Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Those numbers/years will likely change upon successful qualification and deployment of F-35C squadrons. It is not a static projection, and other fiscal realities may require draw downs of existing force levels. AMARC @ Davis-Monthan amply demonstrates how fast aircraft types can go to the scrap yard. Canada would be betting on a much longer F-18 service life with associated, rising support costs. Will we ever get to see actual DND numbers, or will this always be a "USN" numbers game ? Will likely - USN is a useful shortcut as long as I have to use a phone for posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 In my online meanderings, I can't help noticing that Canadian opposition to the F-35 is across the political spectrum now, way beyond card carrying Liberals. It looks like a dubious purchase at this stage. Come back to us when you have the glitches sorted seems to be the general message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Those numbers/years will likely change upon successful qualification and deployment of F-35C squadrons. It is not a static projection, and other fiscal realities may require draw downs of existing force levels. AMARC @ Davis-Monthan amply demonstrates how fast aircraft types can go to the scrap yard. Canada would be betting on a much longer F-18 service life with associated, rising support costs. Will we ever get to see actual DND numbers, or will this always be a "USN" numbers game ? The biggest qualification is ~40%........the number associated Super Hornet flights in which they are tasked as tankers........the introduction of the unmanned tanker replacement or a combination of the S-3 returning to service will have the biggest effect on Super Hornet timelines.......more so then the purchase of attrition aircraft from Boeing.......... As you've said though, we've yet to see any numbers from this secretive government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Tell that to the USN - nothing to see here people, move along. OK..that's your story and you're sticking to it. Canada's CF-188 replacement decisions will be based on whatever the United States Navy decides to do. Go Navy ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 You'll have to let Boeing know. No need, they're well aware of basic flight sciences and aerodynamics..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 No need, they're well aware of basic flight sciences and aerodynamics..... More aware than you, I'm assuming: The ministry report evaluating each fighter jet candidate was based on data estimating that the Super Hornet would have a service life of 6,000 flying hours, while Boeing thinks the right figure for Denmark is 9,500 hours. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YA23Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Tell that to the USN - nothing to see here people, move along. The USN doesn't need anything told to them.......they understand the aerodynamic concepts involved, likewise, fleet management..........they didn't just reduce fleet wide usage for shits and giggles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 More aware than you, I'm assuming: The ministry report evaluating each fighter jet candidate was based on data estimating that the Super Hornet would have a service life of 6,000 flying hours, while Boeing thinks the right figure for Denmark is 9,500 hours. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YA23Y As I said, 9500 hours is the figure associated with the center barrel upgrade for the Super Hornets........Super Hornets flown from land or a carrier, flying the same profile and resulting g-loading will wear out near equally..........that's science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 The USN doesn't need anything told to them.......they understand the aerodynamic concepts involved, likewise, fleet management..........they didn't just reduce fleet wide usage for shits and giggles. I'm sure they aren't talking about flying the Super Hornet as the bulk of the fleet until 2035, and beyond 2040 overall just for fun, either. When you have something concrete and not made up, let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 As I said, 9500 hours is the figure associated with the center barrel upgrade for the Super Hornets........Super Hornets flown from land or a carrier, flying the same profile and resulting g-loading will wear out near equally..........that's science. Citation needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 OK..that's your story and you're sticking to it. Canada's CF-188 replacement decisions will be based on whatever the United States Navy decides to do. Go Navy ! But the USN is replacing their legacy Hornets with F-35s........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 The biggest qualification is ~40%........the number associated Super Hornet flights in which they are tasked as tankers........the introduction of the unmanned tanker replacement or a combination of the S-3 returning to service will have the biggest effect on Super Hornet timelines.......more so then the purchase of attrition aircraft from Boeing.......... I have first hand experience in USN fleet draw downs and obsolescence....once the bean counters make a decision only Congress can intervene to stop the carnage. And it doesn't even have to be airframe hours...components with crazy high service/spares costs or no longer available (NLA) can shutter things fast. It is swift and without mercy. As you've said though, we've yet to see any numbers from this secretive government. More surprising is the lack of any expectation to get them. Getting/quoting U.S. data is just easier I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 I'm sure they aren't talking about flying the Super Hornet as the bulk of the fleet until 2035, and beyond 2040 overall just for fun, either. When you have something concrete and not made up, let me know. Where did they suggest they would be flying the "bulk of the fleet" until 2035, let alone 2040? If thats the case, and Super Hornets currently spend 40% of their time flying tanker missions..........why are introducing a new tanker in the early 2020s? Concrete? Basic math is fairly concrete in most circles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 The USN doesn't need anything told to them.......they understand the aerodynamic concepts involved, likewise, fleet management..........they didn't just reduce fleet wide usage for shits and giggles. That's correct...the USN beats the crap out of aircraft in very hostile environments. All kinds of unplanned attrition happens on a regular basis. This will be true for the F-35 as well. Birds come and birds go.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Where did they suggest they would be flying the "bulk of the fleet" until 2035, let alone 2040? If thats the case, and Super Hornets currently spend 40% of their time flying tanker missions..........why are introducing a new tanker in the early 2020s? Concrete? Basic math is fairly concrete in most circles. I wonder how many times I have to show you? F-18Es and Fs are the majority of our force going to 2035, Rear Adm Michael Manazir told U.S. lawmakers. We might even fly those airplanes close to 2040. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/super-hornet-to-be-backbone-of-u-s-navy-fighter-fleet-until-2035-more-aircraft-to-be-ordered The Navy had been planning for the Super Hornets to serve well into the 2030s, but now service leaders say that timeline will need to extend into the 2040s. http://www.defensetech.org/2015/04/22/navy-leans-toward-building-more-super-hornets-after-f-35c-delays/?mobile=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Citation needed. Here The F/A-18E/Fs have flown approximately thirty-five percent of the total flight hours available at the 6,000 hour limit and this will not be adequate to meet operational commitments out to 2035. As a result, the three-phased F/A-18E/F Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP) commenced in 2008 will last through 2018. Its goal is to analyze fleet actual usage versus structural test data to identify the feasibility of extending F/A-18E/F service life from 6,000 flight hours to 9,000 flight hours via a follow on Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). The Fiscal Year 2015 President’s Budget includes a request for $13.8 million in RDT&E and an additional $74.3 million throughout the FYDP, to support the F/A-18E/F SLAP requirement. One of the F/A-18E/F SLAP goals is to define the necessary inspections and modifications required to achieve 9,000 flight hours. Current SLAP methods would allow feasibility studies to assess an F/A-18E/F service life to 12,000 flight hours. Other SLAP goals relate to increasing total landings, arrested landings and catapults beyond currently defined life limits. Phase A, which developed methodologies to be used in assessing airframe, flight controls, and subsystems, is complete. Phase B constitutes a majority of the SLAP analysis activities and as analysis is completed will feed into SLEP extension activities. The F/A-18A-D SLAP showed that the airframe can fly to 10,000 hours with a combination of modifications and inspections to maintain airworthiness. As I said, basic math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) Here As I said, basic math. Of course, that isn't what Boeing said at all - in fact those aren't even the same numbers (9000 vs 9500). It also doesn't say that reaching the 9000 hour mark in USN service will necessarily require a centre barrel replacement.Denmark has different requirements than the USN. Canada has different requirements from both. Boeing claims that in Danish service, the Super Hornet would last 9500 hours. Edited June 12, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 I wonder how many times I have to show you? F-18Es and Fs are the majority of our force going to 2035, Rear Adm Michael Manazir told U.S. lawmakers. We might even fly those airplanes close to 2040. Back the truck up........you said the "bulk" of the Super Hornet fleet would still be flying in the 2030s........big difference between that and the realization that the Super Hornet/Growler force will still make-up the majority of the force......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Of course, that isn't what Boeing said at all - in fact those aren't even the same numbers (9000 vs 9500). Denmark has different requirements than the USN. Canada has different requirements from both. Boeing claims that in Danish service, the Super Hornet would last 9500 hours. Boeing is trying to sell more Super Hornets. What would you expect them to say ? What are Canada's requirements ? It's still a big secret/unknown, right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Back the truck up........you said the "bulk" of the Super Hornet fleet would still be flying in the 2030s........big difference between that and the realization that the Super Hornet/Growler force will still make-up the majority of the force......... No - I said the Super Hornet would be flying as the bulk of the fleet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) Boeing is trying to sell more Super Hornets. What would you expect them to say ?Since we've decided that the claims of Lockheed Martin are gospel, I think we can give Boeing the same benefit. Edited June 12, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Of course, that isn't what Boeing said at all - in fact those aren't even the same numbers (9000 vs 9500). It also doesn't say that reaching the 9000 hour mark in USN service will necessarily require a centre barrel replacement. Denmark has different requirements than the USN. Canada has different requirements from both. Boeing claims that in Danish service, the Super Hornet would last 9500 hours. Sure, with a center barrel upgrade.........do you have a cite to demonstrate that Danish aircraft aren't affected by G-forces to the same degree as any other aircraft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) Sure, with a center barrel upgrade.........do you have a cite to demonstrate that Danish aircraft aren't affected by G-forces to the same degree as any other aircraft? How many carrier landings over water will the Danish Air Force be undertaking?Still waiting on that citation - for any of your claims. Edited June 12, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Since we've decided that the claims of Lockheed Martin are gospel, I think we can give Boeing the same benefit. Apples to oranges....the F-35 has a longer service life by design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 That's correct...the USN beats the crap out of aircraft in very hostile environments. All kinds of unplanned attrition happens on a regular basis. This will be true for the F-35 as well. Birds come and birds go.... That is true with any aircraft operating with extreme load factors.......that's science........been true since Kitty Hawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.