F-35 on his way out the door.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Interesting to note that RADM Manazir states that the current demand for F/A-18A-D flying off carriers in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is “what is really stressing us right now,” given that the Navy total contribution to CAS, EW and ISR missions for OEF off of the carrier is, according to recent Joint Staff information, only 14% of the contribution of CAS, EW and ISR total missions. The other point is that NONE of the Navy’s mitigation strategies, mainly being the F-18 Service Life Extension Program, is budgeted in the outyears b/c the Navy still doesn’t know what will be required and two, they currently estimate that to keep the airframe, major subsystems, and avionics combat relevent and safe, it would require an investment of at least $26.1 million per aircraft, and that would only get them an additional 1,400 hours.

And in regards to his implication that a Super Hornet is a “4.2″ aircraft.…other than a small.….yes, small.….difference in low observabiltiy characteristics, the Super Hornet can perform and effectively execute any TACAIR mission the JSF is being developed to provide at over 2 and 1/2 times the cost of a Super Hornet. The Navy, and Marine Corps for that matter, will do and lie about anything to protect themselves from having to buy additional Super Hornets while waiting on their version of JSF which continually slips to the right.

William — With the crazy acquisition system we have, if a program is secure there is no need for a conference call to re-affirm it’s security! The more people protest that it is the future, the more you should look out for it to be dumped. Sigh.

damned if you do,damned if you dont!!!!
so let me get this straight,by having a press conference to shoot down rumors=deaf spiral????
so no press conference =dodging which equals deaf spiral.
botttom line people will interpete what they want to believe.

You mean Death Spiral, as in an aircraft getting lost in the clouds and losing attitude awareness?

Must agree with Mr. Skinner this time not that it’s a bad thing to do so. He’s very perspicacious at times.

I am an navy and single at present .I need a person who can love me back …
I also uploaded my hot photos on SeekingUniform​.com under the name of sweetheart02..It’s the largest and best club for seeking Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Police Force, and the admirers of those who wear the uniform.I just hope you don’t mind me being a soldier …Please Check it out!I’m serious.

‘By tweaking “mitigation levers” — which includes how long older versions of the F-18 continue to fly, the delivery rate of new Super Hornets, how soon F-35s can begin to roll off the production line in large numbers and the demand from combatant commanders for carrier strike – that shortfall can be reduced to about 100 aircraft.”

- At 44 Strike Fighters per Air Wing, thats 2.5 CSG’s deploying without any aircraft to put on the CVN…

Read more:http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​0​/​0​5​/​2​4​/​f​i​g​h​t​e​r​-​g​a​p​-​cou…

According to Wikipedia, F-18E/F’s sell for about $60 million each (2010 dollars). The latest estimate on the F-35A CTOL model is $55 million each (2010 dollars). The CV will be more and the STOVL will cost the most but I haven’t seen prices for either. In production, the price of an F-16/F-18/F-35 will be very close.

A lot of the ridiculous numbers floating around for F-35 prices are due to purchases made during LRIP and are not production lot prices. The F-18 is near the end of its production run, all tooling/learning costs are recouped and so it’s at its cheapest (relative) price. It’ll also be outdated in 10 years.

I can see it too. Same pattern that the F-22 got, although at least the USAF managed to squeeze some out of the procurement system and into squadrons before Gates got his knives in it.

It puzzles me why Congress, Senate, and maybe even DOD have decided to degrade our National Security by forcing an aircraft upon the Navy and Marine Corps by continually ordering F/A-18 e/f/g when these aircraft are already apprently OUTCLASSED by russian block SU-27/30 etc.
barelly competitive in ACM, engines, areodynamics, etc.
2 of the areas the SuperHornet does compte in computing ability and Radar(AESA) are not going to be maintaned for long as the Eastern Block fighters are expecting upgrades in the near term, if not already deployed, which will equal if not surpass the SuperHornet.
Considering budgets are uncomfortably tight and politicians are alqays seeking ways to be re-elected, it seems logical to continue with the F-35C Lightning II, because the long term is what the US must consider.
The argument about the lifespan and success of the B-52 could not be more irrelevant, strategic area bombers vs. ACM / attack aircraft. the BUFF has an RCS the size of Alaska, no matter how uncomfortable the politics and the budgets become STEALTH is here to stay and will only become stronger for a country’s ability to dominate in combat ops.

177 is not nearly enough unless Boeing decides to work to improve the SuperHornet further; the way they appear to beupgrading the ( F-15 SILENT EAGLE.)

Considering the glaring weakness of the SuperHornet even against the family of Flanker Fighter aircraft MORE F-35C lightning are needed, not fewer!!!!
To depend upon UCAV’s alone in the future seems unrealistic and pulling humans “out of the loop” is dangerous and irresponsible.
Far too many lessons have been learned depending exclusively on technology and intelligence data. see the F-117 attack in IRAQ on the INtel Building, later learned to house civilians at night during Gulf War 1, for 1 example.

To depend upon and continue to purchase fighters not up to the challenge, and send fighter pilots into combat with second rate aircraft is complete folly
I’M JUST SAYIN

*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