AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy Goto page 1, 2  Next          AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Naval Aviation View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Mike Guest Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:12 am    Post subject: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy 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. 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. Back to top Mark Andrew Spence Guest Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:09 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy "Flashnews" <skitech (AT) flash (DOT) net> wrote in message news:PcOWh.18519$Um6.4537 (AT) newssvr12 (DOT) news.prodigy.net... Quote: You have to look at this in a slightly different way .. . . Quote: - 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 This is the first time I have heard this proposal re the JFK. Is it your own idea, or are other groups advocating it as well? M.S. Back to top zzbunker@netscape.net Guest Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:51 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy On Apr 22, 2:55 pm, "Flashnews" <skit...@flash.net> wrote: Quote: 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. Quote: (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" <h...@io.com> wrote in messagenews:-Y-dnXlU7_6r5rbbnZ2dnUVZ_qiqnZ2d (AT) io (DOT) com... 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 - Back to top Henry J Cobb Guest Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:59 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy Fred J. McCall wrote: Quote: Henry J Cobb <hcobb (AT) io (DOT) com> wrote: :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. 1) Lots of Marines already fly Hornets. How many fly Super Hornets? -HJC Back to top Flashnews Guest Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:24 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy Actually the idea, similar to bringing back a battleship and using more LHA's then LHA(R)'s is a cost saving approach that tied to killing the LCS (done for all the good reasons) moving to the DD(X) even more good reasons and carefully looking again at the CVN-21 would save some 15 to 20 billion dollars almost instantly The original argument for the JFK was a political one to save Mayport and the Florida jobs but the Navy was very serious about killing it knowing full well that it would produce results they did not want - the new nuclear Navy was the plan and the CVA would not fit and they were right about this. So the nuclear carrier force developed into a high speed open ocean race club where Hornet maintainability could be exploited to the full and two carriers with additional crew could do the work of the traditional three - not bad and should be continued - but what about the littorals and COIN However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick wall in sustainability and flat out speed - the trumped deck was said to cost $600 million and four years ago that was an enormous cost that made the Navy happy they could put the conventional aberration to bed. Well as it would, CVN21 costs went from 3 to 5 to 7 and now heading for $10 billion and suddenly the $600 million for the JFK looks real cheap. The enter the LHA(R) and the Marines looking at it as their trump card out of Naval aviation with an all STOVL force their own ships and a new small carrier with a tactical fighter complement - ooops - did I say "small carrier" - holy shit says the Navy this is not what we want so they went pushing to get the Marines into the F/A-18E/F business so a common Marine and Navy aviation would service all 10 big carriers - Marine said no, dug in their heals and it all went to rest on the JSF program. Had the F-35B been on schedule and working (you can bet the Navy test and evaluation people really are doing a good job with this one) and the LHA(R) not turned into greed-city things might have gone nice for the Marines and the Navy would enter the new world with a death fight over large nuclear or small conventional carriers - which in short is a loose lose situation because sooner if not real soon the submarines will replace carriers as the most dominate capital ship as the carriers did the battleships in 1941. So you ask - how can the Marines save themselves from themselves - because you see the group of Marine generals who fathers the JSF and the LHA(R) idea are determined to end Marine tactical aviation then acquiesce to the Navy's insistence of merging the aviation branches and right now Marine F-18 squadrons fly at reduced G and about one a year will retire with no replacement and the Harriers are a toss up for anyone. On the training side more and more Marines lose currency or even familiarization with the carrier. So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. In short - the whole shipbuilding world is a mess but it may be more from the fact that we do not know where our Naval forces are going while they seem to be on Pluto looking for a mission - the war is right in front of them ready to make toast of the thin-skinned and under protected ships "Mark Andrew Spence" <mark_a_spenceNOSPAM (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message news:Y-qdndT2h6YwXbbbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com... Quote: "Flashnews" <skitech (AT) flash (DOT) net> wrote in message news:PcOWh.18519$Um6.4537 (AT) newssvr12 (DOT) news.prodigy.net... You have to look at this in a slightly different way . . . - 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 This is the first time I have heard this proposal re the JFK. Is it your own idea, or are other groups advocating it as well? M.S. Back to top Henry J Cobb Guest Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:13 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy Flashnews wrote: Quote: So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. Like this? http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/navy_fleet_070422w/ Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier Enterprise into an “afloat forward staging base” for special operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs. -HJC Back to top Flashnews Guest Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:46 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they used the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law" that all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship would be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a nuclear ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument could be made about that option also. You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy driving the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the literature just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and you would wonder if there was even a Navy. "Henry J Cobb" <hcobb (AT) io (DOT) com> wrote in message news:nfmdnXOf9qC3cbbbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d (AT) io (DOT) com... Quote: Flashnews wrote: So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. Like this? http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/navy_fleet_070422w/ Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier Enterprise into an “afloat forward staging base” for special operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs. -HJC Back to top zzbunker@netscape.net Guest Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:02 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy On Apr 22, 7:46 pm, "Flashnews" <skit...@flash.net> wrote: Quote: Exactly - but notice in the offical world of Navy Ops Analysis they used the Enterprise - (1) still trying not to go head on with the "law" that all big carriers will be nuclear even when any such littoral ship would be banned from most allied harbors and sea ports because it is a nuclear ship and (2) trying to find budget and a home for the Enterprise so there can be another CVN-21 put into production. Hence an argument could be made about that option also. You see the Navy concept as explained still has the Navy leading the show, the Marine LHA(R) scenario is a Marine one with the Navy driving the buses and making chow. Can you see the infighting in the literature just by who is writing it. Now go to the Marine Corps Gazette and you would wonder if there was even a Navy. But, that's always been true with the idiot marines, which is why they're still the ONLY military service that publishes Gazettes rather than robots. Quote: "Henry J Cobb" <h...@io.com> wrote in messagenews:nfmdnXOf9qC3cbbbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d (AT) io (DOT) com... Flashnews wrote: So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. Like this? http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/navy_fleet_070422w/ Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier Enterprise into an "afloat forward staging base" for special operations forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed converting four more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into multimission guided missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs. -HJC- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Back to top Jerry Guest Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:25 UTC, "Flashnews" <skitech (AT) flash (DOT) net> wrote: Quote: However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick wall in sustainability and flat out speed I don't know where you got that. The reason for dumping the JFK was primarily that her arresting gear had degraded into uselessness and would cost a huge wad to replace. Secondarily, ships with high pressure oil-fired boilers and steam turbines are virtually extinct. The boiler tech (BT) rating is defunct with propulsion machinery either going gas turbine, nuclear, or (in the future) electric. It's not just the number of boilers that counts, it's the fact that there ARE boilers that counts. This proposal is just about as sensible as the local yokel who wanted to anchor the JFK off the coast instead of building a new outlying landing field (OLF). Let cleaning fire-sides die a praiseworthy death--- Jerry -- Back to top Paul J. Adam Guest Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:51 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy In message <foQWh.749$Ea5.16 (AT) newssvr19 (DOT) news.prodigy.net>, Flashnews <skitech (AT) flash (DOT) net> writes Quote: we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - Ah, yes. The concept that would darken the skies with its wings on the morning of Day 1 of the war... and blot out the sun with parachutes by the afternoon of Day 1. Getting down low into the AAA and IR-SAM envelope in a slow airframe without _lots_ of expensive electronics is called "Operation Hasty Suicide", which is why even the A-10 keeps getting more DAS and more standoff weapons and why AH-64s rapidly amended their tactics. Quote: In short - the whole shipbuilding world is a mess but it may be more from the fact that we do not know where our Naval forces are going while they seem to be on Pluto looking for a mission - the war is right in front of them ready to make toast of the thin-skinned and under protected ships I'd advise a quick review of 1940s and 1950s naval weapon testing. The reason ships lost their armour plate, was because the threat moved from gun-armed Sverdlov-class cruisers (lobbing ninety-pound shells to a dozen miles, with maybe one shot in fifty hitting) to Kynda-class cruisers (lobbing five-ton missiles to three hundred miles, with most of them hitting). You can't wear enough armour to ignore hits from post-WW2 weapons: to be confident of remaining capable, you have to "not be hit" for long enough to take out the enemy's ability to fight. WW2-style armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact... -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk Back to top Mike Kanze Guest Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:04 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy Quote: 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" <hcobb (AT) io (DOT) com> wrote in message news:-Y-dnXlU7_6r5rbbnZ2dnUVZ_qiqnZ2d (AT) io (DOT) com... Mike wrote: ... Quote: 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 Back to top Harry Andreas Guest Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy In article <JkdoTmYPpSLGFw5O (AT) jrwlynch (DOT) demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam" <mainbox (AT) jrwlynch (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote: Quote: I'd advise a quick review of 1940s and 1950s naval weapon testing. The reason ships lost their armour plate, was because the threat moved from gun-armed Sverdlov-class cruisers (lobbing ninety-pound shells to a dozen miles, with maybe one shot in fifty hitting) to Kynda-class cruisers (lobbing five-ton missiles to three hundred miles, with most of them hitting). You can't wear enough armour to ignore hits from post-WW2 weapons: to be confident of remaining capable, you have to "not be hit" for long enough to take out the enemy's ability to fight. WW2-style armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact... Paul, armour capabilities is not one of my strong points. Can you elucidate on why WWII armour might make things worse? thx -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur Back to top Paul J. Adam Guest Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy In message <andreas-2404070909220001 (AT) 147 (DOT) 16.85.59>, Harry Andreas <andreas (AT) computer (DOT) org> writes Quote: In article <JkdoTmYPpSLGFw5O (AT) jrwlynch (DOT) demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam" mainbox (AT) jrwlynch (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote: WW2-style armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact... Paul, armour capabilities is not one of my strong points. Can you elucidate on why WWII armour might make things worse? In an underkeel detonation (influence-fuzed mine or torpedo) armouring the hull stiffens it. So, instead of fairly vigorous movements, flexing, and whipping - like the USS PRINCETON in 1991 - you get more transmitted shock, which tends to do more damage to systems mounted to the hull. PRINCETON set off two mines, was significantly damaged, but was able to get key systems back up, resume her duties as AAWC and await relief and a tug back to Bahrain: two months after that she returned to the US under her own power (though she did need a fair bit of repair) HMS Belfast ran over a mine in late 1939, was similarly sized to PRINCETON, suffered nineteen casualties, mostly broken legs and ankles from the shock, and had such serious shock effects that her torpedo tubes were thrown off their mounts. (She also had major problems from cast-iron pipes and machinery bases shattering, but that was an issue quickly designed out of ships). It was the end of 1942 before she returned to service. -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk Back to top Guest Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:40 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy Quote: In message <foQWh.749$Ea5...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, Flashnews skit...@flash.net> writes we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - Aren't UCAV's like Predator/Reaper already evolving to fulfill that role? http://www.defense-update.com/products/p/predatorB.htm Back to top Harry Andreas Guest Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:45 am    Post subject: Re: Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy In article <GBp7a3JeyjLGFwLA (AT) jrwlynch (DOT) demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam" <mainbox (AT) jrwlynch (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote: Quote: In message <andreas-2404070909220001 (AT) 147 (DOT) 16.85.59>, Harry Andreas andreas (AT) computer (DOT) org> writes In article <JkdoTmYPpSLGFw5O (AT) jrwlynch (DOT) demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam" mainbox (AT) jrwlynch (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote: In an underkeel detonation (influence-fuzed mine or torpedo) armouring the hull stiffens it. So, instead of fairly vigorous movements, flexing, and whipping - like the USS PRINCETON in 1991 - you get more transmitted shock, which tends to do more damage to systems mounted to the hull. PRINCETON set off two mines, was significantly damaged, but was able to get key systems back up, resume her duties as AAWC and await relief and a tug back to Bahrain: two months after that she returned to the US under her own power (though she did need a fair bit of repair) HMS Belfast ran over a mine in late 1939, was similarly sized to PRINCETON, suffered nineteen casualties, mostly broken legs and ankles from the shock, and had such serious shock effects that her torpedo tubes were thrown off their mounts. (She also had major problems from cast-iron pipes and machinery bases shattering, but that was an issue quickly designed out of ships). It was the end of 1942 before she returned to service. Thanks -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Naval Aviation All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum Aviation----------------alt.aviationAviation safety EnhancementPlanes, gliders and flying in AustraliaAviation et pilotage (Français)rec.aviationAviation (Aerobatics)Hot air, gas balloons and airshipsHang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched flightAircraft Design & BuildingInstrument Flight RulesAviation (Classifieds)Military AircraftNaval AviationAviation (Miscellaneous Topics)Owning AirplanesAviators (General Discussions)Aviation related productsAircraft RestorationHelicopters and rotary wing aircraftsFlight SimulationSailplanesAviation (Students)Light aircraftFlying related activities in the UK Airports----------------alt.airportsEdinburgh Airport Glasgow Airport Humberside Airport Luton Airport Aberdeen Airport Glasgow Prestwick Airport  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.