UPDATE: Sydney Freeberg of AOL's Breaking Defense pointed out something that I neglected. Representative Forbes is the Chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Seapower. I wonder. He obviously has the briefings. He obviously talks to the Chief of Naval Operations. Is he being prodded by the CNO on this???
via USNI News.
“With future carrier-based aircraft still in development until 2019, I strongly believe that creating a single U.S. tactical aircraft supply chain at this time is too great a risk,” Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee,wrote in a Dec. 4 letter addressed to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. “The loss of industrial capacity provided by the F/A-18 manufacturing line will eliminate vital competition that could result in spiraling costs, leading to more expensive, less capable systems.”Quite honestly I hadn't considered the ramifications to our industrial base when or if the F-35 becomes the only US fighter in production.
Forbes further noted that not only will the Navy be left with a sole-source for tactical fighters—since only Lockheed’s F-35 would remain in production after 2016—but there would be reduced competition for subsystems manufacturers.
“This budget decision would also eliminate competition among aircraft radar and engine producers,” Forbes wrote.
Randy Forbes has.
If its important to protect our armored vehicle production base, and I believe that it crucial, then its also important to protect our fighter production base.
Between the need to protect industry, an ongoing economic downturn, the strong Congressional delegation that supports Boeing products and continuing doubts among aviation experts, this should be a no brainer.
Thant's interesting. Randy Forbes also talked about this in June. He does not want to end F/A-18 production until the F-35C can be considered ready for combat: http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/dod-aviation-plan-ignores-sequestration-rep-forbes-warily-watches-f-18-f-35-balance/
ReplyDelete“it would be premature for the Navy to allow the F-18E/F production line to shut down before we have full confidence that the F-35C is ready to move to full-rate production and we can confidently take the risk of having just one naval strike-fighter production line open.”
In the past he just seemed cautionary about this issue, but writing this letter to Hagel is taking it to a whole new level. Glad to see the fight to keep Super Hornet production going is still alive and well.
Production in one line always ends beore production on it's replacement beings. This is nothing new.
DeleteWhen was the last F-16 for the US made?
When was the last F-15C made before the F-22 came along?
How about the last A-6 before the F-18?
I guess there are a few factors that are different here.
DeleteThe last US sold F-16? I have no idea, but the line is still open and the USAF could chose to buy more if it wanted to. Same goes for the F-15. Also, there are quite a few budget cutting think tanks that have respected plans right now to replace lost F-35 orders with new-build F-16s and F-15s right now because of it. The Air Force will never admit it because their leadership thinks that stealth is the only thing worth building now, but the fact of the matter is that they have other options than the F-35.
Closing down the line for the F/A-18E/F would kill the Navy's (and Marines although they won't admit it) only other alternative for the carrier-based tactical fighter/strike role should the F-35C collapse. The Navy's Legacy Hornets are aging and in dire need of replacement after having the stress of two wars placed on them. Sure, the Navy has UCLASS. but development on that is still a far cry away from having a production model in the works and the political battle over how much capability it will have is still going on.
Another major factor is the confidence the Navy had in the early F/A-18 program. Back then, the F/A-18 looked like it was going to be a great fighter and a great success from the outset. Sure it had critics, but it also had answers for the critics. Right now the F-35C doesn't and the Navy clearly has no confidence that it can rely on Lockheed Martin to deliver on their promises.
If the Boeing production line is allowed to close, that would leave LM as the sole remaining US high performance tactical aircraft manufacturer. This situation would be unique in the American aerospace industry since the beginning. Allowing a monopoly to exist is rarely a good idea.
DeleteI would keep the Super Hornet line going because if the F-35 turns out to be one spectacular Failure. You would have a back up plan and the Super Hornet would be your Back up.
ReplyDeleteThat is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
DeleteIn order for the F-35 to have the best chance of success, they need to ramp up production as fast as possible and the DoD needs to show confidence in the program to Partner and FMS customers.
Continuing to buy F-18s undermines both of those goals.
Not really because keeping the F/A-18 E/F & E/A-18G line open is keeping their options open in case the F-35C is proven to be a flop and a spectacular failure. On top of that, it would replace the short legged Hornets with Super Hornets. Right now, it looks like the US Navy doesn't have any high confidence in the F-35C, and if the US navy is buying more super hornets, it shows that the US Navy is questioning the F-35C's Fitness for combat duty. Also if Canada buys the Super hornet, they can keep the line open as well.
DeleteThe same can be said for the USAF, if they upgraded their F-16's to Block 60 and upgrade their F-15's to Silent Eagle Standard. They would have a backup in case the F-35A doesn't live up to expectations.
It's why your seeing countries looking for F-35 alternatives and alternatives with F-35 technology.
To go full production of a risky non proven fighter, closing the production of the already proven next generation L/O -electronic stealth- fighter like the Super Hornet/Growler is just gambling.
ReplyDeleteThe F-18 is neither "next gen" nor "LO".
DeleteSpudman, now you're just lying again. The Navy acknowledges that the Super Hornet is a LO warplane and that it has many stealth features built into the aircraft that give it an edge over other 4th gen fighters. The Advanced Super Hornet upgrades take full advantage of the stealth features in the design and that is why there is such a strong argument for them.
DeleteThe SH has a "few" LO features, which are completely negated when it carries weapons. An unarmed plane is USELESS.
DeleteFirst of all, the Super Hornet has more than just a few. It has more stealth features than any aircraft that was not purpose built for stealth. It has stealth shaping, radar-absorbent
Deletematerials added in crucial areas, heavy use of composite materials, an angled AESA radar, and several other things. A loaded Super Hornet is actually harder to detect than a loaded Legacy Hornet. I asked a Marine Hornet pilot about this and he confirmed it. The stealth features actually do give the Super Hornet a slight edge in decreasing the range it is detected under all circumstances.
Secondly, did you even read my last post? That's what the enclosed weapons pod and conformal fuel tanks are for, to carry weapons and fuel in a stealthy fashion. The Super Hornet can be upgraded to provide a really low RCS and an unrefualed range equal to the F-35C.
You're just regurgitating the same bullshit lies and arguments Lockheed Martin gives out on a regular basis.
Now we are comparing the not-even-designed F-18SE? Comparison fail.
DeleteNot true. Boeing has already done a vast majority of the work for the Advanced Super Hornet upgrades with further tests planned next year. They said it would require less than a billion dollars to finish, but it looks like they are footing the bill for development themselves. The Advanced Super Hornet upgrades are closer to completion than any variant of the F-35 is right now.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWJeqrvoF6M
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteReally? Dragging out a commercial made by people who neither do their research nor can do simple math (3:1 my ass).
DeleteActually, for the Navy that's true. One F-35C costs $199.4 million while a new build Super Hornet is $65.3 million. That's about 3:1 sharp.
DeleteLastly, it also depends on how you divide up the dollars. The kid talks about the cost of the planes over 10 years. Since the F-35A has a cost per flight hour that ranges with estimates as high at $51,000, while the Super Hornet is about $16,000 you very well could have one F-35A costing as much as three Supers to operate over the course of those years. No one really knows how expensive the F-35A will really be when it is completed, remember.
Canada is not buying the "C" and they are not buying FY2014 jets.
DeleteIf you have to distort and deceive to try an make your point then you are doing it wrong.
"it also depends" reminds me of Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".
None of what I said above is lying or distorting. I specifically mentioned the Navy when referring to the F-35C and the information on the cost per flight hour is taken from the GAO for the Super Hornet and the word of Lockheed Martin for the F-35A. No one really knows how much the JSF will cost when it is completed, but if the flaws in its design are not fixed with affordable methods it really could come out to 3:1 over the course of 10 years.
DeleteWhat I find more telling than anything else is how desperate F-35 supporters, such as yourself, have suddenly become. You've been lying this entire time. First you say that it's normal for production lines of older fighters to close for new fighters (which the F-15 and F-16 have proven is not the case), then you lie about the Super Hornet not being a LO aircraft (after which you backed down when I pointed it out to you), now your just attacking my posts with incorrect criticism of what I actually wrote. The F-35 team must be really desperate right now.
The SUPER IS NOT LO the MOMENT you hang a weapon on it. Even then, only from the front.
DeleteThose "pods" are still hanging off the jet, and I don't care how much RAM Boeing slathers on them, they WILL Increase Radar returns.
Boeing is just scared of being irrelevant in the international fighter market for another generation.
The Super Hornet is low observable since the stealth features actually do help lower the RCS from the front and degrade as you translate aft. They do help the sides, I know that much. The fact of the matter is that Boeing is only going for "stealthy enough" and the Navy thinks they got it.
DeleteI'd bet good money that a Boeing supplier is located in Randy's district.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny because the money you're betting was paid to you by Lockheed.
DeleteThe SH is as stealth as the F-35 in the front and rear.
ReplyDeleteFrom above and below they are equal.in clean configuration, or with the enclosed weapons pod for the SH, or the enclosed gun pod for the F-35.
Only on the sides the F-35 is relatively stealthier than the SH in the nose. The sides of the nose of the SH have almost the same angle than the 2 tails, to deviate the lateral radar waves.
Both carry the Aim-9X externally.
A group of SH acting in conjunction with the Growlers are as Stealth and effective as the F-35, just 3 times cheaper.
The SH has 2 engines, double crew, bigger flight controls, flaps and wins, can super maneuver without necessity of 3d engines, can do CAS without to explode for a 9mm bullet or a lighting, has an internal cannon, Sat communications for the arctic, advanced data link, Aesa and Aflir.
The SH/Growler is a low observable active electronic stealth combo ready for combat today and for the next 30 years.
http://defensa.pe/showthread.php?t=5674&page=35
ReplyDeletehttp://defensa.pe/showthread.php?t=5674&page=36
http://defensa.pe/showthread.php?t=5674&page=44
"The SH is as stealth as the F-35 in the front and rear."
ReplyDeleteNow you're just embarrassing yourself.
Stop while you're behind ;)
Sorry StupdmanWP, but you are embarrasing yourself long time ago with your pathetic arguments about the low cost of the F-35
ReplyDeleteI have never said the F-35 was "low cost". I just correct other's egregious representations of the numbers.
DeleteWell I support the F-35 and fully understand that its success is dependent on getting the full production run procured. But I also believe our fighter production capacity is almost as important as our fighter's individual quality. The F-35 isnt only just manufactured by one company its a pain in the ass to build just as the F-22 was a pain in the ass to build. Plus its not fully ready, plus we have a bunch of old fighters that need replacing. So we have the need to buy a lot of fighters regardless of what kind they are.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Stalin was quoted saying "Quantity has a quality all of its own."
I don't disagree. So not trying to screw the F-35 or start a arms race here but check it out. The ASH and the F-16 block 60 with ASH LO pylons for the hard points both have a reduced RCS. Sure its not enough to deal with PAK-FA alone but most of the foreign air fleets aren't pure VLO anyway. So we buy 100 advanced superhornets and 200 F-16 block 60s to replace the rotten old air frames while the JSF project gets its act together on the helmet etc. over the course of say, 5-8 years all the while continuing to purchace the lots of F-35s that we planned to.
I don't know how many peeps realize this but doing this isnt going to hurt anyone. The best F-16s on the planet are owned by the UAE because they are the latest versions of them. Im all for getting the F-35 but I also think racing up to get the first lots isn't going to get america the best aircraft in the long run as the following production lots will have increased functionality. Plus the while the aging of the air frames and the reduction in numbers of fighters may serve the need for a F-35 it does not land the US military with the best fleet of aircraft or the strongest fighter jet production ability.