Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Chambliss Attacks Purchase Of More Super Hornets
Lexington Institute ^ | September 01, 2011 | Loren B. Thompson

Posted on 09/01/2011 9:15:30 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

Sen. Chambliss Attacks Purchase Of More Super Hornets

Author:Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

Date:Thursday, September 01, 2011

TagsF/A-18, F-35, Navy, Saxby Chambliss

You know the budget wars are heating up when a senior Republican senator starts attacking weapons programs important to other legislators in his own party. That's what happened yesterday, when Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss assailed Pentagon purchases of Boeing's carrier-based F/A-18 Super Hornet, saying the plane is "obsolete" and "will be of limited to no value in any future threat scenario." In a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Chambliss argued that if the Pentagon failed to move out smartly on purchasing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the Navy and other services, "we run the certain risk of ceding tactical air superiority in future conflicts."

That's pretty strong stuff. What Chambliss is in effect saying is that if the Navy doesn't get F-35s, then there's not much point to operating aircraft carriers because the principal tactical aircraft they currently host will not be able to assert U.S. control of the skies over future battle zones. His views on the matter are undoubtedly influenced by the fact that Georgia has a big stake in the success of F-35 -- parts of the plane are manufactured in Marietta -- but the senator is reflecting a view shared by a fair number of military experts. They contend that airframes lacking the integrated stealth and situational awareness of an F-35 don't have much chance of surviving in the future, so even though the Super Hornet looks world-class today its days are numbered.

Navy leaders continue to support purchase of the F-35C, the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter, but they don't seem quite so alarmed about the future threat environment for their tactical aircraft. Even if they were, there's a school of thought that says the sea services should be moving out more smartly on unmanned combat aircraft, because no U.S. aircraft driven by human pilots is likely to have the legs and longevity to operate effectively in places like the Western Pacific 20 years from now. Personally, I think we should stick with the plan -- replace the older F/A-18s with F-35s, and then press ahead on unmanned technology. As I argued in my Forbes commentary this week, unmanned aircraft aren't ready for the rigors of aerial combat and won't be for some time. Super Hornet seems to be performing fine right now; the question is whether it will continue to do so in the future as threats evolve. F-35 is the vital middle step between non-stealthy tactical aircraft and unmanned planes.

What's striking about the letter from Senator Chambliss, though, is his tone. He's sending a message to the senior political leadership of the defense department that if they don't get their act together on moving F-35 forward expeditiously, he's going to start taking prisoners. The implication of the last sentence in his letter -- "I look forward to continuing the dialogue on this issue, as well as with Dr. Carter during his upcoming confirmation process" -- is pretty clear. If you've followed Saxby Chambliss' political career, you know he's not the sort of political player you want to get crosswise with. He tends to prevail in any fight where he chooses to engage.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; chambliss; f35; superhornet

1 posted on 09/01/2011 9:15:34 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

What threats? Are we actually going to bomb something besides third world countries?

I’m all for upgrading the fleet of aging aircraft, but is putting all our marbles in the F-35 really the smartest move?

Does Senator Chambliss think the delays are bureaucratic and not technological?


2 posted on 09/01/2011 9:21:23 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

What threats? Are we actually going to bomb something besides third world countries?

I’m all for upgrading the fleet of aging aircraft, but is putting all our marbles in the F-35 really the smartest move?

Does Senator Chambliss think the delays are bureaucratic and not technological?


3 posted on 09/01/2011 9:21:36 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Ping.


4 posted on 09/01/2011 9:24:51 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Meanwhile, the F-22’s he fought for over the years and we spent millions upon millions on are currently static displays do to toxins getting inside the cockpit.

This has nothing to do with the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the F-18 Super Hornet. It is still a highly capable aircraft that basically outperforms anything anyone else has. Multiply that times 2 when factoring in the training our pilots receive.

This is all about the aircraft being built in his state. If he were a Senator from Alabama, you wouldn't be hearing a peep out of him on this subject.

5 posted on 09/01/2011 9:41:57 PM PDT by F1reEng1neRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Aircraft carriers are obsolete, new stealth submarines can take them out easily.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923614/posts


6 posted on 09/01/2011 9:46:35 PM PDT by Java4Jay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Not all air combat missions require stealth capability.


7 posted on 09/01/2011 9:48:48 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

An FA-18 is 55 million. The F-35 is 122 million and up.


8 posted on 09/01/2011 9:51:42 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

I thought the over priced POS F35 was grounded and could not fly,. When did it get fixed????? Truth is unless you are killing third world rats, neither plane is worth a damn, drones seem to be doing all the heavy lifting and a hell of a lot cheaper than 65,000 dollars an hour and ten seconds over target.


9 posted on 09/01/2011 11:08:50 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4401.html


10 posted on 09/01/2011 11:10:24 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I’d be willing to condone a fair size transition to the F35, but only if we also sensibly build another couple hundred A-10s to work alongside them.

We do seem to end up policing an awful lot of third world hellholes and I agree completely that you don’t have to be a military tactician to figure out that the hourly cost of using an F-35 to provide ground support in Afghanistan is unsustainable and insane.

And don’t we still need at least some number of new F-18 aircraft for the forseeable future? You also don’t need a F-35 to maintain air superiority over a region you have won. It could not be cost effective to use them to engage enemy helos or other low tech low value flying targets.

In short, the moment we win air superiority in a region, we can’t afford to use them any more and we NEED options that are less expensive to operate 24 hours a day.


11 posted on 09/02/2011 12:32:21 AM PDT by Advil000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I’d be willing to condone a fair size transition to the F-35, but only if we also sensibly build another couple hundred A-10s to work alongside them.

We do seem to end up policing an awful lot of third world hellholes and I agree completely that you don’t have to be a military tactician to figure out that the hourly cost of using an F-35 to provide ground support in Afghanistan is unsustainable and insane.

And don’t we still need at least some number of new F-18 aircraft for the forseeable future? You also don’t need a F-35 to maintain air superiority over a region you have won. It’s also not cost effective to use them to engage enemy helos or other low tech low value flying targets.

In short, the moment we win air superiority in a region, we can’t afford to use them any more and we NEED options that are less expensive to operate 24 hours a day.


12 posted on 09/02/2011 12:33:34 AM PDT by Advil000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Peace through superior fire power. The f-18 is not superior fire power in the future. It may be a great airplane but how will it stand up to what the chicoms and the ruskies are coming up with. We have to be ready and stay ahead of them. There will not be time to catch up like we did in ww11. This technology takes along time to develop. Especially with limited amount of money.
13 posted on 09/02/2011 1:47:45 AM PDT by G-Man 1 (-- get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G-Man 1
The f-18 is not superior fire power in the future. It may be a great airplane but how will it stand up to what the chicoms and the ruskies are coming up with.

The F-18 will be a whole lot better than no planes at all, which is the alternative.

14 posted on 09/02/2011 3:03:39 AM PDT by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson