Congressional approval is required prior to authorizing a service to commit to multi-year procurement of major weapons systems, since it ties the hands of the legislature in future discretionary spending accounts. In early February of this year, DoD Secretary Robert Gates explicitly rejected multi-year procurement of FA-18E/F aircraft to bridge the Navy’s “fighter gap” in the out-years, before the F-35 joins the force in numbers:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday shot down congressional efforts to enter into a multiyear commitment to buy more F/A-18 aircraft for the Navy, arguing that the deal would not save enough money to make it worthwhile.
During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Gates estimated the multiyear deal would cut only 6.5 percent off the price of each of the Boeing Co. aircraft, far less than the 10 percent savings threshold that is customary for such long-term commitments.
Today we learn that OPNAV is busily beavering away at the justification documentation required for Congress to approve multi-year procurement of new FA-18E/F aircraft:
The Navy is working to meet a Monday deadline to inform Congress of plans to pursue a multi-year buy of Boeing [BA] F/A-18E/F Super Hornets that could help to fill some of the service’s strike fighter gap, according to a lawmaker.
Under section 128 of the FY ’10 defense authorization bill, the Navy would need to obtain congressional authority to enter into a multi-year for the Super Hornet no later than March 1. At a House Armed Services Committee (HASC) hearing yesterday, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told lawmakers the service is working to meet that deadline.
“We received a letter of intent from the contractor on Monday. We are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to make the notifications to meet the deadline,” Mabus said. “We are working hard to meet that deadline…[we have] very limited time.”
Things change pretty quickly some times.
Go for it! Sometimes, the best things happen on “short notice”; there is less time for things to get fouled up!
Top Navy leadership cheerleading for the F-35 is based on unrealistic expectations.
CF-1 has not even done first flight yet. It was rolled out how many months back? (Hint; a very long time ago). And there is no flying carrier F-35 variant with full go to war systems that has done one cat shot or trap.
This program has driven off the known map of reality. F-35C OPEVAL is a very long way away (if ever)… but yeah top Navy leadership can get in front of our elected officials like last year and state that things with the program are going well.
It is time for some experienced Navy air power leaders (including those of the retired variety) to start penning papers for Proceedings (and similar places) stating that the U.S. Navy roadmap for the carrier air wing in relation to the F-35 is Looney Tunes. Top U.S. Navy leadership needs to buy some tickets for the clue train.
While I hate blue-sky marketing, it looks like F/A-XX is the better option to go forward with as a future capability want….. and until then…. purchase more Block II Super Hornets (which btw have an excellent safety record in carrier ops). When the Navy was first asked what they wanted out of a Joint Strike Fighter design the answer was; two-engines, two-aircrew and a 1000 mile radius. Two points for the Super and zero for the Just So Farcical.
When the Navy was first asked what they wanted out of a Joint Strike Fighter design the answer was; two-engines, two-aircrew and a 1000 mile radius.
And they said no to a new build F-14 with all three points built in from the start. Too expensive, they said. Not practical since we have the {fill in the blank}, they said.
Dummm…da…dumm…dumm…dummmm!
Um, are we allowed to think nice things about the Tomcat here?
[...] for the clue train. OPNAV has been working hard to put together hurry-up paperwork requirements for a Super Hornet multi-year buy so that our big deck carriers don’t look like empty parking lots by the 2020’s. Someone has to [...]
It would be good for Boeing.
Perhaps they are starting to realize that simultaneously fielding and testing aircraft isn’t a great idea. Don’t want the navy jets to start falling apart in the sky (and subsequently grounding all) as they’ve had to do in the Air force.
Gates needs to beaten soundly with cluebats. he has sown utterly no foresight in aviation platforms, cutting the C-17, the F-22, and now trying to cut back a sound operational AC in the Super Hornet, refusing to buy something to bridge a very serious gap.
Some time back someone wrote that gates was simply a political hack (I don’t think the post was made here). I had some doubts back then, I’m starting to agree with that writer. From what I’ve seen over the past few months, that evaluation may have been on the charitable side.
But, but, but… Gates was an Intelligence officer in the Air Force, for crying out loud! (1967-69)
That is known. It just makes him look much worse.
Not just Gates, this has epic fail written all over it. Less than 15% of all objectives were accomplished last year for the F-35B. They still keep running into more and more avionics cooling problems, weight is up and the hover pit test is yet to happen. IOC is now, what — 2015? In the meantime, F-11′s (Chinese Su-27′s) are rolling off the assembly line in greater numbers, and the T-50 will reach IOC around the same time, depending on who you talk to (and what engines will be used).
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, allowing, nay, *compelling* the aerospace industry to scope down to the state we’re in now was a huge mistake. Compelled you ask — yep :
“The shrinking pool of U.S. manufacturers was the inevitable result of defense spending reductions after the Cold War. Shortly after Bill Clinton took office, then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin and Deputy Secretary William Perry called together the heads of the major defense contractors and told them that the Pentagon would soon need only half of their companies, perhaps even fewer, and could not afford to pay for unneeded factories and workers. Later dubbed the “Last Supper,” the dinner meeting triggered unprecedented consolidation as defense companies such as Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Boeing gobbled up competitors.
Although the consolidations helped contractors survive the spending cuts, they now threaten to undermine the industry. That’s because many in Congress and at the Pentagon want to impose stricter oversight and controls on weapons manufacturing and development while simultaneously demanding more competition — driving the system to an immature and evolving “globalized” marketplace.”
We are well ad truly scr*wed. It has been said here and other quarters that the JSF will probably be the last manned fighter in our inventory.
Me — I’ thinking the last manned fighter is the Super Bug because I’m starting to think that JSF is going to implode…
- SJS
For much the same reasons, the shipyard industry is heading in much the same direction. In twenty years, 80% of the people I work with now will be retired, with less than 10% replacements.
You may well be right; time will tell. It doesn’t hurt that there’s a foot in the door for E/F MYP already, a result of the additional G’s needed for the “I guess we better re-think our Prowler/Growler exp sqd plans”, and that pesky fighter gap. Every other week seems to bring more news about F-35 trubbles (see this week’s Center for Defense Information posting of DCMA monthly reports obtained through FOAI. Just hafta get past all the heavy-handed, expressive underlining and exclamation points).
Count in the group of those who believe F-35 may be one of our last manned fighters, Chairman of the JCS.
Wouldn’t be surprised at all to see some sort of compromise, a face-saving gesture of sorts to re-scope F-35 acquistion plans and go with some numbers of USMC/USAF/FMS buys, do some more E/F MYP (because capacity is there to crank out some numbers) to help bridge the gap, and plan F/A-XX. Which is scary, because, well, here we go again.
The F-22 is probably the last. We are set to fall behind and the result will not be pretty. Curtis LeMay stated in his autobiography that when he knew we had won the war when he was told that Hitler had cut off most R&D. He was right. The Germans had a jet in the early part of the war, but he demanded it be used only as a dive bomber so final development was slowed drastically. Imagine if they’d had jet in large number in ’43 what they could have done to the 8th AF.
Now we find ourselves with the same short sighted “leadership.” Frankly, this is Gates’ shame. he should know better, but he is acting like he knows absolutely nothing.
From Hampton Roads Association of Naval Aviation: “Another thing the Navy could do is upgrade some of the older Hornets to Super Hornets.”
They just lost most of their credibility with me.
For my 2 cents… I’d just as soon use all the F-35 money to have each DDG/CG going out with full magazines of SM-6 and a 6 aircraft squadron of E-2Ds… Keep the Super-Slows around for tanking and SSC.
For their sake I’ll hope they meant transition legacy hornet squadrons with aged/fatigue life limited airframes to new build super hornet squadrons. Which would obviously mean buying more super hornets, and this Gates has declared shall not pass.
Ehh.. So you’d have the CVNs and the DDGs/CGs exist to protect themselves? Kind of neglects core capabilites such as “Power Projection”, “Deterrence”, etc…
Do you think we’re capable of something more than that in a seriously contested environment?? The kind of environment that would take advantage of increased capabilities the F-35 brings to the table….
The JSF. The reality of this program has been the nemesis to the idealistic hubris of the concept: A single aircraft that would replace the F-16, F-18, AV-8B, and A-10, be able to STOVL, be supersonic, be stealthy, be easy to build and thus cheap, and be made in massive numbers. The idea was asinine and drove to a configuration of a single engine, far forward for the vertical landing requirements, with a structural hole just aft of the cockpit where beams/a spine should be leading to extremely inefficient structure and poor survivability if hit. Coupled with bomb truck range payload and internal carriage requirements we have a complete dud of an airframe. This is why JSF proponents harp on its systems, which are quite capable but are currently married to a useless dog of an aircraft and the system/airframe combination is sort of a lowest common denominator game. Then there’s the far too few F-22′s we’ll have available after a completely politically motivated closing of the line (Obama just trying to prove he’s tough, throwing a bone to his far left base by “standing up” to the “corporate fat cats” in the defense industry) which Gates lacks the foresight or spine to resist (as many have said, he’s a political hack who knows what side his bread is buttered on, I didn’t know he was an intel puke but now that I do I’m even more unsettled, I’ve met some very nice guys in Navy intel but none I’d trust to wash my car, there were all a bit off in some regards – one even told me it wouldn’t be a big deal if Iran nuked Israel.) This will press the F-35 in the A2A role, where it’s completely incompetent, especially in the WVR realm due to it’s horrible T/W and W/S. Good thing ROE, fog of war, and confusion never lead to the dogfight. So the line seems to be that it’s amazing RWR, EODAS and IRST will allow it to passively detect enemy fighters before they can detect it so it can avoid the WVR dogfight. Of course should it be detected it’s too slow to run and to unmaneuverable to fight leaving not much margin for error, and two of the above passive sensors only work WITHIN VISUAL RANGE!! And do NOT detect and ID A/C on their own. They’re basically cameras with zooms. The RWR/ESM isn’t worth squat if the enemy uses GCI with a lo band radar where due to A/C size the F-35 CAN be detected (only B-2 is large enough to remain stealthy due to radar reflection properties.) Good thing none of our potential enemies have ever used GCI. Oh, no, they ALL do. Then you have the actual stealth of the F-35. Look at it’s underside. It’s not very stealthy from the point of view of a SAM, so we have the program office talking up how great it’s APG-81 AESA is at jamming. But jamming and stealth in the same platform are operationally contradictory, so the talk of APG-81 jamming ability is a concession that all the very expensive, aerodynamic performance reducing, maintenance intensive/operational availablility reducing stealth doesn’t work all that well. What we have is something that can knock the pants off a single digit SAM based IADs provided it’s escorted by F-22 if the enemy has anything like a MiG-29 or higher. Too bad we could already do this with ALQ-99 based escort jamming and legacy fighters, albeit with less confidence. For a double digit SAM system, lo-band radar, Su-30 or other advanced Flanker version downing JSF will be like “clubbing baby seals.” And this thing’s going to be up to 90% of our planned fighter fleet. IF it ever works. Not to mention that it gives a de facto monopoly to LM, the bitter desert of the aforementioned last supper completing our defense industry death spiral into an inefficient, un-innovative, expensive, crony industry completely immune from competition. There’s practically nothing good I can say about the JSF aircraft or program. The thing doesn’t even look good.
It’ll never happen but here’s my starting point for a path out of this mess.
USAF
- Buy 200 F-35A just to put the program to bed and get SOMETHING out of it.
- Re-open F-22 production and buy at least 70 more (depending on funds available)
- Focus on NGB. NGB should be an FB-22 or FB-23. More focus on speed and jamming than stealth in case lo-band radar tech and proliferation starts eroding stealth advantages.
- Bridge their fighter gap with either F-15SE or F-16E/F
USN
- Opt out of JSF altogether
- Accelerate UCAS-N to give a survivable first day of war strike ability and prevent the carrier from becoming a self licking ice cream cone: something that only carries self defense fighters.
- Re-program F/A-XX into a 5th (vice 6th) gen light weight fighter with following requirements:
– Forward quarter stealth only
– Internal carriage of 1 x AARGM or 3 x AIM-120D (with 2 x AIM-9X, single centerline bay) unrefueled to 600 nmi at supercruise of M=1.2 or higher
– 9g target airframe, 7.5g threshold
– 2D thrust vectoring
– Use already developed APG-81
– Use twin upgraded F414 EPE if possible, if they can supercruise. If not a single F-135 should be investigated. NO new engine or radar development to keep costs down and allow a crash program.
– No EODAS
– IRST
– Integral jammer
– Target a 10 year development for a light weight low cost fighter ready to go in 2021-2022 timeframe (the teens will be a lean time, but by the mid 20′s the game’s up if all we have in our bag is JSF and I think even Gates knows this, leading to more NGB focus in USAF). Forward quarter stealth only with current stealth materials/coatings, very small internal carriage requirement, off the shelf engine and off the shelf radar should enable this.
– Foist it on the USAF as a lo to the F-22′s hi if it works.
– Take a new program approach. Competitively bid the conceptual design phase and pay a winner, to allow smaller companies and all three major airframers left to compete and drive innovation. Pay the winner a fixed fee plus a “royalty” license right of a few million on each airframe procured (pure profits for them) if a small company/design house without the ability to build it themselves. Re-bid the production to the three airframers, Boeing, NorthGrum, and LMT who have the facilities to build them, IF not one of them won in the conceptual design phase.
- MY procurement of SH’s to bridge the fighter gap until the new, above outlined F/A-XX can come online.
USMC
- Opt out of JSF altogether
- SLEP their harriers (hanging by a thread on this one . . .)
- Recapitalize their hornet squadrons with F/A-18F Block II or above F/A-XX depending on budget and whether the F/A-XX is working
- Stop buying the V-22 and buy a navalized chinook instead to save money
Curious: why no EODAS? And I would insist on two engines – MANPADS can ruin an otherwise nice day.
Just expensive. In reality you’d have to do a cost benefit analysis, but trying to draw a line in the sand on systems creep as it adds weight and cost and is the central driver of the Pentagon Paradox.
I also recall being at an Air Force EW symposium up in Whidbey (kind of you’re definition of irony.) They talked entirely EODAS since they had no EW capability to talk of. Yes an amazing system but how much do you really need it? I recall them spending about 30 minutes on the fact you could look through the floor of the F-35. I’m no pilot, but couldn’t you also invert yourself and look “up?”
A 2021 time frame is far too long of an horizon. We will be caught short with a weak force just as we were in 1941. The same mistakes are being made.
Buying the upgraded F-15, more F-22 would be the way to go. The Navy will have to buy more Super Hornet. If these things aren’t done, the bridge will never get built, and we won’t have it when we need it.
That’s part of the proposed plan, cancel the JSF, buy more F-15SE (or F-16E/F) and F-22 and buy more SH. But we’re going to need a new aircraft design eventually, especially against double digit SAMs, advanced Flankers and PAK-FA. Don’t see any realistic chance to make one quicker than by 2021, and even that would be if we started tomorrow, which Gates/Obama will ensure doesn’t happen.
HummerFo: HRANA? Good Lord, they’re all VA/VFA mafia… should know better. ScottTheBadger: Don’t get me started on the Turkey. No use crying over loves lost.
As someone familiar with the SuperDuper Hornet, it ain’t a panacea, and its continued evolution is not without warts. But it works well enough. The coming crisis with equipping the VFA fleet is well-documented. Additionally, while the early-lot Hornet As and Cs out there have in fact been brought along with capabilities similar to the non-AESA SuperDuper, they still are not where we want to be with regard to system performance, to say nothing of the entire F-18A-D fatigue life issues. The production line remains open for RAAF and EA-18Gs orders primarily, but remains a very, very viable option… could all this be posturing for a better deal from Boeing?
It is my opinion if we didn’t have the recession and health care to grouse about, JSF would be headline news in the mainstream media– the anecdotal tales of its foibles are not unlike any new technology, but would nonetheless make for sensationalist reading. However, we need to make that evolutionary step. Some would argue its “too big to fail,” to which I reply “A-12,” so that logic may carry water. JSF also was long ago the USMC’s ‘all-in’ bet. History shows Mother Green gets what it wants when it comes to these big procurement decisions. I don’t see anyone taking JSF from them (and by logical extension, the rest of the mob), nor do I see anybody force-feeding them SuperDuper Hornet. The USMC accounts for a wildly disproportionate, non-CV landing induced fatigue life on the Hornet fleet– they fly the bejesus out of their jets doing the Lord’s work in Harm’s way. They got to have JSF.
As a parting shot to a long post, another error Naval Aviation made a while back (this doesn’t get the griping it deserves in hallowed halls like these blogs) was putting the S-3 to bed, or not replacing it. We have stayed steady with 44 strike fighters on the CV flight deck as a floor for some time now… a fair proportion of which are now passing gas or rigging merchants. And the comeback “well, we can service multiple targets from one airframe vice the olden days of multiple aircraft per targets” is hogwash to anyone who has gone to a Fallon det, Red Flag or an actual War that had People Shooting Back At You. This is from a pointy nose guy, that stuff isn’t the glam, but ask any CSG Admiral or CAG, and you’ll get a different answer– the CSG lives and dies by that stuff. Need the utility infielder!
Amen on the S-3. Even without its ASW capabilities it was a highly value added, useful little SOB.
CP:
Amen, brother. And if you think the bitching of the BG’s was bad when they canned the VS squadrons, you should have heard the CVBG Flags go totally bat$%^& over the bean-counters’ decision to retire the ES-3A’s from the flight decks. I mean the VQ’s are working hard enough but you can’t put 10#’s of taking into a 5# bag.
VR,
Comjam
Bring back the original Spad. Cheap at twice the price. Stealth. It’s the weapons that make the fighter.
Can we put a turboprop on that Spad? I doubt any carrier skipper would be very keen on having avgas aboard. Have to deal with Boeing again, since it was a Douglas product. BTW, the original Spad was indeed a Great War aircraft.
Oh Lord, I had a Douglas evaporator. Those what answered the phone denied all knowledge. Spares will not be forthcoming! Still, at no more than 50 grand apiece, they’re less costly than spare parts. We’re back to once again hanging spare aircraft from the overhead on our carriers.
oops,
2 guns is more than most modern warships have.
But where would you get Hispano-Suiza 8Be engines? Surely 2 .303 Vickers are not really up to the job in today’s air battle environment?
Rivetjoint asks for a turbo and you don’t mention the Skyshark, Scott?? Are you drunk? Something MAJOR must be wrong with you! Call Dr. Xenophon immediately!!
I’m hearing Singapore may retire their Super Skyhawks. Might there be a buy-back discount?
We keep going the way we are and we’ll have to start doing zero-time overhauls on the Phantoms at DMARG; no foolin! All the Turkeys, excepting the -D, are going under the blade for scrapping, and there aren’t enough -D airframes to be a significant force.
JSF–>A-12? Yeah, you betcha. Same game played all over again.
Block Deux Super Bugs are the only affordable and available option we have left, but Gates, damn fool that he is, will geld the force to appease his master. Common sense and cost effective systems management dictate that the Navy and Marines should have been transitioned out of the legacy Bug long before now.
Ah, but then I mentioned common sense…the almost unheard of virtue in the Beltway. Must needs focus our energies on putting women on submarines, eradicating DADT, and getting the new working uniform to the troops. {sigh}
ZOUNDS! You are right, sir! With the modern multi gray paint scheme, it would even look like a shark in the sky. The fueling probe would have to go on the wing tip, but isn’t that where Furies had thiers?
I guess I was pondering the turbo SPAD. With a wood airframe, and doped fabric skin, it would sure be impressive to watch, for a mile or so. Couldn’t use it on CVs, though, being a tail dragger, it’s turbo exhaust would be hard on the non-skid. But think how much fun Frank Luke, and Eddie Rickenbacker would had with one!
Since they know more than anyone about building Navy fighters, and the Wildcat and Hellcat were both designed to be built inexpensively, and fast, perhaps we could get Northrup Grumman to design the Hellcat II, with Prowler’s design parameters? We have to get something, or soon, we won’t have anything.
Prowler, would the Hellcat II have a gun?
Hell yes! But a 20mm Vulcan.
To wade into the waters of not getting irony and pointing out the obvious just to show how stupid I am, I’m pretty sure the proposal is to bring back the A-1 Skyraider, aka Spad, rather than the French biplane SPAD of WWI fame . . . But I wouldn’t put it past some of the more extreme fringes of the defense reform community to actually want the French biplane. Or some of those nostalgic romantic types, which, admittedly, has a certain attraction the more I think about it!
Oops, he DID write Spad, and not SPAD, didn’t he. I know what a Spad is, but have always wondered, the ad comed from Attack Douglas, but where did the sp come from? Just from logical progression from pronouncing AD? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
According to the books I’ve read, the AD Skyraider was knicknamed the “Spad” in honor of the first one, because like it you could get it to do anything you wanted to.
Hey guys, ‘nother newsflash… love the Able Dog/Spad/SPAD et al; not far from the truth in what’s coming. Both the USAF (they call it OAX, I believe) and USN have made great strides in modifying several different single-turboprop trainers into COIN aircraft, hanging all sorts of 500# class weapons off’em (LGBs, JDAMs, AGM-65s, etc). as well as gun pods and even internal guns. Add a few radios, SATCOM if you want, some sort of FLIR and a GPS, and bang, you’ve a kick-ass COIN bird at pennies versus the F-16/F-18 flight time dollar with pretty similar punch and likely more loiter time. Even rumors of upgraded OV-10s are out there in the mist. Of course, all this is no good if anybody really wants to shoot these things down with something other than small arms.
Hey Mongo: along the Singapore lines, heard there was an investigation a while back into buying New Zealand’s mothballed A-4s which had been fitted with a modified APG-65. Navy (and contractors who wanted to fly them for the Navy) wanted a no-shit dissimilar CAT IV bandit other than the F-16Ns we have at Fallon. Issue was, the antenna had been cut down so much to fit in a Scooter’s nose that it only had 10-15 miles of detect range in it, certainly no good when simulating (BVR) MiG-29s or any of the SU-27 derivatives. Point is, I think Singapore’s jets are the same as the NZ birds. Barring using them as adversaries, you’re not getting much value to cost in using the venerable A-4 as a light attack jet, compared to what we have now, I’d guess. Then again, I’d like a few just for fun. 720 degrees of roll per second must be experienced to be appreciated. Try that in a Hornet, Viper, etc.
Private companies in America have bought Ukranian flankers and brought them here.
If you’ve ever read “Red Eagles” and combine that with the above fact I’d be willing to bet at least a $20 we have a flanker or two somewhere in the desert we can do DACT with.