More Super Hornets? Part II

1

090604-N-5251G-148

Yesterday we heard rumors that legislators on Capitol Hill would tell the Navy to buy more Super Hornets — despite the fact the Navy has not formally asked for any.

That’s no longer a rumor: Today Rep. Gene Taylor marked up the defense authorization bill to include permission for the Navy to enter into a new multi-year contract with Boeing to buy more Super Hornets.

Here’s his logic:

“This mark clearly indicates that the Navy should build more of these planes instead of trying to extend the life of the older and less capable F/A18A thru D Hornets. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the Department would pay $26 million to extend the flying life of an older plane by just 1,500 hours, when for $50 million they could buy a brand new, more capable plane that is good for 8,000 hours.

That could lead to new Super Hornets.

But a subcommittee markup is a long way from becoming a law.

Share.

About Author

1 Comment

  1. What do you think Andrew? You’re a taxpaying citizen like the rest of us, do you agree with the rationale put forward by Rep. Taylor?

    When it’s new and shiny 8000 hrs sounds like a lot, doesn’t it ? Of course, if you fly ‘em 600-800 hours a year with about 1/3 of those hours doing only one mission- overhead tanking, well, you do the math. You are a taxpayer who bought a sophisticated jack-of-all, frontline, strikefighter. Go figure the value. It ain’t rocket science, more a conundrum.

    LCD- What other option does the US Navy have to stabilize the “gap” y’all are so eager to discuss? Even “before there was a gap, there was a gap” with only 65 aircraft on a supercarrier deck designed for 105.

    Whodunit? Oh yes. The Navy itself is responsible for starting out driving on a multi-lane highway which has turned into a one lane road with no turnarounds…Folks like “Gene” are just facilitators. You’ll find no one to blame because all”enterprises” rule by consensus!

    b2

Reply To b2 Cancel Reply

css.php