The Corps - no to the Super Hornet

The Corps vs. the Super Hornet

Aircraft's reputation for problems simply not true, Navy officials say
Marine Corps Times
June 25, 2007

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - Inside Naval Air Systems
Command headquarters at this southern Maryland base, Navy program
officials for the F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighter program have
heard the stories circulating in the Pentagon.

Their aircraft, the stories go, can't carry certain weapons, can't fly
high enough, can't go fast enough. Design problems such as wing
flutter plague the plane and - perhaps worst of all - parts that will
wear out fast enough to severely shorten the plane's life-span are not
being replaced.

There's just one problem with the stories, say the Navy officials:
None of them is true.

"We're really scratching our heads, thinking, 'What's going on?'"
Super Hornet program manager Navy Capt. Don Gaddis said.

So who's spreading these stories about the Super Hornet?

The answer, which surprised some program officials: the Marine Corps -
which isn't even part of the Super Hornet program.

The Corps plans to replace its aging Hornets and AV-8B Harrier jump
jets with the F-35B short-takeoff-or-vertical-landing version of the
Joint Strike Fighter.

So why do the Marines even care about the Super Hornet?

"The Marines seem to be trying to discredit the Super Hornet as a way
of heading off efforts to cut their purchase of the STOVL JSF," said
Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank in Washington.

"If JSF is delayed," said naval analyst Norman Polmar, "the Marines
will be forced to buy Super Hornet, which will leave them with nothing
to operate off amphibious ships."

The STOVL JSF for the Marines isn't set to enter service until 2012 at
the earliest. The Corps, unlike the Navy, is strongly committed to the
new strike fighter and is eagerly anticipating an all-STOVL aviation
strike force.

But the JSF program has suffered several delays, and in contrast to
the Marines, neither the Pentagon - the Navy and Air Force also will
fly the plane - nor Congress seem to have a sense of urgency about
keeping the program on schedule and getting the aircraft into service.

The Marines are afraid that if their plane is struck by further
delays, they won't be able to buy new JSFs fast enough to replace
their aging strike aircraft, and they might need something else to
bridge the gap between new planes and old. Into that gap, the Marines
fear, could fly the Super Hornet. And for each new F/A-18 the Marines
get, that's likely one less STOVL JSF.

"We've had this vision for a long time to be an all-STOVL force," said
Marine Brig. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy assistant commandant for
aviation.

"We're a swing force, where we can go expeditionary, land on a big
runway at a major operating base," Walsh said June 7 in his Pentagon
office. "We can go smaller runway, [conduct] dispersed, distributed
operations. We can go on amphibious shipping, we can go on large
aircraft carrier decks. We can pretty much go everywhere with the
flexibility the JSF STOVL brings."

The aircraft the Marines are most worried about replacing sooner
rather than later are the Harriers and the two-seat F/A-18D Hornets,
Walsh said.

"Our F/A-18A+ and F/A-18C Hornets aren't in that bad shape," he said.
"But we're watching them very closely because we've got hour and
fatigue limits on those aircraft."

The high operations tempo for all aircraft in recent years "has caused
some stress between us and the Navy," Walsh said. "There's pressure
there in how you reduce the strike-fighter shortfall."

F/A-18 Super Hornets already are flying with the Navy - the single-
seat F/A-18E replaced older Hornet aircraft and the two-seat F/A-18F
replaced the fleet's F-14 Tomcats. A new two-seat EA-18G electronics
countermeasure version of the aircraft is due to begin operational
evaluation next year.

Three versions of the F-35 JSF are being developed - F-35A for the Air
Force, F-35B STOVL for the Marines and the British Royal Navy, and the
F-35C carrier version for the Navy. But the $276 billion program - the
largest single program in the defense budget - also is a fat target
for budget cutters, and worries persist that the program will continue
to suffer delays.

Hence, the Marines are worried about being sucked into the Super
Hornet program, to the detriment of their JSFs.

Problems spark 'd?j? vu'
Several unofficial briefings and papers listing alleged defects in
Super Hornets have circulated for at least a year inside the Pentagon.
Some have been leaked to the media, including Military Times.

The Marines officially disavow the materials.

"Unofficial, unendorsed, and old briefs are nothing more than opinions
which may have been used to make decisions on which direction Marine
aviation was headed long ago. They do not represent the one position
that matters: the Marine Corps' official position which is: the F-35B
represents the centerpiece of Marine Corps' aviation, and this is
supported by the program of record," said Maj. Eric Dent, a Marine
spokesman.

Still, the allegations continue to make the rounds. A recent story in
the Boston Globe about one of the alleged problems sent program
officials hurrying to Capitol Hill to reassure Congress there were no
serious issues with the aircraft.

"This is d?j? vu," Gaddis said from NavAir. "Some of those things
they're digging up are literally 12 to 15 years old."

Gaddis and his team actually have a game plan for each time the issues
reappear.

"Every so often, about every two or three years, these questions come
up. We can answer pretty much anything you want answered," he said.

Widespread enthusiasm for the Super Hornet throughout the naval
aviation community belies the alleged problems with the aircraft. The
Boeing-built twin-engine jet, a development of the original McDonnell
Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, deployed in 2002. Originally intended as a stop-
gap measure between the demise of the old A-6 Intruder and failed A-12
replacement and the JSF, the Super Hornet has legions of admirers
despite some shortcomings. With the APG-79 Active Electronically
Scanned Array radar installed in new aircraft, the Navy is even more
enthusiastic.

"By any measure - reliability, availability, flexibility, bombs
dropped, accuracy - we exceeded the F/A-18Cs in expectations across
the board," said Capt. Jeffrey Penfield, head of air-to-air missile
systems for NAVAIR.

Penfield, who commanded Strike Fighter Squadron 115 during the 2003
invasion of Iraq and wrote the operational evaluation for the Super
Hornet, is adamant in his support for the aircraft.

"It went beyond expectation," he declared. "It knocked the ball out of
the park."

Debunking the claims
Gaddis, Penfield and the Super Hornet team at NavAir addressed
numerous alleged issues with the aircraft.

·Claim: There is still "manageable wing flutter" with the aircraft and
the "wing drop" problem persists.

Rebuttal: "We do not have a flutter problem with this airplane and
have never had a flutter problem," declared Gaddis. "The only thing we
can think of is they are getting it confused with the old wing drop
problem. That was solved."

NAVAIR engineers noted that wing drop and wing flutter are different
phenomena. Flutter, explained engineer Mike Masse, "is a self-excited
oscillation" - basically, vibrations that cause aircraft instability.
"There are no stability problems or restrictions on F/A-18 E/F," he
said.

The well-publicized wing drop problem discovered during flight tests
in 1997 was entirely different, Super Hornet chief engineer Ed
Hovanesian said.

"It's a momentary loss [of lift] on one wing," he said, causing a
quick roll-off in a specific portion of the flight envelope.

Although a slight vibration - dubbed "residual lateral activity" -
remains, a series of fixes essentially solved the problem by 1999, he
said.

Now, "as you pull the airplane, you get a little bit of lateral
oscillation that is only there from 7.8 to 8.1 degrees [angle of
attack]," he said. "You can pull a little bit harder and it's gone.
You can pull a little bit less and it's gone."

Many pilots notice no effect at all, he said.

"The most important thing about it," Hovanesian added, "is it did not
cause any task abandonment at all."

·Claim: The wing drop led to the weapons pylons being canted outboard
six degrees, causing increased wear on weapons and severely cutting
their ability to acquire a target before launch.

Rebuttal: Canting the pylons is "totally different," Gaddis said.
"It's not related [to wing drop] in any form."

"That's been a myth for about 12 to 14 years," he said.

"We never flew the aircraft with straight pylons," Hovanesian said.

Rather, they pointed out, the cant was developed to ensure proper
weapons separation as bombs and missiles are launched from the
aircraft. Super Hornets have three weapons stations under each wing,
compared with two on the older Hornets, and a four-degree outboard
cant was developed to increase the distance between weapons.

One by one, the team debunked the other allegations. Missiles are not
showing excessive wear due to the cant, they said. There are no
unusual weight, speed or altitude limitations with a combat-loaded
aircraft. "The [F/A-18C] with a full load has the same limitations" in
altitude and speed, Penfield said, while the Super Hornet has no
problems carrying its top-rated full load of 66,000 pounds.

"The airplane launches at 66,000 all the time," he said.

A claim that weight restriction problems extend to the new EA-18G
Growler also was brushed aside. Test aircraft have flown with five
ALQ-99 electronic warfare pods weighing about 1,000 pounds each,
Gaddis said.

There are no restrictions for carrying certain weapons, the team said,
other than weapons that have not yet gone through a certification
process.

Another claim says the aircraft cannot go supersonic while carrying a
full weapons load.

True enough, Penfield said - the aircraft "wasn't designed for that."

Critics also claim delivery of weapons pylons is two years behind
schedule and not enough pylons are available, limiting training for
the Super Hornets.

"The idea about being two years late on pylon delivery is just not
true," Gaddis said.

Early aircraft were delivered with no pylons due to a previous $440
million budget cut, he said, but the issue was resolved a few years
ago with more funding.

"We were in catch-up mode," he said, until supply caught up with
demand "about two years ago."

Gaddis and Hovanesian scoffed at claims that not enough pylons are
available for training.

"Why carry six bombs when you can just carry one for training?"
Hovanesian said. "It's just cost."

The Boston Globe article reported that failure of some parts could
cause the aircraft's planned 6,000-flight-hour life to be limited to
3,000 hours. "That was probably one of the most egregious statements"
in the article, he said.

The problem referred to in the article would have shortened the
planes' lives, but it has been solved, Gaddis said.

"We found it early on" and a redesigned part already is being
installed on new aircraft, he said, with a retrofit planned for
earlier aircraft long before they reach any flight-hour limitations.

Back in Washington, no one knows whether the Marines will be forced to
buy Super Hornets.

Rear Adm. Bruce Clingan, director of the Navy's Air Warfare Division
in the Pentagon, said June 4 there are no plans to integrate the
aircraft into Marine Corps aviation.

Walsh noted that even if the Marines' F/A-18Cs and A+ models wear out
before they can be replaced with F-35Bs, Navy F/A-18Cs replaced by
Super Hornets could be used by the Marines until more STOVLs are
available.

"We can't have a big huge beast," Walsh said about the need for STOVL
JSF. "We need a small footprint."

At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant
Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G
programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All-
Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and
vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function.

Best regards,
Jacek



On 22 Cze, 20:38, Mike wrote:

Walsh noted that even if the Marines' F/A-18Cs and A+ models wear out
before they can be replaced with F-35Bs, Navy F/A-18Cs replaced by
Super Hornets could be used by the Marines until more STOVLs are
available.

"We can't have a big huge beast," Walsh said about the need for STOVL
JSF. "We need a small footprint."

Note that the Marine Corps is retiring one fighter squadron per year
now - the last one was an F-18 unit, one per year until extinction




wrote in message
ups.com...
At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant
Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G
programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All-
Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and
vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function.

Best regards,
Jacek



On 22 Cze, 20:38, Mike wrote:

Walsh noted that even if the Marines' F/A-18Cs and A+ models wear out
before they can be replaced with F-35Bs, Navy F/A-18Cs replaced by
Super Hornets could be used by the Marines until more STOVLs are
available.

"We can't have a big huge beast," Walsh said about the need for STOVL
JSF. "We need a small footprint."

On Jun 22, 5:35 pm, wrote:
At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant
Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G
programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All-
Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and
vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function.

Yeah, but when push comes to shove, the Marines take what they're
given.


Best regards,
Jacek

On 22 Cze, 20:38, Mike wrote:





Walsh noted that even if the Marines' F/A-18Cs and A+ models wear out
before they can be replaced with F-35Bs, Navy F/A-18Cs replaced by
Super Hornets could be used by the Marines until more STOVLs are
available.

"We can't have a big huge beast," Walsh said about the need for STOVL
JSF. "We need a small footprint."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:

At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant
Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G
programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All-
Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and
vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function.

Isn't it assumed that the future of the recce/FAC function is in UAVs?

Cheers,

On 22 Jun 2007, said the following in news:1182548129.916430.91700
@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com.

At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant
Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G
programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All-
Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and
vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function.

Proper recce/FAC was abandoned when the Corp jettisoned the OV-10D.

Regards,
Dann

Oh yes, a plane like Bronco is certainly what is missing today...

For me the Marine attack aircraft carrier concept described here has
one basic fault... Where they are going to take the aircraft/squadrons
from? Now it is not enough of them to equip full 10 CVWs (one of them,
CVW-17, existing mostly on paper) and 2 land-based rotations, taking 4
more squadrons at a time...

Best regards,
Jacek

On 24 Cze, 18:12, Dann wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007, said the following in news:1182548129.916430.91700
@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com.

At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant
Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G
programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All-
Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and
vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function.

Proper recce/FAC was abandoned when the Corp jettisoned the OV-10D.

Regards,
Dann

On Jun 24, 9:12 am, Dann wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007, said the following in news:1182548129.916430.91700
@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com.

At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant
Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G
programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All-
Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and
vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function.

Proper recce/FAC was abandoned when the Corp jettisoned the OV-10D.

Regards,
Dann

There's actually been some talk in the USMC about reviving the OV-10
Bronco. See:

http://www.popasmoke.com/notam2/showthread.php?p=18129

this is why converting the JFK or the Kitty Hawk to an aviation assault
ship would benefit both Navy and Marines



"Mike" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Corps vs. the Super Hornet

Aircraft's reputation for problems simply not true, Navy officials say
Marine Corps Times
June 25, 2007

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - Inside Naval Air Systems
Command headquarters at this southern Maryland base, Navy program
officials for the F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighter program have
heard the stories circulating in the Pentagon.

Their aircraft, the stories go, can't carry certain weapons, can't fly
high enough, can't go fast enough. Design problems such as wing
flutter plague the plane and - perhaps worst of all - parts that will
wear out fast enough to severely shorten the plane's life-span are not
being replaced.

There's just one problem with the stories, say the Navy officials:
None of them is true.

"We're really scratching our heads, thinking, 'What's going on?'"
Super Hornet program manager Navy Capt. Don Gaddis said.

So who's spreading these stories about the Super Hornet?

The answer, which surprised some program officials: the Marine Corps -
which isn't even part of the Super Hornet program.

The Corps plans to replace its aging Hornets and AV-8B Harrier jump
jets with the F-35B short-takeoff-or-vertical-landing version of the
Joint Strike Fighter.

So why do the Marines even care about the Super Hornet?

"The Marines seem to be trying to discredit the Super Hornet as a way
of heading off efforts to cut their purchase of the STOVL JSF," said
Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank in Washington.

"If JSF is delayed," said naval analyst Norman Polmar, "the Marines
will be forced to buy Super Hornet, which will leave them with nothing
to operate off amphibious ships."

The STOVL JSF for the Marines isn't set to enter service until 2012 at
the earliest. The Corps, unlike the Navy, is strongly committed to the
new strike fighter and is eagerly anticipating an all-STOVL aviation
strike force.

But the JSF program has suffered several delays, and in contrast to
the Marines, neither the Pentagon - the Navy and Air Force also will
fly the plane - nor Congress seem to have a sense of urgency about
keeping the program on schedule and getting the aircraft into service.

The Marines are afraid that if their plane is struck by further
delays, they won't be able to buy new JSFs fast enough to replace
their aging strike aircraft, and they might need something else to
bridge the gap between new planes and old. Into that gap, the Marines
fear, could fly the Super Hornet. And for each new F/A-18 the Marines
get, that's likely one less STOVL JSF.

"We've had this vision for a long time to be an all-STOVL force," said
Marine Brig. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy assistant commandant for
aviation.

"We're a swing force, where we can go expeditionary, land on a big
runway at a major operating base," Walsh said June 7 in his Pentagon
office. "We can go smaller runway, [conduct] dispersed, distributed
operations. We can go on amphibious shipping, we can go on large
aircraft carrier decks. We can pretty much go everywhere with the
flexibility the JSF STOVL brings."

The aircraft the Marines are most worried about replacing sooner
rather than later are the Harriers and the two-seat F/A-18D Hornets,
Walsh said.

"Our F/A-18A+ and F/A-18C Hornets aren't in that bad shape," he said.
"But we're watching them very closely because we've got hour and
fatigue limits on those aircraft."

The high operations tempo for all aircraft in recent years "has caused
some stress between us and the Navy," Walsh said. "There's pressure
there in how you reduce the strike-fighter shortfall."

F/A-18 Super Hornets already are flying with the Navy - the single-
seat F/A-18E replaced older Hornet aircraft and the two-seat F/A-18F
replaced the fleet's F-14 Tomcats. A new two-seat EA-18G electronics
countermeasure version of the aircraft is due to begin operational
evaluation next year.

Three versions of the F-35 JSF are being developed - F-35A for the Air
Force, F-35B STOVL for the Marines and the British Royal Navy, and the
F-35C carrier version for the Navy. But the $276 billion program - the
largest single program in the defense budget - also is a fat target
for budget cutters, and worries persist that the program will continue
to suffer delays.

Hence, the Marines are worried about being sucked into the Super
Hornet program, to the detriment of their JSFs.

Problems spark 'd?j? vu'
Several unofficial briefings and papers listing alleged defects in
Super Hornets have circulated for at least a year inside the Pentagon.
Some have been leaked to the media, including Military Times.

The Marines officially disavow the materials.

"Unofficial, unendorsed, and old briefs are nothing more than opinions
which may have been used to make decisions on which direction Marine
aviation was headed long ago. They do not represent the one position
that matters: the Marine Corps' official position which is: the F-35B
represents the centerpiece of Marine Corps' aviation, and this is
supported by the program of record," said Maj. Eric Dent, a Marine
spokesman.

Still, the allegations continue to make the rounds. A recent story in
the Boston Globe about one of the alleged problems sent program
officials hurrying to Capitol Hill to reassure Congress there were no
serious issues with the aircraft.

"This is d?j? vu," Gaddis said from NavAir. "Some of those things
they're digging up are literally 12 to 15 years old."

Gaddis and his team actually have a game plan for each time the issues
reappear.

"Every so often, about every two or three years, these questions come
up. We can answer pretty much anything you want answered," he said.

Widespread enthusiasm for the Super Hornet throughout the naval
aviation community belies the alleged problems with the aircraft. The
Boeing-built twin-engine jet, a development of the original McDonnell
Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, deployed in 2002. Originally intended as a stop-
gap measure between the demise of the old A-6 Intruder and failed A-12
replacement and the JSF, the Super Hornet has legions of admirers
despite some shortcomings. With the APG-79 Active Electronically
Scanned Array radar installed in new aircraft, the Navy is even more
enthusiastic.

"By any measure - reliability, availability, flexibility, bombs
dropped, accuracy - we exceeded the F/A-18Cs in expectations across
the board," said Capt. Jeffrey Penfield, head of air-to-air missile
systems for NAVAIR.

Penfield, who commanded Strike Fighter Squadron 115 during the 2003
invasion of Iraq and wrote the operational evaluation for the Super
Hornet, is adamant in his support for the aircraft.

"It went beyond expectation," he declared. "It knocked the ball out of
the park."

Debunking the claims
Gaddis, Penfield and the Super Hornet team at NavAir addressed
numerous alleged issues with the aircraft.

·Claim: There is still "manageable wing flutter" with the aircraft and
the "wing drop" problem persists.

Rebuttal: "We do not have a flutter problem with this airplane and
have never had a flutter problem," declared Gaddis. "The only thing we
can think of is they are getting it confused with the old wing drop
problem. That was solved."

NAVAIR engineers noted that wing drop and wing flutter are different
phenomena. Flutter, explained engineer Mike Masse, "is a self-excited
oscillation" - basically, vibrations that cause aircraft instability.
"There are no stability problems or restrictions on F/A-18 E/F," he
said.

The well-publicized wing drop problem discovered during flight tests
in 1997 was entirely different, Super Hornet chief engineer Ed
Hovanesian said.

"It's a momentary loss [of lift] on one wing," he said, causing a
quick roll-off in a specific portion of the flight envelope.

Although a slight vibration - dubbed "residual lateral activity" -
remains, a series of fixes essentially solved the problem by 1999, he
said.

Now, "as you pull the airplane, you get a little bit of lateral
oscillation that is only there from 7.8 to 8.1 degrees [angle of
attack]," he said. "You can pull a little bit harder and it's gone.
You can pull a little bit less and it's gone."

Many pilots notice no effect at all, he said.

"The most important thing about it," Hovanesian added, "is it did not
cause any task abandonment at all."

·Claim: The wing drop led to the weapons pylons being canted outboard
six degrees, causing increased wear on weapons and severely cutting
their ability to acquire a target before launch.

Rebuttal: Canting the pylons is "totally different," Gaddis said.
"It's not related [to wing drop] in any form."

"That's been a myth for about 12 to 14 years," he said.

"We never flew the aircraft with straight pylons," Hovanesian said.

Rather, they pointed out, the cant was developed to ensure proper
weapons separation as bombs and missiles are launched from the
aircraft. Super Hornets have three weapons stations under each wing,
compared with two on the older Hornets, and a four-degree outboard
cant was developed to increase the distance between weapons.

One by one, the team debunked the other allegations. Missiles are not
showing excessive wear due to the cant, they said. There are no
unusual weight, speed or altitude limitations with a combat-loaded
aircraft. "The [F/A-18C] with a full load has the same limitations" in
altitude and speed, Penfield said, while the Super Hornet has no
problems carrying its top-rated full load of 66,000 pounds.

"The airplane launches at 66,000 all the time," he said.

A claim that weight restriction problems extend to the new EA-18G
Growler also was brushed aside. Test aircraft have flown with five
ALQ-99 electronic warfare pods weighing about 1,000 pounds each,
Gaddis said.

There are no restrictions for carrying certain weapons, the team said,
other than weapons that have not yet gone through a certification
process.

Another claim says the aircraft cannot go supersonic while carrying a
full weapons load.

True enough, Penfield said - the aircraft "wasn't designed for that."

Critics also claim delivery of weapons pylons is two years behind
schedule and not enough pylons are available, limiting training for
the Super Hornets.

"The idea about being two years late on pylon delivery is just not
true," Gaddis said.

Early aircraft were delivered with no pylons due to a previous $440
million budget cut, he said, but the issue was resolved a few years
ago with more funding.

"We were in catch-up mode," he said, until supply caught up with
demand "about two years ago."

Gaddis and Hovanesian scoffed at claims that not enough pylons are
available for training.

"Why carry six bombs when you can just carry one for training?"
Hovanesian said. "It's just cost."

The Boston Globe article reported that failure of some parts could
cause the aircraft's planned 6,000-flight-hour life to be limited to
3,000 hours. "That was probably one of the most egregious statements"
in the article, he said.

The problem referred to in the article would have shortened the
planes' lives, but it has been solved, Gaddis said.

"We found it early on" and a redesigned part already is being
installed on new aircraft, he said, with a retrofit planned for
earlier aircraft long before they reach any flight-hour limitations.

Back in Washington, no one knows whether the Marines will be forced to
buy Super Hornets.

Rear Adm. Bruce Clingan, director of the Navy's Air Warfare Division
in the Pentagon, said June 4 there are no plans to integrate the
aircraft into Marine Corps aviation.

Walsh noted that even if the Marines' F/A-18Cs and A+ models wear out
before they can be replaced with F-35Bs, Navy F/A-18Cs replaced by
Super Hornets could be used by the Marines until more STOVLs are
available.

"We can't have a big huge beast," Walsh said about the need for STOVL
JSF. "We need a small footprint."

Problem being, any form of F-18 is going to be an unreliable strike
aircraft. That's why the Marines are worried. Most of the time those planes
will not be supporting ground Marines. That's a given fact. They won't be
flying off gators, which means they won't be supporting Marines on the
beach. I have only ever called CAS with F-18's twice, and that was pro
forma...in fact in real war Marines would never see F-18's. Not for quick
reliable response they wouldn't.

AHS