This is a platform having some international success and there is little hope to add new products to the St. Louis plant as F-15/Harrier work is also dying down. If the requirements exist why is this happening? We seem to be able to spend gobs of money on anything other than real military needs...
Maybe I'm missing something. Navair folks, is the SH really not well received in the fleet?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3902 times:
I've always supported the logic behind taking Boeing up on it's $49.9m Super Hornet offer; it's bonehead thinking like the F-35C is going to come in on time, under weight, and under budget this that make the high costs of Navy aircraft carriers seem like a waste of money when we fail to wield capable aircraft from them. A modern aircraft carrier with no equally modern air wing from it's deck is about as useless of combat vessel as they come.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3694 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1): A modern aircraft carrier with no equally modern air wing from it's deck is about as useless of combat vessel as they come
Some would also question the Superhornet jack of all trades as being modern and capable. The Navy had earlier cut back its purchase of the Rhino and made plans to keep the older models around a bit longer, I don't think cost was the only factor, one thing we know for sure is that pilot retention is an issue, planes may be a smoke screen.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1064 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3689 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 2): Some would also question the Superhornet jack of all trades as being modern and capable. The Navy had earlier cut back its purchase of the Rhino and made plans to keep the older models around a bit longer, I don't think cost was the only factor, one thing we know for sure is that pilot retention is an issue, planes may be a smoke screen.
Not to mention that, the C/D Hornets are getting very worn out despite that they are somewhat 'newer'. They had a lot more traps and shoots than the A/B's, and as a result, they are pulling modernized A/B Hornets back into the carrier flight group over the C/D's.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3584 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 2): Some would also question the Superhornet jack of all trades as being modern and capable. The Navy had earlier cut back its purchase of the Rhino and made plans to keep the older models around a bit longer,
Navy couldn't afford more Super Hornets? It wasn't living up to expectations so they chose to keep the legacy Hornets instead? Not sure I understand the situation here.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3386 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 2):
Some would also question the Superhornet jack of all trades as being modern and capable.
Oh it's modern given the advent of modern electronic and avionics, but it was a half-assed attempt on an already half-assed attempt to achieve the minimums. I agree, when you don't stick the best you otherwise could on your carrier decks, you're directly negating the value of your carriers. I think further upgrading the F-14D's and A-6F's as the Navy did with the Super Hornet instead would have yielded the more capable Carrier Air Wing.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 3): Not to mention that, the C/D Hornets are getting very worn out despite that they are somewhat 'newer'.
That's what the 180 SH buy was supposed to cover, the legacy Hornets that would need to be retired before the F-35C's would be able to replace them.
WESTERN737800 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 684 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 hours ago) and read 2846 times:
Quoting TexL1649 (Thread starter): We seem to be able to spend gobs of money on anything other than real military needs...
Well said!
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5): I think further upgrading the F-14D's and A-6F's as the Navy did with the Super Hornet instead would have yielded the more capable Carrier Air Wing.
I agree. I always thought the F-14 and A-6 were very capable airplanes and they were retired too soon.
I think the F-18 is a good platform, to not get any more could put us in a vulnerable position in the future. I don't think leaving the carrier air wings short handed is a good way to deploy multiple carriers in different parts of the world. There have been more than enough cuts in our military over the years. The time to stop this nonsense is now.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 239 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1064 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
