Navy Admiral sends warning to Congress

Vice Admiral Mike Shoemaker has sent a warning to Congress about the current state of Naval aviation. To keep aircraft operational on the carriers, they've been cannibalizing aircraft that weren't deployed. As a result, of a total of 542 Super Hornets, only half are listed as Mission Capable, meaning they can fly some sort of mission. There are 170 that are considered Fully Mission Capable, meaning they could launch tonight on combat missions, with no maintenance required.

www.flightglobal.com...

Why do we need that many to be ready or any at all?

Who are we at war with?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Despite all these warnings have congress still not put the F35 into full production?

What about the whole "Fat Leonard" scandal?

How sympathetic will Congress be with all of ^^^ that up in the air?

a reply to: SR1TX

Technically, North Korea has never called a stop to the Korean War.

Have you ever read about Pearl Harbor?? a reply to: SR1TX

a reply to: TexasTruth

What does that time period have to do with now?

You guys are stuck in a different time when it comes to warfare.

If Pearl Harbor happened today there would be no Japan 15 minutes later, or Germany, or Italy, or Russia.

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: TexasTruth

What does that time period have to do with now?

You guys are stuck in a different time when it comes to warfare.

If Pearl Harbor happened today there would be no Japan 15 minutes later, or Germany, or Italy, or Russia.

Yes America would just nuke them and irradiate most if their allies in Europe?! Don't think so somehow

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: TexasTruth

What does that time period have to do with now?

You guys are stuck in a different time when it comes to warfare.

If Pearl Harbor happened today there would be no Japan 15 minutes later, or Germany, or Italy, or Russia.

Uh oh, this guy here figured it all out, everyone can rest as we already have too many planes.

originally posted by: SR1TX
Why do we need that many to be ready or any at all?

Who are we at war with?

I apologize for my bluntness...

That's a stupid question...
1. We are constantly at war with "terrorism" like it or not
2. Why would we want to keep our fleet broken?
3. You do realize the only "peace" we have these days is because we posture our military, right?

a reply to: Woody510

We don't use those kinds of devices. There would be little fall out damage and yes if we had them then, they would most certainly of been used in the face of a true threat.

I am not going to cry over the admirals report that some defense contractor is not going to get to steal a few more millions or billions of dollars to a plane that lost its effectiveness 10 years ago and needs only be used in Football stadium flyovers and training missions.

We have other means of attacking and defense.

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Woody510

plane that lost its effectiveness 10 years ago and needs only be used in Football stadium flyovers and training missions.

We have other means of attacking and defense.

Is this a joke? We don't fly a single ineffective plane today.

You can't be serious....
a reply to: SR1TX

a reply to: SR1TX

Of 542 Super Hornets, you can remove some from flying status because of Depot level maintenance, more for scheduled maintenance at the unit level, and more for just being broke. On a good day you can be looking at 100 in some form of maintenance.

Then you have at least two squadrons that perform pilot training. They have almost 200 aircraft. They perform carrier qualifications, but generally don't deploy. That's over 300 aircraft not available for deployment. That's without getting into carrier requirements, and land based units.

a reply to: SR1TX

So if a opposing force came at America with 600 planes in the air and the navy could only launch 170 as defence you think that's OK? Or would you rather the full force?

a reply to: SR1TX

The F-18 IS naval aviation. It's so far from losing its effectiveness that it's not funny. We have aircraft that were built in the 70s or even earlier that are still some of the most effective and feared aircraft flying.

Yes, we have classified systems and weapons. They're nowhere near strong enough to get rid of aircraft or other systems.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SR1TX

The F-18 IS naval aviation. It's so far from losing its effectiveness that it's not funny. We have aircraft that were built in the 70s or even earlier that are still some of the most effective and feared aircraft flying.

Yes, we have classified systems and weapons. They're nowhere near strong enough to get rid of aircraft or other systems.

But the F18 can't do mach 10 or fire lasers....

a reply to: Woody510


that you know of

This smells just like what happened in the 90s to the Tomcat. The CO of VF-2 IIRC, sent a HazRep that stated his unit was not safe to fly due to a lack of parts to keep his aircraft operational. I think he was saying that he only could keep 2 aircraft flying out of 14 and he couldn't keep the pilots current (re: safe) with that number.

Wish they would have learned that lesson and fixed it.

a reply to: Woody510

They're lucky they can get the legacy Hornets from Miramar to the carriers without them running out of fuel. And that's at cruising speed. Heh.

a reply to: cosmania

At one point, on paper, almost every Air Force squadron showed combat ready and available to go to war. Then they started failing ORIs. It turned out that squadron and wing commanders were afraid to look bad, so they'd report everything was fine, they were hitting hours and ready to go, even though they weren't even close to ready.

It's starting to happen again.