Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

DefenseNews.com
April 16, 2007

Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Boeing is floating a proposal to sell the U.S. Navy more F/A-18E/F
Super Hornets, just in case Lockheed Martin¹s F-35 Lightning II
suffers further production delays, according to company officials.

The Chicago-based aviation and defense giant "would love to do another
multiyear contract" that would give the sea service "about 100 more
jets than the current planned buy," said Bob Gower, Boeing¹s vice
president for F/A-18 programs.
The Navy's existing deal with Boeing runs through 2009 and covers 42
Super Hornets annually.

The Navy is slated to buy its final 21 E/Fs in 2012, bringing the
total purchased to 108 between 2008 and 2013, according to service
budget documents that accompanied the 2008 spending plan sent to
Congress in February.

Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
"inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.

"The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
congressional aide said.

The current fly-away cost of an F/A-18E/F ‹ the production price tag,
not including development ‹ is $53.8 million. Gower said the company
might be able to get that under $50 million if the Navy ordered 42
more jets annually over four years.
Boeing¹s Gower said three main things were leading to an aircraft
shortage:

The F-35 carrier version¹s often-slipped in-service date, which is now
set for 2015.

Production slips mean the Navy will buy fewer JSFs.

Unanswered questions about the remaining lifespan of -A, -B, -C and -D
model Hornets, and how many newer Super Hornets might replace them.

Though it remains unclear how Congress will react to the idea of
buying more Super Hornets for the Navy, defense authorizers last year
suggested service officials give it some thought.

"The committee recommends that the Navy consider buying additional F/
A-18E/Fs to mitigate the known shortfall, while allowing the Navy to
transition to the JSF as soon as feasible," House and Senate conferees
wrote in the report that accompanied the 2007 National Defense
Authorization Act.

"The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

"The magnitude of the problem, and the procurement cost to avoid a
shortfall in the carrier air wing force structure, is entirely
dependent on when the Navy determines that its F/A-18A/Cs are at the
end of their service life," states the conference report.

A Navy tactical-aircraft study due in coming months will help shape
plans. Several analysts said that if the study predicts another F-35
delay, the Navy could be left with few options but to buy more Super
Hornets.

While the Super Hornets lack many of the F-35's futuristic systems,
Gower noted the F/A-18E/Fs have received the new Active Electronically
Scanned Array radar and other upgrades. Combined with the EA-18G
Growler electronic
warfare aircraft, F/A-18s will be able to "take on the threats
expected through 2020 and beyond," Gower said.

Buying additional Super Hornets also would allow the Pentagon to avoid
‹ for a few years, at least ‹ having only one U.S. fighter
manufacturer. Lockheed Martin is producing the Pentagon's two next-
generation combat jets, the F-22A Raptor and the JSF.

"We are headed for a fighter monopoly," said Loren Thompson of the
Lexington Institute. DoD officials might warm to the idea of buying
more F/A-18s so that Boeing is "still in the game" for at least a few
more years, he added.

Boeing officials have been quick to downplay any talk of a pending
Super Hornet-JSF fight, even when asked about the company's plan to
jockey for funding with the high-profile F-35 program. Gower stressed,
"this is not the F-18 vs. the F-35; this is about the F-18 vs. the
threat."

Foreign Super Hornet sales also might push off the coming monopoly.
Boeing is seeking pieces of upcoming fighter purchases in India,
Japan, Switzerland and Malaysia.

JSF partner Australia recently sent ripples across the defense
community when it announced plans to purchase Super Hornets as a hedge
against F-35 delays.

Mike wrote:
....
Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
"inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.

"The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
congressional aide said.
....
"The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

-HJC

Henry J Cobb wrote:

:Mike wrote:
:...
: Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
: commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
: One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
: service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
: tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
: "inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.
:
: "The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
: fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
: congressional aide said.
:...
: "The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
: in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
: aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

If it can be gotten wrong, it seems that Mr Cobb will succeed in
getting it wrong.

:If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
:Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

1) Lots of Marines already fly Hornets.

2) The JSF the Marines need to buy as an AV-8B replacement is a
different JSF than the one the Navy needs to buy for carrier ops.

:2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
:my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

Why do you think the Hornet is designated F/A-18, Mr Cobb?

Hint: Hornets are an attack aircraft and already drop a lot of bombs
and such.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Apr 21, 10:51Â*pm, Mike wrote:
Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

DefenseNews.com
April 16, 2007

Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Boeing is floating a proposal to sell the U.S. Navy more F/A-18E/F
Super Hornets, just in case Lockheed Martin¹s F-35 Lightning II
suffers further production delays, according to company officials.

The Chicago-based aviation and defense giant "would love to do another
multiyear contract" that would give the sea service "about 100 more
jets than the current planned buy," said Bob Gower, Boeing¹s vice
president for F/A-18 programs.
The Navy's existing deal with Boeing runs through 2009 and covers 42
Super Hornets annually.

The Navy is slated to buy its final 21 E/Fs in 2012, bringing the
total purchased to 108 between 2008 and 2013, according to service
budget documents that accompanied the 2008 spending plan sent to
Congress in February.

Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
"inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.

"The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to buy
fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts, one
congressional aide said.

The current fly-away cost of an F/A-18E/F ‹ the production price tag,
not including development ‹ is $53.8 million. Gower said the company
might be able to get that under $50 million if the Navy ordered 42
more jets annually over four years.
Boeing¹s Gower said three main things were leading to an aircraft
shortage:

The F-35 carrier version¹s often-slipped in-service date, which is now
set for 2015.

Production slips mean the Navy will buy fewer JSFs.

Unanswered questions about the remaining lifespan of -A, -B, -C and -D
model Hornets, and how many newer Super Hornets might replace them.

Though it remains unclear how Congress will react to the idea of
buying more Super Hornets for the Navy, defense authorizers last year
suggested service officials give it some thought.

"The committee recommends that the Navy consider buying additional F/
A-18E/Fs to mitigate the known shortfall, while allowing the Navy to
transition to the JSF as soon as feasible," House and Senate conferees
wrote in the report that accompanied the 2007 National Defense
Authorization Act.

"The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap
in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

"The magnitude of the problem, and the procurement cost to avoid a
shortfall in the carrier air wing force structure, is entirely
dependent on when the Navy determines that its F/A-18A/Cs are at the
end of their service life," states the conference report.

A Navy tactical-aircraft study due in coming months will help shape
plans. Several analysts said that if the study predicts another F-35
delay, the Navy could be left with few options but to buy more Super
Hornets.

While the Super Hornets lack many of the F-35's futuristic systems,
Gower noted the F/A-18E/Fs have received the new Active Electronically
Scanned Array radar and other upgrades. Combined with the EA-18G
Growler electronic
warfare aircraft, F/A-18s will be able to "take on the threats
expected through 2020 and beyond," Gower said.

Buying additional Super Hornets also would allow the Pentagon to avoid
‹ for a few years, at least ‹ having only one U.S. fighter
manufacturer. Lockheed Martin is producing the Pentagon's two next-
generation combat jets, the F-22A Raptor and the JSF.

"We are headed for a fighter monopoly," said Loren Thompson of the
Lexington Institute. DoD officials might warm to the idea of buying
more F/A-18s so that Boeing is "still in the game" for at least a few
more years, he added.

It's not a fighter monopoly, it's Lockheed's
idiot Battlespace monopoly.
Which since the Pentagon knew about since 1960,
and have done nothing about it since,
that's also why in the era of cruise missiles, GPS.
Masers, nano-tech, broadband, and Predators
carriers even still come preconditioned on
GM's delivery schedule.






Boeing officials have been quick to downplay any talk of a pending
Super Hornet-JSF fight, even when asked about the company's plan to
jockey for funding with the high-profile F-35 program. Gower stressed,
"this is not the F-18 vs. the F-35; this is about the F-18 vs. the
threat."

Foreign Super Hornet sales also might push off the coming monopoly.
Boeing is seeking pieces of upcoming fighter purchases in India,
Japan, Switzerland and Malaysia.

JSF partner Australia recently sent ripples across the defense
community when it announced plans to purchase Super Hornets as a hedge
against F-35 delays.

You have to look at this in a slightly different way

(1) Everybody is at fault for expecting too much from the JSF, the three
variants have made it just to hard to do on schedule; many knew it long
ago but the inertia of the large program just kept unsubstantiated
optimistic claims piling up until they had to "show it". A true legacy
of past programs (the F-18 itself BTW) in the one program that was to
bring change. To argue that now will be like trying to talk with
Gonzales about why he fired the Federal Attorneys - gobbledygook and
everything BUT a demonstration of leadership and command. The
application of Hora's Horror is well underway, that is the continuing
dilution of accountability by bringing in more and more of the
organization until it looks like it all happened as an act of God. This
also may be the last comment on the gravestone of the American Empire -
but - let's just say we have the power to really think "solutions"

(2) The war between the Navy and Marine Corps over aviation is real (as
expressed) and clearly making a shambles of all the hollow "joint" and
"brotherhood" discussions. They are not alone however, the Army and Air
Force are also pulling apart and what is really weird is that after five
years we still have not focused upon the kinds of air vehicles we need
to win a counter-insurgency or COIN war. Considering that in World War
II the US went from biplanes to jets in less than four years this mess
is atrocious and unacceptable to our society - it is hallmarked by the
fact that General Franks finds it perfectly normal to desert his Army
and make a million dollars - how in the hell can we criticize the
British POW's - but that is another story yet it reflects the same
cancer of character and honor. Old farts like me ask who in the hell
"fathered" these people, are they all abused having been born into total
ignorance of values.

(3) The balance to canceling the JSF is: Do it selectively - F-35B
STOVL first, then merge the other two into one CTOL - and then refurbish
the JFK (CVA-67) for the Marine Corps not as a carrier (to compete with
the CVN's) but as a new class of conventional amphibious assault
aviation command ships with the Kitty Hawk standing in reserve.

- JSF is then slid a decade deliberately and merged with many of the
high tech programs to produce the one strike fighter of choice for Navy,
Marine, USAF, and allies that will face the new tactical environment
dealing with China, North Korea, Iran and any state holding new high
threat IADS and air defense systems. The present JSF does nothing
better than legacy aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios and it can
not out pace the F-22, or the F-15 for that fact except yet unproven
stealth issues.

- A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws, gutted
of at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new hospital
ship was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would run the
vessel and much of the engineering and supply could be contractor.
Marines, SOF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all be provided
C4ISR planning areas with build-up/tear-down living areas in bays and
rooms created by gutting. The O-3 level would become for instance a
farm of briefing and planning rooms being fed by the IOIC turned COAC

- the Air Wing would be a large mix of new Marine VMFA F/A-18F/G's,
perhaps one Navy VF F/A-18E, E-2C and S-3's converted to be dedicated
tankers and specific support craft for them. More V-22 and CH-53 for SOF
types and it all fill in with a new Expeditionary Battle Group made up
of LHA's and LHD's with twice as many MV-22's and paid for by the JSF
savings and the LHA(R) savings that is no longer needed

- the Battle Group is run with the Navy but it is not Navy and it
is attached to the European (Atlantic) Command to be joined by the UK
and French commando ships and perhaps assault carriers. The US Navy can
continue with their CVN's for high tempo open seas ops not requiring
Marines and getting back one air wing

- the net result is that the Marines gain 50% more aircraft, dump
the old ones and get 100% more MV-22's



"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:
...
Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
"inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.

"The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to
buy
fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts,
one
congressional aide said.
...
"The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable
gap
in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced
into Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

-HJC

"Flashnews" wrote in message
et...
You have to look at this in a slightly different way

.. . .

- A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws, gutted of
at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new hospital ship
was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would run the vessel and
much of the engineering and supply could be contractor. Marines, SOF, FBI,
CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all be provided C4ISR planning areas with
build-up/tear-down living areas in bays and rooms created by gutting. The
O-3 level would become for instance a farm of briefing and planning rooms
being fed by the IOIC turned COAC


This is the first time I have heard this proposal re the JFK.

Is it your own idea, or are other groups advocating it as well?

M.S.

On Apr 22, 2:55 pm, "Flashnews" wrote:
You have to look at this in a slightly different way

(1) Everybody is at fault for expecting too much from the JSF, the three
variants have made it just to hard to do on schedule; many knew it long
ago but the inertia of the large program just kept unsubstantiated
optimistic claims piling up until they had to "show it". A true legacy
of past programs (the F-18 itself BTW) in the one program that was to
bring change. To argue that now will be like trying to talk with
Gonzales about why he fired the Federal Attorneys - gobbledygook and
everything BUT a demonstration of leadership and command. The
application of Hora's Horror is well underway, that is the continuing
dilution of accountability by bringing in more and more of the
organization until it looks like it all happened as an act of God. This
also may be the last comment on the gravestone of the American Empire -
but - let's just say we have the power to really think "solutions"

(2) The war between the Navy and Marine Corps over aviation is real (as
expressed) and clearly making a shambles of all the hollow "joint" and
"brotherhood" discussions. They are not alone however, the Army and Air
Force are also pulling apart and what is really weird is that after five
years we still have not focused upon the kinds of air vehicles we need
to win a counter-insurgency or COIN war. Considering that in World War
II the US went from biplanes to jets in less than four years this mess
is atrocious and unacceptable to our society - it is hallmarked by the
fact that General Franks finds it perfectly normal to desert his Army
and make a million dollars - how in the hell can we criticize the
British POW's - but that is another story yet it reflects the same
cancer of character and honor. Old farts like me ask who in the hell
"fathered" these people, are they all abused having been born into total
ignorance of values.

Well, Franks would probably find it perfectly
normal to return to civilization. Since it's morons
in London and Washington who abandoned things in Dunkirk.
And the uneducable D-Day idiots have been constantly
abandoning things for like 60 years now.




(3) The balance to canceling the JSF is: Do it selectively - F-35B
STOVL first, then merge the other two into one CTOL - and then refurbish
the JFK (CVA-67) for the Marine Corps not as a carrier (to compete with
the CVN's) but as a new class of conventional amphibious assault
aviation command ships with the Kitty Hawk standing in reserve.

- JSF is then slid a decade deliberately and merged with many of the
high tech programs to produce the one strike fighter of choice for Navy,
Marine, USAF, and allies that will face the new tactical environment
dealing with China, North Korea, Iran and any state holding new high
threat IADS and air defense systems. The present JSF does nothing
better than legacy aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios and it can
not out pace the F-22, or the F-15 for that fact except yet unproven
stealth issues.

- A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws, gutted
of at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new hospital
ship was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would run the
vessel and much of the engineering and supply could be contractor.
Marines, SOF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all be provided
C4ISR planning areas with build-up/tear-down living areas in bays and
rooms created by gutting. The O-3 level would become for instance a
farm of briefing and planning rooms being fed by the IOIC turned COAC

- the Air Wing would be a large mix of new Marine VMFA F/A-18F/G's,
perhaps one Navy VF F/A-18E, E-2C and S-3's converted to be dedicated
tankers and specific support craft for them. More V-22 and CH-53 for SOF
types and it all fill in with a new Expeditionary Battle Group made up
of LHA's and LHD's with twice as many MV-22's and paid for by the JSF
savings and the LHA(R) savings that is no longer needed

- the Battle Group is run with the Navy but it is not Navy and it
is attached to the European (Atlantic) Command to be joined by the UK
and French commando ships and perhaps assault carriers. The US Navy can
continue with their CVN's for high tempo open seas ops not requiring
Marines and getting back one air wing

- the net result is that the Marines gain 50% more aircraft, dump
the old ones and get 100% more MV-22's

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in ...



Mike wrote:
...
Recent moves by Navy officials have shed doubt on the service's
commitment to the international, tri-service JSF effort.
One industry official with ties to naval leaders said senior sea
service officials disagree about how they should shape the Navy's
tactical air fleet. The service has said it likely will face an
"inventory shortfall" of nearly 230 planes over the next 15 years.

"The Department of the Navy is already trying to figure out how to
buy
fewer aircraft and save money to plow into shipbuilding" accounts,
one
congressional aide said.
...
"The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable
gap
in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets retire before the
aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is available.

If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced
into Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

-HJC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote:
:If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
:Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

1) Lots of Marines already fly Hornets.

How many fly Super Hornets?

-HJC

Actually the idea, similar to bringing back a battleship and using more
LHA's then LHA(R)'s is a cost saving approach that tied to killing the
LCS (done for all the good reasons) moving to the DD(X) even more good
reasons and carefully looking again at the CVN-21 would save some 15 to
20 billion dollars almost instantly

The original argument for the JFK was a political one to save Mayport
and the Florida jobs but the Navy was very serious about killing it
knowing full well that it would produce results they did not want - the
new nuclear Navy was the plan and the CVA would not fit and they were
right about this. So the nuclear carrier force developed into a high
speed open ocean race club where Hornet maintainability could be
exploited to the full and two carriers with additional crew could do the
work of the traditional three - not bad and should be continued - but
what about the littorals and COIN

However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to
keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick
wall in sustainability and flat out speed - the trumped deck was said to
cost $600 million and four years ago that was an enormous cost that made
the Navy happy they could put the conventional aberration to bed. Well
as it would, CVN21 costs went from 3 to 5 to 7 and now heading for $10
billion and suddenly the $600 million for the JFK looks real cheap. The
enter the LHA(R) and the Marines looking at it as their trump card out
of Naval aviation with an all STOVL force their own ships and a new
small carrier with a tactical fighter complement - ooops - did I say
"small carrier" - holy **** says the Navy this is not what we want so
they went pushing to get the Marines into the F/A-18E/F business so a
common Marine and Navy aviation would service all 10 big carriers -
Marine said no, dug in their heals and it all went to rest on the JSF
program. Had the F-35B been on schedule and working (you can bet the
Navy test and evaluation people really are doing a good job with this
one) and the LHA(R) not turned into greed-city things might have gone
nice for the Marines and the Navy would enter the new world with a death
fight over large nuclear or small conventional carriers - which in short
is a loose lose situation because sooner if not real soon the submarines
will replace carriers as the most dominate capital ship as the carriers
did the battleships in 1941.

So you ask - how can the Marines save themselves from themselves -
because you see the group of Marine generals who fathers the JSF and the
LHA(R) idea are determined to end Marine tactical aviation then
acquiesce to the Navy's insistence of merging the aviation branches and
right now Marine F-18 squadrons fly at reduced G and about one a year
will retire with no replacement and the Harriers are a toss up for
anyone. On the training side more and more Marines lose currency or even
familiarization with the carrier.

So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and
may be done in the next administration.
The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to
the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN
which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the
JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the
Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22
production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the
ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as
a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the
A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what -
the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now
is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased
against doing what is needed for COIN.

In short - the whole shipbuilding world is a mess but it may be more
from the fact that we do not know where our Naval forces are going while
they seem to be on Pluto looking for a mission - the war is right in
front of them ready to make toast of the thin-skinned and under
protected ships


"Mark Andrew Spence" wrote in message
...

"Flashnews" wrote in message
et...
You have to look at this in a slightly different way

. . .

- A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws,
gutted of at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new
hospital ship was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would
run the vessel and much of the engineering and supply could be
contractor. Marines, SOF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all
be provided C4ISR planning areas with build-up/tear-down living areas
in bays and rooms created by gutting. The O-3 level would become for
instance a farm of briefing and planning rooms being fed by the IOIC
turned COAC


This is the first time I have heard this proposal re the JFK.

Is it your own idea, or are other groups advocating it as well?

M.S.

Flashnews wrote:
So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault
aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine
aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and
may be done in the next administration.
The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to
the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN
which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the
JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the
Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22
production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the
ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as
a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the
A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what -
the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now
is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased
against doing what is needed for COIN.

Like this?

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...fleet_070422w/
Among ideas it proposes are converting the aging aircraft carrier
Enterprise into an “afloat forward staging base” for special operations
forces with embarked joint air wings. He also proposed converting four
more Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into multimission guided
missile subs, for a force of eight SSGNs.

-HJC