Lawmakers Press Navy on F-18s

Lawmakers Press Navy on F-18s

Strong bipartisan concern about the F-18 fighter gap from the House Armed Services Committee was met with repeated Navy statements that all will be resolved during the Quadrennial Defense Review.

“I am very concerned with the current Navy and Marine Corps Strike Fighter Shortfall.  When I do the math, simple arithmetic tells me that the Navy and Marine Corps will be some 300 strike fighters short in the middle of the next decade,” Rep. Ike Skelton said in his prepared statement Wednesday and he reiterated that concern today.

The GOP echoed Skelton’s worries. “The Department of the Navy currently has a Fiscal Year 2009 strike-fighter inventory shortfall of 110 aircraft, against a resourced requirement of 390 aircraft and predicts a peak strike-fighter shortfall of 312 aircraft in fiscal year 2018. That’s eight carrier air wings worth of aircraft and it rests on the dubious assumption that the Joint Strike Fighter delivers on time. What’s more, the 390 aircraft the Navy ‘resources’ against, is less than what is required by the National Military Strategy.  Nevertheless, this budget cuts in half the procurement of the only “hot” production line we have for carrier-capable fighters,” Rep. John McHugh said.


Talking to CNO Adm. Gary Roughead, Rep. Todd Akin, said: “it seems to me you have two choices. One, you have less aircraft carriers or two, you put a lot fewer airplanes on them.”

Roughead basically reiterated the Pentagon budget proposal to buy nine F-18 E/Fs and 22 F– 18Gs, the electronic warfare version of the plane. Any other decision will have to wait for the QDR, Roughead said, when the Pentagon will analyze the entire Tac Air issue.

So, you’ve got the Pentagon saying it just doesn’t need as many planes as it used to say it needs to man a carrier. You’ve got lawmakers who wonder how the Navy can say it needs fewer planes when it still has requirements for those planes.

But there is another element at play here. The Programs, Analysis and Evaluation shop has performed an analysis that says the Navy does not need as many carrier tactical aircraft because some of those roles can be filled by other air assets.

A congressional source said today that House staff have asked the Pentagon for the analysis. Initially, they were told the data would be forthcoming once the budget came out. Now, not so much.

Join the Conversation

This idea of reevaluating after the QDR is just to delay refreshing our aircraft. Our aircraft are stretched to the limit and are aging. Even missions we can now cover are often being flown by old aircraft nearing the end of useful life.

We should spend some of this Stimulus money to give our airmen the reliable aircraft they need — to do the mission they are sent to do.

someone needs to get their stuff together!
Change the policy to reflect what you need!
Law makers look at the pentagons requirements and see a gap… the pentagon needs to either shut the door on that requirement by changing that requirement… or explain why they have a requirement and its not being met?! sounds simple to me…

Don’t need the airplanes huh? How many Air Force strike fighters were available in Afghanistan when that kicked off?

Always rememeber for every aircraft carrier deployed there will need to be one getting ready to deploy and one just back from deployment. Same for the aircraft and aircrew. And why would you put fewer airplanes on the best real estate in the world?

What does the President always ask when the crap hits the fan? Where’s our carriers?

DC2

Video of the questioning of ADM. Roughead here: http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​i​i​Z​o​0​O​M​m​7Hk

The answer is simple: Politics.

You see, No ADM is going to sit in front of Congress and tell them that a requirement has not been changed but that they are not funding the Navy to meet that requirement. That would get him cashiered. Our elected officials control the purse strings people. If the Navy says they need something and Congress agrees but does not fund it, then the Navy doesn’t get it. Simple. Duplicity at the top levels, is that a surprise to you?

It looks like the US Navy needs to purchase additional F/A-18E/F and G models to close the fighter gap.

There will be in dire need for additional fighter as a result of the delays in the delivery of the F-35 JSF. Due to this problem Congress should double the current allocations of F/A-18s.

Lets use the Stimulus money to purchase additional F/A-18s instead of giving anti-American pro communist organization called ACORN money to bring down this country! I rather spend the stimulus on F/A-18s which keeps high tech workers, truck drivers, A & P mechanics, engineers, instructors, scientists, and aviators working.

Here Here IAN. well said, and in addition that JSF is going to be great! Our enemy will be looking over his shoulder all the time. Then, BOOM! right up the tail pipe! HA HA HA

The issue here is money and the DOD is getting cut to pay for the poor bankers who drove us into the second depression in US history. There isn’t enough money to buy F/A-18E/F’s and the F-35B/C in the forseeable future. The Air Force apparently has stated they can cover the US Navy tactical missions until new tactical aircraft are available. The Air Force will take longer to get on station, but I was in teh US Navy and their motto of hurry up and wait can go one step further. The US Navy is comitted the the F-35 at any price in terms of mission capability. The F-18E/F was a stop gap measure to begin with and the US Navy planners didn’t include it in their long term budgeting. If this fighter were exceptional then the US Navy would buy more to cover “gap” years.

It would be nice to increase funding for additional Super Hornets instead of bailing out the auto industry…maybe the Navy should threaten to file bankruptcy.

dodson, 21 may 2009
The planes need to be bough. It is unconscionable to be that short of plane.

What is not covered is the track record of Lockheed. The setbacks of the F22 should be a stong indication of the projected delivery of the F35. Historically many new and developing weapon systems run overcost and behind schedule.
The “200 million dollar question”, can the Warfighter ccontinue to sustain or maintain national security with gapping holes in Air Support in the future???

The answer is simple, you take advantage of the best Tacair program running (FA-18) and leverage the costs of this program vs the current and future Defense budget shortfalls.…

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement