Smallc Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Meaning the USN intends to keep their current Super Hornet and Growler force relevant until they are retired in 2040......to be replaced by: That seems to suggest in the 2040s they'll still have some left. Some speculation now has that out to 2050. Every delay in the F-35 delivery schedule makes that closer to reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 unless new money is added, we will not purchase new Super Hornets as the line will be closed. Or, you re-arrange things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) That seems to suggest in the 2040s they'll still have some left. Some speculation now has that out to 2050. Every delay in the F-35 delivery schedule makes that closer to reality. No, it states they will serve through 2040, if they receive a center barrel replacement and attrition aircraft are bought. And the F-35C isn't delayed, it completed its initial carrier trials faster than any naval aircraft since the 50s, none the less, that maters little as the F-35C (and X-45B X-47B) will be replacing legacy Hornets. With that, the spoken to shortfall in carrier aircraft boils down to funding, which if said trend is not reversed, the navy won't have to worry about fewer aircraft, but fewer carriers to fly them from. Edited November 19, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Or, you re-arrange things. Are you suggesting the Trudeau Government is going to cut something to fund a Hornet replacement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Right back to this reality...Canada cannot buy Super Hornets that are no longer in production, and would not likely buy used ones with airframe hours already used up. Canada does not have the type and variant options of the United States. Exactly, judging by the Marines experience with former USN legacy Hornets, we'd be better off keeping what we have.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Are you suggesting the Trudeau Government is going to cut something to fund a Hornet replacement? I would expect that they will, yes. That's the purpose of the review, after all - to find out what we should be and shouldn't be funding in order to meet our goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 No, it states they will serve through 2040, if they receive a center barrel replacement and attrition aircraft are bought. And the F-35C isn't delayed, it completed its initial carrier trials faster than any naval aircraft since the 50s, none the less, that maters little as the F-35C (and X-45B X-47B) will be replacing legacy Hornets. You always seem to know more than everyone: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/11/06/2-star-f-35-delays-could-force-further-extension-super-hornets/75291560/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 I would expect that they will, yes. That's the purpose of the review, after all - to find out what we should be and shouldn't be funding in order to meet our goals. And you base this on what? Cuts do not translate into new money, but savings........they would have to swing a huge axe to "fund" the Hornet replacement prior to 2020......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 You always seem to know more than everyone: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/11/06/2-star-f-35-delays-could-force-further-extension-super-hornets/75291560/ Your point? From your link: "We might even fly these airplanes close to 2040," air warfare director Rear Adm. Mike Manazir told members of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower on Tuesday. Thanks for confirming my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide/aerospace-systems.page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Thanks for confirming my point. There are several different dates being talked about. The Lightning is late - we know that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Cuts do not translate into new money, but savings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 There are several different dates being talked about. The Lightning is late - we know that much. Again, from your link: "We might even fly these airplanes close to 2040," air warfare director Rear Adm. Mike Manazir told members of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower on Tuesday. Close to 2040 doesn't equate to your claim of 2050, nor the requirement of the RCAF operating the Super Hornet out to 2060. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) Close to 2040 doesn't equate to your claim of 2050, nor the requirement of the RCAF operating the Super Hornet out to 2060. So you ignore the headline (F-35 is late) that contradict your point, but pick up a line, in contradicting lines in other stories that say the fleet will fly through 2040 (something you also, strangely, quoted as proof) and believe that it makes you right, somehow? This is another one of those points where I see no reason to continue this line. Edited November 19, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Where do you think the Trudeau Government is going to find savings to fund a Hornet replacement.........this is your theory, so play it out.....If one is to assume the Hornet replacement will cost ~7-9 billion, from where in the current defense budget will said funds be found? For point of reference, 9 billion is approx the cost of operating our entire Hornet fleet for 7-8 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 ...This is another one of those points where I see no reason to continue this line. When faced with facts on the ground...Eject! Eject! Eject! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 So you ignore the headline (F-35 is late) that contradict your point, but pick up a line, in contradicting lines in other stories that say the fleet will fly through 2040 (something you also, strangely, quoted as proof) and believe that it makes you right, somehow? This is another one of those points where I see no reason to continue this line. No, I ignore your world-saladish point.......as has been gone over countless times in the other F-35 thread with Waldo, the F-35C itself is not delayed, but the USN's ability, in years previous, to provide an aircraft carrier for it to conduct trials. As to out of service date, again my point stands, as confirmed by your very own links, the Super Hornet fleet will start to be retired by the USN in the 2030s.......there are already Super Hornets in the Arizona desert, so the 2030s doesn't beggar belief...........a retirement decades sooner than a Super Hornet in Canadian service would be retired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Dang it though, it sees those 35's can't hag out in the desert or the fuel gets too hot and then the engine blows up. Cold weather wars only I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) The present CF-188 replacement soap opera has the real possibility of repeating many steps and dead ends from Canada's original New Fighter Aircraft Project (NFA) of the 1970's. Omigod...what a story...patrol aircraft...new frigates...turfed governments...Iranians...and passenger airliners ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_Project#NFA Edited November 19, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 The present CF-188 replacement soap opera has the real possibility of repeating many steps and dead ends from Canada's original New Fighter Aircraft Project (NFA) of the 1970's. Omigod...what a story ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_Project#NFA It is fun though to sit back and get a giggle out of the soap opera that seems to always include the same cast of characters. Although it is getting a bit redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 The present CF-188 replacement soap opera has the real possibility of repeating many steps and dead ends from Canada's original New Fighter Aircraft Project (NFA) of the 1970's. Omigod...what a story...patrol aircraft...new frigates...turfed governments...Iranians...and passenger airliners ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_Project#NFA No doubt, at the end of the day though, we would have gone with the even cheaper F-16, but it lacked a radar capable of illuminating for the Sparrow missiles, which was a must for NORAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) No doubt, at the end of the day though, we would have gone with the even cheaper F-16, but it lacked a radar capable of illuminating for the Sparrow missiles, which was a must for NORAD. Well, the main point of my usual impertinence is to demonstrate that this procurement may not turn out as expected. Lots of plot twists and betrayal to come based on past governments hell bent on saving a few dollars now only to spend lots more later. As noted, the F-16 ADF (Block 15 ?) got the AIM-7 Sparrow by late 1980's. Edited November 19, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) Well, the main point of my usual impertinence is to demonstrate that this procurement may not turn out as expected. Lots of plot twists and betrayal to come based on past governments hell bent on saving a few dollars now only to spend lots more later. As noted, the F-16 ADF (Block 15 ?) got the AIM-7 Sparrow by late 1980's. Close, the Block 25 (the first F-16C/D) got the AN/APG-68/Sparrow combo in the Summer of '84, about a year and half after our Hornets entered service.....though we likely wouldn't have purchased more of the cheaper F-16s, their lower operational cost, combined with them (F-16C/D) being a slightly more mature design than our F/A-18A/B Hornets, thus not needing to be brought up a standard (Our Hornets being upgraded to ~C/Ds), we might have got to keep more of them through the 90s and 2000s.... And of course, had we been operating F-16C/Ds, the current flag bearer of the USAF and ANG, there would no doubt have been synergies resulting in operational and upgrading savings. Something can be said about operating the same aircraft as our largest (current?) ally Edited November 19, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 .....Something can be said about operating the same aircraft as our largest (current?) ally ...and about 20 other nations. Makes it a lot easier to get parts ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 ...and about 20 other nations. Makes it a lot easier to get parts ! Right you are........furthermore, looking at our then NATO and NORAD requirements, low-level conventional strike in Germany, reinforcing the Norwegian flank and North American Air Defense, our then direct partners in all these areas operated the F-16.........which clearly would have allowed synergies in training, logistics and general interoperability. Something one would hope would be examined, yet again, with replacing our current Hornets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.