US Navy Orders 17 F/A-18 Super Hornets
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 бер 2024
- Mover and chat about the US Navy placing a brand new order for more Super Hornets.
Every Monday at 8PM ET, Mover (F-16, F/A-18, T-38, 737, helicopter pilot and wanna be race car driver) and Gonky (F/A-18, T-38, A320, dirt bike racer, and awesome dad) discuss everything from aviation to racing to life and anything in between. Send your topic ideas to cwlemoine at cwlemoine.com!
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components.
Kids Coloring and Activity Books!
www.amazon.com/stores/author/... - Розваги
Speaking as a Canadian, we should get in on this order. We currently use the F18 albeit a much earlier version. We are currently waiting for the F-35. The F18 is therefore a known commodity to the service techs in the RCAF. It also has two engines, which means you don't need to punch out if you get a single engine failure over the arctic.
Does Canada need a strong air force though?
100%
@@neonpersonishere Look at a globe and note the detail of Canada being between most of the US and Russia.
@@neonpersonishere Yes, Russia currently tests Canadian airspace as much as US airspace. Canada really needs new fighters with range.
@@neonpersonishereYES. We have massive amount of ground to cover in the arctic. - and it is not unusual for Russia to send it's long range bombers over or near Canadian Airspace.
It is also not right that we rely on Uncle Sam for our country's defense and so far that was how it has been. Remember the Chinese balloon shot down over the Yukon was shot down at the request of the Canadian Prime minister by a USAF Raptor because Canada's legacy F18s just could not do it.
The F35 is the rockstar, the F18s are the roadies that keep the show running..
No roadies, no show
Not really. More like the the F/A-18 is the drummer keeping time as the F-35 knocks 'em dead. The 18's big radar and non-stealth profile mean it'll be used for actively seeking targets AND as a screen to obscure stealthy operators. Imagine your enemy sees 4 super hornets on radar so they dispatch 8 J-20's to ambush themm. But once they get there, turns out there's also 8 F-35C's in the vicinity who already have them locked.
@@aboutwhat1930 J-20 doesn't have a gun, it will shoot at them from 200-300 km and go away, and where will you find 8 F-35 that work at the same time 😆 you'd need 500 of them somewhere to find 8 working ones 🤣😂🤣
@@denis3208 Oh, I'd probably look at the ~1000 already delivered. Several LHA's and LHD's have trained and even deployed with some of the USMC's 32 active (plus 25 designated for training) F-35B's onboard, so that's 8 per on average. Likewise two CVN's (the Carl Vinson & Abraham Lincoln) have squadrons from the over 100 F-35C's operational and designated for training roles.
The Japanese and South Koreans also have operational F-35's (A's active, B's in the future). So total for Western-allied countries is currently 200+ in the Pacific, versus the ~250 J-20's for China. And F-35's have been used in combat already and exercised extensively with allied forces. Meanwhile the J-20's have yet to even leave Chinese airspace, much less exercise with anyone or be used in combat. China's keeping their J-20 close to their chest, either to try and surprise the USA if it's actually any good or at least to have a paper tiger.
In the event of a war, of course, the USAF isn't far behind with its 300+ F-35's. So China's outnumbered pretty quickly.
@@aboutwhat1930 used in combat against whom ? Bombing people in tents is not exactly "combat proving". If it came down to real war China has superior air defense, something west simply never developed because it was used to fighting against defenseless nations whole pack against one. And there is also missile troops that can disrupt communications, logistics, airbases, surface fleets, industry etc because its on their home turf not on another continent, unless US is willing to go into all out nuclear war it stands no chance of defeating China. You mentioned Korea in 2022 they had the lowest birth rates on planet with 0.78 children per woman, in 2023 they topped it with 0.72 children per woman. They don't have potential for war they are barely surviving and Japan has been in bad shape for decades both demographics and economy, they are all doing good business with China so they wouldn't be trilled like certain people in White House to start a war. I was joking about F-35, but in version C it was recently published 16% are combat ready, A and B are little better with A being 29%, if its true those are not planes for war, I'd stick with F-15, F-16, A-18 and F-22 if I were making decisions but I don't so ...
Rockstars in this case are overpaid and can’t perform.
You can not let the state of readiness fall by the wayside!
Amen !!! Those are some extremely wise words .
I love the Block III Hornet, it’s a beast.
Subsonic, 30+ year old beast
@@boxtankgamer6014 ? Are you a moron or do you just play one on UA-cam?
It can't go supersonic even with a clean airframe below 10,000ft. Per a Block III driver I know. It REALLY needed the Enhanced Perf Engines that the Navy opted out of. More thrust and better endurance.
@@DBravo29erit doesn’t help that the Super Hornet carries its ordinance canted outward from the centerline of the jet like unintended air brakes.
@@elnach3240 This is true. That is done as both a view to the area rule, to actually try to minimize high-subsonic drag, and to keep mass closer to the CoG of the airframe relative to the wing hardpoints. It's not ideal.
You got me laughing out loud…”it was done for Tom Cruise…Top Gun III”….😂😂😂
*The Plan* was for the Super Hornet to replace the F-14 (and A-6, though after a several-year gap), the F-35 to replace the Legacy Hornet, and then whatever came _after_ the F-35 (something larger, with more range/payload) to replace the Super Hornet.
*In practice,* the Navy didn't get F-35s fast enough to replace their Legacy Hornets (partially because of delays at Lockheed-Martin, but mostly just because the Navy didn't order - and still _hasn't_ ordered - enough F-35Cs) and ended up with all-Super Hornet air wings - but that was only ever meant to be a stopgap. The goal is still to get to a mixed fleet of SH and F-35, then eventually a mixed fleet of F/A-XX and F-35.
"The Plan was for the Super Hornet to replace the F-14"
Then the plan was flawed from the start. The Tomcat was a capability retired with no replacement.
@@boxtankgamer6014 The plan was to continue production of the F-14D throughout the 1990's, obviously that didn't happen and the F-14D program and the F-14 assembly line was shut down in early 1989 at Grumman with only 37 new F-14D's being made. The Navy never wanted to retire the Tomcat at that time, but it was forced to and therefore the Super Hornet was intended to be it's replacement. All Tomcat pilots say the say the same thing that transitioned to the Super Hornet, it's a better aircraft in everyway except, speed, range (radar range included), and payload.
@@timhortons232 You're right that the Tomcat production was stopped and the Navy was sort of forced into accepting the SH as the F-14 replacement it wasn't. Also speed, range, and payload are some of the most important aspects of a fighter. It would have been relatively easy giving the Tomcat AMRAAM and a better radar, it is not easy making the SH a more capable airframe (which afaik they haven't even tried).
@@boxtankgamer6014
The Navy was already looking ahead to the 90s. The Super Hornet offered a duel counter-air/ air to ground capability,the F-14 didn't
(At least at an affordable price with looming Cold War drawdowns)
The days of Soviet Bear bombers threatening Carrier battlegroups with cruise missile attacks were ending,and China was using 1950s/1960s
platforms in their air force.
@@boxtankgamer6014 The Tomcat had the choice between AMRAAM or Air to Surface Capability (LANTRIN) Dale "Snort" Snodgrass steered the Tomcat into the air to ground role. As for the Radar nothing on the planet at that time had a better radar than the APG-71 for a fighter.
During my time on the flight deck we had A-7, A-6, F-14, F-4, E-2 and the F18 was starting to come out I was next to the first F-18 squadron besides the rag.
No S-3 Vikings?
@@JosephGates-cg9bp I had a brain spasm yes VS-28 was my favorite S-3 squadron.
F-14A
A-6E
A-7E
KA-3D
E-2C
EA-6B
S-3A
RA-5C
SH-3
That was one of the most mixed air wings of all time, in addition to the F-4 and A-4 days.
@@LRRPFco52 I didn’t put in each model because it was such a long list. Forestall, Lexington & Carl Vincent.
And as a %%% of GDP, the Military was 2X as large as it is today when you were in the military
Outstanding !. More of The World's Finest US Naval Aviation.
Semper Fi
Considering the order size to keep the production going this is a very similar situation to how the Swedish government handle SAAB.
They have always had a production line going but it's usually one aircraft type at a time.
The high price for the Super Hornets is probably a result of the low production rate but the same problem is hitting the Gripen.
Learned a lot, laughed a lot. Keep up the brilliant work you two!
Thank you for the support!!
Cheers from Canada
It’s not just the jets, but the excellence and bravery of the pilots who fly them. They are the backbone of the US defense. Thanks for your service.
Thank you Joe!
I hope the US Navy order of F 18 Superhornet helps in shutting off people who were saying production of F 18 was about to end which caused India to lose faith in F 18 but now with new orders chances of F 18 Superhornet increased somewhat
India is just getting more Rafales, they don't want another airframe.
@@thebtron Indian Navy opted for Rafale cuz they heard the news that was floating back that time that F 18 production line was gonna close so they didnt wanna risk spares supply so they opted for rafale otherwise they would have went for F 18 and they may even reconsider it now that US Navy has kept the F 18 line running
They should just buy the F-35 its unit cost is so low at this point
@@soumyajitsingha9614 Boeing said it won't close F-18 SH production line until India decides on it or the Rafale.
@boxtankgamer6014 F35 does not have the same capabilities as the Super Hornet. Those being range, payload capacity, more affordable to operate and maintain ect.
Different tools for different jobs.
We're up to $88M per jet.
No evidence of inflation or corruption.
Is that cheap or expensive for a jet
Evidence? It isn't some secret, they directly document the amount of funny money dumped into circulation every year inflating the money supply; both the fed reserve bank lending and the federal budget. (The main fed reserve customer)
It's all pretty irrelevent anyway as there hasn't been a constitutionally legal US dollar made in over half of a century. (There may still be a few held by collectors or put in circulation by some oldtimers cash savings.)
Making all state taxes null and void. But on the corruption side if you were to press the matter in court the judges will of course give the state a fat sloppy BJ with some "creative" interpretation of the constitution's plain text (But that goes back over 200 years. see mayland v McCulloch 1819 where "necessary doesn't actually mean necessary" in regard to restrictions on legislative power and the central bank monopoly charter).
@@navyseal1689
For western jets, that's a good price. Many reach the 100 million dollar range or greater.
For many Russian jets, it's extremely expensive.
@@mill2712 i just did quick search, su35 is more expensive than F18 😆
@@navyseal1689
Let me see. I'll be right back.
Navy squadrons normally have 15 aircraft assigned. 12 are deployable the others are at the Naval Air Rework Facility in repair and upgrade.
It should be noted that Australia has a few squadrons of F18 Super Hornets (&a squadron of Growlers) being currently upgraded and there might be a possibility of another purchase following the cancellation of an order of a further 28 F35A’s. Australia is building a number of ‘Ghostbat wingman drones’ which can complement both planes so buying more F18 super Hornets as missile trucks might be useful considering we know the plane well.
It will be interesting to see if the 4th RAAF Sqn of F-35 materialises or do we complement with MQ-28's and then see what comes down the development pipeline within the US.
@@AndrewinAus don’t expect this government to spend money on new Defence in the next few years. All they do is repeat old announcements and empty promises whilst they incrementally stall and cancel current acquisition programs
RAAF should replace their 18 SH and 18 Growlers with 36 Eagle II. They have sufficient hardware support for operating the EW mission pods even more effectively than a Growler, just need a bit of software integration work. Eagle II are also well suited for direct piloting of Ghost Bat drones from the rear seat. Can also carry large weapons and external fuel loads for long range cruise missile strikes.
@@stupidburp Unlikely as the RAAF is eventually moving to an all 5th generation fighter fleet though the SHornets and Growlers will be upgraded in step with USN Block standards until such time as they are replaced. The Supers and Growlers are a known quantity at this point so there is no point in replacing them with an aircraft that the RAAF has never operated before. Whilst losing part of the reason the Lightning II was procured, stealth. The learning curve would be too steep for what I think would be a relatively short operating duration.
F-15EX doesn’t need stealth for use as a fighter bomber missile truck with 900km range JASSM-ER as the strike package. Also doesn’t need stealth for use as an active EW platform that shouts out it’s location with jamming like the Growler. Several Ghost Bat piloted from the rear seat can provide long range stealthy reconnaissance for targeting information and damage assessment. The majority of the force would still be stealthy F-35s. F-15EX would provide firepower and utility capabilities above and beyond what F-35 or F-18 could provide and is complementary to the stealth fighters.
Probably should order some more. Add a zero. 170 block 3 Super Hornets for the Navy would allow shifting many older beat up block 2 SH to shore duties. China and Russia are both in war economy mode. China is dumping US treasuries as fast as they can to reduce their risk to potential sanctions. A major war in the 2020s is more likely than war in the 2030s. Large scale production of current best available equipment would be prudent.
Intel reports are showing that they are building infrastructure to mobilize 2 million men in less than 2 weeks. It’s happening this decade. These reports will be public in October this year.
Agree never turn off the assembly line and every year an upgrade to the model like the car assembly line.
Only "17"? I strongly agree Mover about "keeping the assembly line going" in order to maintain and maximize the highest State of "Readiness" possible whether Fixed or Rotary wing . Not sure what the Overall US inventory of Hornets is, but some are sitting parked at bases waiting on Replacement parts. This is Unacceptable!
It is great news with respect to the F/A-18 purchase! The new airframes will replace those that have been damaged beyond repair for whatever reason.
Finally some good news.
It's not even been fifteen minutes. Things can still go wrong.
@@michaelmoses8745good news and something actually happening are very different though lol. News can be good even if you dont actually think it will happen
Yeah really great that were buying more subsonic 4th gen fighters
@@boxtankgamer6014 Did you really just call the Super Hornet subsonic?
VFC-12 has been wanting a full compliment Super Hornets, for example.
More supers makes sense. Established supply chain, wealth of experience, cheaper. I spent 17 years total as an AE on legacy and supers (11 in Navy, 6 as contractor). The jet has some issues but it is a solid aircraft from a maintainer perspective
What kind of mx man hours per flight hour were you seeing on SH?
I've seen numbers in the 22hr region.
@@LRRPFco52 i was working in the shop not maint control so i didnt see those reports. It wasnt nearly as many as legacy hornet though
@@psubond One thing I've seen is that the US Air Force tracks their ancillary systems maintenance like FLIR & ECM pods separately than the actual aircraft, with separate shops for them as well.
On a carrier, there isn't enough space for all of that. Since pods are frequently moved between birds, they aren't included with aircraft mx hours stats.
@@LRRPFco52 we didnt run ecm pods, that was a growler thing. We usually had 9 flirs for 12 jets and they got shuffled around as needed. They had their own ADBs and logbooks. We just clipped the flir adb to the aircraft adb (redunant wording i know) if the pod got moved
@@LRRPFco52 you sound like you were an AZ
Need options for sure.
E2 is always being built, the navy buys 6 or more a year, and assembly line never shuts down.
F18 is a better aircraft for wartime production, especially in regards to replacing Carrier Bourne Aircraft losses
Single engine fighters are better for wartime production, especially if they're more survivable, more lethal, with far lower MMHPFH.
The CBO price tag usually includes extended services and keeping stocks of parts, etc. So I'm not sure of the percentage but the build /delivery of the jets might not account for all of it.
I think that should be an interesting topic for you guys to cover, I was at an airshow when the Blue Angels transitioned from the legacy hornets to the super hornets was talking to a marine Major who I think, was flying in the foreship at that time, and he absolutely loves the super hornet, he was telling me that he was transitioning back to his old squadron, which is now based at Miramar Marine Corps air station they used to fly F/A-18A+’s and C’s But have since upgraded to the navy version of the F-35 the C model. I think that would be an interesting interview for you guys to do to get one of the marine blue angel pilots to come in and talk about their experience flying the super hornet and what they think about the Marine Corps not getting it.
I think the Marines would love to have SH blk 3 instead of legacy blk 1 Hornets. But they are probably concerned that if they got SH that it could reduce their allocation of F-35s in the future.
Aren’t they sending some of the older Block II’s back to Boeing to be upgraded to Block III’s?
Favorite plane to build when I was a child.
the F\A-18 is a great navy plane makes since 😎👍
Not at ~84 million dollars
@@nick21614 Really. For that kind of money, you could afford a ton of $800 hammers. I mean "non-specific impact generators" from General Dynamics.
It's been a few decades since *that* boondoggle so I may have messed up on the details.
@@nick21614 It does to the defense contractors, who along with AIPAC, tech, pharma and oil control who gets funded next election cycle...
Keeping the line open to make the super hornet like the f16. And start exporting them
hopefully that includes engines and spare parts for that price tag. canada you better hop on.
If the Navy has to order some in order to keep the production line open, I guess the Taiwanese are not buying the F-18s. Eh?
They have 66 F-16s on order.
I don’t think Taiwan wants the Hornet. They’re quite happy with Vipers.
Taiwan still needs some long range strike platforms to replace their Mirage 2000 and complement their F-16s. Not many will sell to Taiwan which limits options. Perhaps F-15EX from the USA, F-2 from Japan, Rafale from France, or Boramae from South Korea.
The f15 and the f18 are very compatible with the f35 and can carry alot of missiles and bombs that can be fired by the f35s targetings system
Interesting that they keep ordering new variants although for the last four years they’ve insisted they’re done doing so and this with overall F35 deliveries topping one thousand in late 2023
Receivers need tight ends to do the grunt work
The Block IIIs have entirely different processors and cockpit workflow.
Maybe it’s time for the Kiwis to pull a little more weight and get some of these?
Gonkey says that buying these 17 airplanes proves his point, but I didn’t hear him say what his point was. Maybe that was lost in edit.
If the production line is running hot, maybe Australia might be able to get a few more Superhornets
It would be better to replace the RAAF Super Hornets and Growlers with F-15EX Eagle II which are just entering production now. They could potentially do both jobs plus restore some of the high volume long range strike capability lost with the F-111 retirement.
@@stupidburp true, but i don’t look for my keys where I dropped them. I look under the streetlight where the light is strongest.
Do you know if these are F/A-18E (single seat) or F/A-18F (tandem seat)? Does the Navy buy these in some fixed ratio? Thanks.
The reports are 5 E and 12 F. This is anticipated as the last order.
Guess the Navy watched too much Maverick
The F-18 serves the same role for the Navy as the F-15 does for the Air Force. A missile truck for the F-35, essentially working as a stealthed FAC.
The missile truck is just at a kinetic disadvantage. Until the AIM-260 comes out they're gonna do what, mount SM-2 on the pylons?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Exactly. Planning ahead for the AIM-260, plus keeping a longer legged far more capable (ordnance-wise, and refueler-wise) support aircraft. The F-18 is a much better platform for CAS than the F-35 in less contested airspace as well.
@@MrStickthrower2001F-35C has way longer legs than the SH while leaving its weapons stations open for weapons, not fuel tanks and FLIR pods. SH still has a lot of stations, but is a series of design compromises for A2A kinematics that simply weren't prioritized over multirole-strike.
JASSM-ER and LRASM truck. Not so much for the air to air.
Keeping another fighter jet production line open is worth it. How much is the line, supply chain, and trained workers worth?
"the navy's smaller"
navy is half the budget
They have to spend on ships also. Their finances are more complicated.
@@EliteF22 would someone who knows they are half of DOD not know the navy has to buy ships?
Are there any more F35C capable carriers besides Carl Vincent yet?
Someone has to throw some cash at Boeing to keep them going.
Boeing can probably use the cash as well. ;)
But yeah it's a good thing, much better than those modern 5th gen F-35s that can't fly a mission if there's GPS jamming.
Is this order really just to replace present and future attrition?
It seems like the Navy has never been that interested in the F35. How many squadrons do they have, two maybe three? Given how that squadron looked after one deployment, it looks difficult to maintain that RAM at sea.
Canada definitely should buy the Super Hornet. Australia operates F35, Growlers, and Super Hornets and it is proving very successful.
Canada should buy F-15EX
17 jets is not very many. 1000 f35's have already been built, and more are on the way.
Whoa! Did I hear Mover say the AF is cancelling the F-15EX??? Say what!?!?
USAF never asked for the F15EX. It was pushed onto them by acting secretary of defense Shanahan (31yr Boeing executive). He was fired as a result of conflict of interest.
USAF and Congress went along with it because it keeps another strategic industrial base for fighter production open for when NGAD comes online.
NGAD involves multiple manned and unmanned fighters, so there is plenty of work for multiple big aerospace contractors.
Reducing the order, not canceling.
@@Philistine47 thanks man, the articles out there are so damn cryptic anymore. It's hard to tell what's what.
Is the FA/18 still a viable fighter in 2024? How is it better than say the F-14 Tomcat?
The Navy needs a new Twin engine carrier defense air superiority fighter that completely replaces the F-18 fleet! Leave the multirole stuff to the F-35’s since that’s what they were designed from the ground up from the beginning to do. Allow the fighter pilots to determine how the aircraft is going to be built right beside the engineers much like the mighty F-16’s and F-15’s were with the fighter Mafia and the Navy will end up with a much better fighter.
This is completely about keeping the assembly line open. Cost of business.
Pretty sure this means the drone fighter wing is happening. So that means at least 17 drone fighter wings!
Very cool
No one tell Gonky about LHS or DDX, he thinks Navy are smart at procurement! 😂
Not to mention retiring basicly new LCS boats. They kind of suck at procurement.
Not smarter, just better. In the hierarchy of government run organizations that's not saying much!
Block III Lot 48
Wow, I've flown Lot 7's LOL!
@@themoverandgonkyshow and us DCS Junkies are still on Lot 20 and a mix-matched SCS18, SCS20X and SCS21X.
Wasn't this supposed to be a 20 airplane buy and we got some shrink-flation?
Maybe someone can explain to me why the Marine Corp, stayed with legacy Hornets?
Because of mission and budget. The Marines do not need the super hornet for their mission. The Marines do not need the upgraded radar and air to air capability of the SH, and the legacy is just as capable for the CAS mission as the super.
The Marines were flying the AV-8,E/A-6B, the F-18Alpha,Alpha Plus, Charlie and Delta. The F-35B is the only one aside from the Harrier that could fly from the LHA/LHD. The Prowler became a Strategic Platform after the EF-111s retired. The Corps also wanted out of the ECMO/WSO mission and as such, closed the pipeline for NFOs and their platforms.
Most people still don't realize that the USMC is flying both F-35B and F-35C. That's one reason why there was no reason to invest in SH.
They also want the logistics demands streamlined from the hangar queen Harriers and broke-arse baby Hornets.
F-35B mx hours is in the single digits, which has never been a thing with Radar-equipped jets.
@LRRPFco52 Are you really going to live in lala-land and act like the F-35 has not been a crap show. Also, the Super Hornet entered service in the Navy 16 years before the USMC started getting F-35's, so the thought of them is not a valid reason why the USMC didn't get Super Hornets.
@calvinlee1813 Not sure what your comment about the Growler has to do with anything in my post? I never brought them up or the EW role, so your EF-111 and A-6B reference is irrelevant. Also, your harrier comment has nothing to do with the Hornets role, so yet again, you have missed the point of my post.
Yeah.. But the US Marines prefer the F35 then the Super Hornets F/A18 E/F.
Canada still wants the F35 (Politics issues with the US if Canada went with the JAS 39 Gripen)
So not a chance.
The Ukrainians might as well buy a few brand new F/A-18s now because the wait list for F-16s is years long, and they won't be approved to buy F-35s.
Super Hornets would also be better suited for the rough Soviet era airfields still in use in many parts of Ukraine. Beefier landing gear and side intakes. But they can’t afford to buy them new without some aid.
@@stupidburp Definitely they need to be financed by the US. The Ukrainians need financing for all their defense spending.
Lend lease 90 Super Hornets. Borrow for free for the duration of the war with the option to buy on IOU and pay whenever they can. Same thing we did for allies during WW2.
Someone suggested the USAF adopt Block III Super Hornets as a close air support aircraft to replace the A-10. And, if the USAF didn't, maybe the US Army could operate a fleet of Super Hornets in that role.
I can’t imagine the USAF going along with the army standing up fixed wing attack squadrons
@@cruisinguy6024 I completely understand that point. I do think there has been some thinking that US Army doctrine should adopt fixed wing jets for the roles. It's an interesting idea, but will probably never go anywhere.
That guy who suggested that needs a urinalysis. USAF is trying to divest itself of legacy fighters and move forward with as many 5th Gen as possible.
@@LRRPFco52 He wrote an article. It's a compelling argument, in light of the fact the USAF will never be able to reach it's tactical aircraft needs.
As per the agreement when the Army Air Corps separated from the US Army forming the USAF in 1947, The US Army cannot operate any tactical fixed winged aircraft. Only Helicopters.
I’m totally with Mover on TOP GUN 3!!! 😂😂😂. You guys knows you stuff, and you’re keeping telling SH will be powerful and relevant in the future… and we, in Canada 🇨🇦 we bought F-35 that will be built mostly in the US vs ordering Gripen E that would be built and maintained in our country +SAAB developing 2 « excellence centers » in CANADA 🇨🇦 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ Pray that our enemy don’t crack the code to ground Fat Amy’s fleet because we’ll be in a gigantic mess !!
Gripen E would only be assembled in Canada not built. Gripen is also not compatible with US planes so that's another disadvantage.
Dude, both of these aircraft have their place. Truth is the SEAD is expensive and you are not gonna achieve that with Hornets.
@@niweshlekhak9646 it would had been mostly built in Canada under license. We had a consortium mounted to produce the engines and parts in Canada
@@SummitMan165 no it wouldn't, SAAB won't build Gripen in backyard of USA.
@@niweshlekhak9646 They won’t build Gripen in Canada 🇨🇦… because we didn’t choose them, sadly. Gripen E would be a better suited aircraft for our country vs F-35 future hangar queen 🤴. Our enemy better not crack the code of the F-35 with the huge numbers NATO will have in 10-15 yrs.
There is no more "slow roll" or delays for the F-35 anymore. As you mentioned last week, the F-35 is now in full production.
The issue here is that for whatever reason, it seems clear that the Navy hates the F-35. They have been buying the bare minimum F-35Cs every year.
I don't understand this because the cost is not much more than a super Hornet but it comes with way more capability, including stealth and longer range. Two things the Navy claims they want.
I think the Navy's issue with the F-35C is that they are not cool with buying jets that will need to have major software upgrades in a few years
as the USAF is doing. The Navy seems to be of the mind to wait until those upgrades are avaliable before going all in.
@TheLAGopher So they'd rather have a big gap in the total number of fighters available and have a big stealth capability gap? As it stands Navy Super Honets could be slaughtered by the huge number of J-20 and soon J-35 aircraft the Chinese are making. I understand that they might want a completely finished product, but sacrificing national security for that believe seems short-sighted.
The Navy loves F-35Cs. They want the Block 4 hardwared F-35C with 6x2 AAMs and newer systems. If you look at the capability set, low mx hours, ease of bringing back to the boat, and safety record, the F-35C sells itself all day long.
It changes the Carrier Air Wing more than any previous aircraft in Carrier aviation history.
@@TheLAGopherSoftware updates are frequent and normal. It's the Block 4 hardware and structures they want. Bulkheads have to change for Block 4 weapons bays, so no sense in buying their order and be limited to 4x2 AAMs and Block 3 DAS, EOTS, and APG-81.
Clearly you work for Lockheed....
Navy orders 17 more expensive future snacks for cheap drones.
I hope not LOL!
Ukraine calls for aid!
...
And America shall answer!
I've made a bunch of parts for F-18's, but considering it is made by Boeing I'm not sure I'd want to fly one.
I flew dozens of brand new Super Hornets when I was an IP. Zero issues, Boeing has Super Hornet production down to a science. The commercial side...maybe not...
@@themoverandgonkyshow I made the optics for your HUDs. Glad to have been able to support you.
@@themoverandgonkyshow I made the optics for your HUDs. Glad to have been able to support you.
@@themoverandgonkyshow I made the..
@@themoverandgonkyshow optics for your HUDs...
Not 17 of them lol delivered a decade for next year or something
Yeah cuz building 2 classes of useless ships just screams fiscal responsibility. Come on man
I work on legacy Hornets and the strike line just gets larger all the time. Many are being cut up on base instead of flown to the boneyard.
I’ll never understand why the Marines want a super expensive F-35 to fly the air cover for their Marines down low as they perform an amphibious assault. One golden BB and it’s gone. The F-18 is a solid aircraft and the Super Hornet would be a more cost effective close support aircraft.
They could get delivery of SH faster and they can operate from all of the supercarriers, unlike F-35C right now. Many carriers are still waiting on modifications to fully support F-35s. A large order of SH blk 3 could go straight onto the carriers and flown by both Navy and Marine pilots. A large enough order could allow retirement of the legacy Hornets faster than just waiting many years for the rest of the F-35s to be delivered. Even after all F-35s are delivered, they will still be useful as replacements for blk 2 SH that can then go ashore as war reserves.
We need new F14s
Gonky, I agree with you, the Marines should buy the Super Hornet! Is the F-35 the right fighter to provide the marines with close air support?
The real question is, why do the Marines even need aircraft? They ride on Navy boats to get there and use Navy helos to embark. Seems like a glamor move to me. The Marines are pointed at problems and just need to hitch a ride and call in close air when needed. The F-35 is not a loiter type air frame, something that helps an infantry assault.
Just count the bolts on delivery !
Not a problem with the Super Hornets.
We are spending ourselves into oblivion.
You're not wrong...
US Marine Corps should have gone all in on the F-18 instead of the F-35 I agree with that.
100%
It seems to me, whoever flies stealth aircraft, also need squadrons of non-stealth aircraft. Both from a capability perspective (stealth aircraft have less hard points) and an economic perspective, non-stealth airplanes are both cheaper to produce, and cheaper to fly. And you don't have to worry about destroying your stealth coatings, if you don't have any.
One potential option, would be to make a 4th gen version of the f22 (ie: no coatings and set them up to permanently run with hardpoints.) So you get all the hotrod awesomeness that plane can deliver, while kind of retaining a stealth shape for a lower rcs 4th gen plane. If they rebrand the plane the f24, they'd even be able to sell it as an export. Even better if they make it carrier capable.
F-35C Block 3 has as many weapons stations as a Super Hornet. F-35C Block 4 will have 2 more than the SH.
...and with ANY external hardpoints there goes your stealth.....
@@themoverandgonkyshow But you can still configure accordingly and always have the option of VLO vs dirty, depending on the phase of operations rather than being stuck with a lot of grounded birds Night One.
Also, we rarely fully-configure birds when generating sorties due to squadron ordnance allocations and turn-around times, especially with the majority of weapons being PGMs these days.
Even in VLO configuration, every F-35 can launch with 8x SDBs or 4x SDBs and a JDAM in the other bay, while always having 2x -120s for opportunistic A2A. If the A2A-focused birds with 4x2 net-allocate based on optimum intercepts that happen to coincide with some of the strikers, it still works.
Not having to worry about EFTs and Pods is a big force-multiplier for the ordnance and mx side of the house.
@@themoverandgonkyshow Agreed. An "f-24" wouldn't be a stealth aircraft, but it should have a lower rcs than other 4th gen aircraft. Maybe that wouldn't be a big enough difference to go through all that effort, but if it would give the guys flying those planes a few more seconds before the enemy could lock them, it seems worth while.
This is essentially the KF-21 Boramae. Could be built in the USA under license. Uses technology derived from the F-35 under license but with only limited stealth to match with external weapons stores. This provides equivalent firepower as an F-16 with visibility in between F-16 and F-35. The operating costs and maintenance time required is much less than F-35 because of no need for frequent skin repairs or gap fillers. Uses the same engines as Super Hornets but with slightly stealthier airframe shaping to bring RCS down to the minimum practical for use with external stores. Firepower is sometimes neglected by a purely stealth focused mindset. Still need missile trucks and they should have as much protection as feasible without reducing firepower.
If Canada can get networking between the two, they should get 100+ Gripens to go with the 80 something F-35s.
Canada is capable of building it's own warplanes, just need some investments. I would rather do that since you can export as well.
@@niweshlekhak9646 Canada has not built an indigenous fighter since the CF-100 in the '50s. While I'm certain that the capability could be redeveloped given enough time, I suspect that the break even point on cost would be beyond 1,000 units. Given that each administration would surely bin whatever the one before started, and the appalling state of military procurement, I don't see how this could ever come to fruition in Canada
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus We have the technological capability, we have 3rd most tech companies in the world. It will take a decade but we could have something of our own running along with F-35s, etc. If countries like India and Pakistan can, then we can do it as well.
@@niweshlekhak9646 India's Tejas is a failure by most analysis, especially considering how long it's taken (over 40 years and still hasn't entered full production) and how much its cost, India could have purchased F-16s in the '80s instead of spending money on Tejas. I'm not sure what fighter program you're talking about in Pakistan. Canada needs something now, not in 2060.
India is a country of 1.4 Billion people, Canada is less than 40 million. Canada's entre population is a rounding error in India. I don't see the parallels.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus we are technologically way ahead of India. We can create our own and unlike India big US contractors will help us due to our leap in quantum computing.
If we fight a Pacific war with China what the Navy needs is an aircraft with long range and large 8:21 payload capacity. Dog fighting is secondary. The F18 and F35 do not fullfil🎉this role. Why put a 10 billion dollar carrier at risk. Destroy the enemy before he can strike you. It may be ok for the Marines but not for the Navy. Neither the F35 nor the F18 can perform the long range fleet defense mission. This just throwing good money after bad. The Navy abandoned its long range I attack and Fleet defense missions when it abandoned the advanced Tom Cat. The Air Force will do the job in the next war not the Navy. So sad.
The argument about 5th get v 4th get is, in my opinion, often wrongly argued. If I have 30 heavily loaded 4th gen Hornets coming my way, with all their amazing capability minus the stealth aspect, I am NOT going to just brush them off so I can pay attention to a half dozen 5th gen! They bring literal Hell with them! In most cases the adversaries don't have a match for the 5th gen and barely, if at all, have a match for the Hornet! Its pilot skill and weapons ability that make the bad guys suddenly explode with failure, and technically a great pilot in a Cessna with the right load out can take on any thing that flies. So I cannot see the Navy ditching the Hornet and replacing it completely with the 35.
Try in Ukraine. Send some retierd F117/Hornets/F22 and see what works in reality. The USA has fought goat headers for 30+ years. Here you can learn reality.
The F35 acquisition cost is pretty similar to the FA18 and likely to get way more upgrades. Sustainment costs are a bit high for the F35 but should come down still. This purchase seems pointless apart from keeping a production line open until the US hands Boeing another contract for a future aircraft. An ok decision from a defence industrial base perspective but doesn't make sense really otherwise.
The Navy is only replacing the Legacy Hornet with the F-35C. They are NOT replacing the Super Hornets with them. That's what the F/A-XX is meant to do.
@@realshompaThe US decimated the 6th largest military in the world in a matter of days in Desert Storm, something no other country or collection of countries could do. GWOT was designed to distract us from our core force projection capabilities and degrade them in places that didn't matter, while Russia and China built their arsenals for future (now present) conflicts.
Bring back the F-4. Make it the Terminator version. The petite country of Turkey still flies F-4's I believe.
F-35 has its place
Its no Swiss Army Knife or gunfighter !
F-18 is a Gunfighter & a Swiss Army Knife
Combine the abilities of both , each having their specific taskings , like a combo with Fries !
F-35 covering F-18 arches
To those who really thought big wars were over after the ussr collasped, well here we are with China building ships and jets like candy, and now the Navy and Air Force are short on jets! Should have also kept F22 assembly line open. Now they have to build a new jet and it’s nice they went with the FX15
I will start by saying what the US Air Force said F 35 was a $2 trillion failure for one hour of flight has 34 hours of maintenance. It has limited endurance with internal fuel capability. It is not designed for a dogfight and frankly the Navy version of the F 35 is even more cost sensitive than the air forces F35 due to it being, surrounded by saltwater and the effects of being catapulted from a US super carrier making its flight hours much less than the US Air Force or the Marines Harrier version.
Ukraine could use these.
No
And how would they train to mission ready status and sustain this fleet? It's already going to be a major challenge with an F-16 fleet on it's own.
They are going to need type conversion training regardless of what aircraft they acquire. New build block 3 Super Hornets will be better suited for their needs than old variants of F-16s. But they don’t have the budget to order them and they are becoming less confident in the US support for them. They have been negotiating with Sweden for possible new Gripen E production over the long term. A European partner is perceived as more reliable and engaged in their concerns and Gripen is well suited for their needs.
why why not get f-35 c s ? why taxpayers have to pay new sht again
Did you not hear them talk about the f35 production line delays for like a minute there? Plus navy has lots of 35 C’s on order already
oh no ı cnt focus on something more then 12 secs @@wildwillyd
Long backorder waiting line for F-35s is now into the 2030s for deliveries of new orders.
@@stupidburp then dont sell to other countries swap their order places they should wait until 2030 why do we have to pay for more sht
Orders are typically first come first served. You can ask other countries to swap places in line but they are not obligated to switch places and would need a good reason to do so. The US has been disengaging from Europe and thus NATO members will want delivery as soon as possible. If the US paid first, then the orders would be earlier in line. Endless arguments and delays in Congress about budget discussions did not allow for early payments of the batches ordered. You snooze you lose.
It feels like the Ukraine war really showed the quality of quantity. And that if you can only carry 2,5 tons of ordnance stealthily and expensively, perhaps carrying 8 tons unstealthily but cheaply and is a better deal.
The loads carried in Ukraine are almost all well within an internal weapons bay configuration.
The mission profiles flown by everyone in and around Ukraine are all subject to detection and tracking because they aren't low observable.
@@LRRPFco52 Sure, but that is because neither side is the US.
Because I am not sure that would be the case if you had the opportunity to be drop a huge and guided load, which neither side can do right now due to shortages and technical constraint, but the US certainly could.
@@bfs007a Ukraine is launching Storm Shadows and SCALPs from Su-24Ms now, so it doesn’t get much larger than that.
In US air wings, we rarely load up the birds with max payload for a number of reasons:
* Munition allocation to the squadrons has to be dispersed.
* You don’t want to put all your weapons in one basket/airframe.
* The time it takes to configure and arm a bird is a major consideration for sortie-generation rates and turnaround.
Even the F-15E is never fully-configured.
When launching stealthy cruise missiles from extreme distances the missile truck carrying them doesn’t necessarily need to be stealthy itself. Some degree of low observability would be helpful for large volume strikes at efficient volumes with external stores. Fully stealthy fighters are of course ideal for low volume strikes much closer to the enemy. But that comes at a cost in time and money to maintain those stealth features that reduces available aircraft in practice below what is feasible with firepower focused aircraft without full stealth with the same amount of resources.
For Ukraine, fully stealthy fighters simply are not available at any price and they would struggle to afford to operate them in large numbers. If they were to buy fighters solely from the USA, then a mix of F-15EX Eagle II and F-18 block 3 Super Hornet in roughly 50/50 ratio would be the best option available to them. F-15s could operate from bases in Western Ukraine that are in better condition and are better protected. SH could operate from bases in central and Eastern Ukraine and dispersed as much as feasible.
All because the F35 fails to deliver...
How many excuses are going to be made for the F-35`s failure to replace any jet
F18 super hornets are the ones they are using to be the mand lead flights for a drone flight wings.
Sounds like a smart move on USN part. Best to not have a gap and be able to keep producing aircraft whilst you can. Good value at under $90 million per aircraft with latest bloc. The world is a shit place right now. Economy of scale is king. Look at the Brits. They’re screwed waiting on F35Cs.
Marines should get rid of the F-35B and go Super Hornet. They've never needed a V/STOL anyway!
The wasp class amphibious assault ship has entered the chat
You arnt landing a F/A 18 on a marine landing ship
@@merlesmith6794 LOL I could hear them all scream, as I hit enter on that post!
@@TopShot501st Oh well! That'll save money also but getting rid of those ships
@@buckbuchanan5849 how else are we invading Taiwan to fight the Chinese.
So, I'l be tared and feathered, for suggesting that maybe the F-35 is NOT the be all, and end all, solution for every problem.
Did I mention, I'm sick to death of Tom Criuse and his fake Top Gun movies.
The f35 is NOT a direct replacement for these aircraft. Its a new category of capabilities. People just cant understand that.
The F-35 isn’t a solution to every problem, but it is a solution to most every problem. The issue is the Navy utterly despises Lockheed and may as well have been held hostage into picking up the 35 by the Air Force and Marines. They’ve hated Lockheed since WW2 despite the fact that Lockheed has consistently made better planes save a few exceptions (praise be the F-4). It’s why they’re only using 4 squadrons with 35s instead of buying them up hand over fist like the other branches.
Now Lockheed has had issues with production delays, but the other branches have had far less production problems to the point where it’s clearly the Navy’s fault. The Navy dug its own grave with a ton of old Rhino’s and a delayed NGAD with a potential near peer war around 2030+.
You need to feel the need for speed. BTW. Iceman was the better pilot.
The F-35 was never the Super Hornet replacement.
Some of you people aggressively miss the point so hard I'm not even sure if it's trolling or just inability to learn new information.
@@acoustic5738 It 100% is the replacement but when you don't buy enough scaling doesn't work. An all F-35C fighter air wing would beat the brakes off an all SH air wing. Offers much better SEAD and EW capability. The Lightning can actaully break the sound barrier with stores. The navy can blame delays all they want but they've clearly soured on the F-35 and are now mistakenly assuming a 30+ year old airplane can match prospective threats from China which it can't.
I wonder how many scrap parts and safety protocols will be skipped building these planes. But hey as long as we can have the right gender building it. Doesn't matter if they're actually skilled or not. Putting bolts on the canopy maybe maybe not depends who you get that day. What a shame what has happened to Boeing over the past two decades since merging the Douglas. Between that and whatever woteness they're dealing with up top I guess forced by the Obama and Biden Administrations. Or maybe it's just something they want to do I don't know. I think they should get back to building quality airplanes that are safe and stop worrying about the bottom line. That's what made Boeing so great. They built quality airplanes and didn't worry about the bottom line. That is until the late 90s and the last decade or so has gotten really bad for this company unfortunately.