The Navy’s F-35 rollout
July 28th, 2009 | Aviation Carriers Navy | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
Here’s a photo from Forth Worth this afternoon, where Lockheed Martin rolled out its first F-35C, the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. That’s Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead at the podium.
Here’s a little background info. The F-35C will undergo some test flights up at Pax River in Maryland later this year, and the first carrier landing is scheduled for Spring of 2011.
New(?) report of delays for the F-35
July 23rd, 2009 | Aviation Carriers Navy Washington | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
Capitol Hill is buzzing about this report today from Congressional Quarterly:
The Pentagon’s Joint Estimating Team, established to independently oversee the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, determined that the plane won’t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production until 2016, rather than in 2014 as the program office has said.
But we’re not so sure this is really all that new.
We’ve heard about the Joint Estimating Team’s critical assessments before, in this GAO report from May. That report notes a two-year gap in completion dates cited by the Joint Estimating Team and the JSF program office. [see pdf page 12 of 51]
And if you read the CQ piece closely, the CQ reporter doesn’t actually have a hard copy of any new report.
Nevertheless, they’re all talking about it over on the Hill. One Congressional staffer tells the Scoop Deck this afternoon:
“We’ve been asking a lot of questions in the last few hours. At this point, we haven’t gotten any answers or info from DoD. …If we get anything hard, I’ll definitely share it.”
Will a new national defense strategy mean fewer planes?
July 23rd, 2009 | Aviation Blogs Carriers Navy Washington | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
There’ve been a lot of rumors swirling around Washington that the 50-year-old national defense strategy (being able to fight two big wars at the same time) is about to get canned in favor of a new one.
Really? What happens if the senior-most military leaders decide that preparing for asymmetrical conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan is more important than fighting a second peer competitor? What are the implications of that for the Navy?
That was a question posed by Navy guru Ron O’Rourke the other day during a panel discussion of Naval aviation in Washington.
“That would amount to a change in the current force sizing construct. The question that flows from that is: What value carriers and Naval aviation have in that strategy?”
Unfortunately, O’Rourke didn’t answer his own question.
But take a look at what Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill on July 9. He was talking about fighter jets and said:
“…the number of those fighters probably does not need to be sufficient to take on two simultaneous peer competitors, that we don’t see that as the likely. We see that as the extreme.”
So will the new national defense strategy brewing over at the Pentagon call for fewer fighter jets? … If so, will we really need 11 aircraft carriers? Will we still have a fighter gap?
Tell us what you think.
F-22 may be the Navy’s best friend
July 15th, 2009 | Aviation Carriers Washington | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
Maybe Congress can only fight over one aircraft at a time.
And these days, it’s not the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Lawmakers have been quietly inserting millions of extra dollars into this year’s budget so the Navy can buy more Super Hornets — airplanes many say are needed to close the looming “fighter gap.”
A retired naval aviator who watches closely the mechanics of Washington tells Scoopdeck that the very public battle over the Air Force’s pricey plane is providing some political cover for the Super Hornets’ advocates.
“With all the controversy over the F-22, the F/A-18 is kind of in the shadows and it might benefit from that,” the former aviator said.
“It looks like the increased procurement for the F/A-18 will stay in the budget while they fight over the F-22.”
F-35: Bells and whistles for all
June 15th, 2009 | Aviation Foreign navies Navy Science and technology Washington | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
There is some pretty clever technology coming down the pike along with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Another reporter and I were wondering the other day about whether the U.S. is actually going to sell all of those bells and whistles to all of the eight foreign militaries that are also buying the F-35.
So I posed the question to Cheryl Limrick, the spokeswoman over at the JSF office.
Will all of the F-35 international customers really have the same, peer capabilities? Or will the U.S. keep any of the technology for itself?
She said: “All JSF participants (US and 8 international partners) are getting the same air frame, sensors, avionics, and software.”
More Super Hornets? Part II
June 12th, 2009 | Aviation Carriers Navy Washington | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
Yesterday we heard rumors that legislators on Capitol Hill would tell the Navy to buy more Super Hornets — despite the fact the Navy has not formally asked for any.
That’s no longer a rumor: Today Rep. Gene Taylor marked up the defense authorization bill to include permission for the Navy to enter into a new multi-year contract with Boeing to buy more Super Hornets.
Here’s his logic:
“This mark clearly indicates that the Navy should build more of these planes instead of trying to extend the life of the older and less capable F/A18A thru D Hornets. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the Department would pay $26 million to extend the flying life of an older plane by just 1,500 hours, when for $50 million they could buy a brand new, more capable plane that is good for 8,000 hours.
That could lead to new Super Hornets.
But a subcommittee markup is a long way from becoming a law.
More Super Hornets coming soon?
June 11th, 2009 | Aviation Blogs Carriers Washington | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
Take a look at this. …A reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch thinks Congress is going to step in and force the Navy to buy more Boeing-made Super Hornets. (St. Louis is the home of Boeing headquarters)
This comes as we’re hearing more about the size of the fighter gap.
We’re going to keep an eye on tomorrow’s House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee meeting. The meeting is what they call a “mark-up” – or the time when legislators like to pencil in big changes to funding bills.
Business trips or junkets?
June 11th, 2009 | Foreign navies Navy Officers Washington | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
Lots of times when Navy officials travel, they don’t actually pay for the trips. Instead, it’s business, associations and foreign governments that pick up the tab.
Check out this site here that shows all the trips taken by Navy officials and who paid for them. Just plug in “Navy” or “Naval” in the “Base or Office” search box.
(…$5,299 to fly to London and attend the Historic Naval Ships Association Conference in 2006? That’s good work if you can get it.)
Smoking crackdown?
June 9th, 2009 | Navy | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
No smoking, anywhere, anytime. That’s the new rule imposed last week at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Yokosuka, Japan.
One sailor tells Scoop Deck that some khakis will be patrolling around on the edges of hospital property to make sure nobody is sneaking a smoke.
“It’s crap” according to the sailor, who confessed to being among those still puffing away in the shadows.
A spokesman for the hospital says the move wasn’t really a big change. “Tobacco-use on hospital grounds has already been phased out as the designated smoking area was demolished to allow for more patient parking,” spokesman Richard McManus said in an email to Scoop Deck.
Any other smoking crackdowns going on out there? Let us know.
EA-18G…Grizzly?
June 9th, 2009 | Aviation Carriers | Posted by Andrew Tilghman
The Navy’s newest jet as a new name.