ȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱDZȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱȇȱ
ȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱŘşǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řŖŜŘŚȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
The Navy has been procuring F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters since FY1997. Super
Hornets and older F/A-19A/B/C/D Hornets currently account for the majority of the aircraft in the
Navy’s 10 active-duty aircraft carrier air wings (CVWs)—of the 70 or so aircraft in each CVW,
more than 40 typically are Hornets and Super Hornets.
The Navy in FY2006 also began procuring the EA-18G Growler, an electronic attack version of
the Super Hornet. Growlers are replacing the older Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler
electronic attack aircraft. Super Hornets and Growlers were procured in FY2005-FY2009 under a
multiyear procurement (MYP) arrangement.
The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget requests about $1.0 billion for the procurement of nine
F/A-18E/Fs. The Navy’s FY2009 budget had projected that 18 F/A-18E/Fs would be requested in
FY2010. The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget also requests about $1.6 billion for the
procurement of 22 EA-18Gs. The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget does not request a third MYP
arrangement for procuring F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs in FY2010-FY2014.
The Navy’s FY2010 request for nine F/A-18E/Fs comes in the context of a projected shortfall in
Navy and Marine Corps strike fighters. Estimates of the extent of the shortfall vary, with the peak
of the shortfall ranging from 125 aircraft by one estimate to 243 or more aircraft according to
other estimates.
Some Members of Congress are interested in the option of procuring 18 F/A-18E/Fs in FY2010
(the number projected for FY2010 under the FY2009 budget), rather than nine (the number
requested in the FY2010 budget), so as to make a start toward mitigating the projected strike
fighter shortfall. Some Members of Congress are also interested in approving a new MYP
arrangement for procuring Super Hornets and Growlers in FY2010-FY2014, so as to further
mitigate the shortfall and reduce the collective procurement cost of the aircraft.
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s FY2010 funding
request for procurement of nine F/A-18E/Fs, and whether to approve a third MYP arrangement
for procuring Super Hornets and Growlers in FY2010-FY2014. Congress’s decisions on this issue
could affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements, and the tactical aircraft manufacturing
industrial base. This report will be updated as events warrant.
ȱȱȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
F/A-18E/F Program................................................................................................................... 2
EA-18G Program ...................................................................................................................... 3
Navy-Marine Corps Strike Fighter Shortfall............................................................................. 5
Issues for Congress.......................................................................................................................... 6
Number of F/A-18E/Fs to Procure in FY2010.......................................................................... 6
Whether to Approve a Third MYP Arrangement for FY2010-FY2014 .................................... 7
Legislative Activity in 2009 ............................................................................................................ 8
FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2346/S. 1054) ............................................. 8
House .................................................................................................................................. 8
Senate.................................................................................................................................. 8
FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriation Bills .......................................................... 9
ȱ
Figure 1. Projected Strike-Fighter Shortfall .................................................................................... 6
ȱ
Table 1. Annual Procurement Quantities of F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs .......................................... 4
¡ȱ
Appendix. May 19, 2009, Hearing on Naval Aviation Programs .................................................. 10
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 27
ȱȱȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
The Navy has been procuring F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters since FY1997. Super
Hornets and older F/A-19A/B/C/D Hornets currently account for the majority of the aircraft in the
Navy’s 10 active-duty aircraft carrier air wings (CVWs)—of the 70 or so aircraft in each CVW,
more than 40 typically are Hornets and Super Hornets.
The Navy in FY2006 also began procuring the EA-18G Growler, an electronic attack version of
the Super Hornet. Growlers are replacing the older Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler
electronic attack aircraft. Super Hornets and Growlers were procured in FY2005-FY2009 under a
multiyear procurement (MYP) arrangement.
The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget requests about $1.0 billion for the procurement of nine
F/A-18E/Fs. The Navy’s FY2009 budget had projected that 18 F/A-18E/Fs would be requested in
FY2010. The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget also requests about $1.6 billion for the
procurement of 22 EA-18Gs. The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget does not request a third MYP
arrangement for procuring F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs in FY2010-FY2014.
The Navy’s FY2010 request for nine F/A-18E/Fs comes in the context of a projected shortfall in
Navy and Marine Corps strike fighters. Estimates of the extent of the shortfall vary, with the peak
of the shortfall ranging from 125 aircraft by one estimate to 243 or more aircraft according to
other estimates.
Some Members of Congress are interested in the option of procuring 18 F/A-18E/Fs in FY2010
(the number projected for FY2010 under the FY2009 budget), rather than nine (the number
requested in the FY2010 budget), so as to make a start toward mitigating the projected strike
fighter shortfall. Some Members of Congress are also interested in approving a new MYP
arrangement for procuring Super Hornets and Growlers in FY2010-FY2014, so as to further
mitigate the shortfall and reduce the collective procurement cost of the aircraft.
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s FY2010 funding
request for procurement of nine F/A-18E/Fs, and whether to approve a third MYP arrangement
for procuring Super Hornets and Growlers in FY2010-FY2014. Congress’s decisions on this issue
could affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements, and the tactical aircraft manufacturing
industrial base.
This report incorporates material on the projected Navy-Marine Corps strike fighter shortfall that
previously appeared in another CRS report.1
1 CRS Report RS22875, Navy-Marine Corps Strike-Fighter Shortfall: Background and Options for Congress, by
Christopher Bolkcom.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȦȬŗŞȦȱȱ
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a Navy strike fighter, meaning a tactical aircraft that can perform
both air-to-ground (strike) and air-to-air (fighter) operations. The Super Hornet is a larger, more
modern, and more capable version of the earlier F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet, which is operated by
both the Navy and Marine Corps.2
The Navy has been procuring F/A-18E/F Super Hornets since FY1997. Hornets and Super
Hornets currently form the core of the Navy’s aircraft carrier air wings (CVWs)—f the 70 or so
aircraft in each CVW, more than 40 typically are Hornets and Super Hornets.
The Navy since FY2008 has also been procuring the F-35C—the Navy version of the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF).3 Navy plans call for phasing Hornets out of service and for CVWs in the
future to include a strike fighter mix of Super Hornets and F-35Cs.4
As shown in Table 1, the Navy through FY2009 has procured a total of 449 F/A-18E/Fs. This
total includes 3 F/A-18E/Fs procured with FY2007 wartime supplemental funding, and 13 F/A-
18E/Fs procured with FY2008 wartime supplemental funding. Super Hornets were procured in
FY2000-FY2004 under an MYP arrangement,, and both Super Hornets and Growlers were
procured in FY2005-FY2009 under a second MYP arrangement.
The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget requests funding for the procurement of nine F/A-1E/Fs.
The FY2010 budget estimates the total procurement cost of these aircraft at $1,055.0 million, or
an average of about $117.2 million each. These nine aircraft received $45.5 million in prior-year
advance procurement funding, leaving $1,009.5 million to be provided in FY2010 to complete
their procurement cost. The proposed FY2010 budget also requests $51.4 million in advance
procurement funding for F/A-18E/Fs to be procured in future fiscal years, and $2.7 million in
funding for initial spares for F/A-18E/Fs, bringing the total amount of procurement funding
requested for FY2010 to $1,063.6 million. The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget does not request
a third MYP arrangement for procuring F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs in FY2010-FY2014.
The estimated average procurement cost of about $117.2 million for the nine F/A-18E/Fs
requested for FY2010 is considerably higher than the estimated average procurement costs of the
37 F/A-18E/Fs procured in FY2008 (about $74.9 million) and the 23 F/A-18E/Fs procured in
FY2009 (about $81.0 million). This may reflect the fact that the F/A-18E/Fs procured in
2 The F/A-18E is a single-seat aircraft (like the Navy’s older F/A-18As and Cs), while the F/A-18E/F is two-seat
aircraft (like the Navy’s older F/A-18Bs and Ds, is a two-seat aircraft). 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. 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.
3 For more on the JSF program, see CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program:
Background, Status, and Issues, by Christopher Bolkcom.
4 The Marine Corps currently operates a combination of Hornets and AV-8B Harriers, which are vertical/short takeoff
and landing (VSTOL) aircraft. F/A-18E/Fs are not being procured for the Marine Corps. Marine Corps plans call for
phasing the Hornets and Harriers out of service and replacing them with the F-35B – the Marine Corps version of the
F-35. The F-35B is a VSTOL version of the F-35.
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
FY20008 and FY2009 were procured in higher annual quantities, and that they were procured
under an MYP arrangement.
The Navy has testified that it is planning a total procurement of 506 F/A-18E/Fs, with the final 57
aircraft to be procured in FY2010-2012.5 Subtracting out the nine F/A-18E/Fs requested for
FY2010 leaves another 48 to be procured in FY2011-FY2012. The Navy’s FY2010 budget-
justification materials state that the advance procurement funding requested in FY2010 for the
F/A-18E/F program is to support the planned procurement of 24 aircraft in FY2011,6 which
would leave a final 24 aircraft to be procured in FY2012.
Super Hornet was approved for export in June 2001.7 In January 2007, it was reported that the
Australian Air Force planned to purchase 24 F/A-18E/Fs as interim replacements for the service’s
aging F-111 bombers.8 The sale was completed in May 2007. To date, this has been the only
international sale of the Super Hornet.9
ȬŗŞ ȱȱ
The EA-18G Growler is an electronic attack (i.e., radar- and communications-jamming) aircraft.
The EA-18G shares the F/A-18F’s airframe and avionics and is built on the same assembly line.10
The Department of the Navy is procuring EA-18Gs as replacements for aging Navy and Marine
Corps EA-6B electronic attack aircraft, which help protect Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force
aircraft operating in hostile airspace.
As shown in Table 1, the Navy through FY2009 has procured a total of 56 EA-18Gs. This total
includes one EA-18G procured with FY2007 wartime supplemental funding, and three EA-18Gs
procured with FY2008 wartime supplemental funding. As mentioned earlier, Super Hornets and
Growlers were procured in FY2005-FY2009 under an MYP arrangement.
The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget requests funding for the procurement of 22 EA-18Gs. The
FY2010 budget estimates the total procurement cost of these aircraft at $1,658.5 million, or an
average of about $75.4 million each. These 22 aircraft received $46.7 million in prior-year
5 Statement of Vice Admiral David Architzel, USN, Principal Military Deputy, Research, Development and
Acquisition, LTGEN George J. Trautman III, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, [and] RADM Allen G.
Myers, USN, Director of Warfare Integration, before the Seapower and Expeditionary Warfare [sic: Forces]
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee [hearing] on [The] Department of the Navy’s Aviation
Procurement Program, May 19, 2009, p. 3.
6 Department of the Navy Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget Estimates, Justification of Estimates, May 2009, Aircraft
Procurement, Navy, Volume I, Budget Activities 1-4, Budget Item Justification Sheet P-40, 014500 F/A-18E/F
ADVANCE PROCUREMENT, page 1 of 3 (overall page 29 of 138).
7 “Boeing’s Super Hornet Cleared for International Sales,” Defense Daily, August 7, 2001.
8 Bradley Perrett. “RAAF Hedges JSF Bet with Super Hornet.” Aviation Week & Space Technology. January 1, 2007.
9 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 2008 no sale has taken place. (Michael Sirak, “Malaysia Seeks Super Hornets to
Augment F/A-18 Fleet,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, September 18, 2002.) The F/A-18E/F is one aircraft competing for
the Indian government’s plan to procure 126 new combat aircraft. (“Boeing Submits Bid for Indian Air Force’s
Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft.” Defense Daily International. August 8, 2008.) Other potential F/A-18E/F
importers include Bulgaria, Finland, Japan, Kuwait, and Spain.
10 The EA-18G replaces the F-model’s cannon with a nose-mounted jamming processor and carry up to five ALQ-99
jamming pods—the same jamming pods currently employed by the EA-6B.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
advance procurement funding, leaving $1,611.8 million to be provided in FY2010 to complete
their procurement cost. The proposed FY2010 budget also requests $20.6 million in advance
procurement funding for EA-18Gs to be procured in future fiscal years, and $25.4 million in
funding for initial spares for EA-18Gss, bringing the total amount of procurement funding
requested for FY2010 to $1,657.8 million. As mentioned earlier, the Navy’s proposed FY2010
budget does not request a third MYP arrangement for procuring F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs in
FY2010-FY2014.
The Navy has testified that it is planning a total procurement of 88 EA-18Gs.11 Subtracting the 22
EA-18Gs requested for FY2010 would leave a final 10 aircraft to be procured in FY2011.
In March 2008, it was reported that the Australian government was considering to purchase some
number of EA-18Gs for that country’s air force.12
Table 1. Annual Procurement Quantities of F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs
Total for both
Fiscal Year
F/A-18E/Fs
EA-18Gs
types
1997 12 0 12
1998 20 0 20
1999 30 0 30
2000 36 0 36
2001 39 0 39
2002 48 0 48
2003 45 0 45
2004 42 0 42
2005 42 0 42
2006 38 4 42
2007 37a
9b 46
2008 37c 21d 58
2009 23 22 45
2010 (requested)
9
22
31
Source: Prepared by CRS based on Navy and industry data.
Notes: F/A-18E/Fs procured in FY2000-FY2004 under a multiyear procurement (MYP) arrangement. F/A-18E/Fs
and EA-18Gs procured in FY2005-FY2009 under a second MYP arrangement.
a. Includes three aircraft procured with FY2007 wartime supplemental funding.
11 Statement of Vice Admiral David Architzel, USN, Principal Military Deputy, Research, Development and
Acquisition, LTGEN George J. Trautman III, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, [and] RADM Allen G.
Myers, USN, Director of Warfare Integration, before the Seapower and Expeditionary Warfare [sic: Forces]
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee [hearing] on [The] Department of the Navy’s Aviation
Procurement Program, May 19, 2009, p. 4.
12 Bradley Perrett. “Growler Attraction; Australia confirms F-111s are out, Super Hornets are in and E-18s desirable.”
Aviation Week & Space Technology. March 24, 2008.
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
b. Includes one aircraft procured with FY2007 wartime supplemental funding.
c. Includes 13 aircraft procured with FY2008 wartime supplemental funding.
d. Includes three aircraft procured with FY2008 wartime supplemental funding.
¢Ȭȱȱȱȱȱ
The Navy and Marine Corps, which are both part of the Department of the Navy (DON), each
operate hundreds of strike-fighters. Strike-fighters constitute the majority of the aircraft in each of
the Navy’s 10 active-duty aircraft carrier air wings (CVWs)13—of the 70 or more aircraft
typically embarked on a Navy aircraft carrier, more than 40 are strike-fighters. Strike-fighters also
constitute a significant portion of the Marine Corps’ three active-duty Marine air wings
(MAWs).14 Some Marine Corps strike-fighters are assigned to Navy CVWs.
The Navy operates more than 600 Super Hornets and Hornets, while the Marine Corps operates
more than 200 Hornets, plus roughly 130 AV-8B Harriers, which are short takeoff, vertical
landing (STOVL) attack aircraft.15 In coming years, the Navy plans to retire its Hornets and shift
to a combination of Super Hornets and F-35Cs, while the Marine Corps plans to retire both its
Hornets and Harriers and shift to strike-fighter force composed entirely of F-35Bs.
The Department of the Navy’s (DON’s) inventory of strike-fighters currently falls short of the
number that Navy officials state is required to fully support requirements for Navy carrier air
wings (CVWs) and Marine Corps air wings (MAWs), and the Navy is projecting that this
shortfall will grow in coming years. As shown in the right half of Figure 1, the Navy in March
2009 projected that if no additional action is taken, a DON strike-fighter shortfall of about 15
aircraft in FY2009 will increase to 50 aircraft in FY2010, and to a peak of 243 aircraft in
FY2018. The strike-fighter shortfall is then projected to decrease after FY2018, but DON will
still have a gap of over 50 strike fighters in 2025. At its peak in FY2018, the projected DON
strike-fighter shortfall will be 129 Navy strike-fighters and 114 Marine Corps strike-fighters. 16
The shortfall outlined above is roughly twice as large as what the Navy projected in 2008 (see the
left half of Figure 1), when the Navy projected a peak DON shortfall of 125 aircraft, including 69
Navy strike fighters and 56 Marine Corps strike fighters.17 The Navy’s 2008 estimate was the
service’s “most optimistic” projection because it assumed, among other things, that the service
lives of Hornets could be extended from the current planning figure of 8,000 flight hours to
10,000 flight hours. (The Hornets were originally built for service lives of 6,000 hours, a goal that
was later changed to 8,000 hours.) The Navy now believes that it can extend Hornet service lives
to 8,600 flight hours within the Navy’s current budget by conducting High-Fly-Hour (HFH)
inspections. If legacy F/A-18s are retired at 8,600 hours, the DON strike-fighter shortfall would
reach the size shown on the right half of Figure 1. The Navy estimates that achieving a full
13 In the abbreviation CVW, CV means aircraft carrier and W means air wing. In addition to the 10 active-duty CVWs,
the Navy also operates one reserve tactical air wing.
14 In addition to the three active-duty MAWs, the Marine Corps operates one reserve MAW.
15 As of April 2008, DON operated a total of 964 Hornets and Super Hornets, including 334 Navy Hornets, 311 Navy
Super Hornets, 217 Marine Corps Hornets, and 102 additional Hornets in a shared Navy-Marine Corps repair pipeline.
16 Strike Fighter Shortfall Update. Briefing provided by Department of the Navy to HASC Staff. March 13, 2009.
17 Navy briefings provided to CRS on April 24, 2008, and industry briefing papers provided to CRS on April 10 and 22,
2008.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
10,000 flight hour life-span, as assumed in the left half of Figure 1, would cost an additional $22
million per aircraft.18
Figure 1. Projected Strike-Fighter Shortfall
2008 Projection(L) and March 2009 Projection (R)
Source: Strike Fighter Shortfall Update OpCit.
Both the Navy’s 2008 projection and its larger 2009 projection assume that F-35 procurement will
increase from year to year as currently planned and eventually reach a sustained rate of 50 aircraft
per year. If F-35 procurement is delayed or if the sustained rate of production is less than
assumed—say for example, 35 aircraft per year vs. 50 aircraft per year—then the projected strike-
fighter shortfall would increase above that shown in Figure 1.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȱȱŘŖŗŖȱ
One issue for Congress concerns the number of F/A-18E/Fs to be procured in FY2010. Some
Members of Congress are interested in procuring 18 F/A-18E/Fs in FY2010—the number
projected for FY2010 under the FY2009 budget.
Proponents of procuring 18 F/A-18s in FY2010 (or some number greater than nine) could argue
that doing so would start to mitigate the projected Navy-Marine Corps strike fighter shortfall, and
thus start to mitigate the operational risks associated with that shortfall. Proponents could also
argue that increasing the FY2010 F/A-18E/F procurement to something more than nine aircraft
could increase economies of scale for the FY2010 F/A-18E/F purchase, reducing the average
procurement cost of each FY2010 aircraft. They could also argue that the Navy’s FY2010 budget-
justification document for the F/A-18E/F program states that “The F/A-18E/F and EA-18G
production line maintains a Minimum Sustainable Rate of 42 aircraft per year, [and] it can surge
to 72 aircraft in any one year”19—and that the 31 F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs requested for FY2010
are 11 less than this minimum sustainable rate.
18 Strike Fighter Shortfall Update OpCit, and emails between HASC staff and CRS.
19 Department of the Navy Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget Estimates, Justification of Estimates, May 2009, Aircraft
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Opponents of procuring 18 F/A-18s in FY2010 could argue that doing so would require several
hundred million dollars in additional procurement funding. In a situation of limited defense
funding, they could argue, finding this additional funding could require reducing funding for one
or more other defense programs, which could lead to increased operational risks associated with
not fully funding those other programs. Opponents could argue that the size of the projected strike
fighter shortfall could be affected by decisions to be made in the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) currently in progress, and that pending the completion of the QDR, it would be premature
to take steps now to mitigate the shortfall. They might also argue that production of 12 F/A-
18E/Fs for Australia (the second half of the 24 F/A-18E/Fs being produced for that country) could
help sustain the combined F/A-18E/F and EA-18G production line in FY2010.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŗŖȬŘŖŗŚȱ
Another issue for Congress is whether to approve an MYP arrangement for procurement of F/A-
18E/Fs and EA-18Gs for the period FY2010-FY2014. As mentioned earlier, FY2009 is the final
year of the current MYP arrangement for procuring F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs, and the Navy’s
proposed budget does not request a new MYP arrangement for FY2010-FY2014. Some observers
have suggested that a new MYP arrangement for FY2010-FY2014 might involve procuring a
total of about 150 F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs over the five-year period, with 30 or so aircraft
being procured each year. Such an MYP arrangement would not require increasing the number of
F/A-18E/Fs to be procured in FY2010 to something more than nine, since a total of 31 F/A-
18E/Fs and EA-18Gs are requested for procurement in the FY2010 budget. On the other hand,
such an MYP arrangement could be pursued even if the number of F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs
procured in FY2010 were increased to something higher than 31.
Supporters of an MYP arrangement for procuring F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs in FY2010-FY2014
could argue that such an arrangement take significant step toward mitigating the projected strike
fighter shortfall. They could also argue that using an MYP arrangement would reduce the
collective cost of the aircraft being procured by hundreds of millions of dollars, and keep the F/A-
18E/F production line open long enough to hedge against the risk of technical or affordability
problems in ramping up the F-35C production rate. The F/A-18E/F, proponents could argue, is a
very capable aircraft, and one that is consistent with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ stated
preference for procuring proven platforms and avoiding new-design weapon systems with
“exquisite” capabilities that are unaffordable in desired numbers.
Opponents of an MYP arrangement for procuring F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs in FY2010-FY2014
could argue that pending the completion of the QDR, which could affect the projected size of the
strike fighter shortfall, it would be premature to enter into an MYP arrangement that would lock
the Navy into procuring a certain number of F/A-18E/Fs for the next five years. Opponents could
also argue that the F/A-18E/Fs, while very capable, is not as capable as the F-35, and that in light
of potential future operational demands for Navy and Marine Corps forces, it would be preferable
to bring F/A-18E/F production to an end at the planned total of 506 aircraft, and concentrate
available resources in coming years on procuring F-35Cs for the Navy and F-35Bs for the Marine
(...continued)
Procurement, Navy, Volume I, Budget Activities 1-4, Budget Item Justification Sheet P-40, 014500 F/A-18E/F
(FIGHTER) HORNET, page 1 of 7 (overall page 22 of 138).
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Corps. They could argue that it would not be affordable to continue procuring two types of
aircraft that perform essentially the same general role.
ȱ¢ȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
ŘŖŖşȱȱȱȱǻ
ǯǯȱŘřŚŜȦǯȱŗŖśŚǼȱ
ȱ
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-105 of May 12, 2009) on H.R.
2346, an FY2009 supplemental appropriations bill, stated:
F–18 AIRCRAFT
The Committee believes the Department of Defense and the Congress must seriously come
to grips with the looming shortfall in Navy tactical aircraft. Last year, the fiscal year 2009
defense appropriations conference report noted the Navy faced a growing strike fighter
shortfall due to the aging of the tactical aircraft fleet and the fact that the F–35 Joint Strike
Fighter program will not begin to deliver carrier aircraft in significant quantities for years to
come. At that time the Navy identified a shortfall of approximately 69 aircraft. Thus, the
conference report encouraged the Navy to budget for a third multi-year procurement of F–18
aircraft beginning in fiscal year 2010.
More recent analysis has identified a Department of the Navy strike fighter shortfall in
excess of 200 aircraft. Unfortunately the Navy plans to fund the procurement of only nine F–
18 aircraft in fiscal year 2010, with no indication given as to its outyear plans. The
Committee believes that the most cost-effective approach to address the Navy’s tactical
fighter shortfall is to purchase additional F–18 aircraft under a multi-year procurement
program. Moreover, the Committee is concerned by the Department’s apparent lack of a plan
for maintaining a sufficiently robust domestic strike fighter industrial base in the near term.
Accordingly, the Committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to explore
initiating an F–18 aircraft multi-year program as soon as possible to mitigate the strike
fighter shortfall. (Page 25)
ȱ
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-20 of May 14, 2009) on S. 1054,
an FY2009 supplemental appropriations bill, stated:
F/A–18 Super Hornet.—The Committee remains concerned about a shortfall in the Navy’s
strike fighter inventory created by the aging of the older F/A–18 models and the fact that the
F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program will not start delivering carrier aircraft in significant
numbers for several years. Last year at this time, the estimated shortfall was 69 aircraft.
Today, it appears that the shortfall will be at least 129 aircraft; it could be well above that
level. The change is due to uncertainty about instituting an inspection regimen to extend the
life of the F/A–18 out to 10,000 hours. To ensure that the Navy has sufficient aircraft for the
fleet, the Committee requests the Department of Defense to consider submitting a budget
amendment to fund a third multi-year procurement of F/A–18s beginning in fiscal year 2010.
(Pages 39-40)
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ŘŖŗŖȱȱ£ȱȱȱȱ
The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget was submitted to Congress in early May 2009. Markups of
the FY2010 defense authorization and appropriation bills may occur in June and July.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¡ǯ ¢ȱŗşǰȱŘŖŖşǰȱ
ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
This appendix presents material relating to the Navy-Marine Corps strike fighter shortfall and
F/A-18E/F procurement from a May 19, 2009, hearing on naval aviation programs before the
Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.
¡ȱȱȂȱȱȱ
The chairman of the subcommittee, Representative Gene Taylor, stated the following in his
opening statement for the hearing:
I’d like to outline the program and policy issues that, at a minimum, I would like our
witnesses to address.
First, the primary policy issue I would like to address is that of the strike fighter inventory
for the Navy and Marine Corps. Over the last three years, all four congressional defense
committees have had a steady stream of Navy and Marine Corps witnesses testify before
them about an impending strike-fighter shortfall. This shortfall is predicted to peak in the
middle of the next decade.
Right now, current analysis puts that peak at 243 aircraft in fiscal year 2018, but if you
account for the accepted risk that each service has informed Congress that they are currently
incurring, the peak shortage of aircraft climbs to 312 in that same year. What is more
troubling is that it appears there is a disconnect between the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) and the Department of the Navy.
Officials from OSD have recently briefed this committee that there is no strike fighter
shortfall but that the totality of the strike fighter inventory is a matter for analysis in the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). In other words, OSD has already predetermined the
answer and now they’ll use the QDR to build the equation.
I request that the witnesses explain today what the position of the Department of the Navy is
regarding the strike fighter shortfall and if they are aware of any new analysis by the Joint
Staff or OSD which would contradict what is apparently simple arithmetic. Because, the last
time I checked, an aircraft carrier is only worth its weight in gold if it has an embarked air
wing. Otherwise, 90,000 tons of American sovereignty becomes 90,000 tons of American
helicopter transportation.20
¡ȱȱȱȂȱȱȱ
The ranking member of the subcommittee, Representative Todd Akin, stated the following in his
opening statement for the hearing:
Unfortunately, our Navy faces a significant strike fighter shortfall in the near future, and
what good is an aircraft carrier without aircraft? Last year the Chief of Naval Operations
20 Source: Text of opening statement of Representative Gene Taylor. Representative Taylor’s opening statement was
read into the record by Representative Joe Courtney.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
(CNO) testified to a fighter shortfall of approximately 125 planes for the Department of the
Navy by 2017. This year, based on an updated analysis, the Navy has told Congress that a
more realistic estimate is a shortfall of over 240 planes. This assumes that the Joint Strike
Fighter delivers on time and that the Navy will continue to resource its carrier air wings with
fewer aircraft than is called for in the national military strategy. Should the Navy resource to
its full strike fighter requirement, the shortfall would be greater than 300 aircraft.
What does all of this mean? Simple math shows that at least five of our eleven carriers would
be without fighter aircraft, or we would be forced to severely limit the number of aircraft per
carrier and available for training. In either case, the solution would pose a significant
strategic risk. I am deeply concerned that this budget actually makes the shortfall worse, by
cutting the number of Super Hornets the Navy is buying. Facing a gap of at least 243 planes,
the Navy is only asking for nine Super Hornets. In a few months, the Navy has gone from
considering another multiyear procurement of Super Hornets, to cutting the buy of F/A-18s
in half. This makes no sense. As I told the CNO last week, we either need more planes or
fewer carriers, and I do not think anyone in this room believes that fewer carriers are the
solution.
Unfortunately, as Congress has tried to wrestle with this issue, the Department of Defense
(DOD) has refused to obey the law and has been anything but transparent. The DOD has:
• not delivered a report on costs and benefits of a multi-year procurement of F/A-18’s
required by law by March 1, 2009;
• not delivered the 30 year aviation plan required by law;
• not delivered a future-years defense program with the budget, as required by section 221
of title 10, United States Code; “and
• has refused to brief Congress on the apparently differing estimates on the size of the
fighter shortfall.
Is this the transparency that President Obama promised? Does the Department of Defense
consider itself above the law? Let us be clear—the mere existence of a Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) does not exempt the Department from fulfilling its legal obligations. While I
understand that the witnesses this afternoon are not responsible for these decisions to violate
the law, let me say at the outset that the Department cannot expect to use the QDR as a get
out of jail free card. Our witnesses should understand that this Committee expects and
deserves answers, not evasive maneuvers. 21
ȱ¡ȱȱȱ
AKIN: 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you all being here today. And there have been a
number of themes that we‘ve heard throughout a series of hearings on where we are and probably
wouldn't surprise you that we would pick up on one of those.
21 Source: Text of opening statement of Representative Todd Akin. Representative Akin’s opening statement was read
into the record by Representative Roscoe Bartlett.
22 Representative Todd Akin, the ranking member of the subcommittee.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
And that is the situation with the lack of aircraft, particularly, because of the planes having to be
retired with over 8,000 hours on them. And I understand that the 10,000 hours doesn't really
work; that it costs too much to try to take care of the—changing the different parts that would be
stressed.
So that resulted, this year, in an estimate of—instead of 120- some aircraft shortfall on our
aircraft carriers, to about 240-some. I guess my question—and everybody is saying—and I guess
really what they're saying is give us more time to figure this out. But what they're saying is
“we've got to do this quadrennial review.”
Well, it isn't like this is too complicated. We say we're going to have 11 aircraft carriers. For a
certain brief window, we're going to be down to 10. You got 44 aircraft on an aircraft carrier. If
you're 240-some aircraft short, you got five aircraft carriers with no planes on them.
So my question is: One, first of all, how does that affect the number of missions that you have to
fly just to practice? Because I was watching night landings of these things. It looked to me like it
was pretty tricky business. And I would think you would want to have plenty of practice for your
pilots. And if you've got fewer planes, then I would think it would affect your training schedule.
That’s the first question.
Second question would be: Let’s say that you can't have 44 aircraft on an aircraft carrier. Is an
aircraft carrier just about as good if you've got 20 aircrafts? You could split the aircraft half and
half? If that’s not the case—let’s just answer those first two question.
MYERS:23
Akin, I'd like to take the first stab at that. First of all, to go back to your numbers. Last year in PB
‘09, I briefed that we were forecasting in the later teens, starting in 2016 through 2018, a Strike
Fighter shortfall with the U.S. Navy of 69 aircraft, and the Department of Navy, 125.
That was assuming that all of our legacy F-18s, A through D, could get to 10,000 hours. So that
was sort of a bookend. The other bookend was if none of those aircraft got past 8,600 hours, that
it'd be 125 and a 243 shortfall.
Now, that was last year and what I'd like to do is talk to you for a few minutes and outline what’s
changed.
AKIN:
OK, it’s got to be pretty short because—so just a minute—just get to the number, that'd be...
TAYLOR: 24
I want to remind the ranking member that, as the ranking member, you have all the time you
want.
23 Rear Admiral Allen G. Myers, USN, Director of Warfare Integration.
24 Representative Gene Taylor, the chairman of the subcommittee.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
AKIN:
Well, OK, shoot, then.
Well, proceed then.
MYERS:
OK. Those were the bookends. And what we've discovered since then is that doing the analysis
for the service life extension—has informed us that there are a number of areas that we want to be
focused on when we open these aircraft up when they go to the depot.
To cut to the end, we're not sure exactly the number of aircraft that we're going to be able to get
through. And the reason we're not sure...
AKIN:
Between about 142 and 240—it’s somewhere between there, would be your guess?
MYERS:
We're not sure right now, Representative Akin. And the reason is because we're still discovering a
lot by looking at these aircraft when they go through the depot. We've had 39 aircraft that have
gone through the depot, to date. We thought there was about 159 focus areas, or areas of interest,
on the airplane.
We've got about nine that have come through the depot. And what we found is there were 50
additional areas. Each airplane is going to be a little bit different. But as we go through a three-
phase process to determine what the limits are on service life extension, we're going to be able to
refine the technical baseline, and understand more.
Now, currently today, the Navy has the—currently has the aircraft necessary to fulfill the
missions that the COCOMs have laid upon us. So we have the aircraft we need today. So the
focus is, how do we get through the next summer? What are the levers that we need to look at to
understand, not only what the Strike Fighter shortfall is, but how to mitigate it?
And there’s four ways to mitigate it. One is to maintain our continued, unwavering support for
the Joint Strike Fighter. Second is to maintain our buys of F-18 EFs. Third is to maintain the
funding, in terms of logistics, or our current legacy aircraft—our Strike Fighters. And fourth is to
understand how many of these F-18s, A through Ds, we can get through this lev (ph) process.
And it’s going to take time. Now, you had another question about the number “44” on our
carriers. Forty-four is the requirement for the Navy for Strike Fighters on our aircraft carriers.
Forty-four represents the number that the combatant commanders are expecting when those
carriers show up overseas to provide the necessary backs (ph), for everything from contingency
ops, to major combat operations. And it also represents the most effective use of a Nimitz class
size flight deck. So 44 is a number that’s required for our aircraft carriers, and that’s what we
intend to do.
AKIN:
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
So—then following up, you are saying, you would not deploy a carrier that had significantly
number less than 44 planes on it. You'd want to keep that number pretty close if you had a carrier
that size. Is that what you're saying?
MYERS:
Congressman, what I'm saying is that 44 is the requirement. And that’s what we're basing—from
the Navy staff and from a programming perspective, that’s what we program towards.
AKIN:
OK. So if you had a shortfall, then you're saying you would rather have some aircraft carrier left
behind then to have one with half the planes on it or something? You wouldn't consider that
probably. Or are you saying that you just don't know, or...
MYERS:
That’s a fleet commander decision on exactly how he loads out a carrier airwing. We understand
the requirement. We understand the way that we're deploying ships and our aircraft carriers and
their airwings today. But how that would be done in the future would depend on the needs of the
combatant commander and the fleet commander.
But currently, the requirement is for 44, and that’s what we're doing right now.
AKIN:
Right. Now, what I heard you say, though—you gave me a lot of detail. But what I heard you say
was still the shortfall is probably going to be between the 125 number and the 243 number.
Because 243 was worst case. That’s assuming you can't get any more than 8,600 hours. And the
125 was assuming that you could get 10,000 hours. And you're saying until you actually look at
the planes, you won't know exactly how many of them fit into which category. But it’s going to
fall in that number. Is that correct?
MYERS:
There’s a possibility that some of them could fall outside that number. And that’s part of the
analysis. The second phase of the analysis—it’s ongoing right now that NAVAIR is doing. And
working with their depots to understand exactly the extent of whether or not it’s going to be
exactly in that...
AKIN:
... in that bracket even?
MYERS:
Yes, sir.
AKIN:
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
You're not even sure that bracket—is what you're saying?
MYERS:
The bracket is the best information that we have at this moment, but we've still got work to do,
Congressman.
AKIN:
Now, what would it cost—let’s say that you find some aircraft that are 8,600 hours and they're
going to need some repairs. Do we have any idea of what that would cost? I have—my
understanding was it was prohibitive to do that; that it would be cheaper just to get some news
ones. Is that true? Or not necessarily? Or do we know?
MYERS:
It’s not necessarily true. What we know is that a center barrel costs about $5 million. And a
center barrel is going to be required on the earlier lot aircraft, meaning lot 16 and earlier. What we
know is that the inner wing could cost as much as $4 million or $5 million. What we know is that
the inner wing is a focus area of the aircraft that have gone through the depot, in terms of the
additional hot spots we're focused—but what we don't know is whether or not all of the aircraft
that go through are going to need all of those repairs.
So it could be expensive, and it might not. And right now, that’s what the second phase...
AKIN:
So we don't have a current cost estimate of what it would take—if we wanted to extend the
service life on them? We don't really know what that number is, is what you're saying? Depends
on the individual plane—is that what you're basically saying?
MYERS:
Yes, sir. It depends on the plane. We have programmed some monies, because we do know about
the center barrel replacements. And the analysis that will go on through the summer, and is
expected to finish in the March 2010 timeframe, is set to be a palm (ph) 12 [sic: POM 12]25 issue,
and that’s the way we've set up the analysis—to feed into palm (ph) 12 [sic: POM 12]. And that
would be—give us enough time to buy the equipment and make sure that we programmed in
place everything we need in the depots or the SLEP [Service Life Extension Program].
AKIN:
I think the Navy has completed its analysis of the benefits of the multiyear procurement of the F-
18As. What’s the minimum number of aircraft required to be purchased over the contract period
that would result in a savings of at least 10 percent, as required by law? Is there some particular
number that you've got to get? Because we saved, what, a billion dollars on that before on multi-
year two?
25 This is a reference to the Program Objective Memorandum for the FY2012 defense budget. The POM is an internal
DOD document that provides guidance for the preparation of a budget.
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ARCHITZEL: 26
Sir, if I could take that question. You're correct on the—on the multiyear on the Hornets, that
have been two. The first multiyear was for 210 aircraft. It resulted in about a $710 million
savings. It was a five-year program. We followed that with a multiyear two, which just ended in
‘09. That saved about $1.1 billion over the same five-year period.
To make a multiyear value, we need economic ordered quantities, which means we have to have
volume. We've also got to have a lengthy of period of time. It wouldn't do us any good to give
volume, and put it in one or two or three years. We need to have some length of time to get that
return on investment. So to answer your question, if we look at multiyear one, we had about a 7.5
or 6 percent savings. That equates to multiyear two, about 11 percent savings.
You have those kinds of savings when you go five years and get economic order quantity buy.
We want to have a significant savings which is on the order of 10 percent, or $500 million would
be the kind of bookends, if you were using that term here, that we'd seek to get in a multiyear
procurement, sir.
AKIN:
Well, I still didn't hear the answer to my question. I guess the question is: What number do you
have? Let’s say we're say we're starting 2010, right now.
ARCHITZEL:
Yes, sir.
AKIN:
And let’s see, JSF is scheduled to be ready to go at 2015. Are we sure that, that’s going to happen
on time? That gives you five years, right—10 to 15?
ARCHITZEL:
Yes, sir.
AKIN:
So let’s assume JSF actually is there at 2015. So you do have the five years. So what would the
number be to get to the 10 percent? Have you figured that?
ARCHITZEL:
Sir, let me—FY ‘10 is a single year buy of Hornets. As you know, the Growler (ph), we put into
the multiyear for multiyear two. And we were able to take advantage of that. With the single year
buy, we don't have the economic order quantity to do it. So ‘10 is in the books. We don't have that
ability to incorporate that into a multiyear now.
26 Vice Admiral David Architzel, USN, Principal Military Deputy, Research, Development and Acquisition.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
AKIN:
So we're talking ‘11 now—'11 to ‘15?
ARCHITZEL:
Yes, sir.
AKIN:
Are you sure that we're going to have JSF in ‘15?
ARCHITZEL:
I know—I can speak to the IOCs we have today, which is for the Marine Corps. and the Navy
and say that, on plan we have today, we will, sir. I mean, we're developing those programs to go
forward on those timelines. But I also will say that we will have to wait to find out what the
department’s direction is on aircraft. We need to know the numbers, so we can get that common
quantity, and timeframe involved, before we can enter into a multiyear. But if we were to—but
the multiyear is certainly something we do aggressively go after when we can—and multiple
programs, as you're aware. B22 is an example—60 Romeo (ph), 60 Sierras (ph)—so we definitely
want to get multiyears when we have them there.
AKIN:
Yes, I'm having a hard time getting anything. I feel like I'm trying to mail jello to a wall,
gentlemen. You know, I'm asking for a time for a multiyear. And you're saying, “No, we really
don't know what the requirements are.” I thought we were looking at 125, and then 243. Now,
you're saying, “Yes, but it could be this other way.” Somewhere along the line, we got to make a
plan as to what we're going to do. I mean, maybe JSF could be there 2015. And that’s obviously
something that’s very important. I know the Marine Corps. has a keen interest in the Stovall (ph)
[sic: STOVL, meaning short takeoff and vertical landing] version because you're kind of putting
all your eggs in that basket; where the Harriers, I guess, are getting older and older.
But somewhere along the line, we've got to be able to do some planning. And it seems like no
matter how you look at the numbers, you're coming out short on fighter planes. So I guess that’s
the reason we're having the hearing—is, where are we?
MYERS:
Yes, sir. Congressman, for the record, just want to correct the correct number that we should be
referring to is “69 to 129” for the U.S. Navy. And that’s what I briefed last year. That—those were
the bookends of 10,000 hours for 300 aircraft and 8,600 no aircraft SLEP'ed. So that gives you
about a 70 aircraft shortfall. And...
AKINS:
But let’s start with 70. If you had 70 additional aircraft over a five-year period, would you get 10
percent then?
ARCHITZEL:
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Sir, I'm not trying to be anything but direct in answering. If I can, from an acquisition standpoint,
if we were to get to—two things, we need to have an economic order quantity. We need to have
an economic rate of production, which would be—the minimum sustained rate for the—is about
24 aircraft to go through. The economic requirement is somewhere between 30 and 36, depending
on the numbers we have.
So if you can generate on the order, 30 per year for five years, you would be able to enter into a
multiyear that would produce 10 percent savings.
MYERS:
But...
AKINS:
You're saying 30 per year, so that'd be 150 then?
ARCHITZEL:
If they—in the scenario of a multiyear, that’s what would happen, sir, regardless of what aircraft
we're dealing with. When you can get those types of quantities and be able to produce them to
allow economic order quantity buys, or some significant period of time, then you will definitely
get savings in a multiyear. That’s why—that’s the only reason we're allowed to enter multiyears is
if we can assure significant savings.
AKINS:
So are you saying the minimum you'd have to buy is about 150 over five years today in order to
get that 10 percent?
ARCHITZEL:
Sir, under the scenario you presented to me, yes, sir, that would be what we'd have to do. I would
say that. But again, we—I don't set the requirements. This is from an acquisition standpoint. You
asked me to give you the numbers as they applied to multiyear, and that’s what I've done, sir.
MYERS:
And to reinforce Admiral Architzel, the requirement is 44 Strike Fighters on our carrier wings
and based on the PB ‘09 data, the shortfall for U.S. end (ph) is still about 70 aircraft, best case,
right now. But we still have some discovery to do this summer as we go through SLEP and we
still have some levers to pull.
AKINS:
The numbers was higher because you had Marine Corps F-18s that you were including also? Is
that correct?
MYERS:
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
What I gave you was an inclusive Department of Navy and U.S. Navy before. The 69, 129 is a
U.S. Navy number. And the 125, 243 is a Department of Navy number. It included Navy and
Marine Corps and that was what was briefed last year—yes, sir.
ARCHITZEL:
Sir, if I may comment? Maybe help with the variables that are involved here. First of all, the PB
‘09 numbers are no longer relevant to this discussion, in my opinion. For example, if the program
purchases more point (ph) [sic: Joint] Strike Fighters than we did in PB ‘09, which it does, the
Strike Fighter shortfall would come down by a commensurate number of F-35, both B and C
models.
Secondly, this issue of the service life assessment program and the service life extension
program—is very much filled with variability at this point. We're are part way through phase B of
a three-phase process of examining these airplanes to decide how many of the 623 existing A
through D hornets can be extended.
By talking to NAVAIR as recently as Friday, there are approximately 330 A through Ds, which
she identified as “prime candidates” to be extended. And so, we will extend by bureau number by
bureau number, making wise business case decisions associated with the choices that will have to
be made to extend those aircraft going forward.
AKIN:
So you say you've identified 130...
ARCHITZEL:
Three hundred thirty.
AKIN:
... A through D? Oh, 330.
ARCHITZEL:
Three hundred thirty of the 623 existing are prime candidates for extension. There are no
technical impediments to extension at this point.
AKIN:
So are you saying that this means you wouldn't have to put more money in them? Or they would
be prime candidates to put more money into them to get them to 10,000?
ARCHITZEL:
You said it right, sir...
AKIN:
The second time?
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ARCHITZEL:
Yes, sir. Putting more money into them on a case by case basis to decide how much would need
to be extended. But even that has variability. For example, the majority of the interest areas are in
the center barrel. That’s the majority interest area. We already have $1.14 billion in the budget to
pay for 417 center barrels to be replaced. Second most are in the wings. There are options with
regard to the wings. One is repair. Two is to remove and replace. And the admiral gave you the
cost of a new wing. But the third is to take wings out of AMOR (ph) which we're doing right now,
and replace those wings with wings that are essentially free.
And then the third large area that we're concerned about, as we go through the assessment
program, is in the aft-end (ph) of the A through Ds. That’s probably where most of the uncertainty
lies now with regard to the cost.
ȱ¡ȱȱȱ
AKIN:
Yes, I had just a couple more questions.
General Trautman, my understanding is that the Marine Corps currently has four F/A 18 fighter
squadrons that are supposed to have 40 aircraft allocated to them, but actually have no aircraft
allocated to them. And the Marine Corps does not apparently include those in the shortfall. And if
so, why did you not include them in the shortfall?
TRAUTMAN: 27
Sir, about three years ago we made a proactive decision to cadre two active and two reserve
fighter attack squadrons. We did this in anticipation of the arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter.
We learned when we transitioned to the V-22 from our large medium-lift population of CH-46s
that one thing you need to do when you have a large population changing as our tactical aircraft
are going to change beginning in 2012, is to create a manpower pool from which you can draw
because, particularly when you're changing from a 46 to a V-22 or from a Legacy Hornet to a
Joint Strike Fighter, it’s not a lightswitch. It’s a rheostat and you have to have time to train and
prepare both air crew and maintainers.
So we set aside those cadre personnel and now thank goodness we did because over the last few
months we picked the squadron commander for our first fleet readiness squadron, the VMFAT-
501, which will stand up beginning this summer.
We picked the first six aviators that will go into that squadron. We're detailing the maintainers
that will go into that squadron. And beginning in 2012 and 2013, we'll bring back those two
active cadre squadrons as Joint Strike Fighter squadrons and that’s been our plan.
27 Lieutenant General George J. Trautman III, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
With regard to the two reserve cadre squadrons, we'll bring them back three, four, five years into
the Joint Strike Fighter transition about the time that reserve aviators and maintainers are looking
for a place to go if they decide to remain engaged in the Marine Corps via the Reserves.
So we think we've got this laid out right, and that’s why we did what we did.
AKIN:
So in a sense your strategic decision of three years ago was while you started with four
squadrons, you're going to go down to two, so in the transition you've got just less aircraft
available to you so you realize that you are at a lesser strength and you accept that risk because
you're transitioning from one aircraft to another. That’s what I think I'm hearing you say.
TRAUTMAN:
That’s exactly right, sir. These transitions are challenging and that’s why we take the decision
that we took to set aside that manpower pool to make it right.
AKIN:
Right. And as long as the other plane comes online, you're saying we can live with being at half
strength for some—a few years to make that transition. If they're not on line in time, then that
becomes increasingly problematic, I suppose.
TRAUTMAN:
Well, it does. The good news is that we are—we're meeting our current obligations with the force
structure that we have. The challenge is, of course, that Marine TacAir is at a higher op tempo
than either the Navy or the Air Force TacAir, and so in some ways we're playing out the risk on
the backs of our Marines and we don't like to do that.
But we think it’s a proactive step that was worth taking in order to get to the Joint Strike Fighter
in 2012 and ‘13.
AKIN:
Yes, OK, so those 40 are not counted in the shortfall then that we were talking about before.
TRAUTMAN:
Well, they're not really a shortfall sir. For example, if we decided to have those squadrons up and
we didn't want to take the manpower, we could take the 30 Lot (ph) 10 and 11 F-18Cs that we're
putting into preservation. We could have those round out those squadrons in the near term if we
chose to do so. I think that would not be a very wise decision, though. I prefer the decision we
made.
AKIN:
You're saying there are aircraft around, but they're just old?
TRAUTMAN:
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Lot (ph) 10 and 11, that’s right.
AKIN:
Yes. OK. And you also mentioned the idea of reworking some of the F-18s. You're saying that’s a
possibility depending on the analysis of what those look like. The numbers we're seeing in that is
you're looking at about $15 million if you got to put that rework in and that gets you, whatever it
is, 1,000, 500 hours or something.
It seems like to me that’s almost costing you twice the cost per hour and a lot less capability than
if you just got a new F-18. Is that—would you ever look at doing that?
TRAUTMAN:
I was advised that putting any kind of number on the cost of extending a Hornet from 8,000 to
10,000 at this point would be premature. As I said, we're only half way through phase B of a
three- phase process. Until we get through that process, there are too many variables associated to
put a number on it.
I haven't heard a number as high as $15 million. That’s a new one to me. I've heard lower
numbers.
AKIN:
I thought that was—what’s the engine? About five? Or is it 10? What was the engine, the central
component? What was it? I forgot.
TRAUTMAN:
The center barrel?
AKIN:
Yes.
TRAUTMAN:
Yes, sir. We already have $1.1 billion in the budget. It’s already paid for to do 417 center barrels.
So the good news is that’s a risk mitigator against the challenge that we face in order to do the
service life expansions. And as I said, most of the areas of interest are in the center barrel area.
AKIN:
It still costs money though whether it's—right?
TRAUTMAN:
No doubt, sir. You're exactly right, and we'll have to make wise case-by-case, bureau number-by-
bureau number assessments and then decisions about how to expend our scarce resources.
AKIN:
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
If you had to do a center barrel and you had to do the wing sections, what are you talking actual
dollars to do that on a plane?
TRAUTMAN:
Well, for example, if we already have the center barrel budgeted, if we went to AMARC as we're
doing this year to get 24 wings out, we could do both of those for no additional dollars.
If we had to buy a center wing, I'm not sure what the current cost of that is. I'll have to defer to
Admiral Architzel or to Admiral Myers.
ARCHITZEL:
Sir, I'll give Admiral Myers a second too, but so that the whole, what you have to do with the
center barrel, that’s Lot (ph) 17 and prior. If you did a center barrel replacement, which we funded
in the first lot (ph), it would take about 6,000 hours.
That’s for those number of Hornets and I think the number is somewhere around 400-plus
numbers we have there. That’s funded in the budget when we go forward. That runs at about, just
for the center build, about $2.5 billion—$2.5 million excuse me. So if you would then add in...
AKIN:
OK. So $2.5 million for a center barrel and then you've got the—let’s say you had to do the
wings.
ARCHITZEL:
Well, the number I have is 2.5, and so we'll have to get back to you then. They're being quoted
4.5 here so—but the center if you hit the wing sections and the center fill, it’s just about $5
million for those.
Now as General Trautman says, if you take wings off an existing aircraft, (inaudible) you still
have to rework those wings. So I mean you're going to have some cost involved. You're
absolutely right, sir.
If you want to look at where we go to get above to the 8,600 hours and you want to go past that
to 10,000, we have a high-flying hour inspection. That inspection alone is running around—up
more than $75 million.
That's—you get to the point where you can open, inspect and look at the airplanes to see what
you have. And I agree with General Trautman, we don't know what we'll have in those airplanes.
Probably in those where we designed into the center barrel on that Lot (ph) 18 and beyond, we
should not expect to replace center barrels.
But in those areas that are fatigued hot points on the aircraft, we have to do—and we have to do
extensive work or maybe, depending on what we have, some fatigue stress cracking or issues on
the empanage or tail and then on top of that you also have to do system work on the airplane.
So that’s I think—the quandary comes in is what is the exact cost of each aircraft, and you won't
know until you open them up and find out what you have, sir.
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
AKIN:
Basically I think you've made it clear to me today that you don't really know what the fighter
aircraft shortfall is. You're saying it’s somewhere and I thought it was variable between two
numbers. You said that you can't even count on that. When will you know for sure what your
shortfall is? When will you actually have a number?
MYERS:
The shortfall right now is about 70 aircraft and that’s based on the analysis that I brought to you.
TAYLOR:
Would the gentleman yield?
AKIN:
Yes, sir.
TAYLOR:
Seventy aircraft when, Admiral, give me your...
MYERS:
It peaks in the 2016 to 2017 timeframe.
TAYLOR:
OK. And when does your shortfall kick in, what year?
MYERS; Shortfall starts to develop in the mid- to later-2013 timeframe, now that's, Chairman
and Congressman, that’s based on the analysis that was brought last year. What’s ongoing right
now is, as General Trautman mentioned, we're in the second phase of a three-step process and
we're refining the technical baseline and cost estimates to see exactly what we want that’s left and
what is in the realm of the possible.
What we knew last year was conceptually what the cost would be and a preliminary estimate on
what it would take, and that’s why we gave bookends. What we're starting to do now is better
understand.
Last year when we came to you, the 8,600 and 10,000 numbers, the 69 and 129 was based on 295
aircraft being able to be SLEP'd. Right now the number is about 330 aircraft that we think might
be candidates or are targeted to be SLEP'd, but through the summer we're going to have a lot
more information and the second phase is set to complete next March.
We've got lots of work to do, and I want to make sure that everybody understands that it’s not
just the SLEPing of the aircraft that is our focus on mitigating the shortfall. It also means that we
maintain our buy of the JSF. It means that we maintain the logistics support of the current fleet,
and it also means that we maintain the current buy of our F/A -18E/Fs.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
TAYLOR:
I appreciate the gentleman yielding, please continue.
AKIN:
Well that brief—I mean I've got a chart here that shows the number you're talking about 69 it
says here for ‘17. I think that was the Navy, if I'm correct.
MYERS:
Yes, sir.
AKIN:
The total number is 125. And then I think the chart also says what happens if you can't get to the
10,000 hours and then that jumps it to 129 and 243. Have you seen this?
MYERS:
Yes, sir.
AKIN:
That’s what I was pulling my numbers off of, was this chart.
MYERS:
Yes, sir, and...
AKIN:
Are these numbers still the best we know for the moment?
MYERS:
Those numbers have not been officially changed and updated. We are currently doing analysis
and looking at assumptions that might impact those numbers and that’s also ongoing. We're taking
a look at...
AKIN:
And so the answer to when we'll know pretty sure is going to be a year or next March. Would
that—would we have a pretty good handle on it at that point?
MYERS:
We will know a lot more through the summer, sir, and through the summer we'll also be able to
better understand what the assumptions are if it will go into that model in terms of our productive
ratio or the efficiencies that we used on the air wings that are not deployed.
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
There’s a lot of things that go into the model besides just 44 and the Marine Corps requirement,
and that’s one of the things that the Marines and the U.S. Navy are currently undergoing is some
understanding of ways that we can more efficiently get aircraft out to the warfighter.
TRAUTMAN:
Congressman, if I could add to Admiral Myers excellent answer about the variability. That chart
that you held up last year is no longer relevant. It is not an accurate depiction at this point, and I
can just give you the simplest example I can is if we have decided to buy additional F-35Bs and
Cs compared to last year, which we have done, that changes all of those equations, just for
example.
AKIN:
You could picture yourself in our shoes. We got this information from you in March, and I'm
hearing you say that it’s increasingly irrelevant right now. That’s hard for us to get a number. I'm
just saying when are we going to have something that we can understand what we're planning?
TRAUTMAN:
We owe you better and more current information. And in March, sir, that was the best that we
had.
AKIN:
Right.
TRAUTMAN:
And we owe you the benefit of understanding what we think the future is going to hold in terms
of F-35 production and in terms of the ongoing SLAP [Service Life Assessment Program] and
SLEP analysis.
AKIN:
So are you saying then at the end of this summer you think we're going to have some pretty
reliable numbers? Or is it going to be March of next year? I mean where are we going to be
within plus or minus 10 percent on the number?
TRAUTMAN:
I'll have to get back to you, sir, and take that back to our leadership not only in the fleet, but also
in the Systems Command to make sure that we get you...
AKIN:
Well, we're trying to put budgets together. We've got to have something to work with. Thank you
very much.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ
¢ȱȦȬŗŞȦȱȱȬŗŞ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
TRAUTMAN:
Yes, sir.
ȱȱ ȱ
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ