• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Stupid questions about the Rhino (Super Hornet)

HeyJoe

Fly Navy! ...or USMC
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN1421151320100514?rpc=44

This is the Reuters article that was released today confirming the Navy's decision to buy 124 more Super Hornets in 4-yr contract valued at $5.3bn. Surprisingly, it's for 66 E/F models & 58 G's - bringing total procurement of Growlers to 114. Apparently, there is pressure & interest to increase the buy beyond these numbers and beyond 2015. FWIW.

Multi-year Procurement (MYP) is a good thing as Martha likes to say! I think I've said it before, but it took years for service to convince Congress to allow MYP. It commits Congress to support the buy beyond the Budget year approved annually, which gives them less wiggle room in a changing defense environment, which is part of annual haggling in Congress and influences reelection.

Of course, it's great for OEM and major suppliers as they can order components in larger quantities thereby reaping potential savings (in fact, the most controversial aspect in approving them is allowing long-lead purchases prior to year aircraft is technically bought...ie FY10 may well include long-lead purchases radars and engines that take longer to assemble/produce).

Here's announcement straight from OSD:

DOD Certifies F/A-18 Multi-year Procurement


Today, the undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics certified to Congress that the proposed F/A-18 multiyear procurement met statutory requirements, including substantial savings, for 124 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. The proposed agreement will run for four years, from fiscal 2010 through 2013.

Now that the Department of Defense has certified the multiyear procurement request, the Department of the Navy will continue to work with Congress to gain necessary legislative authorities required before the Navy may enter into a multiyear contract.

With this multiyear procurement, the Navy Department intends to acquire the remaining program of record for the 515 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and 114 EA-18G Growlers.

The Navy's fiscal 2011 budget request, sent to Congress Feb. 1, includes $1.9 billion to buy 22 Super Hornets and $1.1 billion for 12 Growlers. In fiscal 2012, the Navy plans to buy 24 more Growlers and one Super Hornet, with 25 more Super Hornets in fiscal 2013.

The Department of the Navy is committed to reducing acquisition costs in delivering capability to the warfighter.
 

Ducky

Formerly SNA2007
pilot
Contributor
Not that I'm biased or have a dog in this fight, but it sure is nice to see the Navy and Congress finally see a weapons contract through to maturity and then build upon it. Now just put some badass engines in the Rhino and we are set.
 

Kickflip89

Below Ladder
None
Contributor
Not that I'm biased or have a dog in this fight, but it sure is nice to see the Navy and Congress finally see a weapons contract through to maturity and then build upon it. Now just put some badass engines in the Rhino and we are set.

The current engines aren't too shabby...
 

Ducky

Formerly SNA2007
pilot
Contributor
The current engines aren't too shabby...

No they aren't, but being that its so draggy some more power would only add to the already awesome capabilities. I just think the airframe is capable of more but limited by the engines.
 

Fog

Old RIOs never die: They just can't fast-erect
None
Contributor
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20100505.html

Here's what the GE website says about the F414-400 EDE (Enhanced Durability Engine): (a) it's slated for use & being tested on the Saab Gripen NG a/c; (b) It will have 3% improved SFC, (c) 20% more thrust and (d) operate at 2-3 lower decibel noise levels at full power. Sounds like a winner, but big Q would be how to pay for it. Also, the article doesn't say when it'll be ready for the fleet if purchased.
 

Python

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20100505.html

Here's what the GE website says about the F414-400 EDE (Enhanced Durability Engine): (a) it's slated for use & being tested on the Saab Gripen NG a/c; (b) It will have 3% improved SFC, (c) 20% more thrust and (d) operate at 2-3 lower decibel noise levels at full power. Sounds like a winner, but big Q would be how to pay for it. Also, the article doesn't say when it'll be ready for the fleet if purchased.

From what I read it looked like the article said that the EPE (Enhanced Performance Engine, which is more aimed at international customers) would have that huge boost in thrust, and the EDE (which the Navy wants) would just be more durable with a slight increase in thrust.
 

armada1651

Hey intern, get me a Campari!
pilot
From what I read it looked like the article said that the EPE (Enhanced Performance Engine, which is more aimed at international customers) would have that huge boost in thrust, and the EDE (which the Navy wants) would just be more durable with a slight increase in thrust.

If I remember right, that "slight" increase is still 15%, which would give a nice boost to the Rhino's thrust-to-weight.
 

Fog

Old RIOs never die: They just can't fast-erect
None
Contributor
From what I read it looked like the article said that the EPE (Enhanced Performance Engine, which is more aimed at international customers) would have that huge boost in thrust, and the EDE (which the Navy wants) would just be more durable with a slight increase in thrust.

You're right. My only excuse is that I read the website @ 0630 this morning w/ brain & eyes functioning at 50%. If GE can convince the Navy & DOD that total life-cycle savings of $1-2bn are possible with the EDE, then it may fly - literally & figuratively!
 

SynixMan

HKG Based Artificial Excrement Pilot
pilot
Contributor
You're right. My only excuse is that I read the website @ 0630 this morning w/ brain & eyes functioning at 50%. If GE can convince the Navy & DOD that total life-cycle savings of $1-2bn are possible with the EDE, then it may fly - literally & figuratively!

That makes too much sense for the Navy, thus, it will never happen...
 

NightVisionPen

In transition
pilot
As most of you know there is the unfortunate reality that money comes from different pots. The money to upgrade or replace motors isn't the same money that is issued to squadrons it the form of OPTAR dollars which pays for the fuel. It does make sense to everyone, but it is making it happen and spending the upfront money that is the hard part. Don't forget that it would also require taking jets out of use for a short period of time to do the engine swap.
 

PropAddict

Now with even more awesome!
pilot
Contributor
I'm sorry, I just can't have a serious conversation about money with a guy who sells $100 pens for a living.

More importantly, wouldn't all your arguments be basically moot if the engine replacements were integrated through the supply system incrementally, i.e. engines from depot-level maint are the new hotness, put in to replace the old ones when those either fail or are up for mandatory IMC replacement anyway?
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
None
I'm sorry, I just can't have a serious conversation about money with a guy who sells $100 pens for a living.

More importantly, wouldn't all your arguments be basically moot if the engine replacements were integrated through the supply system incrementally, i.e. engines from depot-level maint are the new hotness, put in to replace the old ones when those either fail or are up for mandatory IMC replacement anyway?

Lemme get this straight... You guys have to send a jet all the way to Depot level to Change a motor designed to fit in the same hole as the original? Is there a major softwear change required typically. We've got 3 different engines from the same 701 series on the Apache and its not really an issue to pull 701's off an aircraft and throw 701C's or D's on it.
 

NightVisionPen

In transition
pilot
Lemme get this straight... You guys have to send a jet all the way to Depot level to Change a motor designed to fit in the same hole as the original? Is there a major softwear change required typically. We've got 3 different engines from the same 701 series on the Apache and its not really an issue to pull 701's off an aircraft and throw 701C's or D's on it.

Not necessarily. But just how drop in they are is another matter. Also, I have never seen or heard of an F/A-18 squadron that had multiple engine types in it. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but that generally isn't the Navy way.

Edit: FRSs, NSAWC, and test units have jets from different lots with different motors and even different mission computer software. My original comment was in regards to deployable fleet units.
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
None
Dont think I want to have to know differnt sets of Limits and EP's for an engine I may or may not have in an operational unit. Right now 701's are pretty much only left in either Guard Units or here at the Schoolhouse (Same with BLK I Apaches). Our 701Ds are treated as 701Cs because they use the same DECU and HMU so even though the D will make more power at some point, right now it just produces a negligibly better temperature for a given power setting. Operational Units typically only have one motor (think of a maintinance nightmare tracking 2-3 seperate supplies of engines) so its not really that big a deal. But you wouldnt have to send our aircraft back to Depot the first time you get one of the newer motors.
 

jarhead

UAL CA; retired hinge
pilot
... I have never seen or heard of an F/A-18 squadron that had multiple engine types in it. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but that generally isn't the Navy way.
Me either... A's, A+'s, and Lot 13 C's and below are plumbed for 404-400's and Lot 15 C's and higher are plumbed for 404-402's. (I don't know if Lot 14's are plumbed for -400's or -402's.)
 
Top