Coming Crisis in Naval Aviation

[gkainz]

"Five years of combat have taken an awful toll on the equipment of U.S. naval forces. Marine Corps vehicles and battle tanks are being ground to dust, new types of weapons and small craft are needed, and equipment for the Navy Seabees must be replaced quickly.

The cost of re-equipping, or “resetting,” the Marine Corps is about $12 billion, some of which is being provided in the annual supplemental appropriations for the war in Iraq.

The Navy will require at least $7 billion.

But that is only part of the story. Looming behind the immediate needs of the naval forces is a coming crisis in aircraft procurement. The average age of the 3,880 planes in the Navy and Marine aircraft inventory is about 18 years, making it the oldest aircraft fleet in the history of the naval services.

Symptoms of this crisis already abound:

* Navy electronic attack pilots have been told not to maneuver their planes aggressively;
* The Marine Corps for months had weight restrictions on its 40-year-old CH-46 helicopters;
* Fatigue cracks and other deficiencies probably will shorten the service lives of Navy P-3C Orion patrol planes; "

Read the whole story here: http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,120378,00.html?ESRC=navy.nl

 

[Brian Austin]

I thought the F-22 was supposed to be a carrier-qualified plane as well (or at least a modification of it), designed to replace the F-14. Isn't that being added to the fleet?

 

[KennyFlys]

I thought the F-22 was supposed to be a carrier-qualified plane as well (or at least a modification of it), designed to replace the F-14. Isn't that being added to the fleet?

I got to see Raptors up close at Lakeland this year. Those things are HUGE. I can't imagine them trapping on a carrier deck. Watching the performance maneuvers, they don't appear any where as nimble as the Hornet or even what the Tomcat was.

The Super Hornet is out now as it replaced the Tomcat. I'd think that would bring the average age up considerably on combat aircraft. I worked on S-3A Vikings, known as sub killers or affectionately, "War Hoovers." They are on "B Mods" now but I don't think any new birds are being built. So, that fleet alone is around twenty-five years.

BTW, back then the S-3 squadrons were called "Air Anti-Submarine Squadrons." Now, they are called "Sea Control Squadrons." I'm not sure if it's political correctness that struck or there just aren't as many Russian subs to hunt down these days. Russian Bears were also a common encounter for our "cameras."

 

[Brian Austin]

I got to see Raptors up close at Lakeland this year. Those things are HUGE. I can't imagine them trapping on a carrier deck. Watching the performance maneuvers, they don't appear any where as nimble as the Hornet or even what the Tomcat was.

Huge in comparison to the Tomcat? I haven't seen a F-14 up close but if they are comparable to the F-15, the F-22 looks slightly smaller from my observations out at Nellis. I watch both the F-15 and F-22 all the time since our office is just above the runway to the northwest, near the speedway.

 

[KennyFlys]

It's been so long since I've been up close to a Tomcat. But, from what I recall... yes, the F-22 seems a lot larger. I've never been close to a F-15.

 

[TMetzinger]

We have an F14 at the Smithsonian, and it's a pretty big airplane. I haven't seen a F22 but don't think it's much bigger.

 

[Fast n' Furious]

It's not. The F-22, the F-14 and the F-15 are all the same basic footprint except for when the Tomcat's wings are unswept. In that case, it's wingspan is nearly 20 feet longer than either airplane. All the other dimensions for the three aircraft are within a foot of each other.