Fighter Gap ‘Shrinks’ To 100 Planes

Fighter Gap ‘Shrinks’ To 100 Planes

The much-debated carrier fighter gap stretches about 100 planes wide in 2018. That is what Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the House Armed Services Committee today. That is less than half of the Navy’s estimate, given to Congress last year.

The Navy has pretty much stuck with a figure of 243 aircraft or, as some lawmakers have it, 48 planes a year. OSD’s old PAE shop performed an analysis last year that concluded there was in fact no fighter gap, if you took into account capabilities beyond those planes based only on US carriers, but that study was never publicly released.

So, ever eager to keep the F-18 line — and its workers (aka voters) — fat and happy, congressmen like Rep. Todd Akin, (R-Mo.) have been pushing Gates to build more attack aircraft, and not ust the E/A-18G electronic warfare planes that are receiving considerable funding in the 2011 budget.


Akin, who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, pressed Gates on why the Pentagon wasn’t using the multi-year authority Congress had granted him to buy F/A-18 E/Fs. Gates was characteristically blunt. He said the department found that multi-year would save 6.5 percent. But “we have a threshold of 10 percent” so they eren’t going to use it.

Then Adm. Mullen, chairman of th Joint cdhiefs, administered the coup de grace. “It’s a great airplane (the F/A-18 E/F/)… but the JSF is the right answer for the future, from the warfighters’ perspective, from my perspective.”

And that was the end of Rep. Akin’s five minutes at the hearing.

After the hearing, Akin issued a statement, saying he remains “concerned that the Department of Defense is not taking the Navy’s strike fighter shortfall seriously, nor are they honestly looking at an obvious solution. The Super Hornet is an active production line, and is dramatically cheaper than the JSF, which may not deliver anywhere close to on time.

“The only real option is to buy more airplanes, and the only Navy fighter currently in production is the F/A-18 Super Hornet. If we are going to buy anything, we should do so in a way that is most responsible for taxpayers. In this case, a multi-year procurement could save hundreds of millions of dollars, but the DoD seems to have their head in the sand.

“Secretary Gates mentioned that he thinks we need to have a 10 percent savings before we use a multi-year agreement. However, the Congress already gave DoD the authority to use a multiyear in this situation, even if the savings is less than 10%. The DoD should buy additional F-18’s and should use a multi-year agreement.” He estimated that using the multi-year auhtority “could save nearly half a billion dollars over the next few years. To not pursue that savings is just irresponsible.”

But, as Akin said, and Gates agreed, the numbers for how many fighters are actually needed is “slippery as an eel.” And that savings, of course, presumes that those pesky warfighters actually want to buy the planes made in Missouri.

Join the Conversation

I’m assuming buying more F/​A-​​18s now means we will not be able to buy more F-35s later.

—“Then Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint chiefs, administered the coup de grace. “It’s a great airplane (the F/​A-​​18 E/​F/​)… but the JSF is the right answer for the future, from the warfighters’ perspective, from my perspective.”—

Later, Admiral Mullen left the event by jumping on his unicorn and going back to wonderland. His last words were; “My..my… it is such a beatiful rainbow!… and look at those rivers of chocolate and candy cane trees!”

Misleading our elected officials. It is obviously not a punishable crime.

The CJCS is a shoe but he got this right

The availability of the F-35 is a bit debatable regardless of the status of the F-18. We can spend billions on high speed rail, Murtha’s airport, etc etc etc but not on airframes and vehicles that our folks need today? We are getting MRAPs, etc but an F-18 today is better than maybe an F-35 in five years.

‘ust’
’th Joint cdhiefs’
’eren’t’

i’ve noticed similar stuff in other articles, very jarring

The F35 is a piece of junk.The latest Russian and Chinese fighters will fly circles around this thing, err, I mean crap, putting sailors and troops on the ground lives at risk should we encounter an advisory with a real air force. But yet, Gates and Mullen are not thinking about the future„,but they are sure thinking about money in their pockets when they retire.

If the pent-up and-gone pentagon wants great fighters,look no further than the F15, F18,F16, and the F22. In the reports that I have managed to get my hands on, I seen in the remarks that the Su-30MKI, and other Russian fighters will fly circles around this piece of costly crap.

Good Evening Colin,

There are two other options. Cut the number of manned aircraft in carrier air groups, which Admiral Mullen (2009) said the Navy has already set a goal of 65% unmanned in carrier air groups by 2020.

Or the Navy can pull a carrier or two. In the next budget the funding of the next carrier after Ford will come up. Hold off starting a new carrier till 2020 while still retiring the two Nimitz hauls that are in the worst shape.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Then Adm. Mullen, chairman of th Joint cdhiefs, administered the coup de grace. “It’s a great airplane (the F/​A-​​18 E/​F/​)… but the JSF is the right answer for the future, from the warfighters’ perspective, from my perspective.”

Hmmm…“coup de grace” presumes finality. If we were looking backwards 20 years into the future, that might be the correct term; but with the F-35 so much in the news for all the wrong reasons, I doubt that’s the best way to characterize Mullen’s comments. “Wishful thinking” might be more appropriate.

Yeah, your all right. Rep Akin has a much better perspective on what the Navy needs than Gates and an Admiral. I guess we should keep producing the C-17 until the end of time and Hey, while we’re at it, maybe a 3rd engine for the F-35?!? Stupid politician trying to get reelected.

I think as the issue goes, do we buy a dated plane to maintain our capabilities or do we hold out for the newer plane and fall behind on force aquisition. It all comes down to the short comings of the F35 developement. If we wait we sacrifice short term viability, if we purchase F18s we sacrifice long term longevity and future capabilities by diminishing the number of F35s we can purchase with the aloted budget.

I think the best solution is one where we buy the minimal amount of F18s and as the F35 ramps up production we more quickly sell or shelve older F18 to make up as much of the cost difference to recover the money needed to purchase as many additional F35 as we can to make up the future gap created by filling the present gap. In the short run the F18 has cheaper sustainability costs and potential 2nd hand market to poorer nations.

Well the irony of your statement is that with a declining navy we’d need more C-17 as a result of sea lane option being diminished.

How about looking at this from a factual decision making perspective?

(1) If you truly have a aircraft quantity gap that fills a critical military operational need, buy more F/A-18E/F’s right now.
(2) If you believe that the gap, whether at 100 or 243 aircraft, is an acceptable risk, keep moving to the JSF F-35 and terminate the F/A-18 production line.
(3) If you cut the number of aircraft carriers, and that accounts for the 143 aircraft difference in (2) above, and the resulting 100 aircraft gap is operational acceptable, you’re good to go.
(4) If you also making a bet that an aircraft carrier variant of a combat UAV is available within ten years, and you don’t need as many manned aircraft because your operational tactic is a mixed squadron, regardless of what kind of aircarft, then you have another operationally acceptable risk if you push that technology hard and field it ASAP just like MRAPs.

Select all that apply.

The C-17 comment brings up the QDR’s new emphasis on domestic disaster assistance support, and the ability to perform that support and fight wars at the same time. From that perspective, the National Guards would need more C-17’s than the Pentagon is willing to buy for them. And as we all saw in Iraq, the Active forces laid claim to all the National Guard equipment so there is nothing left stateside in the event of a major catasrophe here at home.

I think thats the reason Gate’s estimates on the fighter gap are lower than the Navy’s. He’s already taking that carrier cut and delay into consideration.

The National Guard really needs to stand with enough autonomy to prevent that from happening. When you look at their mission as the most immediate homeland military presence for defense and disaster response, they should have a certain primacy over certain equipment. Every time we have to take something from the National Guard we need to question the adequecy of the rest of the military service that is “borrowing”.

The growing loss of amphibious assault capability and the lack of littoral assets are really going to push the need for airborne assaults and the ability to secure air fields. The volume of cargo you can move by plane is very small relative to ship, so you’ll need many more of the largest planes to make up for that inability to secure beachhead and dock.

I’m not a fan of the F-35, but you have to be fair. The newest Chinese and Russian fighters are Air Supperiority fighters, the F-35 is not. It isn’t fair to compare it to them. I think people would stop trying to make the comparison if we just properly designated the aircraft. It really should be A-35. When you look at the lineage its replacing and its intended role A-35 or F/A-35 would be a more appropriate (but less sexy) designation. Just by shifting the context of what it is you gain a more realistic expecation for it.

That said we probably should be sporting this volume of attack or fighter-attack craft without a higher volume of air supperiority fighters of our own. R.I.P. F-22.

Its all enough to hope the pandoras box that is the black budgets of the Pentagon have something secretly cooking.

Seems like there are some F-35 test pilots here in this discussion.

Good Morning Folks,

There seems to be an unasked question here and that is how many aircraft do we need to fight our current wars. I looked at the air summery for Iraq and Afghanistan for Feb. 2. Total strike sorties, 24 (mostly if not all by F-16’s and F-18’s. I didn’t see any A-10’s mentioned), ISR sorties 32. some by a single AACS, and an airframe that appears to be a Joint Star but mostly by UAV’s. There were also 43 tanker sorties.

These number of course don’t count any Hunter, Hunter Viper or Shadow flights used by ground forces, any Global Hawk missions or what Spec. Ops. is doing with their AC-130’s. Although not mentioned lets assume that a B-1B was always on station and on call.

These number have been constant for months now, they are a strong indicator of the vast over estimation of United States air power requirements in the war zones.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

You forgot that we have to prepare for WW3 with our banker China-I kidd.

No, Byron. We are spending $130 billion plus a year for 100,000 troops, aircraft carriers, fighter-bombers, UAVS, tanks, surveillance aircraft and satellites, million dollar munitions and cheap ammunition, body armor, heavy vehicles, overseas bases and a zillion other things. The real unasked question here is, if this is what it takes to fight a small bunch of guys wearing regular clothing and using rifles, RPGs and IEDs, what does that say about our ability to fight a real war?

I agree with you on the F-22. But we also need the F-35. BTW, the F-35 is a strike craft, not a fighter. It isn’t really meant to go up against the best the Russians/Chinese have (That’s the F-22’s job). It was designed to be supported (aka protected) by the F-22. :)

I love the first option. 2nd one, not so much. I might support sending the old carriers to the scrap yard. But delaying construction? That’s foolish.

True to an extent but the PAK-FA will certainly have a subsequent model that is a striek version (if the 2 seat version isnt already intended for it). Thats the beauty about Russian stuff — they design equipment with the versatility of other functions in mind. Good military equipment needs the capacity to be modified because of the changing nature of warfare and the innovations of the opposition. Take the original Su-27. It morphed into a multi role, strike/bomber and naval aircraft. Theres no reason the same wont happen with the T-50.

The Taliban government was overthrown nearly a decade ago. Why don’t you show the numbers for the sorties during the actual war (and not the insurgency), when hundreds of sorties were being flown each day, coming out to many thousands after a few months? Or Iraq or Kosovo for that matter.

The US will be out of Iraq soon, and the current plan is to turn things around in Afghanistan and start withdrawing troops from the more stable areas by 2011 (not that it will come true, but this is what the leadership wants). The US will not be in Iraq and Afghanistan forever, and even in those wars America made use of significant air power during its actual invasions.

So, is it your opinion that America will become mired in another long, small war in some poor, violent country in the future? Who are we invading next? Will the American people even be so enthusiastic to get into such a war in the first place, after being so fed up by Iraq? Is that far more likely than a high tech war in the 2030s?

I don’t want to champion mindless militaristic spending, and the truth is that America will likely be fine even if it scales back some of its spending. But I don’t like one-sided arguments based on a selection of evidence either.

OK, dumb question here…

There seems to be an assumption that the Russkie aircraft will be more than a match for the F-35 in at least the air superiority role. While I am not a big fan of the JSF, why is the assumption that it will be inferior as a fighter unchallenged?

The F-35 is supposed to be at least somewhat stealthy and should be quite maneuverable as well as having advanced avionics and ECM. I fail to see any definitive basis for saying that the F-35 in capable hands wouldn’t kick the stuffing out of anything in the current Russkie inventory. And I suspect that a flight of F-35’s would tear apart a flight of SU-30’s.

Feel free to correct me. I don’t claim to be expert on this at all. It just seems to me that unsupported assumptions may be made and I’d be delighted if my misconception were cleared up.

Has Been…it is fair to say the F35 is a piece of crap,period. If you take a look at the latest Russian aircraft,they include thrust vectoring, higher thrust engines, the latest flight control technology, higher wing loading, wing slats, and the planes are built for extreme manouvers, and they are cost competitive…while the F35, bases its survivability off of stealth, advanced electronics, and the hopes that some one will clear the sky prior to the aircraft entering enemy airspace, and the fact that Lockheed-Martin will make a bundle off of the sales of this inferior piece of equipment.

Can you cite a source for carrier air groups being “65% unmanned” by 2020? Because I’ve read multiple times that the notional carrier air wing in 2025 will be 44 F-35s and Super Hornets, along with E-2 Hawkeyes and a few EA-18G Growlers. 4–12 UCAVs. Not even close to being 65%.

As I have stated previously, the F35 is a waste of money, The DoD was better off keeping the F22 lines open and building more F22s. That would have sustained the air force fighter fleet until a new 6th or 5th+ generation plane made it into production. As for the Navy, they still need the F18E/F to replace all those planes they will be HOPEFULLY re capitalizing..if they can be rebuilt due to over use. The military would have been better off buying more F18,F15, and F16 with the latest technological advancements at a cheaper cost,better performance that excels over the F35.

While I may not be a big fan of the F-35, I will say that the level of Western avionics outclasses Russian avionics and more than makes up for the lack of maneuverability.

The Su-30 and up series of fighters outmaneuver even the F-22, however it’s the stealth and avionics that makes gives American fighters the edge.

For all that extreme maneuvering that the Russian fighters can do, they still can’t maneuver out of range of our advanced AESA radars or outmaneuver an AIM-9X or AIM-120 missile that are capable of pulling over twice the human-limited 9g’s that any manned fighter can. The more powerful fighter-based AESA radars can also act in offensive electronic warfare roles, providing ECM jamming of enemy radars. Two versions (the F-22’s AN/APG-77 and the F-15’s AN/APG-63(V)2 and (V)3) have demonstrated the ability to function as directed energy weapons… capable of physically frying the electronic guidance systems onboard oncoming missiles.

Now as far as stealth for the F-35, it really should be billed more as a reduced-RCS fighter, and not a true “stealth” fighter.

Which is what happened with the F-15 with the F-15E Strike Eagle, which is based off of the D model… which is the two-seat version of the air-superiority C model. The Strike Eagle has proven to be a highly successful strike fighter, born of a fighter that was originally billed “Not a pound for air to ground”.

Same goes with the F-16, which was originally meant to be a low-cost, high-volume light fighter to supplement the F-15. It proved adept enough to also supplement the A-10 for the air-to-ground role. It doesn’t do as good as a job as either the F-15 or A-10, but it’s low-maintenance, higher mission availability, and flexibility pays off well. Especially when sending an F-15 or A-10 would be overkill for the mission profile.

Are you implying that we couldn’t crush a conventional opponent as we did in 2003 and 1991? And in terms of casualties, it goes without saying that the enemy has suffered massive losses in comparison to ours.

What makes you think the Su-30MK and similar class Flankers could outmaneuver a F-22? By nature of it’s design the F-22 is exceptionally maneuverable even without it’s thrust vectoring nozzles, superior to a F-16 in fact.

The problem is that we are trying to make the F-35 do everything. And part of the problem is that more demands were placed on it due to F-22 cuts and the lack of a Navy program for a larger twin-engined 5th generation fighter.

You know…all the banter about extreme maneuverability means to me.…ummmm.…not much. From an ex-squid it seems that all of the extreme stuff is not necessarily useful. It looks good on video and at Farnborough. Like the bs shots of weapons taking out tanks parked on white squares in the desert test grounds of NWC or something. Nice, but not very useful. Any fighter guy..and believe me, I am not a fighter guy, used to say the old speed is life thing and if you hang around doing your extreme maneuvers, then to me, it seems you become the center of a fur ball… and you get shot.…by the guy you dont see.… I mean in a 1 v 1 or 2 v 2 maybe its useful but in a real attack scenario where you are just trying to blow through and get to a target along with the rest of the mob.….? Why wont the F35 suffice for this role? It seems perfect for the Marine mission of CAS, like the AV8 for instance. And the F35 has vectored thrust, yes?

I think the f-35 has not vectored thrust,that is the f-22.

Good Evening Duke 1,

I’m with you pal. We have been planning for WW III since 1945, and it always been in the American mind, and have pi**ed away $ trillions and have got very little in return.

The ones that made the money of course are the defense contractors and since 1959 with the Rand Corp. that peculiar institution of winger think tanks that have added zero value to any defense project but have pocketed hundreds of billions in contracts to the Government and fees to to contractors that is turned around and added to the cost of contracts.

We use to have a middle class in the United States, but it’s gone, all the wealth has been spent on needless and useless big ticket defense projects.

I think it’s time to put some of that money back into the pockets of the middle class. How about going back to a time when the wife didn’t have to work and could stay home and raise the kids, it was that way once. You could put money in the bank and it earned 5% interest. The middle class could send their children to college with out mortgaging away their own retirement. Now they can send their kids to the military and they can fight in meaningless wars.

The threat to the United States like all major powers in history doesn’t come for the out side, but from with in. When the US does collapse as it will in time, hopefully a few hundred years away, it won’t be from a China, it will be from Main Street, USA.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Our military should prepare and be equipped to deal with any potential threat, that included the Soviet Union during the Cold War and should include countries like China today, even when we have good relations with them. One of our wiser presidents once said “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” That policy remains just as true today as it has for the past century.

There is no massive conspiracy behind think tanks like RAND Corporation. Trying to blame every problem in modern America on such a scapegoat is ridiculous. Problems in the world of military procurement are due to mismanagement, political interference, and plenty of other factors. Not some Byzantine conspiracy by a non-profit think tank.

There is no longer a middle class in the United States? Me and all of the other middle class people I know must have missed that. The money spent on equipping our military is spent wisely despite the problems of waste and mismanagement, the money being wasted on countless broken social programs is a different matter however…

How about we continue to maintain a world class military and supply them with new equipment for the 21st century? How about we don’t spend trillions on broken “stimulus” packages and try other means to fix the economy?

Despite what you say those “big-ticket” items do win wars. Would you have had us defeat the Iraqi Army in 1991 with MRAPs and light COIN turboprop aircraft? What if we do go to war with North Korea or Iran a few years from now? How are we going to get men to the battlefield without “big ticket” aircraft and ships?

projo66…if the F35 is perfect for marine cas,then why don’t they just stick with the harrier? F35 for cas? Bull pucky. The harrier has the SAME capabilities as the F35! Why not just stick with what the jar heads already have?
In a future war,the USA will be defeated. Our stupidity on relying on technology will always end up costing more lives in the long run. And with the F35 lack of maneuverability, range, payload, and over reliance on electronics that and do fail when a pilot least expects it will surely end up being called this next generations flying coffin.

Having a stealth CAS in a future war is more important than having one that can be seen and shot down on its way to the target.

Going by your logic of “Our stupidity on relying on technology will always end up costing more lives in the long run”.

I guess we would save lives by going back to forging swords, and making bows and arrows? Not sure how we’d take out a enemy fighter, bomber, tanks, or infantry with machine guns. But hey, you said we don’t need technology to beat them. So I guess we can do what the Ewok’s did against the Galactic Empire. That’ll save lives!

seems more like pork barrel spending by some for their own states, and total lack for the safty of our men and women on the ground in the war zones.

So whose the enemy here? There is few/none. Why do we need the F-35 when we have UAV’s doing all the bombing?

We need to grow up and quit bankrupting the USofA by buying these toys.

It seems we are like an aircraft carrier. It takes us 20 years to get turned around.

So whose the enemy here? There is few/none. Why do we need the F-35 when we have UAV’s doing all the bombing?

We need to grow up and quit bankrupting the USofA by buying these toys.

It seems we are like an aircraft carrier. It takes us 20 years to get turned around.

First off put your ass on the line out there in the enemy sights and say, hey lets wait on an over budget, under performing plane that in no way will match the enemy of our future. GM, Ford and Chrysler tried to use the same platforms in the 1970’s to cheaply manufacture their line of automobiles and we all watched the rest of the word auto manufacturers kicked their ASS!!

with al the money were spending on the OLD B-52, is old and Slow.They won’t last Twenty minutes in the Air.
If were running out of money its cause this old Airplane, its not worth it. Sure it can deliver, Well so can the Navy
they always off shore somewhere and they to can do the job, and have better chances. The B-52 was a good A/C at one time, lets Retired it. And get something better. We have plenty of A/C , the F-15 , F-16, F-18, F-22.

Im with Byron. The chinese have been around for 10,000 years. They know how to destroy us and thats to bankrupt us.

Richard, you are aware that the B-52 can carry more bombs than an F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35 combined right? In the grand scheme of things, we spend pennies keeping the B-52 fleet in the air. Do you honestly think less than 100 B-52s are bankrupting the Air Force? Along with a ridiculously huge payload, the B-52 has enough fuel to orbit a battlefield all freakin day waiting for missions. As for lasting 20 minutes in the air, the B-52 flies high enough to avoid most anti-air systems, survived almost 40 years of cold war service and participated in Vietnam, Desert Storm, Allied Force, Desert Fox, OEF, OIF and is still going strong.

While most people agree its time to replace the B-52. Congress keeps cutting funding for the “Next Generation Bomber”. :(

The F-35 Air Force version should be put into production, now and continue to work on other versions. I think that the concept of a Joint Fighter has turned into a joke. We need to be able to fight a full scale war and have planes that we can get into the battle. I think that the F-35 is too big and too expensive to meet
affordable needs. Not that the F-35 isn’t a great plane but if it bankrupts the country in the process or we don’t build it because it costs too much.

well,TMB we could have a hunder B-52, on the other hand they only need a couple of Fast Mover’s to knock down the slow Bombers. they don’t have any Gun’s, they just too old and slow. sure it carry’s more bombs’s. And it did do its share in Vietnam, they Kick ASS. I remember, you could hear them from a long way. But! we do need a better Bomber. theres alot of Tankers out there.

Your Right Thunder350, its about time to retired the old bird, she did her Service. lets get some of that money and get something better. At last someone agree’s.

MAY BE WE CAN WAIT FOR A “GREEN PLANE“THEN EVERY ONE WILL FEEL GOOD.….THIS GOVT LEADERS THAT ARE IN NOW WILL PUT THIS NAVY BACK TO USING SAILS .……

yea, we can do that or wait until they blow our Ass back to the stone age. :} No Big Deal, been there before.
you have a good day. :}

To fight the next big war against a currently forseeable enemy, the USA would have to borrow the money from said enemy in order to fight them. That is the new world paradigm. We can not afford to unilaterally fight all the world’s conflicts or, even those which many would like to commit to today.

The Sukhoi 50 is flying already and India is buying.

The difference in Iraq is that we have no CLEAR distinction between civilian and enemy. This can be compared to Vietnam, with guerilla tactics and an invisible enemy. Fighting a war against a regular army is, in comparison, much easier. In Iraq, everyone owns at least one rifle, so we can’t kill anyone who is armed. And the insurgents take every advantage they have. Plus, fighting in urban terrain while doing your best to maintain infrastructure and try to keep civilians alive and happy is incredibly difficult.

*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