The other major topic up for discussion at yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Armed Services AirLand subcommittee was the Navy’s “strike fighter gap.” Senator Joe Lieberman noted that the projected gap, which really hits out at around the year 2017, has fluctuated wildly between as many as 267 aircraft and as low as 125.
Marine Corps aviation chief Lt. Gen. George Trautman, admitted that the models used to calculate that gap are a bit shaky and susceptible to wide variations depending on the inputs. Critical variables include: JSF deliveries, force structure, usage rates, life limits, depot turnaround time, catapult launches and arrested landings and field landings. In 2009, the Navy estimated that the shortfall, or gap, to be 146 aircraft.
He thinks that with careful management of the legacy F-18 fleet, by which he means service life extension, close air support burden sharing between the Navy and Marines, and finding “depot efficiencies,” that fluctuating fighter gap number can be trimmed to no more than 100 in 2018. If JSF can be kept on track, that number can be reduced even further, he said.
The management “levers” the Navy has identified include: accelerating the transition of five legacy F/A-18C squadrons to F/A-18E/F; transitioning two additional F/A-18C squadrons to F/A-18E/F using the remaining attrition F/A-18E/F reserve aircraft; and reducing the Navy Unit Deployment Program (UDP) and Marine Expeditionary F/A-18A/C/D squadrons from twelve aircraft to ten aircraft per squadron
The F-18 fleet includes 400 Super Hornets and 635 legacy A through D Hornets. The 2011 budget requests $1.8 billion to buy 22 F/A-18 E/F Block II aircraft; the program will complete the planned buy of 515 aircraft in 2013. The Hornet production line is scheduled to shut down in 2015. All Super Hornets are being fitted with the APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system.
At the hearing, Vice Adm. David Architzel, the Navy’s point man on research and procurement, said additional F/A-18A-D SLEP options are under review as well as opportunities to minimize depot turn around times.
– Greg
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Always wondered…if a carrier goes into drydock, are its aviation units taken and reassigned elsewhere to remedy deficits like this? I suppose if the Marines have surplus aircraft they'll have to pick up slack.
The idea of 1,000 aircraft "not being enough" is a little shocking. Makes you wonder where all the hornets are.
Good Morning Folks,
One short term answer might be to take the Carriers off providing strike missions in Afghanistan that run from 12-14 hours. There are plenty of secure in country air bases to bring more USAF F-16′s and F-15E/F’s to fill the role the Navy is now doing, That is if AF pilots can be coaxed into flying the unfriendly skies of Afghanistan.
These long missions are putting stress, adding flight hours and just plane old wearing the F-18′s of the Navy and Marines. I know the Navy likes this mission, it helps build on the argument that carriers are needed, but that’s already been proven and putting hours on Naval carrier aircraft while the AF is slacking off is pointless and a waste of money.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Byron, could you clarify your remarks on "if AF pilots can be coaxed into flying the unfriendly skies of Afghanistan"?The AF has bases in country…which in and of itself seems to obviate the need for the navy's carriers (though taking some slack off the air force is always nice).
I take no sides in interservice rivalry.
I think what he meant is the air force has always seemed reluctant to provide CAS in the vain that is what is needed in Afghanistan. They don't like using their planes as bomb trucks or "flying artillery" as one general put it in WWII. They'd rather run a strategic strike campaign or and air superiority campaign like Desert Storm, Rolling Thunder in Vietnam, Kosovo, etc.
Whether or not that still holds true is up for debate though.
If the AF doesn't want to do it, roll back Key West.
I think the AF is running into the same problem with thier aircraft as far as
flying hours on aircraft. Legacy F-16's are older then the lagacy F-18's
Good Evening Folks,
Just for fun I looked up yesterdays Air Summary-Close Air Support for April 13th., 2010 (Iraq and Afghanistan combined)
22 total sorties:
5 by F-15E’s
2 by A-10′s
1 by F-18C
1 by MQ-9A
These have been typical average daily numbers for a while now, like two years. On any given day 8-10 manned attack aircraft and 1-5 UAV’s are pressed into service this seems to be the norm. On surge days the sorties can go up to 30-40 maybe as high as 50 when a ground operation is taking place and involving perhaps 25-30 aircraft, some being UAV’s, this is hardly beyond the current capacity of US airpower I would say.
These numbers strongly indicate that the air war is playing a minimal role in Iraq and Afghanistan at this time. I think one must be suspect at the numbers and alleged air craft shortages that are being thrown around. The numbers also strongly indicate that a carrier presence in the area is unnecessary in the prosecution of the two wars.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
In other words, even the Navy has no clue how many fighters they will actually need in 2017, but they are sure they'll need more than they have in the budget right now.
And we are going to use band-aids and pray a lot to maybe get through it.
We only need:
1) No unexpected problems with aircraft being used way over their life limits.
2) No more JSF problems or delays and with 3% of flight testing complete what's the chance of that? Oh and the current prblems magically go away.
3) Our adversaries to lie low while we try to muddle through
The Super Hornets are really new aircraft.
Besides the avionics package it shares little with the C variation. In many respects the Navy has much newer fighter force than the AirForce….
I am not sure what all the crying is about. The Harrier will be replaced by the JSF, which will really update naval air-power.
With the vertical launch and landing JSF the marine forces deployed will not only be able to support the ground troops, but also be able to actively take part in air superiority and strategic bombing roles before the Marines are on the move on the ground.
Speaking as someone who helped keep the venerable F-14 flying decades after its debut, this all sounds like politics
False debate. Nimitzes were intended to breach USSR's sophisticated defenses and destroy naval targets. The Navy wanted high perf F/A-18s because they could fight their way in and back out again, in theory.
Now, our major strategic goal (except WMD defense) must be creation of an export-based economy without which we can't prosper or afford any defense we need. Thus, access to resources and markets and alliances to assure this are our main strategic needs. The Navy must be calibrated to these tasks, which mostly does not include the need for Nimitz CAGs.
Byron S is right. See also PBS docu "Carrier," which followed the Nimitz's 2005 deployment to the Gulf and back, when its air wing did not fire a shot. In most places we can get air/strike dom cheaply with COIN planes, A-10s, A7s or helicoptors operating off ships. The need for the Nimitzes is largely limited to the border between the West and Russia, the Chinese littoral including Taiwan and the South China Sea, and perhaps Iran. This being the case, it is a reasonable estimate that we do not need to fill the so called "fighter gap" and can wait for the F-35Cs.