In the case of the F/A-18Cs, I would guess it is because they are replacing them with FA-18Es and Fs, and F-35 if they can get them.Originally Posted by MattC86
In the case of the F/A-18Cs, I would guess it is because they are replacing them with FA-18Es and Fs, and F-35 if they can get them.
The F/A-18E is replacing the F-14 only, I thought. It's far too expensive to replace the F/A-18Cs (right?) One of the goals of the F-35 program, back when it was the JSF was to get the per-unit cost down to something around the F-15/F-14 range ($30-40M a pop) rather than at the F-22 or F/A-18E's $100-200M.
Since F/A-18Cs make up 3 out of the four squadrons of strike fighters in a CVW, I would assume this is a problem.
Matt
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
Probably what gets replaced by what depends on what you can talk Congress into buying. The Navy originally wanted near 1,000 FA-18E/Fs. Now they are going to get a little less than 500. And they will get who knows how many F-35s who knows when. I believe the Navy is keeping on the FA-18C/Ds because they have to, not because of a "noble spirit of self-sacrifice" that the Air Force refuses to to evince.
To get back to the issue of aging aircraft; the Navy is having to spend $2 million per FA-18C for structural mods to keep the aircraft going.
Just to clear up some things...
The USN is switching out its F/A-18C/Ds for single seat F/A-18Es (although I don't know if they are swapping out all of them; I suspect not), and replaced its F-14s with two-seat F/A-18Fs (although I believe that one F-14 squadron transitioned to the single seat "E" models).
The Marines decided not to buy any Super Hornets (the E/F models), instead deciding to wait for the F-35 to replace their older Hornets and AV-8Bs.
When you can no longer afford stuff, you either stop buying it, or go with the cheaper substitutes. This rule applies to institutions as much as to individuals and families. Can't afford the Mercedes and the Chateau Rothschild? Time for a Civic and Three Buck Chuck. Maybe it's time the Air Force sets the F-22 and F-35 aside and start buying cheaper planes. Boeing and Lockmart not offering any? Then buy Eurofighter or Gripen or even Su-37.
The defense aerospace industry has had the taxpayer over a barrel for so long, it's time to return the favor. In any event, we have to do something different - we're pricing ourselves out of the war business. F-22 and F-35 are already bankrupting the Air Force.
He cloaked himself in a veil of impenetrable terminology.
Or stop buying spare parts and other items they no longer need. CBS had a story the other day about military stockpiling of obsolete spare parts, and the AF was the worst abuser with something like $18 billion or so this past year. Haven't run this through the "fact check" system, but it does square with some things I used to see on various bases.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Define obsolete? If it's still in service *somewhere* in the US inventory, the military needs to have spares for it.
Re the V22: Matt may be right. Maybe the aircraft isn't ready for primetime.
However, the V22 is probably better thought of as something like the first tanks. Not necessarily combat-effective or useful themselves, but necessary to prove the technology and figure out where we want to go with RDA activities.
Platforms have multiple uses
Yes the P-3 is for maritime patrol, but of the long range, long loiter type. For immediate fleet tactical ASW support there are LAMPs and S-3 Vikings. If you are just looking to track surface targets there are active and passive sensors used aboard all surface combatants, coupled with aircraft when available.
While a P-3 would probably have no difficulty sinking a "boat," it might have problems with a real surface warship (subs are poor AA platforms, even on the surface).
Tom hits the X ring: "we should not be hasty in surrendering the edge we have in airpower." No truer statement that. We just need to be fiscally responsible in the maintenance of that edge, and not to the detriment of other equally important warfighting capabilities.
Yet the hard corps airpower advocates (oxymoron perhaps) who still adhere to “airpower can win wars” seem to miss the point that they are a tool that is used as required and there are times when they play huge logistics role and a minor combat one. Fortunately we have evolved from the days of “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Our military is the most deadly instrument of war ever seen, but we have chosen to try to employ it with rapier dexterity vice a ham-fisted bludgeon.
Not ganging up on the USAF per say (but that is from whence the thread began), this exercise in "saving DoD" could be done with any of the other services (yes even the oft parsimonious Marine Corps could be, witness the Osprey) and no doubt the COCOMs and few selected agencies (DIA, CIA, etc...).
And should I decide to remove my turban and use my handy scimitar to denude my skull of head and androgenic hair, I would eerily look like Tom. But in color.
Don't Do It!
My wife would tell you, one of me is enoughI would eerily look like Tom.
Besides my hair fell out due to my dirty mind
Quuible, quibble, nit noids to the fore and all that.
Depends on how many surface warships are out there and how many Harpoons and / or Mavericks the P3 carries for that mission.. . .
While a P-3 would probably have no difficulty sinking a "boat," it might have problems with a real surface warship (subs are poor AA platforms, even on the surface).
We can again disagree on the Osprey, good and needed bird IMO -- I'd have listed the Commanche, myself.... yes even the oft parsimonious Marine Corps could be, witness the Osprey) and no doubt the COCOMs and few selected agencies (DIA, CIA, etc...).
P.S.
BTW, Umar, not picking on you and I totally agree with your principal point; the quibbles on the specifics are more an attempt to be fair than to surface minor jiggles or just kibitz. ALL the services have their failings in this regard and ALL the services have some justification for the things they do. That the entire process needs to clean up and speed up, I think we can both agree.
Regards,
Ken
Last edited by Ken White; 12-20-2007 at 08:58 PM. Reason: PS Added
The rest...
LawVol: the rest of the Gunny's saying goes: "and if they're not complaining, they're up to something."Most of mine always required considerable watching, but especially so when they weren't pissing and moaning!
Another thread for another topic (perhaps on a different forum) but I have yet to hear a good explanation as to how the Osprey is so much better than a CH-47 so as to make the Osprey worth the inherent risks and added costs.We can again disagree on the Osprey, good and needed bird IMO -- I'd have listed the Commanche, myself.
But as I said, that's a whole 'notha story.
As for the Comanche, the Army's issues with the ARH show that while the specific tank-busting role of the Comanche may be outdated, the concept of a fast, nimble, stealthy armed recon helicopter is not.
Matt
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
I didn't say the Osprey
was better than the Hook -- different birds for different roles --and nests. In this case, mostly nests. The Hook is a great and capable bird but it isn't at all ship or sea-kindly, the MV22 is (as is the CH53 and as will be the new CH53K). Conversely, the Osprey has sea side cape (and speed) that the Army does not need...
The Marines and SOCOM need that capability and we can afford it so we bought it. Makes sense to me.
No, and the Army still doesn't have one. That stealth is over capability for most Army ops and thus was / is a luxury. The best recon bird for the here and now was and is the OH6 and its derivatives -- but parochialism killed that...As for the Comanche, the Army's issues with the ARH show that while the specific tank-busting role of the Comanche may be outdated, the concept of a fast, nimble, stealthy armed recon helicopter is not.
As it has so many things.
Probably good that's so -- if it was not, there'd be no need for this thread...
LawVol
We all understand that they also serve who stand (or sit in air conditioned offices sipping latte) and wait.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
That's true; if everything was going great, armchair-generals would be out of a job.was better than the Hook -- different birds for different roles --and nests. In this case, mostly nests. The Hook is a great and capable bird but it isn't at all ship or sea-kindly, the MV22 is (as is the CH53 and as will be the new CH53K). Conversely, the Osprey has sea side cape (and speed) that the Army does not need...
The Marines and SOCOM need that capability and we can afford it so we bought it. Makes sense to me.
No, and the Army still doesn't have one. That stealth is over capability for most Army ops and thus was / is a luxury. The best recon bird for the here and now was and is the OH6 and its derivatives -- but parochialism killed that...
As it has so many things.
Probably good that's so -- if it was not, there'd be no need for this thread...
I understand current Chinook variants are not optimized for naval use. But the Sea Knight is similar in configuration (and the Super Stallion is in size) to the Chinook, and I don't see why it couldn't be modified for effective from-the-sea capabilities (though I certainly don't know enough to say for sure - that seems to be a permanent caveat of my posts. . .)
My problem with the V-22 is more a general issue with military procurement - they simply don't understand the concept of a sunk cost. Because of Congressional oversight, they fear having to say, "We spent a few hundred million in development of this, but it turned out to be a mediocre or non-optimal idea, so we bagged it," and thus they essentially force the development of a system. In some cases that has worked - the AMRAAM should, in all fairness, have been killed given its difficulties in the late 1980s - and in some cases it doesn't work; the service would be better off swallowing the lost development costs and moving on.
The Marines seem to be growing as bad at this as the other services; both the V-22 and the EFV are troubled systems that have been or are being ramrodded through because (1) the service claims it needs them and can't use anything else (which may not be entirely true) and (2) the service shows all the money its (usually wastefully) spent on the system already, and says we owe it to the taxpayer to finish the development.
But in the V-22's case (and me and all other Osprey naysayers could turn out to be entirely wrong on this), the development history is terrible, the costs have eaten up 70% of the Corps' procurement budget, and there are still huge questions about the aircraft's dependability, survivability, and reliability even as it enters combat. I can't think of any system procured by the military in recent history that has think-tank papers published urging the military to can the program even after it has entered service.
The per-unit cost of even a modified MH-47 would be less than the Osprey, and the reliability and survivability (at least in terms of armament) would be increased.
That's my concern. Sorry to hijack this thread from our beloved "Good Lord do I hate the way the USAF does its business" message, but I wanted to say it. Saying "Osprey" and "good and needed" was waving a red flag to me. . .
Matt
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
Threads is threads...
[QUOTE=MattC86;35608]
. . .
[quote]I understand current Chinook variants are not optimized for naval use. But the Sea Knight is similar in configuration (and the Super Stallion is in size) to the Chinook, and I don't see why it couldn't be modified for effective from-the-sea capabilities (though I certainly don't know enough to say for sure - that seems to be a permanent caveat of my posts. . .)[quote]
Folding rotor blades for the hook would cost big $ -- the Ch46 had 'em in the design spec. The Hook is too high for the hangars aboarg ship, the CH53 was specifically designed to fit them and its tail boom folds giving it a smaller footprint than the hook.
While we can agree there's much wrong with the process, it's not nearly that simple -- that is for a separate thread.My problem with the V-22 is more a general issue with military procurement - they simply don't understand the concept of a sunk cost. Because of Congressional oversight, they fear having to say, "We spent a few hundred million in development of this, but it turned out to be a mediocre or non-optimal idea, so we bagged it," and thus they essentially force the development of a system. In some cases that has worked - the AMRAAM should, in all fairness, have been killed given its difficulties in the late 1980s - and in some cases it doesn't work; the service would be better off swallowing the lost development costs and moving on.
All the last two paragraphs of complaint are true -- but much of the meat is the fault of Congress, not the services. The EFV will probably die, OBE and a step too far. The MV 22 will get fixed; any technological leap is gong to have beaucoup bigs initially. Is it overpriced, sure -- but IMO almost ALL aircraft are (including the civil side). Sellers market...The Marines seem to be growing as bad at this as the other services; both the V-22 and the EFV are troubled systems that have been or are being ramrodded through because (1) the service claims it needs them and can't use anything else (which may not be entirely true) and (2) the service shows all the money its (usually wastefully) spent on the system already, and says we owe it to the taxpayer to finish the development.
That settles it. If the Think Tanks are against it, I'm for it!!!... I can't think of any system procured by the military in recent history that has think-tank papers published urging the military to can the program even after it has entered service.
Those turkeys make a lot of noise and while there are unquestionably some good and smart guys working for them; they have zero responsibility and do not have to live with the results of their products.
Possibly, still won't fit in the hangars, still doesn't have the speed -- and even more importantly, it doesn't have the range.The per-unit cost of even a modified MH-47 would be less than the Osprey, and the reliability and survivability (at least in terms of armament) would be increased.
Sorry, I guess we can disagree on that. However, do note that I said good and not great; and needed and not irreplaceable...That's my concern. Sorry to hijack this thread from our beloved "Good Lord do I hate the way the USAF does its business" message, but I wanted to say it. Saying "Osprey" and "good and needed" was waving a red flag to me. . .
Vikings haven't had ASW capability for a while now and are soon going away altogether. Sadly, with the wings falling off the P3s -- and many of them doing overland ISR anyway -- we have lost most of our airborne ASW assets.
I stand corrected
Thanks for the straight scoop pcmfr!
So is there a replacement in the mix for the Viks, or is the burden going to fall on the LAMPS?
If surface combatants are available they are grand for tracking ships. But near as I can figure (there is no library near and I'm not that good at using the net) the US Navy has rather less than 300 ships so in most of the world most of the time, one will probably not be available. That is why I think it so handy to have an airplane that can go a long way to a remote part of the ocean and hang around a while to check out a boat... I mean ship. (you know an attempt at clever doesn't work when you have explain it.)Yes the P-3 is for maritime patrol, but of the long range, long loiter type. For immediate fleet tactical ASW support there are LAMPs and S-3 Vikings. If you are just looking to track surface targets there are active and passive sensors used aboard all surface combatants, coupled with aircraft when available.
While a P-3 would probably have no difficulty sinking a "boat," it might have problems with a real surface warship (subs are poor AA platforms, even on the surface).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks