Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No More Super Hornets?  
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 298 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4661 times:

Not sure I understand the logic behind terminating this platform.

http://informationdissemination.blog...rving-indecision-of-so-called.html

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?

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4613 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.

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7385 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4405 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.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1768 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4400 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.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 4295 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.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4097 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.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4365 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4065 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
it's bonehead thinking like the F-35C is going to come in on time, under weight, and under budget

Isn't that why Australia ordered a handful of Super Hornets, to provide interim capabilities in the event the F-35 was delayed?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineWESTERN737800 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 693 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3557 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.



Bring back Western Airlines!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4669 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3540 times:

Perhaps the new 'improved' F414 engine with 20% more power could breath new life into this program and make this aircraft what it should have been.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic No More Super Hornets?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Many Super Hornets, By Type/Block/Lot posted Sun Jul 13 2008 09:18:10 by Jackonicko
CV-22 - Unarmed No More posted Thu Jan 17 2008 12:11:41 by DEVILFISH
Blue Angels Super Hornets In 2008 posted Mon Sep 24 2007 07:28:22 by EBJ1248650
Great Time For Usmc To Buy Super Hornets... posted Sun Jun 24 2007 20:09:58 by AirRyan
Raaf To Buy 24 Super Hornets posted Tue Mar 6 2007 10:46:07 by Anthonyspider
VFA-213 Super Hornets posted Wed Sep 27 2006 00:38:36 by EBJ1248650
Super Hornets For Bulgaria? (F-5's Too!) posted Fri Mar 24 2006 04:26:57 by AirRyan
Why No More Sukhois For IAF? posted Fri May 20 2005 02:35:03 by Aseem
Something Wierd About Those Super Hornets posted Thu Sep 9 2004 19:20:54 by SuperHornet
Malaysia Plans To Buy Super Hornets posted Wed Oct 1 2003 19:28:28 by Triple Seven

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format