Navy Struggles With ‘Fighter Gap’
The U.S. Navy is mulling proposals to bridge a “strike fighter gap” next decade by buying more F/A-18 E/F fighters or delaying the naval version of F-35 Lightning II, and that’s worrying other Joint Strike Fighter customers.
“The Navy is definitely looking at another buy of F-18s and both accelerating or slowing down F-35, and we have run some numbers to help them answer their questions,” said Air Force Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis, the F-35 program executive officer. “Any time there is a discussion of a service or country pulling out airplanes from the program, the other service leaderships get very concerned. But we have told the Navy that buying them sooner at greater rates gives you a lower cost and more capability on your decks than any other buying profile.”Related TopicsAmericas
Air Warfare
Naval Warfare
Navy leaders say they’re fully committed to the JSF, but are facing a “strike fighter gap” between 2016 and 2025 as F/A-18 jets are retired but before the JSFs come on line, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, told lawmakers.To fill the gap, the Navy is looking at options that include upgrading some older planes to delay their retirements, buying from 50 to 282 more F-18s, and either speeding or delaying JSF.
Navy leaders worry that upgrading older F-18s may not make financial sense. Yet buying more JSFs earlier may be tough, because initial batches of the more capable Lockheed Martin jet will cost more than Boeing’s F-18.
If the Navy eliminates the 25 carrier versions that it plans to buy each year for a decade, that “will increase the cost of the other planes that are being bought in those years,” Davis said. “If you take hundreds of airplanes out of the program, of course the unit prices go up.”
Moreover, a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that the roughly $1 trillion program is more than $38 billion over budget and could be 27 months behind schedule.
Davis rejects the GAO’s findings, and said the program is achieving its milestones.
The Navy pushed back vigorously on any suggestion that its support of the JSF program was shaky.
“For the record, we stand by JSF,” said Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon. “It will bring enhanced capabilities to the fight and is the future strike fighter for the Navy and the joint force, and we stand by it.”
Maj. Gen. Davis agreed the Navy isn’t being “subversive” about its commitment to the program, but simply faces a money crunch.
“They have a very tough economic argument,” JSF’s Davis said. “It depends on how quickly they see F-18s falling out of service. … There is no doubt if we make the numbers match, the Navy would be on F-35 a lot faster.
“I don’t agree with the premise they don’t like the airplane. I believe they are honorable.”
The JSF, which was recently reviewed by the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), is expected to receive approval to begin its second Low Rate Initial Production phase.
Maj. Gen. Davis declined to comment on the DAB review. He said, however, that based on new calculations, the projected cost of the carrier variant has dropped 3 percent.
The Navy, the only apparent customer for the carrier variant, intends to buy about 25 aircraft annually starting in 2014. Current service plans call for buying a total of 360 of the carrier variant and 320 of the short-takeoff and -landing (STOVL) variant for the Marine Corps.
Meanwhile, the Navy has bought 332 F-18 Super Hornets and plans to buy another 161. And Boeing has just introduced a new version of the F-18, dubbed the 4.75 version, and is eager to land more Navy and international orders.
All that is worrying officials in the Marine Corps and Air Force – which wants 1,763 of the conventional-takeoff and -landing version of the plane – which are allied with eight other nations to develop and field JSF.
“Just as people are puzzling over the cost of F-35, you have one service considering slowing down its portion of the program,” said Robbin Laird, a consultant who advises the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy leadership. “That adds a big question to many others that are in the minds of allies who will be deciding their commitment to JSF over the next year or two.”
High Stakes for U.K.
Britain, which wants 150 F-35B STOVL jets for its two new 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, is watching the U.S. Navy’s evolving interest in more F-18s closely, sources said.
The Ministry of Defence will decide this summer whether to equip the Queen Elizabeth-class ships, which were intended to operate STOVL aircraft, with catapults and arresting gear for conventional carrier planes.
If the U.S. Navy seems likely to do something to boost the JSF’s purchase price, the aircraft could become a target in the U.K. MoD, which is struggling to cut costs. That could force the Royal Navy to consider buying the F-18 or the Dassault Rafale, or even a navalized version of the Eurofighter.
But the U.S. Navy may have more at stake than aircraft budgets. Laird said that without the stealthy JSF to do “Day One” attacks on a heavily defended enemy, the service will struggle to justify having so many expensive nuclear aircraft carriers.
Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute agreed.
“Naval aviation will not survive beyond the next 20 years unless it fields the carrier version of the F-35 in large numbers,” Thompson said. “Without the F-35, the Navy has little future in littoral warfare.”
Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group agreed that a Navy delay could hurt the overall program.
“By moving away from JSF, the Navy is transmitting the message that current planes are good enough, and that is really damaging to JSF, which is all about stealth and fifth-generation capabilities,” Aboulafia said.
The Navy has never been a fan of the program, Thompson and others said. In 2002, the service cut its JSF order by hundreds of aircraft under a plan to integrate Navy and Marine air forces, pushing up the predicted price tag, sources said.
Two years ago, the Navy balked at funding its share of JSF, but eventually found the money after being told to do so by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.
In 2006, the Navy circulated briefings urging the delaying the STOVL jet, arguing for more carrier versions. That plan drew a furious response from the Marines and British, and again England intervened on behalf of the program, and the Navy backed down.
By: Phelgan - 24th April 2008 at 14:58
I thought that had been pretty well settled. The common story is that FAA pilots were dropping bombs from below the recommended heights, because of trying to fly below the AAA & SAMs, & the bomb fuses not being re-set accordingly. In other words, the pilots, despite their great flying skill, didn’t know enough about how their weapons worked to know that they should tell the armourers what height they were dropping from, so the armourers would know how to set the bomb fuses. That was humble techie business, beneath their dignity to take notice of.
Yes, I know. The point being that the RN was saved by Argentina’s bomb problem, but this came about in part because the RN was forcing them low in the first place (make you opponent operate where he doesn’t want to / isn’t equipped to).
By: swerve - 22nd April 2008 at 15:46
But you also have to ask yourself WHY those bombs failed to go off.
I thought that had been pretty well settled. The common story is that FAA pilots were dropping bombs from below the recommended heights, because of trying to fly below the AAA & SAMs, & the bomb fuses not being re-set accordingly. In other words, the pilots, despite their great flying skill, didn’t know enough about how their weapons worked to know that they should tell the armourers what height they were dropping from, so the armourers would know how to set the bomb fuses. That was humble techie business, beneath their dignity to take notice of.
This story of communication failure & officer arrogance, ignorance of & lack of interest in technical detail accords well with other stories I’ve heard of how the Argentinean armed forces worked, including one those (which I slightly discount, because of the source) from a Chilean army officer who gave me a 24 hour lift across Patagonia in the 1980s.
By: Phelgan - 22nd April 2008 at 13:04
You could do with less – if you don’t forward deploy. You could even do with less with more forward basing.
The Falkslands expedition is a problematic example, as the RN was saved by Argentina’s bomb problem. Had more of those, which actually hit, also have exploded the RN would have been sunk off the Falklands.
But you also have to ask yourself WHY those bombs failed to go off.
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd April 2008 at 00:57
To answer your question ‘Why not Rafales anyway?’ Ever heard of the ‘not made here’ syndrome? The US forces procurement system suffers from it in a big way.
Like that is a bad thing………just ask India! I am sure she wishes she was in the same position as the US. Also, why would the USN want the Rafale instead of the Super Hornet or Lightning regardless????
By: mike currill - 21st April 2008 at 06:39
IIRC most of the bombs dropped didn’t hit either which would obviously have been of some help to the RN. Having said that I’m not having a go at them as, like the rest of our forces they are woefully under funded and ill equipped but still do a heck of a good job. When I was in the army the standing joke was ‘when I’m on leave I’m going to the recruiting office to join this modern army they’re advertising’. It seems that British forces are not allowed new kit into service until it’s been obsolete for about 10 years.
By: Distiller - 20th April 2008 at 16:44
You could do with less – if you don’t forward deploy. You could even do with less with more forward basing.
The Falkslands expedition is a problematic example, as the RN was saved by Argentina’s bomb problem. Had more of those, which actually hit, also have exploded the RN would have been sunk off the Falklands.
By: mike currill - 20th April 2008 at 16:10
2 wars at once?? Why????
If US military was capable of two wars at once they wouldn’t be sitting around giving strong words to the likes of Iran and DPRK right now. Sorry if that sounds harsh but big talk about needing to be able to fight multiple wars is just big talk. And the navy guys are the last people I’d expect to get an objective answer about fleet strength needs from, again sorry if that’s harsh. I’m not anti navy or anti military, I’m just not buying the need for the incredible fleet disparities.
And look what UK did with two tiny carriers, two LSDs and a bunch of escorts in 1982 thousands of miles from any base. Four supercarriers too few????
OK let’s go back to the point you obviously missed, as did a few other people. If you look at the rotation system of the USN you have ships on deployment, ships in refit and ships training for their next deployment. Now apply the theory of being able to reduce total fleet size and see what happens. If you pull ships off deployment for refit you have to deploy ships to replace them. OK, simply deploy ships from the training fleet early with crews not fully up to speed on their task. These are then to be replaced with ships taken out of refit early (possibly before all scheduled work is complete). By now I’m sure you can see where this ends up. The next lot of ships you pull forward from training has part trained crews in ships not refitted to the full specification. I can almost gurantee you’d have an ineffective fleet within 10 years.
Oh, I almost forgot what the Brits did in ’82 with a far smaller number of ships. The reason that worked was that the other side was never totally convinced that we would actually deploy our forces that far, or if we did we would not arrive as fast as we did. Basically, they weren’t ready for us.
By: mike currill - 20th April 2008 at 15:54
Please explain why America needs additional fighters above the current Super Hornet and F-35 purchases. Emphasis on needs. For that matter why does America need the number of CBGs currently maintained anyway?
And why not Rafales anyway 😉
To answer your question ‘Why not Rafales anyway?’ Ever heard of the ‘not made here’ syndrome? The US forces procurement system suffers from it in a big way.
By: swerve - 15th April 2008 at 10:49
….
Compare: The British Empire fought 80 colonial wars and rebellions between the Crimean War and WW1 and did NOT go broke. During all that time the Empire had around 250.000 regulars in the land forces (around 100 regiments), with about 150.000 capable of expeditionary warfare (more than 100.000 permanently stationed overseas anyway) ….
Don’t forget the Indian army: 135000 Indians & 60000 British in 1863, about 150000 field army & 80000 internal security around 1900.
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th April 2008 at 06:59
Experts would disagree . As long as the govt. expects its forces be ready to fight 2 conflicts ( rummy’s infamous 1.5 conflicts speach where he says we fight to win one conflict and keep the other one tight) the requirment would be their . You would be surprised to know how much navy contributes to the war effort and you cant do it (ie. ” fight anywhere in the world”) without proper force .
I recomend you talk to some navy people specially those involved in planning if you have access to them . Sea toby has a very good reply , it is FACT based and you will hear similar response echo from the navy guys . Carrier fleet is very important , they fly high sorties , deliver a heck of a lot of munition , provide a lot of CAP and fire a lot of missiles .
USN Carriers are all about power projection……………The other Services (USAF & US Army) often don’t have the access!
By: Distiller - 15th April 2008 at 06:01
Certainly. Perhaps I should have stated things more clearly — I was comparing the B model with the naval version, which it seems only the USN wants.
“Wants” is not the right word. “Needs” is the word. The land-based units could very well do with the C. The B is “wanted”, but not “needed”. The USMC doesn’t have the logistics to make use of the STOVL capability on land, and should forget about having jets on the LHAs/LHDs, as they are almost incompatible with the mission characteristics of these ships (under the realisation that their secondary role as sea-control ships is not made use of).
By: Distiller - 15th April 2008 at 05:56
I don’t want to comment on “needing” 190k troops in two small colonial wars. There is *far* too much warped politics, crooked tribalism, outright pork, fossilized structures, self-puropse, &c involved on every level of the national defence complex and especially George’s War to make that number anywhere near the real needs. And the same goes for a state with a 650++ billion USD war budget that is unable to sustain the basic needs of the forces.
It’s not “numbers”. The country is going broke over the mismanagement. What is needed is a bottom-up no-holds-barred restructuring of the whole national defence complex.
Compare: The British Empire fought 80 colonial wars and rebellions between the Crimean War and WW1 and did NOT go broke. During all that time the Empire had around 250.000 regulars in the land forces (around 100 regiments), with about 150.000 capable of expeditionary warfare (more than 100.000 permanently stationed overseas anyway) with reserves 700.000 (that was blown up more than 10:1 for WW1). The U.S. Army currently has around 500.000 men, but only 100.000 are sustainably deployable. The numbers are as low as they can realisticly be.
On the carriers: A PacRim war needs eight carriers. I don’t say battle groups, because in a real war there are three carriers in a battle group (two are reserve/training/maintenance). That would give two battle groups, Indian Ocean needs another (lighter) aviation-capable task forces, is another two to three carriers (one is reserve/maintenance). You end up with 10 to 11 and are naked in the Atlantic and Med, which is do-able under the assumption that a major war in one theatre doesn’t motivate others in other theatres to do stupid things, and that you have a time of peace’n quiet after the war, to regenerate. What we see now in the USN is very similar to the situation of the RN 1870 to 1890.
And smaller, GT-powered, but more (like double) carriers are not a solution either (24 55.000 tons CVK would cost about the same as 12 100.000 tons CVN-21), because the number of escorts would have to grow by at least two thirds. What could be streamlined is the USMC and the amphibious force. The USMC focusing on amphibious warfare instead of being an independant full-spectrum force – what they are obviously trying to achieve – could save quite some money and increase utilization of the available forces.
By: michel.slm - 15th April 2008 at 05:21
Not so . The F-35A orders will be far far greater (3×4 times as much) then the F-35B orders .
Certainly. Perhaps I should have stated things more clearly — I was comparing the B model with the naval version, which it seems only the USN wants.
By: planeman6000 - 15th April 2008 at 04:35
The US is currently engaged in 2 conflicts , IRAQ and AFGANISTAN with over 190,000 troops .
Same theatre. You don’t need 12 carriers just to cope with those two occupations. In fact you could have done it with no carriers (yeah I know the comeback, but honestly you could have).
190,000 troops outside the country fighting (not including carrier crews etc) and you want to believe that they can prepare for 2 more fronts ?
Evidently they can’t. That’s why North Korea and Iran escalated their nuclear programs after the invasion of Iraq because they could (and did) get away with it pretty much. DPRK despite the Pacific fleet and Japanese navy nearby.
Heck what do they know about ships and fighting . Its not like “its their job to fight” they just go their on jet ski’s , have fun and come back 8)
They know a lot about ships, but they are not unbiased. The USAF would equally argue that the B2 is vital whilst the navy would counter-argue that ship/sub based tomahawks could do the same job – both are right in so far as you don’t need both.
For the navy I see aircraft carriers as a strong role, but I don’t see the need for 12 supercarriers and a bunch of harier capable amphibious carriers to boot. Instead I see the excellent sub fleet, AEGIS ships with ever more comprehensive air defenses, and littoral combat ships are the key areas. I’d also like to see the arsenal ship reconsidered, and more “arsenal” SSBN conversions, better “harrier carriers” and more rapid development of strike UCAVs suitible for both the CVNs and the harrir-carriers.
By: bring_it_on - 15th April 2008 at 04:03
If US military was capable of two wars at once they wouldn’t be sitting around giving strong words to the likes of Iran and DPRK right now.
The US is currently engaged in 2 conflicts , IRAQ and AFGANISTAN with over 190,000 troops .
around giving strong words to the likes of Iran and DPRK right now.
190,000 troops outside the country fighting (not including carrier crews etc) and you want to believe that they can prepare for 2 more fronts ?
nd the navy guys are the last people I’d expect to get an objective answer about fleet strength needs from, again sorry if that’s harsh.
Heck what do they know about ships and fighting . Its not like “its their job to fight” they just go their on jet ski’s , have fun and come back 8)
By: planeman6000 - 15th April 2008 at 03:24
Experts would disagree . As long as the govt. expects its forces be ready to fight 2 conflicts ( rummy’s infamous 1.5 conflicts speach where he says we fight to win one conflict and keep the other one tight) the requirment would be their . You would be surprised to know how much navy contributes to the war effort and you cant do it (ie. ” fight anywhere in the world”) without proper force .
I recomend you talk to some navy people specially those involved in planning if you have access to them . Sea toby has a very good reply , it is FACT based and you will hear similar response echo from the navy guys . Carrier fleet is very important , they fly high sorties , deliver a heck of a lot of munition , provide a lot of CAP and fire a lot of missiles .
2 wars at once?? Why????
If US military was capable of two wars at once they wouldn’t be sitting around giving strong words to the likes of Iran and DPRK right now. Sorry if that sounds harsh but big talk about needing to be able to fight multiple wars is just big talk. And the navy guys are the last people I’d expect to get an objective answer about fleet strength needs from, again sorry if that’s harsh. I’m not anti navy or anti military, I’m just not buying the need for the incredible fleet disparities.
And look what UK did with two tiny carriers, two LSDs and a bunch of escorts in 1982 thousands of miles from any base. Four supercarriers too few????
By: bring_it_on - 15th April 2008 at 03:22
though? F-35B has more export potential —
Not so . The F-35A orders will be far far greater (3×4 times as much) then the F-35B orders . Many f-16 users will opt for the F-35 , Australia , Turkey , IDF , Norway , Singapore etc are all going to be making initial A version purchases . Add Japan and SK (maybe) and you have 400-500 orders right their if not more . I dont think that througout its lifetime the B version will sell more then 200-250 aircrafts for export . Still a decent size for some good profit .
By: michel.slm - 15th April 2008 at 03:13
The F-35B is a different story. Most people forget that the USMC wants to shift to a single type, STOVL combat aircraft fleet, which will be challenging from the standpoint of Marine squadrons deploying aboard CVNs. It remains to be seen how the F-35B might integrate into a CVN air group. From the big deck carrier aviation standpoint, the F-35B will cause more problems than it solves.
For what reason, though? F-35B has more export potential — foreign navies with smaller carriers; air forces concerned about survivability in case the airfields are knocked out, etc. Even the Fleet Air Arm picks the F-35B over the USN variant, even though their new carriers are large enough (65 ktons) to launch conventional planes. You can simply pack more STOVL planes on the same flight deck, since they require shorter runways.
Now, performance problems is a worry, yes. But even if they cannot fix it, they can simply disable it — put a weight-saving dummy component in its place — when the STOVL capability is not needed. Remember that even the F-14A was underpowered, a problem that was not solved until the F-14D engine upgrade.
By: bring_it_on - 15th April 2008 at 03:12
Agreed although I think you could shrink the carrier force (and escorts) whilst still leaving a massive military more than able to meet the realistic demands of the next 20 years.
Experts would disagree . As long as the govt. expects its forces be ready to fight 2 conflicts ( rummy’s infamous 1.5 conflicts speach where he says we fight to win one conflict and keep the other one tight) the requirment would be their . You would be surprised to know how much navy contributes to the war effort and you cant do it (ie. ” fight anywhere in the world”) without proper force .
I recomend you talk to some navy people specially those involved in planning if you have access to them . Sea toby has a very good reply , it is FACT based and you will hear similar response echo from the navy guys . Carrier fleet is very important , they fly high sorties , deliver a heck of a lot of munition , provide a lot of CAP and fire a lot of missiles .
By: planeman6000 - 15th April 2008 at 02:37
The US would have to change its Strategic policy considerably . The USN wont be able to support the Current strategic policy with 4 carriers , its a political descision , we can shrink our air force to a few hundered fighters and no bombers aswell but the political demands from the military have to change.
Agreed although I think you could shrink the carrier force (and escorts) whilst still leaving a massive military more than able to meet the realistic demands of the next 20 years.
The USAF and non-carrier naval assets are more than enough. You want power projection with a carrier? – well yes with four that’s still at least two more than anyone else. And the amphibious carriers with harriers and later JSFs. But more importantly, the SSNs and DDGs give you enough naval power.
The carrier fraternity are sounding a bit like the battleship fans of the 1930s… “small wars” breed poor proving grounds for “big wars”.
Sign In
April 8, 2008 at 6:50 am
