AF Hornets

[OverTQ]

19. Air Force Urged To Consider Navy F-18s As the Air National Guard grapples with an impending fighter jet shortfall that will threaten its ability to protect U.S. airspace, its supporters in Congress and the Pentagon want the Air Force to consider all possible solutions -- even buying Navy F-18s to fill the gap. Lawmakers and other National Guard boosters are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Defense Department and the Air Force, charging that officials have no workable plan to deal with the Guard's aging fleet. They argue that 80 percent of the Air Guard's F-16s, which fly the majority of Air Sovereignty Alert missions, will retire years before their replacements are ready, depleting units of the aircraft they need to secure domestic airspace. The workhorse F-15 fleet isn't in much better shape, having been grounded for three months after one broke apart in November 2007 during a training mission over eastern Missouri. According to a GAO report released this year, the Air Force will not have viable aircraft after FY15 at some of its 18 ASA sites in the United States -- 16 of which are run by the Guard. By 2032, two sites will still not have viable aircraft for the mission. "Despite the Pentagon's head-in-the-sand attitude, I'm exploring any and every option on the table to address the looming fighter shortfall," said Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus. Bond and others have proposed buying "4.5-generation" fighters - advanced versions of current fighters that are less costly than the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - as one option that could solve the problem quickly. Across the Capitol, the House has passed a FY10 defense authorization bill that includes an amendment by Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., requiring Defense Secretary Gates to review buying advanced F-15s, F-16s and F-18s for the Air Guard. To me, it's a very critical problem that needs immediate attention in order to avert a real catastrophe in eight to 10 years," LoBiondo said.

Both the F-15s and F-16s are still in production for international customers. But there is concern that advanced versions of the F-15, a Boeing Co.-built plane with a price tag that could top $70 million, would be cost-prohibitive. As for Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-16, the manufacturer is expected to focus its U.S. efforts on its F-35 program. While neither plane is out of the question, the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, another Boeing plane, has emerged as an appealing, though unorthodox, alternative. Boeing has given the Navy an unsolicited offer to buy 149 of those aircraft carrier-based fighters as part of a multiyear procurement plan at $49.9 million apiece. The price tag would likely drop if the military bought more to equip page 16 Air Guard units. For its part, Boeing said it hasn't had any discussions with the National Guard about the F-18s. But one defense official aid it's an area the Air Force should review. "I think the taxpayer demands we look at this because it's an efficient, highly capable aircraft that can sustain our force structure through this risky period," the official said. The Air Force is focusing its budgets on the F-35, which eventually will make its way to the Air Guard. But leaders insist they are open to other solutions, if necessary.

Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt, chief of the Air Guard, said last week he is "platform agnostic," but mentioned the F-18 -- along with the F-15 and F-16 -- as a possible solution, especially if the F-35 program falls behind schedule. But the defense official expects the Air Force to reject any efforts to buy Super Hornets -- or any other older fighters. "The Air Force won't do it willingly, more than likely, because it doesn't meet their strategy," he said. Buying F-18s would not mark the first time the Air Force purchased planes built for the Navy. During the Vietnam War, the Air Force flew A-7 Corsair IIs, F-4 Phantom IIs, and A-1 Skyraiders, all of which were originally designed for take offs and landings on Navy carriers. Still, there would likely be concerns within the Air Force and even in some state Air Guard units that buying F-18s would complicate training and logistics. But those arguments, the defense official said, are "not valid."

by Megan Scully with Otto Kreisher contributing

[Breckey]

Still, there would likely be concerns within the Air Force and even in some state Air Guard units that buying F-18s would complicate training and logistics. But those arguments, the defense official said, are "not valid."

Um, yeah okay. So an entirely new set of equipment, training pipeline, and logistical train for Air Guard is not a valid reason reason to not acquire the super bug? Also I highly doubt that LM will balk if the AF asks to buy some F-16 Blk 52+.

[Guest CA]

Where'd you find that story? Just looking for a link to send.

[Guest CharlieDontSurf]

Um, yeah okay. So an entirely new set of equipment, training pipeline, and logistical train for Air Guard is not a valid reason reason to not acquire the super bug? Also I highly doubt that LM will balk if the AF asks to buy some F-16 Blk 52+.

Maybe the Block 60s the UAE is sporting? http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Holloman2005/Highlights/Block60F16SideView.jpg

Edited August 6, 2009 by CharlieDontSurf

[zach braff]

Where'd you find that story? Just looking for a link to send.

It's on the early bird today.

Also, on the entirely new pipeline for the ANG...I know it's not that simple,, but couldn't we just train through the navy/marines schoolhouses?

zb

[Guest CA]

It's on the early bird today.

zb

Ah thanks. I didn't even think to check there.

[PapaJu]

Similar thread on this:

http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?/topic/15885-article-on-possible-guard-aircraft-shortages-in-future/

[Steve Davies]

Maybe the Block 60s the UAE is sporting?

If the article is correct, the concern is that the Air Sovereignty mission will suffer without new a/c. For that mission, the Block 60 might be overkill and too expensive (although, it would be ideal if the ANG was tasked again in the same manner as it was for OIF). In which case, why not go with Block 52+?

I don't buy the idea that Lockheed cannot make them for the Air Force because the AF wants it to focus all of its attention on the F-35. LM is churning out F-16s already, so why not use that same workforce to build more Vipers - it won't detract from the JSF.

[StoleIt]

If the article is correct, the concern is that the Air Sovereignty mission will suffer without new a/c. For that mission, the Block 60 might be overkill and too expensive (although, it would be ideal if the ANG was tasked again in the same manner as it was for OIF). In which case, why not go with Block 52+?

I don't buy the idea that Lockheed cannot make them for the Air Force because the AF wants it to focus all of its attention on the F-35. LM is churning out F-16s already, so why not use that same workforce to build more Vipers - it won't detract from the JSF.

Block 60's cost more than Super Hornets?

Seriously how is that possible. The Super Bug has two engines and is bigger...how did they manage to make it less expensive than the newest Viper?

Hats off to Boeing if they did...

Edit: Might have mis-read that...Your saying Block 60's cost too much over a 52 to make them a valid option? Not Block 60s vs an -18E/F right?

Edited August 6, 2009 by stoleit2x

[Steve Davies]

Edit: Might have mis-read that...Your saying Block 60's cost too much over a 52 to make them a valid option? Not Block 60s vs an -18E/F right?

Correct - I am saying that if your primary mission is sovereignty operations within the CONUS, you probably don't need AESA, CFT, IRST and a plush EW fit. For that mission, the Block 52+ should more than suffice.

Block 60's cost more than Super Hornets?

Seriously how is that possible. The Super Bug has two engines and is bigger...how did they manage to make it less expensive than the newest Viper?

Hats off to Boeing if they did...

But, yes, the F/A-18E/F is about $55m a pop, whereas the F-16E/F goes for about $80m each. Those are the approximate turn-key figures, although with UAE being the only Block 60 operator out there, they are slightly skewed.

[JarheadBoom]

Um, yeah okay. So an entirely new set of equipment, training pipeline, and logistical train for Air Guard is not a valid reason reason to not acquire the super bug?

Um... train with the Navy at Lemoore or Oceana, in established Hornet training squadrons? Allow the Navy's established Intermediate- and Depot-Level Maintenance facilities to handle the heavy maintenance? Use the established Navy supply pipeline? That's not a huge obstacle.

[StoleIt]

Um... train with the Navy at Lemoore or Oceana, in established Hornet training squadrons? Allow the Navy's established Intermediate- and Depot-Level Maintenance facilities to handle the heavy maintenance? Use the established Navy supply pipeline? That's not a huge obstacle.

Or just keep operating Vipers and we can avoid all this. Hell we have enough Vipers in the grave yard we could probably bring up to Block 52 spec easily and cheaply enough.

[Combat Platypus]

I happen to work with many LM employees and other contract/government grabbing people and have seen LM gouge their way into anything they can. I have no doubt if LM is tasked to build more Falcons they will get every $ out of the lines they can get.

Not a fighter dude, but I'm for diversify the fleet and don't believe stealth is called for in every instance, 16's 18's whatever, a Zeppelin could do much of the bomb dropping they've been doing for the past couple years.

[JarheadBoom]

Or just keep operating Vipers and we can avoid all this.

Seems like a reasonable plan...

[OverTQ]

This was probably started by some "well meaning" supporter of national defense. Who's congressional district just happens to be in St Louis. I don't think the argument should be "can we" but "should we".