Home » Aviation » Boeing Plans to Keep Super Hornet Line Open After Positive Signs From Congress, International Customers


Boeing Plans to Keep Super Hornet Line Open After Positive Signs From Congress, International Customers

F/A-18 Super Hornets assigned to the “Black Aces” of Strike Fighter Squadron Forty One (VFA-41) fly over the Western Pacific Ocean in a stack formation in October 2013. US Navy photo.

F/A-18 Super Hornets assigned to the “Black Aces” of Strike Fighter Squadron Forty One (VFA-41) fly over the Western Pacific Ocean in a stack formation in October 2013. US Navy photo.

Boeing is taking steps to keep its F-18 production line open for future Navy and international sales based on positive signs from multiple sources, the company told USNI News.

The company builds both its F/A-18F Super Hornets and F-18G Growlers on the same production line, and the last planes the company had sold were 15 Growlers in Fiscal Year 2015 – enough work to keep the line open through the end of 2017, after the Navy and Boeing agreed to a production slowdown to allow more time for a decision on the future of the production line.

In March, Dan Gillian, Boeing’s F/A-18 vice president and program manager, told USNI News that the company would need to make a decision by mid-year as to whether it would begin buying long lead materials for future planes or begin preparations to close the production line.

Today, Gillian said “we’re doing everything we need to be able to continue production to meet U.S. Navy and international fighter needs.”

“Based on positive marks from all four defense committees and continued discussions on near-term‎ international sales, we’re moving forward with decisions to keep the line open and preserve future options,” the company added in a statement to USNI News.

Denmark is expected to make a decision in the next few months about what fighter it will buy, USNI News understands. And an unnamed Middle Eastern country is interested specifically in the Super Hornet and is working with the U.S. Navy to purchase the planes through the Foreign Military Sales program.

As for the Navy itself, it may be several more months until Congress finishes with the defense spending bill and a final decision is made regarding future Super Hornet buys, but there is reason for Boeing to be optimistic.

The Navy’s FY 2016 budget request, submitted to Congress in February through the Defense Department, did not include funding for Super Hornets. But in March, the services are given an opportunity to submit an Unfunded Priorities List to Congress – a list of spending items that would fill gaps and reduce operational risk, but did not make the final cut in the budget process. The services’ lists are accompanied by a letter stating these needs should not be filled at the expense of priorities that did make it into the final budget request.

In the Navy’s list, the services noted “our legacy strike fighters (F/A-18A-D) are reaching end of life faster than planned due to use and wear. Improving the inventory of F/A-18F and F-35C aircraft will help reconcile a near term (2018-2020) strike fighter inventory capacity challenge, and longer term (2020-2035) strike fighter model balance within the carrier air wing. It will reduce our reliance on legacy-model aircraft which are becoming increasingly expensive and less reliable.”

First flight of the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet with conformal fuel tanks and Enclosed Weapons Pod. Boeing Photo

First flight of the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet with conformal fuel tanks and Enclosed Weapons Pod. Boeing Photo

All four congressional defense panels – the House and Senate armed services committees and defense appropriations subcommittees – showed support for the Super Hornets. The armed services committees’ staffs are still in talks now to work out the differences in their bills, but both supported adding the 12 Super Hornets.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert told reporters in March after a Senate hearing that he was looking at a shortfall of about three squadrons, or 36 planes, due to the legacy Hornets burning through their service life faster than anticipated. He said maintenance depot workers wouldn’t know until next summer whether a plan to extend the F/A-18A-D’s service life from 6,000 flight hours to 9,000 would work.

“If they can be extended, that really suppresses the problem. If they can’t be extended, that exacerbates the problem,” Greenert said. The exact extent of the shortfall won’t be clear until then, but the Navy stands by the need to buy more Super Hornets now to avoid future problems in its air wings.

Earlier this month, the Defense Department submitted an appeal to the two armed services committees to reverse many decisions – including the added Super Hornet funding – that come at the expense of other priorities in the original FY 2016 budget request.

“The additional $1,150.0 million added to the Senate authorization for the additional 12 F/A-18E/F aircraft unfunded requirement is not required” according to the appeal.
“The F/A-18E/F is the premier operational strike fighter aircraft for the Department of the Navy. However, the F-35B is scheduled to be IOC in July 2015, with the F-35C IOC scheduled for August 2018. There is no validated requirement for additional F/A-18E/F. Keeping the F/A- 18E/F production line open is cost prohibitive for the Department. The Department recommends $1,150.0 million be redirected from this congressional enhancement to restore the congressional mark.”

After this statement from DoD, the Navy stands by its original statement from March that the items in its Unfunded Priorities List should only be addressed after the full FY 2016 budget request is funded. However, it also stands by its need for the Super Hornets despite the DoD statement that there isn’t a valid requirement.

“The Navy’s unfunded priority list substantially reduces operational and programmatic risk and the 12 Super Hornets mitigate strike fighter inventory challenges that were highlighted during testimony,” Navy spokesman Lt. Rob Myers told USNI News on July 21.
“While we appreciate the support to fund items on our unfunded list, we continue to request that our [President’s Budget 2016] budget is funded in its entirety first, which assesses and prioritizes what we need to execute the missions outlined in defense strategy.”

Congress is not obligated to act on the DoD appeal, and in fact the most recent Growler purchase was made with funding Congress added in that was not in the FY 2015 budget request.

These 12 Super Hornets would only be purchased if the House and Senate appropriations committees also include the funding in the final version of their bill later this year. The armed services committees’ bill will provide the authority to buy the planes but not the money to do so.

  • Curtis Conway

    The rebuild of the F/A-18A-Ds provide additional hours and airframes for Allies through FMS sales should that opportunity rise, even if they do not arrive in time for any specific deployment. Flying over large bodies of water in a maritime environment is more safely done with two engines. I can think of at least two Allies in the Pacific who might take advantage of that opportunity should it become available.

    Additional F/A-18F airframes with EA-18G wiring included in the build, will provide the insurance of numbers required to maintain squadron integrity, and versatility should the Electronic Attack mission require augmentation.

  • RickCoMatic

    I think it’s a great idea to produce war planes that actually do perform as a war planes, rather than shoveling money on the fires Lockheed/Martin calls its F-35 Lightning. Lockheed is burning taxpayer greenbacks on a budget-busting nightmare that can’t do more than a few hours of flight tests and training without needing a months worth of maintenance or finding itself grounded because some darn thing won’t work as advertised. The Lockheed F-35 is making a lot of Defense Department lobbyists filthy stinking rich and making some great fighter-jocks put-in papers rather than having to risk they’re necks driving some fly-by-wire bird that just might get them killed.

    • NeilMarshall

      I think you’re being too generous to Lockheed as nothing on the F-35 appears to work as they advertise. How the Marines can announce IOC with an aircraft still in development that has a critical reliance on sub-standard and largely un-tested management software and a problem engine is one of life’s great mysteries.

      • Marauder 2048

        Well there’s precedent; the USN IOC’ed the Super Hornet with a host of known (and as of then unknown) deficiencies and committed the type to combat a mere one year later. Both services repose tremendous confidence in their maintainers.

        • NeilMarshall

          Helpful, but do remember that IOC was declared a full four years after full rate production started (September 1997) and after 3,100 test flights. It also made a huge difference that the software and avionics were largely identical to the F/A-18Cs & Ds. The F-35 is not yet a mature aircraft, still in LRP and with a largely untested software suite.

          • Marauder 2048

            That’s not accurate. The Full-rate production decision for the SH was in June of 2000. You give the LRIP date (1997). IOC was Sept. of 2001 so they IOC’ed and deployed with (mostly) LRIP aircraft.

          • NeilMarshall

            Yes, not sure where I went adrift, but you are right – IOC was September 2001. However, as I noted, there was a near total commonality with avionics and software. In the case of the F-35, it is new from the ground up and the quality of the maintainers is not the issue – neither the on board software nor the ALIS software works as it should. The aircraft is compromised by flight restrictions, a lack of weapons and an underperforming helmet et al.

          • Marauder 2048

            The advisability of incorporating mission systems and avionics designed in the late 80’s into an aircraft with IOC in the early 2000’s was negligible and Boeing and the Navy (but not congress) knew it. This is why the current avionics/mission systems commonality between the “Classic” and current Super Hornets is approximately zero.

            It’s also important to remember that the SH (at deployment) had flight envelope restrictions, mission systems restrictions a flaky helmet and was a maintenance burden. Then as now, for both operators and maintainers, the operative word is “workaround.”

          • NeilMarshall

            You’re not comparing apples with apples. There is little ‘workaround’ for the F-35 as the aircraft today is deeply immature and almost certainly not flyable aggressively by a line pilot. What possible benefit could it currently bring to the party if deployed?

      • dan shaffer

        You have no idea what you’re talking about engine-wise. And if you want credentials, 9 years USN 1520, and 10 years USNR 1520. And 36 years with the pre-eminent Engine manufacturer – P&WA.
        Only mystery is your creds and info source – per chance GE?
        Dep Dawg sends.

        • NeilMarshall

          Dan, you need to get out more. Remember the loss by fire of an F-35A last June caused by excessive flex in the F135? P&W have yet to announce a fix.

  • 2IDSGT

    Still badly underpowered without EPE engine.

  • Rob C.

    I hope political/economic issues aren’t pushing the purchase of F-35s. I want the US to have a good vehicle, but if the older one out does it combat, then there issue. F-35 was always intended to be a attack plane, not a multifunction fighter that F/A18 became. It;’s prototype F-17 was more interceptor, trying to get the F-16 slot in the 70s. Larger E/F planes are good, it’s best we have left, since it can’t do as good of a job intercepting as the F/A-14D+ could, but least it does its intended job better.

    I just hope they keep 18s around long enough for proper replacement, not a filler plane that got too expensive to say no too. It takes too long as is get anything built, never mind pass political hurtles.

  • Pingback: Air-Minded: the Non-Starter Option | Paul's Thing()

  • Pingback: U.S. Navy Lessons from Libya Informed Australian EA-18G Growler Modifications | Aircrew Systems()

  • Pingback: Mark Collins – How Many F-35Cs for US Navy Department (and services overall)? | The 3Ds Blog()

  • Pingback: Mark Collins – F-35 and Canadian Election: Liberals Loose With Fighter Costs | The 3Ds Blog()

  • Pingback: Final FY 2016 Spending Bill Released; Funds Super Hornets, Growlers, Additional F-35s | GeoPol Intelligence()

  • Pingback: Final FY 2016 Spending Bill Released; Funds Super Hornets, Growlers, Additional F-35s | Aircrew Systems()