It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“Our focus on the students that go through TOPGUN is not limited to teaching them the tactics, techniques and procedures that are required for them to successfully employ their aircraft, integrated into a larger force,” Cmdr. Timothy Myers, TOPGUN department head, said in the release. “We are also in the business of teaching our graduates how to instruct other students, so that when they go back to the fleet, they are able to instruct at a very high level.”
While TOPGUN had previously graduated students who trained to F-35C tactics and procedures, Heinz and Goodwin are the first fleet pilots already flying the jet to graduate the course, which used a syllabus developed from the ground up specifically for F-35C integrated operations, the Navy said. NAWDC has gradually incorporated F-35C tactics into the training curriculum as the advanced jet continues to enter the fleet and replace aging Navy and Marine Corps fighter aircraft.
“The Lightning II proved its value to the Navy during every phase of the TOPGUN course,” Myers said, “and its integration with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, E/A-18G Growler and E-2C/D Hawkeye demonstrated that the powerful combination of 4th and 5th generation fighters, with advanced electronic attack, and command and control, is a force-multiplier against advanced threats.”
Boeing announced today that it had delivered the first two F/A-18 Block III Super Hornets to the U.S. Navy for flight testing, one of which is a single-seat E model and the other a two-seat F model.
The Block III model is more “networked and survivable” compared to the Block II design, Jennifer Tebo, Boeing director of development for F/A-18 and EA-18G programs, told reporters on a media call today.
The block upgrade includes five major design features: an advanced cockpit system that combines legacy displays into a single glass touchscreen for easier use; conformal fuel tanks that add about 3,500 more pounds of fuel-carrying capacity to the jet to give it the range of the rest of the carrier air wing; a 10,000 flight hour service life, compared to about 6,000 hours previously; radar cross section improvements to make the jets even harder to find as enemy systems grow in sophistication; and an advanced networking infrastructure that includes a distributed targeting network processor to add computing power to the jet and process data faster to aid the pilot in decision-making.
...
At the same time, though, the Navy’s plans for the future of its fighter force are somewhat murky. In 2019, Boeing won a $4-billion multiyear contract to buy 78 Super Hornets through Fiscal Year 2021, which is the budget request the Navy submitted in February and is going through congressional committees now for markups and eventual votes. However, in the February budget request release, the Navy stated that, starting in FY 2022, the money planned for a subsequent multiyear buy of 36 Super Hornets from FY 2022 to 2024 would be rerouted to “accelerated development of Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and other key aviation wholeness investments,” according to budget justification documents.
originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: thebozeian
In hindsight, the USN was very lucky to get rid of the F-14s when they did.
The F-14 was a maintenance nightmare with some 50 manhours per flight hour compared to 20 for the E/F. And F-14 based fleet would have killed Navair during the GWOT.
So about capabilities. I don’t know where you get ‘twice the payload’ from. The original Tomcat had a maximum weapons load of about 15k lb on 10 hardpoints while the Super Hornet comes in at about 17k lb on 11 hardpoints.
Super Hornets can get to the next Air Force tanker supporting air operations over Sandistan just fine. The range difference between the Tomcat and the Super Hornet translates to one or two more air refuelings for each mission. This is just not really relevant in the real world.
. The reason they didn’t bother to haul more ordnance was not because of range reductions, but because more wasn’t required in most circumstances.
If the Navy had procured the Super Tomcat, how would you rebuild the air wing today?
How do you propose to keep numbers up without investing additional billions Congress won’t provide?
As a side note – the reality also is the Carrier is the wrong tool to face the Chinese in the Pacific, no matter what aircraft you procure. The sooner the US accepts that trying to protect the Carrier Strike Group against Chinese ballistic and hypersonic weaponry is a losing strategy, the better. The solution is long-range strategic platforms.