Order Code RL30624
Navy F/A-18E/F
Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler Aircraft:
Background and Issues for Congress
Updated July 23, 2007
Christopher Bolkcom
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler
Aircraft: Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the Navy’s highest priority aviation
modernization program. It is replacing the Navy F/A-18C/D Hornet combat aircraft.
The decision to undertake the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program was made
during a period of great turbulence in Navy aviation modernization. During this time
frame the Navy struggled to identify and implement the best way to modernize its
aging fleet of F-14 fighters and A-6E attack aircraft. The A-12 program (a stealthy
replacement to the A-6E) was terminated in January 1991. The AFX program,
another proposed replacement for the A-6E, began in 1991, but was also terminated.
The principal alternative to the F/A-18E/F was a modest upgrade of the F-14
— a large, two-seat fighter designed in the 1960s, with potential air-to-surface attack
capabilities. Some observers describe the F/A-18E/F as an upgraded and larger
version of the F/A-18C/D, with increased range and payload capacity and more space
and weight for future improvements. Others assert that the differences between the
baseline Hornet aircraft and the E/F model are so great that they would describe the
Super Hornet as an entirely new aircraft.
The Department of Defense is currently facing a shortage of radar and
communications jamming capability. The Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B Prowlers
escort and protect Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force aircraft operating in hostile
airspace. The Prowlers, however, are few and rapidly aging.1 All the Services are
evaluating preferred approaches to ameliorating this shortfall. The Navy’s approach
is to produce a new electronic attack aircraft based on the F/A-18F, called the EA-
18G.
The Navy’s FY2008 budget proposes to increase the overall purchase of F/A-
18E/F aircraft by 22, for a total of 494. It also proposes reducing the overall purchase
of EA-18G aircraft by 10, for a total of 80.
The Defense Department’s Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) of December 31,
2006, estimated the acquisition cost of a 494-aircraft program at $46.3 billion. The
cost of procuring 80 EA-18G electronic attack variants is estimated at $8.3 billion.
The Super Hornet has been approved for international export, and Australia is
reportedly poised to purchase 24 F/A-18E/Fs as a bridge to its purchase of Joint
Strike Fighters. Key issues surrounding the program relate to the total number of
Super Hornets to be procured.
1 For more information on the EA-6B and electronic warfare, see CRS Report RL30639,
Electronic Warfare: EA-6B Aircraft Modernization and Related Issues for Congress, by
Christopher Bolkcom.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The F/A-18E/F Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
System Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Costs, Purchases and Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Sales, Operations, and Basing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
EA-18G “Growler” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Key Issue for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Number of Super Hornets to be Procured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Figures
Figure 1. Comparison of F/A-18 Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of F/A-18 C/D and E/F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. F/A-18E/F/G FY2008 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3. F/A-18E/F/G FY2007 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4. F/A-18E/F/G FY2006 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5. F/A-18E/F/G FY2005 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G
Growler Aircraft: Background and
Issues for Congress
Introduction
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the Navy’s highest priority aviation
modernization program, replacing rapidly aging F/A-18C/D Hornet combat aircraft.2
It has been employed in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and is currently in full rate
production. Principal issues surrounding the program relate to the total number of
Super Hornets to be procured.
Background
The decision to undertake the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program was made
during a period of great turbulence in Navy aviation modernization, when the Navy
was struggling to identify and implement the best way to modernize its aging fleet
of F-14 fighters and A-6E attack aircraft. The A-12 program (a stealthy replacement
to the A-6E) was terminated in January 1991. The AFX program, another proposed
replacement for the A-6E, began in 1991, but was also terminated. Efforts to develop
a carrier-based naval version of the Air Force’s F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter were
abandoned in 1991 and proposals for a carrier-capable version of the Air Force’s
F-117 were never endorsed by Navy leadership.
In the midst of these program starts and stops, the principal alternative to the
F/A-18E/F (a major upgrade of the F/A-18, a smaller, one- or two-seat strike-fighter
designed in the 1970s as a lower-cost supplement to the F-14) was a modest upgrade
of the F-14: a large, two-seat fighter designed in the 1960s with potential
air-to-surface attack capabilities.
Proponents of the F/A-18E/F argued that upgrading the F/A-18 to take over the
F-14’s air-to-air combat mission would cost less in procurement and operating
expenses than upgrading the F-14 to take over the F/A-18’s air-to-surface attack
mission. Some also argued that the F-14’s long-range air defense mission, known
as the outer air battle, will be less important in the post-Cold War era, when naval
aircraft are expected to be used at shorter ranges in littoral (off-shore) operations in
2 The Navy The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, currently projected by Defense
Department officials to produce up to 680 new fighter/attack planes for the Navy and
Marine Corps, could yield operational aircraft in 2012 that will complement and eventually
replace the F/A-18E/F.

CRS-2
Third-World scenarios. Competing upgrade options were proposed for both the F-14
and the F/A-18. In 1992, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees
recommended development of both the F/A-18E/F and an attack-capable version of
the F-14 (P.L. 102-484, Section 125).
The F/A-18E/F program began officially in May 1992 when the Defense
Acq u i s i t i o n B o a r d ( D A B ) a p p r o v e d t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f
engineering/manufacturing development (EMD). On July 21, 1992, the Navy
awarded two contracts to get EMD under way: McDonnell Douglas received $97
million from a $3,964-million contract to develop the airframe and General Electric
received $94 million from a $754-million contract to develop the F414-GE-400
engine. On September 18, 1995, the Navy received the first of seven EMD aircraft
to be flight-tested in 1995-98. By September 1997, these test planes had logged
some 1,500 flight hours, with carrier-based flights beginning in January 1997 aboard
the USS John C. Stennis.
Although derived from an existing aircraft, the F/A-18E/F suffered noteworthy
developmental challenges. In 1996, flight testing was suspended when problems
with the Super Hornet’s engines caused the aircraft to be grounded. The Super
Hornet fleet was grounded a second time in 1998 when engine problems resurfaced.
In December 1997, the F/A-18E/F’s persistent performance problems in high-
speed maneuvers led the Navy to delay FY1998 funding for the program, pending
solution of these problems. First experienced in March 1996, the aircraft’s “wing-
drop” problem may occur during turns at speeds of .6 to .9 Mach (speed of sound),
when the wing loses lift and the plane rolls unexpectedly to the left or right,
preventing the pilot from tracking a target. Since this anomaly was apparently related
to the wing’s leading edge, some feared the wing might have to be redesigned; others
thought the problem could be resolved by modifications of the wing, such as adding
a “porous wing fairing.” After successful flight testing of this modification, former
Secretary of Defense Cohen approved FY1998 funding for procurement of another
20 aircraft on April 3, 1998.
The Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of May 19,
1997, recommended reducing procurement of F/A-18E/Fs from 1,000 aircraft to 548,
with the possibility of buying up to 785 if the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program were
delayed or if the aircraft were too expensive compared to the F/A-18E/F. Secretary
Cohen stated that he hoped this change in the program would set up “creative
tension” between the contractors producing the JSF and the F/A-18E/F. The QDR
also recommended reducing the maximum annual production rate to 48 aircraft.
These recommendations were reflected in the FY1999 budget’s procurement
projections.
The F/A-18E/F Program
System Description
Some observers describe the F/A-18E/F as an upgraded and larger version of the
F/A-18C/D, with increased range and payload capacity and more space and weight


CRS-3
for future improvements. Other observers assert that the differences between the
baseline Hornet aircraft and the E/F model are so great that they would describe the
Super Hornet as an entirely new aircraft. The single-seat F/A-18E and twin-seat
F/A-18F will replace the single-seat C and twin-seat D versions of the F/A-18, which
have been in production since 1986. Compared to the F/A-18C/D, the F/A-18E/F has
a longer fuselage (+4.3 ft) and a 25% larger wing, providing 33% more internal fuel
capacity (14,500 vs. 10,381 lb.); two additional weapon stations (11 vs. 9); and
survivability improvements (e.g., new electronic warfare equipment and reduced
vulnerable areas). The F/A-18E/F is powered by two upgraded F414-GE-400
engines (developed originally for the A-12), producing 36% more thrust than the
C/D’s F404 engines. Using 480-gal tanks increases the E/F’s external fuel capacity
to 9,800 lb. (vs. the C/D’s 6,700 lb. with 330-gal tanks). The use of low-observable
materials and shaping makes the E/F less detectable by radar than the C/D.
Figure 1. Comparison of
F/A-18 Dimensions
In 1992, the F/A-18’s operational requirements specified a combat radius of 410
nautical miles (nm, 1.15 statute miles) for fighter missions and 430 nm for attack
missions. Such ranges were not achieved by the F/A-18C/D, whose range/payload
capabilities have been reduced by weight growth due to equipment added in
successive upgrades since 1982, when its combat radius was 366 nm in fighter
missions and 415 nm in attack missions. In 1992 the Navy projected the F/A-18E/F’s
fighter combat radius to be about 420 nm, with an attack radius of about 490 nm —
exceeding requirements of 410 nm and 430 nm for these missions.3 In carrier
landings, the F/A-18E/F is estimated to be able to bring back 9,000 lb of
fuel/ordnance payload vs. the C/D’s recovery payload of less than 6,000 lbs.
3 The December 31, 2005 SAR estimates the F/A-18E/F mission radii for fighter escort and
interdiction missions to be 439nm and 468nm respectively.

CRS-4
These improvements in range, payload, and bring-back capability, are viewed
by the Navy as the primary advantages of the E/F over the C/D. In 1996, the General
Accounting Office seriously questioned the F/A-18E/F’s performance advantages
over the C/D variant, arguing that F/A-18C/Ds could provide similar capabilities at
lower costs.4 The Navy did not agree with these GAO conclusions, which were cited
during Senate debate on the F/A-18E/F program in July 1996.
Table 1. Comparison of F/A-18 C/D and E/F
C/D
E/F
Program Unit
$43 milliona
$93.9 millionb
Acquisition Cost
Propulsion
2 F404-GE-402 turbofans
2 F414-GE-400 turbofans
Thrust
17,700 lbs
22,000 lbs
Speed
Mach 1.7
Mach 1.8
External fuel capacity
6,700 lbs
9,800 lbs
Approx. Un-refueled
Fighter: 366 nm
Fighter: 420 nm
Combat Radius
Attack: 415 nm
Attack: 490 nm
Weapon hard points
9
11
First Flight
November 1978
December 1995
a. Selected Acquisition Reports, Dec. 31, 1994, Department of Defense (DOD) Comptroller. Reflects
a purchase of 1,026 aircraft. Figure is adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2006 dollars.
b. Selected Acquisition Reports, December 31, 2006.
The F/A-18E/F’s radar will also differentiate it from earlier models. Under
current plans, the majority of the Navy’s Super Hornets will be equipped with active
electronically steered array (AESA) radar. Conventional radars are limited, in part,
by the speed with which their antennas can be mechanically moved. Recent
improvements in electronics technology enable AESA radars to update a radar’s
computer several times a second.5 AESA radars are expected to offer up to 30 times
the net radar capability of mechanically steered radars.6 The hope is that they are
more reliable than mechanically steered radars and are able to perform several
different functions almost simultaneously.
Many believe that in addition to seeking out and locking on to enemy targets,
AESA radars will also offer powerful electronic warfare capabilities, specifically the
4 U.S. General Accounting Office, Navy Aviation: F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal
Operational Improvement at High Cost
, GAO/NSIAD-96-98, June 1996.
5 David Fulghum, “Cool, Small, Cheap Defines Flexible Next Generation Radar,” Aviation
Week & Space Technology,
September 11, 2000, p. 61.
6 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Future DOD Airborne High
Frequency Radar Needs/Resources, April 2001, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology.

CRS-5
ability to jam enemy radars that attempt to target the F/A-18E/F.7 It is currently
unclear exactly how effective this jamming capability will be and if it will
complement or compete with the electronic attack capabilities offered by the
proposed EA-18G model. The Navy’s recent decision to cut the planned purchase
of “Growlers” from 90 to 80 aircraft may reflect a growing appreciation for the
jamming abilities of the Super Hornet’s AESA radar. Other Super Hornet upgrades
— Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR), Joint Helmet Mounted
Cuing System (JHMCS), JDAM Hornet Autonomous Real-Time Targeting
Capability, and, for the F model, the Advanced Crew Station — are hoped to
combine with AESA to give the Super Hornet superior all weather precision attack
capabilities against time-critical targets.8
Costs, Purchases and Schedule
The Navy’s FY2008 budget proposes to increase the overall purchase of F/A-
18E/F aircraft by 22, for a total of 494. It also proposes reducing the overall purchase
of EA-18G aircraft by 10, for a total of 80. Correspondingly, the Defense
Department’s Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) of December 31, 2006, estimated
the acquisition cost of a 494-aircraft program at $46.3 billion. The cost of procuring
80 EA-18G electronic attack variants is estimated at $8.3 billion.
On December 7, 1998, the Defense Department announced the Navy’s award
of a contract to start production of the 30 aircraft funded in FY1999. Up to seven
production aircraft began operational testing and evaluation (OT&E) flights in late
May of 1999 at China Lake, CA, which continued through November 1999. In
March 2000, Navy test squadron VX-9 reported that the F/A-18EF had passed its six
month OT&E. The squadron flew 1,233 hours in 850 “missions,” performed more
than 24 carrier operations, and participated in a “Red Flag” exercise. Based on this
successful operational evaluation, on June 16, 2000, the Navy announced the signing
of a multi-year contract with Boeing Company for the F/A-18E/F full rate production.
Under the five-year contract, the Navy agreed to pay $8.9 billion for 222 aircraft.
The second F/A-18E/F multi-year procurement contract — estimated at $8.9 billion
over five years to procure 210 aircraft — was awarded in December 2003.
The FY2008 defense budget projects the following annual buys:

FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
Total
E/F
24
20
24
19
21
0
494
G
18
22
18
8
2
0
80
7 Lorenzo Cortes, “AESA Allows Super Hornet to Perform Tactical Electronic Attack, Navy
Official Says,” Defense Daily, December 4, 2002 and “New Sensors Grab Extra Combat
Roles,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 11, 2000.
8 “The F/A-18 & EA-18G.” (Briefing) F/A-18 Deputy Program Manager for System
Development. PEOTACAIR. July 19, 2005. Stephen Trimble, “Super Hornet Crews
Ponder New Missions as Block II Upgrades Arrive,” Aerospace Daily, September 9, 2003
and Christopher Castelli, “Navy to Integrate JDAM HART with Super Hornet’s AESA
Radar,” Inside the Navy, October 13, 2003.

CRS-6
The first production aircraft were delivered in 1999 for operational testing and
evaluation, with initial operating capability (IOC) achieved in 2001.
Sales, Operations, and Basing
In January 2007, it was reported that the Australian Air Force planned to
purchase 24 F/A-18E/F aircraft, as an interim replacement for its aging F-111
bombers.9 If this purchase is completed, it will be the first international sale of the
Super Hornet, which was approved for export in June 2001.10
Malaysia, which currently operates the two-seat F/A-18D, appears to be a
potential importer. On September 4, 2002, the Department of Defense (DOD)
notified Congress of the potential sale of 18 F/A-18Fs to Malaysia as part of a larger
$1.48 billion arms deal, but as of 2006 no sale has taken place.11 The Indian
government plans to import approximately 125 combat aircraft, and the F/A-18E/F
has been discussed as a potential competitor for this contract.12 Other potential F/A-
18E/F importers include Australia, Bulgaria, Finland, Japan, Kuwait, Spain, and
Switzerland.
Generally speaking, arguments for foreign military sales tend to focus on
advancing U.S. industry, supporting allied countries, and promoting interoperability
with those countries. Arguments against arms sales tend to focus on the negative
aspects of military technology proliferation and the potential for causing regional
instability. The government approves arms sales on a case-by case basis.13
According to press reports, the Boeing Co., with assistance from the Navy, is
aggressively marketing the Super Hornet for export.14 Despite these efforts,
international orders for the F/A-18E/F have not yet emerged. Some believe that a
lack of international business is hindering Boeing’s efforts to reduce the aircraft’s
price.15
Strike Fighter Squadron 115 (VFA-115), based at Naval Air Station Lemoore,
CA, was the first fleet operational F/A-18E/F squadron. VFA-115 Super Hornets
9 Bradley Perrett. “RAAF Hedges JSF Bet with Super Hornet.” Aviation Week & Space
Technology.
January 1, 2007.
10 “Boeing’s Super Hornet Cleared for International Sales,” Defense Daily, August 7, 2001.
11 Michael Sirak, “Malaysia Seeks Super Hornets to Augment F/A-18 Fleet,” Jane’s Defence
Weekly,
September 18, 2002.
12 For more information, see CRS Report RS22148, Combat Aircraft Sales to South Asia:
Potential Implications
, by Christopher Bolkcom, Richard F. Grimmett, and K. Alan
Kronstadt.
13 For more information on arms sales, see CRS Report RS20757 and CRS Report RL31529
(out of print; for copies, contact author at 7-2577).
14 Ron Laurenzo, “Boeing Hunts Abroad for Super Hornet Sales,” Defense Today, August
11, 2004 and Jason Ma, “Navy, Boeing Pitch Super Hornet for Potential International
Sales,” Inside the Navy, October 4, 2004.
15 Robert Wall, “Navy Commitment,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, January 5, 2004.

CRS-7
deployed in the summer of 2002 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). This
12-plane squadron flew approximately 90 missions over Afghanistan in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom.16 VFA-115 also deployed to the Persian Gulf region
and participated in Operation Southern Watch, enforcing the “No-Fly Zones” over
Iraq. In November 2002, F/A-18E/F aircraft used the Joint Direct Attack Munition
(JDAM) to attack Iraqi surface-to-air missile systems and a command and control
communications facility.17 F/A-18E/F squadrons from the aircraft carriers Abraham
Lincoln and Nimitz participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
On September 10, 2003, the Navy released its decision to base eight F/A-18E/F
fleet squadrons and one fleet replacement squadron (120 aircraft) at Naval Air
Station (NAS) Oceana, (VA), two fleet squadrons (24 aircraft) at Marine Corps Air
Station (MCAS) Cherry Point (NC) and to construct an outlying field (OLF) in
Washington County, NC.18 The Washington County site for the OLF has proven
controversial and the Navy is considering alternatives.19
EA-18G “Growler”
The Department of Defense is currently facing a shortage of radar and
communications jamming capability. The Navy and Marine Corps’ EA-6B Prowlers
escort and protect Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force aircraft operating in hostile
airspace. The Prowlers, however, are few and rapidly aging.20 All the Services are
evaluating approaches to ameliorating this shortfall. The Navy’s approach is to
produce a new electronic attack aircraft based on the F/A-18F, called the EA-18G.
Basing the EA-6B’s replacement on the F/A-18E/F airframe is attractive to the
Navy because it is expected to engender less new training, operations and
maintenance than a new type of aircraft. Operating an electronic attack aircraft that
can fly at the same speed and to the same ranges as the strike aircraft it is supporting
should also generate operational benefits. The Marine Corps does not operate, and
currently does not plan to procure, the FA/18-E/F, so fielding the EA-18G is
presumably less attractive to that Service. In January 2005 it was reported that the
Marine Corps was embarking on a year-long study to determine the F-35’s potential
to replace the EA-6B.21
16 Tony Capaccio, “Boeing Super Hornet, New U.S. Fighter, Begins Patrols Over Iraq,”
Bloomberg.com, October 31, 2002.
17 “Super Hornets Make Combat Debut,” Defense Daily, November 8, 2002, p. 4.
18 “Navy Issues Decision on Super Hornet Basing,” Immediate Release, No. 663-03.
Department of the Navy, September 10, 2003.
19 Kate Wiltrout, “Navy Says It Will Re-Examine Four Alternate Sites For OLF,” Norfolk
Virginian-Pilot,
June 25, 2005.
20 For more information on the EA-6B and electronic warfare, see CRS Report RL30639,
Electronic Warfare: EA-6B Aircraft Modernization and Related Issues for Congress, by
Christopher Bolkcom.
21 Robert Wall, “U.S. Marines Realize Time Is Short to Draft EA-6B Follow-on Plan,”
Aviation Week & Space Technology, January 3, 2005.

CRS-8
F/A-18F and EA-18G models are expected to be produced on the same
production line starting in FY2008 and achieve initial operational capability (IOC)
in September 2009. The EA-18G would share the F/A-18F’s airframe and avionics
and be built on the same assembly line. The EA-18G would replace the F-model’s
cannon with a nose-mounted jamming processor and carry up to five ALQ-99
jamming pods. These are the same jamming pods currently employed by the EA-6B.
The Navy’s currently envisioned program includes a total buy of 90 EA-18Gs — at
a cost of $9 billion — to augment and replace the aging EA-6B force.
The Navy has awarded a $1 billion contract to Boeing for system design and
development (SDD).22 Procurement of 56 EA-18Gs by FY2009 is included in
Boeing’s second MYP contract (154 F/A-18E/Fs fill out the 210-aircraft contract).
If 56 EA-18Gs are not approved, additional F/A-19E/Fs will be produced to maintain
the contract’s 42 aircraft per year minimum quantity. In July 2007 it was reported that
the EA-18G program had been approved for low-rate initial production.23
Key Issue for Congress
The principal issues surrounding the program at this juncture relate to the total
number of Super Hornets to be procured.
Number of Super Hornets to be Procured
Like other DOD tactical aviation programs (e.g., F-22A, RAH-66, JSF), the
planned number of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to be procured has fluctuated over time.
The current plan is to procure 494 E/F models, about half of the originally planned
quantity. Several factors could influence whether the planned procurement number
continues to decrease or holds steady.
The Department of the Navy has recently implemented a Tactical Aviation
Integration plan, which has reduced the planned number of Super Hornets and F-35s
to be procured and fielded. If this integration of Navy and Marine Corps aviation
appears successful, some may argue for further reductions in these aircraft. The
potential retirement of the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy could also spark
discussion of aircraft reductions. Further in the future, the successful fielding of
naval unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for both surveillance and strike missions
could compete with manned Navy aircraft for deck space. The most discussed factor,
however, influencing the potential purchase of Super Hornets is the F-35 program.
The Navy and Marine Corps are both planning on procuring variants of the F-35
JSF. This aircraft is expected to be operational between 2012 and 2013. Some argue
that the JSF will be a clearly more capable aircraft. It will be stealthy, employ
22 “Navy Awards Boeing $9.6 Billion in Super Hornet and EA-18G Contracts,” Press
Release, The Boeing Company, St. Louis, December 29, 2003.
23 “Growler passes Milestone C, goes low-rate initial production.” Aerospace Daily &
Defense Report.
July 19, 2007.

CRS-9
advanced, integrated avionics, the most modern agile electronically scanned array
(AESA) radars, and is hoped to be cheaper to procure and operate than the Super
Hornet. JSF proponents also argue that the F-35 will field, and that the F/A-18E/F
lacks, advanced computing and communications capabilities that enable tomorrow’s
combat aircraft to fully participate in high speed collaborative targeting. Sharing and
receiving targeting information from other sources appears central, JSF proponents
argue, to effectively engaging challenging targets. Improved enemy air defenses
suggest that the Navy field these kinds of strike fighter attributes quickly if it is to
remain survivable and relevant on tomorrow’s battlefield. In addition to these
operational attributes, the JSF is hoped to be less expensive to procure and to operate
than the Super Hornet.
JSF advocates argue that the F/A-18E/F program should be truncated, and that
more resources should be invested in the JSF program. It makes little sense, they say,
to continue purchasing two types of aircraft that perform essentially the same role,
especially when one is clearly superior. The Super Hornet is a “compromise”
program, JSF proponents say, designed to fill the void left by the cancelled A-12. It
isn’t as good a fighter aircraft as the F-14 Tomcat, nor it as good an attack aircraft as
was the A-6E Intruder.
The ease with which the U.S. Air Forces have dominated its recent military
opponents (e.g., Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) suggest that the current inventory of F-
14s and F/A-18C/Ds will continue to be effective until the JSF is fielded. Much can
be saved by truncating the Super Hornet and buying the JSF in even greater numbers.
Acting DOD acquisition chief Michael Wynne reportedly suggested that truncating
the F/A-18E/F purchase in favor of the JSF could be considered if DOD had to
reduce its tactical aviation procurement budget.24
While the Navy looks forward to the JSF’s eventual deployment, F/A-18E/F
proponents point out that it is still in development and there is no guarantee that it
will be fielded on time. Many aviation programs, such as the C-17 Globemaster,
RAH-66 Comanche, and the V-22 Osprey, take much longer to develop and procure
than planned. The F/A-18E/F is a bird in the hand, its supporters say, and its rapid
and continued procurement is essential to executing the Navy’s current and evolving
military strategy. In 2006 Navy leaders and the Senate Armed Services Committee
supported the purchase of additional Super Hornets. In its mark-up of the FY2007
Defense Authorization Bill, the Committee noted
the Navy will confront a sizeable gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D
Hornets retire before the aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
is available.....The magnitude of the problem, and the procurement cost to avoid
a shortfall in the carrier air wing force structure, is entirely dependent on when
the Navy determines that its F/A-18A/Cs are at the end of their service life....the
committee recommends that the Navy consider buying additional F/A-18E/Fs to
24 Dave Ahearn, “Wynne Weighs Overlap of F/A-18, JSF Carrier Versions,” Defense Today,
December 16, 2004.

CRS-10
mitigate the known shortfall, while allowing the Navy to transition to the JSF as
soon as feasible.25
Super Hornet advocates argue that while the JSF will be a valuable contribution to
the Navy inventory, its capabilities complement the F/A-18E/F rather than supercede it.
It is not clear that stealth technology is required immediately and stealthy aircraft have
not proven invulnerable in recent conflicts. Also, to maintain its stealthy signature, the
JSF must carry its weapons internally, which limits its payload.
Proponents of the F/A-18E/F acknowledge that the plane lacks some of the
F-14D’s mission capabilities speed and all-weather attack capability and the A-6E’s
range/payload, but they argue that advances in weapons and targeting capabilities
make up for these shortcomings. Further, they argue, the Super Hornet offers
considerable upgrade potential. Modernizing the F/A-18E/F with software-
programmable radios, computers and other networking equipment is relatively
straightforward, proponents argue.
Congressional Action
The Bush Administration’s FY2008 budget requested $4,182 million ($4.1
billion) for F/A-18 aircraft. Congressional action on this request is summarized in the
table below. Adjustments to the request are highlighted in bold.
Table 2. F/A-18E/F/G FY2008 Budget
($ millions)
Procurement
RDT&E
$
#
$
Request
E/F FY08
2,057.1
24
F/A-18 Squadrons
44.9
E/F APCY
46.8
-
EA-18G
272.7
G FY08
1,267.7
18
G APCY
51.1
-
Mods
441.9
-
Authorization,
Matched all requests
House H.R. 1585
(H.Rept. 110-146)
Authorization,
E/F FY08
2,826.5
36
Matched R&D requests
Senate S. 1547
E/F APCY
46.8
-
(S.Rept. 110-77)
G FY08
1,267.7
18
G APCY
51.1
-
Mods
441.9
-
25 S. 2766 (S.Rept. 109-254), May 9, 2006. p. 111.

CRS-11
The Administration’s FY2007 budget requested $3,658 million in procurement
and $403.4 million in RDT&E funds for F/A-18 aircraft. Congressional action on
this request is summarized in the table below. Adjustments to the request are
highlighted with bold font.
Table 3. F/A-18E/F/G FY2007 Budget
($ millions)
Procurement
RDT&E
$
#
$
Request
E/F FY07
2,288.3
30
F/A-18 Squadrons
31.1
E/F APCY
53.0
-
EA-18G
372.3
G FY07
865.4
12
G APCY
39.8
-
Mods
411.5
-
Authorization
E/F FY07
2,288.3
30
F/A-18 Squadrons
38.6
Conference H.R.
E/F APCY
53.0
-
EA-18G
372.3
5122 (109-702)
G FY07
865.4
12
G APCY
39.8
-
Mods
411.5
-
Appropriation
E/F FY07
2,507.2
34
F/A-18 Squadrons
39.5
Conference H.R.
E/F APCY
53.0
-
EA-18G
373.7
5631 (109-676)
G FY07
608.0
8
G APCY
39.8
-
Mods
426.3
-
House authorizers added R&D funding to the F/A-18 account for composite missile
launch improvement, digital electronic warfare system, and digital heads-up display
upgrade.
The Administration’s FY2006 budget requested $3,581.4 million in
procurement and $497.8 million in RDT&E funds for F/A-18 aircraft. Congressional
action on this request is summarized in the table below. Adjustments to the request
are highlighted in bold.

CRS-12
Table 4. F/A-18E/F/G FY2006 Budget
($ millions)
Procurement
RDT&E
$
#
$
Request
E/F FY06
2,736.2
38
F/A-18 Squadrons
88.7
E/F APCY
86.1
-
EA-18G
409.0
G FY06
310.2
4
G APCY
26.5
-
Mods
422.4
-
Authorization
E/F FY06
2,739.4
38
F/A-18 Squadrons
88.7
Conference H.R.
E/F APCY
86.1
-
EA-18G
409.0
1815 (109-360)
G FY06
310.2
4
G APCY
26.5
-
Mods
422.4
-
Appropriation
E/F FY06
2,740.2
38
F/A-18 Squadrons
87.4
Conference H.R.
E/F APCY
86.1
-
EA-18G
400.0
2863 (109-359)
G FY06
310.2
4
G APCY
26.5
-
Mods
433.4
-
Both authorizers and appropriators added procurement funding for F/A-18E/F Shared
reconnaissance pods (SHARP), and appropriators added funds for spare engines and
modules. Appropriators cut EA-18G R&D funds due to program support costs, and
reduced F/A-18 R&D funding due to program execution.
The Administration’s FY2005 budget requested $3,406 million in F/A-18
procurement funds and $134 million in F/A-18 RDT&E. Congressional action on
this request is summarized in the table below. Adjustments to the request are
highlighted with bold font.
Table 5. F/A-18E/F/G FY2005 Budget
($ millions)
Procurement
RDT&E
$
#
$
Request
FY05
2,907.5
42
F/A-18 Squadrons
134.5
APCY
78.3
EA-18G
357.5
EA-18G APCY
8.2
Mods
412.5
Authorization
FY05
2,907.5
42
F/A-18 Squadrons
134.5
Conference H.R.
APCY
78.3
EA-18G
357.5
4200 (H.Rept.
EA-18G APCY
0.0
108-767)
Mods
412.5
Appropriation
FY05
2,907.5
42
F/A-18 Squadrons
138.2
Conference H.R.
APCY
78.3
EA-18G
357.5
4613 (H.Rept.
EA-18G APCY
8.2
108-553)
Mods
420.9

CRS-13
House appropriators (H.Rept. 108-553, H.R. 4613) recommended eliminating
EA-18G advance procurement because it believed the program to be overly
aggressive and wanted the Navy to conduct more testing before acquisition (p.145).
Increases to F/A-18 procurement (modifications) funded improvements to safety and
targeting capabilities.26 Increases to the F/A-18’s RDT&E account funded improved
displays, data recorders, and information systems.27
26 H.R. 4613 (H.Rept. 108-553) p. 174.
27 Ibid. p. 305.