Srinagar Airbase to get LCA-Tejas squadron in 2022 – Indian Defence Research Wing
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
Srinagar Airbase to get LCA-Tejas squadron in 2022 – Indian Defence Research Wing
Forget it, you are completely confused.
Yes, you are. If you weren't you wouldn't have asked such a question.
Right now only one squadron is operational and is still an IOC squadron, so its needed for training and development work.
You have a SQN past 1-2 years and you are still not able to train and develop men to use this machine. This means when Rafael comes we have to wait till 2030 before they get deployed at Jaisalmer and Ambala and Tezpur
Dude, we are out of this world. I hope after CDS he does something so that things get done at faster pace. At this speed we are not reaching anywhere.
Do your home work and then you can write better posts.
F-15 offer could disrupt Indian fighter contest
Flight Global‘s Greg Waldron broke the news out of the Singapore Air Show 2020 last month of the U.S. Government considering an application for an export licence for its F-15 fighter aircraft to India.
Although there is a lot to unpack here in terms of implications (which we will get to in a minute), StratPost can confirm that an export policy approval has been granted in the form of an ITAR-waiver. ITAR stands for International Traffic in Arms Regulations that govern the control of arms exports by the United States. Separately, F-15 manufacturer Boeing also applied for a DSP-5 licence in the fourth quarter of 2019, which would allow them to market the aircraft to India. Both the ITAR-waiver and the DSP-5 licence allow the sharing of information that is not already in the public domain, for the purpose of marketing. According to the U.S. State Department, ‘The DSP-5 can include hardware, software, or documents and is the mechanism used to obtain a Marketing License for information that is not public domain’.
Finally, StratPost can confirm that representatives of the U.S. government and Boeing have already conducted early conversations on the aircraft with the Indian Air Force (IAF) on their request, under the ITAR-waiver.
The IAF’s interest in the F-15 has emerged from the U.S. Air Force order for an upgraded model of the fighter, the lessons from the air defence battle that followed the Balakote raid and tacit recognition of the distinction between the F-15 and other U.S. fighter aircraft that have been offered to India.
Currently…
As we know, the Indian Air Force has a contest gathering steam for the acquisition of 114 fighter aircraft. This contest came about after the IAF withdrew its earlier contest for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) and ended up placing an order for 36 Rafale fighters.
Eye-rollingly called MMRCA 2.0, it includes the Russian Sukhoi-35, a relative of the Sukhoi-30MKI currently in service in the IAF, in addition to the MMRCA 6 (Saab Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-21/F-16 Block 70, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and MiG-35).
Separately, the IAF is ordering, or plans to order an additional 18 Sukhoi-30MKI aircraft, 21 MiG-29 fighters and 83 Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk1A in addition to the earlier order of 40 LCA. There has also been talk of a second order for Rafale fighters further down the road.
Impact on Perception
A potential U.S. offer of the F-15, as a standalone pitch or part of MMRCA 2.0, could alter the balance of the contest, currently weighed in favour of the Rafale, as well as, calculations on other future acquisitions with the emergence of a uniquely new option.
The two U.S. fighters on offer, the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the ‘F-21’ have both struggled with some of the baggage they are perceived to carry in India.
The Lockheed Martin ‘F-21’ is the F-16 Block 70 renamed for the Indian market, for the rather obvious reason that older variants of the F-16 are operated by the Pakistan Air Force. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is still seen somewhat dismissively by IAF puritans as primarily a navy fighter, even though the aircraft is also in service in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and earlier models are in service in multiple air forces around the world.
These perception problems have worked to the advantage of the French.
The F-15 suffers from none of these difficulties.
MMRCA 2.0
The Indian Air Force, enamoured as it is with the French Rafale, has remained unchanged in its propensity to sniff at the other aircraft competing with it, for some reason or another.
The terms of the new contest are, so far, broad enough for the aircraft on offer to range from single-engine lighter fighters like the Saab Gripen and the Lockheed Martin F-21 to the no-bullshit-seriously-heavy Sukhoi-35. The Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, F/A-18 Super Hornet and MiG-35 fall somewhere between these two extremes, with the F-15 bringing up the far end, followed by the Sukhoi.
But the contrast in availability and capability at this far end is not easily dismissed, given it’s something that actually works out when you need a fighter to come for an air defence battle and not just an air show. This has become clear since Balakote, with semi-official statements lamenting, ‘Rafale hota toh aisa hota, Rafale hota toh waisa hota‘.
The forthcoming RFP (Request For Proposal) could narrow this weight and performance spectrum if the IAF decides to display clarity of intention about exactly what they want.
But could the F-15 sway the IAF from its preference for the Rafale, given the IAF has had its heart set on the French fighter (really, any fighter as long as it was French)?
It’s not Russian, it’s not a ‘navy fighter’ and it’s not a renamed F-16. It’s certainly not the Gripen and even though the Eurofighter Typhoon was the Carl Lewis of the first MMRCA race, Airbus has not displayed any enthusiasm in chasing this particular IAF order. All the competing manufacturers are painfully aware the Rafale is the aircraft to beat, already having been ordered by the IAF.
U.S. Air Force F-15EX Order
Part of the reason for the IAF’s interest in the F-15 is the U.S. Air Force commitment to the latest model, the F-15EX, solidified recently with an intention to order the first eight aircraft and plans to buy a total of 144 aircraft.
It has evolved a multi-role capability on top of its air-superiority pedigree and notched a hundred victories without loss across variants.
But development and production potential, combat record, performance and specs, though important, are not necessarily sufficient for an Indian acquisition, given the pursuit of customised and expensive ‘India-specific enhancements’ in the past.
USA! USA! USA?
First and before anything else, are decision-makers in Delhi comfortable with the idea of fielding a fleet of U.S. fighter aircraft — the first ever in the IAF?
Although the IAF might have listened with interest to an offer for the F-35, that can has been kicked down the road — at the very least, after India’s order for the Russian S-400 system. And even if the government of India succeeds in making nice by ordering the NASAMs kit, it would still be insufficient for a heart-to-heart on the F-35.
Indeed, given the inevitable strings attached, the IAF might even consider itself fortunate not to be the recipient of an F-35 offer.
Again, the F-15 is different. Not a ‘navy fighter’ or a ‘renamed F-16’, it is possibly the most capable and acceptable U.S. fighter the IAF would want offered to it.
But if an American fighter remains outside the field of imagination of decision-makers in the Government of India, the U.S. Government and Boeing would be wasting their time, in spite of offering a formidable competitor to the Rafale.
Relationship Status
The opportunity to supply offensive capabilities to a country like India is a prize far beyond a sales victory. Such sales create and define levels, shifts and milestones in bilateral relationships, potentially influencing, for example, votes at the UN Security Council. India has long relied on the Russian nyet and increasingly, more recently, on the French accent.
Cost will still matter, even though the IAF had to dump the life cycle cost-joke after the MMRCA and placed an eye-watering order for the 36 Rafale fighters.
This might not necessarily work against the F-15, given the unit price and volumes involved in the U.S. order for the latest model, even after the sunk one-time costs for the Indian infrastructure to operate the Rafale.
Should the French be worried? They might have good reason, for the first time in a long time, if an American fighter is acceptable to Delhi.
Flight Global‘s Greg Waldron broke the news out of the Singapore Air Show 2020 last month of the U.S. Government considering an application for an export licence for its F-15 fighter aircraft to India.
Although there is a lot to unpack here in terms of implications (which we will get to in a minute), StratPost can confirm that an export policy approval has been granted in the form of an ITAR-waiver. ITAR stands for International Traffic in Arms Regulations that govern the control of arms exports by the United States. Separately, F-15 manufacturer Boeing also applied for a DSP-5 licence in the fourth quarter of 2019, which would allow them to market the aircraft to India. Both the ITAR-waiver and the DSP-5 licence allow the sharing of information that is not already in the public domain, for the purpose of marketing. According to the U.S. State Department, ‘The DSP-5 can include hardware, software, or documents and is the mechanism used to obtain a Marketing License for information that is not public domain’.
Finally, StratPost can confirm that representatives of the U.S. government and Boeing have already conducted early conversations on the aircraft with the Indian Air Force (IAF) on their request, under the ITAR-waiver.
The IAF’s interest in the F-15 has emerged from the U.S. Air Force order for an upgraded model of the fighter, the lessons from the air defence battle that followed the Balakote raid and tacit recognition of the distinction between the F-15 and other U.S. fighter aircraft that have been offered to India.
Currently…
As we know, the Indian Air Force has a contest gathering steam for the acquisition of 114 fighter aircraft. This contest came about after the IAF withdrew its earlier contest for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) and ended up placing an order for 36 Rafale fighters.
Eye-rollingly called MMRCA 2.0, it includes the Russian Sukhoi-35, a relative of the Sukhoi-30MKI currently in service in the IAF, in addition to the MMRCA 6 (Saab Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-21/F-16 Block 70, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and MiG-35).
Separately, the IAF is ordering, or plans to order an additional 18 Sukhoi-30MKI aircraft, 21 MiG-29 fighters and 83 Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk1A in addition to the earlier order of 40 LCA. There has also been talk of a second order for Rafale fighters further down the road.
Impact on Perception
A potential U.S. offer of the F-15, as a standalone pitch or part of MMRCA 2.0, could alter the balance of the contest, currently weighed in favour of the Rafale, as well as, calculations on other future acquisitions with the emergence of a uniquely new option.
The two U.S. fighters on offer, the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the ‘F-21’ have both struggled with some of the baggage they are perceived to carry in India.
The Lockheed Martin ‘F-21’ is the F-16 Block 70 renamed for the Indian market, for the rather obvious reason that older variants of the F-16 are operated by the Pakistan Air Force. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is still seen somewhat dismissively by IAF puritans as primarily a navy fighter, even though the aircraft is also in service in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and earlier models are in service in multiple air forces around the world.
These perception problems have worked to the advantage of the French.
The F-15 suffers from none of these difficulties.
MMRCA 2.0
The Indian Air Force, enamoured as it is with the French Rafale, has remained unchanged in its propensity to sniff at the other aircraft competing with it, for some reason or another.
The terms of the new contest are, so far, broad enough for the aircraft on offer to range from single-engine lighter fighters like the Saab Gripen and the Lockheed Martin F-21 to the no-bullshit-seriously-heavy Sukhoi-35. The Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, F/A-18 Super Hornet and MiG-35 fall somewhere between these two extremes, with the F-15 bringing up the far end, followed by the Sukhoi.
But the contrast in availability and capability at this far end is not easily dismissed, given it’s something that actually works out when you need a fighter to come for an air defence battle and not just an air show. This has become clear since Balakote, with semi-official statements lamenting, ‘Rafale hota toh aisa hota, Rafale hota toh waisa hota‘.
The forthcoming RFP (Request For Proposal) could narrow this weight and performance spectrum if the IAF decides to display clarity of intention about exactly what they want.
But could the F-15 sway the IAF from its preference for the Rafale, given the IAF has had its heart set on the French fighter (really, any fighter as long as it was French)?
It’s not Russian, it’s not a ‘navy fighter’ and it’s not a renamed F-16. It’s certainly not the Gripen and even though the Eurofighter Typhoon was the Carl Lewis of the first MMRCA race, Airbus has not displayed any enthusiasm in chasing this particular IAF order. All the competing manufacturers are painfully aware the Rafale is the aircraft to beat, already having been ordered by the IAF.
U.S. Air Force F-15EX Order
Part of the reason for the IAF’s interest in the F-15 is the U.S. Air Force commitment to the latest model, the F-15EX, solidified recently with an intention to order the first eight aircraft and plans to buy a total of 144 aircraft.
It has evolved a multi-role capability on top of its air-superiority pedigree and notched a hundred victories without loss across variants.
But development and production potential, combat record, performance and specs, though important, are not necessarily sufficient for an Indian acquisition, given the pursuit of customised and expensive ‘India-specific enhancements’ in the past.
USA! USA! USA?
First and before anything else, are decision-makers in Delhi comfortable with the idea of fielding a fleet of U.S. fighter aircraft — the first ever in the IAF?
Although the IAF might have listened with interest to an offer for the F-35, that can has been kicked down the road — at the very least, after India’s order for the Russian S-400 system. And even if the government of India succeeds in making nice by ordering the NASAMs kit, it would still be insufficient for a heart-to-heart on the F-35.
Indeed, given the inevitable strings attached, the IAF might even consider itself fortunate not to be the recipient of an F-35 offer.
Again, the F-15 is different. Not a ‘navy fighter’ or a ‘renamed F-16’, it is possibly the most capable and acceptable U.S. fighter the IAF would want offered to it.
But if an American fighter remains outside the field of imagination of decision-makers in the Government of India, the U.S. Government and Boeing would be wasting their time, in spite of offering a formidable competitor to the Rafale.
Relationship Status
The opportunity to supply offensive capabilities to a country like India is a prize far beyond a sales victory. Such sales create and define levels, shifts and milestones in bilateral relationships, potentially influencing, for example, votes at the UN Security Council. India has long relied on the Russian nyet and increasingly, more recently, on the French accent.
Cost will still matter, even though the IAF had to dump the life cycle cost-joke after the MMRCA and placed an eye-watering order for the 36 Rafale fighters.
This might not necessarily work against the F-15, given the unit price and volumes involved in the U.S. order for the latest model, even after the sunk one-time costs for the Indian infrastructure to operate the Rafale.
Should the French be worried? They might have good reason, for the first time in a long time, if an American fighter is acceptable to Delhi.
If I were the French, the only aircraft that would threaten them would be the F-35. The F-15 is a laughable offer, it is both more expensive and less capable. And certainly not worth all the strings attached with respect to the American EUM. I would actually go on to say the SH is a much better offer, especially had they gone on to develop the Advanced SH.
Anyway, MMRCA has come into doubt consdering the CDS is more open to ordering the Rafale in tranches, something that's of greater interest to the IAF than a time consuming tender.
How to ruin the credibility of an article. Saurabh Joshi seems to have written a ton of tinfoil-hatted articles about how he drank Rahul Gandhi's cool-aid.
The F-15 is just the American version of the Su-30MKI. It's expensive to operate. Contrarily to the F-16 and F/A-18, the USA didn't manage to export the F-15 to Europe, its only customers being very rich Asian countries: Israel has its defense budget funded by the USA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are rich from petrodollars, Japan and South Korea are industrial powerhouses, and Singapore is a haven for international finance.
The idea that F-15 in India are a serious prospect seems frankly ridiculous. Just some grasping at straws by a Rafale hater.
"In the competition, there are both single-engine and twin-engine aircraft.
We are looking to prepare the qualitative requirement specifications in a way that there is a level-playing field between both the fighters and there can be a fair competition between them," top IAF sources told ANI.
In a competition between twin-engine and single-engine fighter planes, the latter has a cost advantage as there is one engine less required to power the planes but the former gives an edge in terms of safety and performance. The competition has the F-21 and the Saab Gripen as the single-engine jets while the other five are twin-engine fighter jets.
IAF ensuring level-playing field for single, twin engine fighter jets in USD 20 billion deal
We are looking to prepare the qualitative requirement specifications in a way that there is a level-playing field between both the fighters and there can be a fair competition between them," top IAF sources told ANI.
In a competition between twin-engine and single-engine fighter planes, the latter has a cost advantage as there is one engine less required to power the planes but the former gives an edge in terms of safety and performance. The competition has the F-21 and the Saab Gripen as the single-engine jets while the other five are twin-engine fighter jets.
IAF ensuring level-playing field for single, twin engine fighter jets in USD 20 billion deal
It's unfortunate that we have to face the MMRCA circus again, even though the CDS is open to buy the Rafale in tranches, which is cheaper and quicker.
I guess the IAF is more interested in seeing and comparing the next gen technologies being made available instead.
Navy Says Ending Super Hornet Line Frees Up Resources for Life Extension Work
By: Megan Eckstein
March 10, 2020 9:21 PM • Updated: March 10, 2020 10:18 PM
Seaman Sakyra Baker stands aft lookout as an F/A-18 Super Hornet assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7 lands on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) on Feb. 21, 2019. US Navy Photo
CAPITOL HILL – The Navy’s request to end the F/A-18E-F Super Hornet production line after 2021 instead of signing another multiyear production contract was not to save money, but rather to allow manufacturer Boeing to convert the production line from building new planes to overhauling old ones at a rate of 40 per year.
The Navy is managing a shifting fighter fleet, which today only sends fourth-generation Super Hornets on deployments but by next year will begin its transition into a blend of fourth- and fifth-gen fighters, once the first squadron of F-35C Joint Strike Fighters heads out with the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group.
Navy acquisition chief James Geurts said today that the best way to support the ideal mix of F-18s and F-35s was to stop buying Super Hornets after the current contract ends in Fiscal Year 2021 and to focus instead on getting as many as possible per year through the Service Life Modification (SLM) program. SLM not only adds thousands of flying hours to the planes’ lives but also upgrades them to the new Block III configuration with that adds stealth, range, weapons-carrying capacity and advanced connectivity.
“Most of the parts of the aircraft aren’t built on the production line, it’s assembly; so we’re going to see a large transference of that skill and expertise as we take airplanes apart and service life extend them,” he told USNI News after a House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing, adding that he wanted the same experts that assembled new planes to re-assemble the older ones after they were taken apart for new components to be adding in for the life extension and capability upgrade program.
“And also part of that is modifying those from Block II to Block III aircraft. So we’re going to simultaneously extend the service life so we can get more flying hours and then greatly enhance the capability as we give them the full Block III capability. So essentially an airplane coming out of there is a Block III F/A-18E-F with lots of flying hours left, which is not much different than a new production Block III F/A-18E-F with a lot of hours left.”
Many of the Navy’s most controversial cuts in the FY 2021 budget request were driven by flat toplines and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine construction squeezing out other spending priorities – cutting one of two planned attack submarines in 2021 and cutting a planned Arleigh Burke destroyer in the out years were “strictly affordability” issues, Navy officials have said.
Geurts assured that the decision to end F-18 procurement earlier than previously planned – another multiyear contract had been written into earlier aircraft procurement plans, showing a buy of 36 jets from 2022 to 2024 – had nothing to do with money and everything to do with need.
“When we look at our fighter shortfall, we’re about 49 aircraft short. Between SLM and F-35 coming online – we’re adding F-35s into the fleet now – that fighter shortfall essentially goes to zero towards the end of the 2020s. And so, looking at that, we have to take a little bit of risk in between now and the end of 2020s; about 40 aircraft on a fleet of 800 is a manageable risk. Particularly if we keep our mission capable rate up. I think we added about 134 aircraft to the Navy inventory in our mission capable rate improvements this last year, so that’s another way” to increase ready jets available for training and operations, Geurts told USNI News.
During the hearing, though, the subcommittee’s chairman and ranking member expressed concern about stopping production, especially since the Navy’s replacement program, the FA-XX program, is still in early development.
“The Navy’s budget proposal removes 36 Super Hornet strike-fighter aircraft planned after fiscal year 2021 and begins shutdown of the F/A-18 production line beginning in 2023, increasing the Navy’s strike-fighter shortfall next year. Further, we need to understand what gives Navy leadership and acquisition officials confidence that terminating Super Hornet production 10 years before the next generation FA-XX strike-fighter, currently existent on just briefing slides, is prudent,” Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) said in his opening statement.
“Regarding Navy strike fighter management: This budget request removed 36 new production F/A-18 Super Hornets in the out-years that were originally planned for production in last year’s budget. Given the Navy’s current shortfall of 49 aircraft, I’m concerned that this decision is creating too much operational risk in the near term,” Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) said in her opening statement. Boeing’s F-18 production facility is in her home state of Missouri, but not in Hartzler’s district.
Geurts told the lawmakers during the hearing that he was confident the Navy would have enough jets ready to train and operate at any given time under this plan. The SLM process currently takes 18 months but will be reduced to 12 months once the work moves to a productionized setup on an assembly line, which can only happen if new construction stops.
The Navy is also sending feedback to the fleet to try to reduce the amount of work the Super Hornets will eventually need when they go through SLM. For example, the first couple Super Hornets showed up with more corrosion than expected, Geurts acknowledged at the hearing. The Navy is working with flight line maintainers to find ways to reduce the number of times panels and spaces on the planes have to be opened during routine maintenance, to minimize how much exposure the jets’ insides have to the elements and ultimately to reduce corrosion that will have to be addressed during their SLM process.
On the Marine Corps side, Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Steven Rudder said during the hearing that the Marines are not facing a shortfall. In fact, now that the Navy has gotten rid of its remaining legacy Hornets and are operating just the Super Hornet, the Marines have been able to pick through the cast-aside planes and see which are in the best conditions for future operations.
“Since the Navy divested of their legacy Hornets, we actually have a lot of Hornets that we’re kind of sorting through to configure with the best of breed, the higher lot numbers if you will. We have 275; we need about 143 on the flight lines, so we have enough Hornets,” Rudder said.
“We have enough (AV-8B) Harriers, even though they’re down around 123. What the challenge for us is is the transition” to the F-35B and C variants and making sure procurement keeps up with the planned transition rate for squadrons.
The Marine Corps hopes to transition two Hornet or Harrier squadrons a year to the F-35, and they need to buy 20 new F-35s a year to keep up with this schedule. Given that lawmakers sometimes cut aircraft procurement to free up funds for other add-ins, or Pentagon or White House leaders make cuts to support other priorities outside the Marine Corps or Defense Department budget, Rudder said continuing at the 20-a-year procurement rate is the biggest risk to the service’s “ongoing in-stride transition” to fifth-generation aviation.
By: Megan Eckstein
March 10, 2020 9:21 PM • Updated: March 10, 2020 10:18 PM
Seaman Sakyra Baker stands aft lookout as an F/A-18 Super Hornet assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7 lands on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) on Feb. 21, 2019. US Navy Photo
CAPITOL HILL – The Navy’s request to end the F/A-18E-F Super Hornet production line after 2021 instead of signing another multiyear production contract was not to save money, but rather to allow manufacturer Boeing to convert the production line from building new planes to overhauling old ones at a rate of 40 per year.
The Navy is managing a shifting fighter fleet, which today only sends fourth-generation Super Hornets on deployments but by next year will begin its transition into a blend of fourth- and fifth-gen fighters, once the first squadron of F-35C Joint Strike Fighters heads out with the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group.
Navy acquisition chief James Geurts said today that the best way to support the ideal mix of F-18s and F-35s was to stop buying Super Hornets after the current contract ends in Fiscal Year 2021 and to focus instead on getting as many as possible per year through the Service Life Modification (SLM) program. SLM not only adds thousands of flying hours to the planes’ lives but also upgrades them to the new Block III configuration with that adds stealth, range, weapons-carrying capacity and advanced connectivity.
“Most of the parts of the aircraft aren’t built on the production line, it’s assembly; so we’re going to see a large transference of that skill and expertise as we take airplanes apart and service life extend them,” he told USNI News after a House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing, adding that he wanted the same experts that assembled new planes to re-assemble the older ones after they were taken apart for new components to be adding in for the life extension and capability upgrade program.
“And also part of that is modifying those from Block II to Block III aircraft. So we’re going to simultaneously extend the service life so we can get more flying hours and then greatly enhance the capability as we give them the full Block III capability. So essentially an airplane coming out of there is a Block III F/A-18E-F with lots of flying hours left, which is not much different than a new production Block III F/A-18E-F with a lot of hours left.”
Many of the Navy’s most controversial cuts in the FY 2021 budget request were driven by flat toplines and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine construction squeezing out other spending priorities – cutting one of two planned attack submarines in 2021 and cutting a planned Arleigh Burke destroyer in the out years were “strictly affordability” issues, Navy officials have said.
Geurts assured that the decision to end F-18 procurement earlier than previously planned – another multiyear contract had been written into earlier aircraft procurement plans, showing a buy of 36 jets from 2022 to 2024 – had nothing to do with money and everything to do with need.
“When we look at our fighter shortfall, we’re about 49 aircraft short. Between SLM and F-35 coming online – we’re adding F-35s into the fleet now – that fighter shortfall essentially goes to zero towards the end of the 2020s. And so, looking at that, we have to take a little bit of risk in between now and the end of 2020s; about 40 aircraft on a fleet of 800 is a manageable risk. Particularly if we keep our mission capable rate up. I think we added about 134 aircraft to the Navy inventory in our mission capable rate improvements this last year, so that’s another way” to increase ready jets available for training and operations, Geurts told USNI News.
During the hearing, though, the subcommittee’s chairman and ranking member expressed concern about stopping production, especially since the Navy’s replacement program, the FA-XX program, is still in early development.
“The Navy’s budget proposal removes 36 Super Hornet strike-fighter aircraft planned after fiscal year 2021 and begins shutdown of the F/A-18 production line beginning in 2023, increasing the Navy’s strike-fighter shortfall next year. Further, we need to understand what gives Navy leadership and acquisition officials confidence that terminating Super Hornet production 10 years before the next generation FA-XX strike-fighter, currently existent on just briefing slides, is prudent,” Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) said in his opening statement.
“Regarding Navy strike fighter management: This budget request removed 36 new production F/A-18 Super Hornets in the out-years that were originally planned for production in last year’s budget. Given the Navy’s current shortfall of 49 aircraft, I’m concerned that this decision is creating too much operational risk in the near term,” Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) said in her opening statement. Boeing’s F-18 production facility is in her home state of Missouri, but not in Hartzler’s district.
Geurts told the lawmakers during the hearing that he was confident the Navy would have enough jets ready to train and operate at any given time under this plan. The SLM process currently takes 18 months but will be reduced to 12 months once the work moves to a productionized setup on an assembly line, which can only happen if new construction stops.
The Navy is also sending feedback to the fleet to try to reduce the amount of work the Super Hornets will eventually need when they go through SLM. For example, the first couple Super Hornets showed up with more corrosion than expected, Geurts acknowledged at the hearing. The Navy is working with flight line maintainers to find ways to reduce the number of times panels and spaces on the planes have to be opened during routine maintenance, to minimize how much exposure the jets’ insides have to the elements and ultimately to reduce corrosion that will have to be addressed during their SLM process.
On the Marine Corps side, Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Steven Rudder said during the hearing that the Marines are not facing a shortfall. In fact, now that the Navy has gotten rid of its remaining legacy Hornets and are operating just the Super Hornet, the Marines have been able to pick through the cast-aside planes and see which are in the best conditions for future operations.
“Since the Navy divested of their legacy Hornets, we actually have a lot of Hornets that we’re kind of sorting through to configure with the best of breed, the higher lot numbers if you will. We have 275; we need about 143 on the flight lines, so we have enough Hornets,” Rudder said.
“We have enough (AV-8B) Harriers, even though they’re down around 123. What the challenge for us is is the transition” to the F-35B and C variants and making sure procurement keeps up with the planned transition rate for squadrons.
The Marine Corps hopes to transition two Hornet or Harrier squadrons a year to the F-35, and they need to buy 20 new F-35s a year to keep up with this schedule. Given that lawmakers sometimes cut aircraft procurement to free up funds for other add-ins, or Pentagon or White House leaders make cuts to support other priorities outside the Marine Corps or Defense Department budget, Rudder said continuing at the 20-a-year procurement rate is the biggest risk to the service’s “ongoing in-stride transition” to fifth-generation aviation.
Navy Says Ending Super Hornet Line Frees Up Resources for Life Extension Work
By: Megan Eckstein
March 10, 2020 9:21 PM • Updated: March 10, 2020 10:18 PM
Seaman Sakyra Baker stands aft lookout as an F/A-18 Super Hornet assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7 lands on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) on Feb. 21, 2019. US Navy Photo
CAPITOL HILL – The Navy’s request to end the F/A-18E-F Super Hornet production line after 2021 instead of signing another multiyear production contract was not to save money, but rather to allow manufacturer Boeing to convert the production line from building new planes to overhauling old ones at a rate of 40 per year.
The Navy is managing a shifting fighter fleet, which today only sends fourth-generation Super Hornets on deployments but by next year will begin its transition into a blend of fourth- and fifth-gen fighters, once the first squadron of F-35C Joint Strike Fighters heads out with the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group.
Navy acquisition chief James Geurts said today that the best way to support the ideal mix of F-18s and F-35s was to stop buying Super Hornets after the current contract ends in Fiscal Year 2021 and to focus instead on getting as many as possible per year through the Service Life Modification (SLM) program. SLM not only adds thousands of flying hours to the planes’ lives but also upgrades them to the new Block III configuration with that adds stealth, range, weapons-carrying capacity and advanced connectivity.
“Most of the parts of the aircraft aren’t built on the production line, it’s assembly; so we’re going to see a large transference of that skill and expertise as we take airplanes apart and service life extend them,” he told USNI News after a House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing, adding that he wanted the same experts that assembled new planes to re-assemble the older ones after they were taken apart for new components to be adding in for the life extension and capability upgrade program.
“And also part of that is modifying those from Block II to Block III aircraft. So we’re going to simultaneously extend the service life so we can get more flying hours and then greatly enhance the capability as we give them the full Block III capability. So essentially an airplane coming out of there is a Block III F/A-18E-F with lots of flying hours left, which is not much different than a new production Block III F/A-18E-F with a lot of hours left.”
Many of the Navy’s most controversial cuts in the FY 2021 budget request were driven by flat toplines and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine construction squeezing out other spending priorities – cutting one of two planned attack submarines in 2021 and cutting a planned Arleigh Burke destroyer in the out years were “strictly affordability” issues, Navy officials have said.
Geurts assured that the decision to end F-18 procurement earlier than previously planned – another multiyear contract had been written into earlier aircraft procurement plans, showing a buy of 36 jets from 2022 to 2024 – had nothing to do with money and everything to do with need.
“When we look at our fighter shortfall, we’re about 49 aircraft short. Between SLM and F-35 coming online – we’re adding F-35s into the fleet now – that fighter shortfall essentially goes to zero towards the end of the 2020s. And so, looking at that, we have to take a little bit of risk in between now and the end of 2020s; about 40 aircraft on a fleet of 800 is a manageable risk. Particularly if we keep our mission capable rate up. I think we added about 134 aircraft to the Navy inventory in our mission capable rate improvements this last year, so that’s another way” to increase ready jets available for training and operations, Geurts told USNI News.
During the hearing, though, the subcommittee’s chairman and ranking member expressed concern about stopping production, especially since the Navy’s replacement program, the FA-XX program, is still in early development.
“The Navy’s budget proposal removes 36 Super Hornet strike-fighter aircraft planned after fiscal year 2021 and begins shutdown of the F/A-18 production line beginning in 2023, increasing the Navy’s strike-fighter shortfall next year. Further, we need to understand what gives Navy leadership and acquisition officials confidence that terminating Super Hornet production 10 years before the next generation FA-XX strike-fighter, currently existent on just briefing slides, is prudent,” Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) said in his opening statement.
“Regarding Navy strike fighter management: This budget request removed 36 new production F/A-18 Super Hornets in the out-years that were originally planned for production in last year’s budget. Given the Navy’s current shortfall of 49 aircraft, I’m concerned that this decision is creating too much operational risk in the near term,” Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) said in her opening statement. Boeing’s F-18 production facility is in her home state of Missouri, but not in Hartzler’s district.
Geurts told the lawmakers during the hearing that he was confident the Navy would have enough jets ready to train and operate at any given time under this plan. The SLM process currently takes 18 months but will be reduced to 12 months once the work moves to a productionized setup on an assembly line, which can only happen if new construction stops.
The Navy is also sending feedback to the fleet to try to reduce the amount of work the Super Hornets will eventually need when they go through SLM. For example, the first couple Super Hornets showed up with more corrosion than expected, Geurts acknowledged at the hearing. The Navy is working with flight line maintainers to find ways to reduce the number of times panels and spaces on the planes have to be opened during routine maintenance, to minimize how much exposure the jets’ insides have to the elements and ultimately to reduce corrosion that will have to be addressed during their SLM process.
On the Marine Corps side, Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Steven Rudder said during the hearing that the Marines are not facing a shortfall. In fact, now that the Navy has gotten rid of its remaining legacy Hornets and are operating just the Super Hornet, the Marines have been able to pick through the cast-aside planes and see which are in the best conditions for future operations.
“Since the Navy divested of their legacy Hornets, we actually have a lot of Hornets that we’re kind of sorting through to configure with the best of breed, the higher lot numbers if you will. We have 275; we need about 143 on the flight lines, so we have enough Hornets,” Rudder said.
“We have enough (AV-8B) Harriers, even though they’re down around 123. What the challenge for us is is the transition” to the F-35B and C variants and making sure procurement keeps up with the planned transition rate for squadrons.
The Marine Corps hopes to transition two Hornet or Harrier squadrons a year to the F-35, and they need to buy 20 new F-35s a year to keep up with this schedule. Given that lawmakers sometimes cut aircraft procurement to free up funds for other add-ins, or Pentagon or White House leaders make cuts to support other priorities outside the Marine Corps or Defense Department budget, Rudder said continuing at the 20-a-year procurement rate is the biggest risk to the service’s “ongoing in-stride transition” to fifth-generation aviation.
If they shut down production, then even exports will end.
Yes, that's why I put this article in this thread. The same in Finland and Switzerland. But Boeing is very sick now
It's a problem if you consider the IN's tender could end up as a single vendor situation. But I get the feeling some Middle East country may extend the production line by a few years. For example, follow-on options from Kuwait. Long enough for all global tenders to die out by the time this order is completed.
Not necessarily.
An Indian F-35 will require an Indian communication system, IFF, EW capability, logistics system etc, similar to the Israeli package. Whereas Turkey's F-35 uses everything that the rest of NATO uses, putting all of NATO at risk.
The only thing left is stealth. But by the time India decides to buy the F-35, places an order, gets them and then tests them against the S-400, you can be sure the Russians will already have received a lot of electronic data from other sources anyway, like their satellites and other radar systems. Hell, you can't discount the fact that the Russians already have a lot of information with their S-400s observing Israeli F-35s from Syria, especially when said F-35s have even launched airstrikes inside Syria.
The Russians have so many options to collect intelliegence that the real reason the US wants to avoid S-400 sales is political rather than technological. The US is doing their best to stop the S-400 sale to any and all countries they can, including India, through threats, coercsion, blackmail etc. So this F-35/S-400 incompatability seems more like an excuse than anything else.
The S-400 is scary because it prevents recce planes from approaching close to it. So any area protected by the S-400 becomes an information blackhole to US intelligence assets, which can be absolutely disastrous to any NATO war effort. This is pretty much the main reason why the US wants to prevent both allies and adversaries from procuring it. Any two-bit country with the S-400 can then challenge the US.
Only Israel has been allowed a custom F35 ,not even UK. So we getting is next to impossible