Order Code RL33543
Tactical Aircraft Modernization:
Issues for Congress
Updated August 11, 2008
Christopher Bolkcom
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

---

Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress
Summary
This report examines the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) three largest tactical
aircraft modernization programs. The “Background” section provides a brief
description of each program and a discussion of how tactical aircraft fit into military
air operations: the missions they typically perform and how they contrast to longer-
range combat aircraft.
The “Analysis” section examines a number of policy issues, including
affordability, capability required, force structure, and defense industrial base. The
paper concludes with a synopsis of congressional action on these programs.
The Defense Department is procuring the F-22 fighter for the Air Force, the
F/A-18E/F fighter/attack plane for the Navy, and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
aircraft in three variants, some of which might be operational around 2012.
Decisions in Congress and the Defense Department regarding these aircraft
programs may have important long-term implications. The F/A-18E/F is in full-rate
production. The F-22 is nearing the end of its planned production. The JSF might be
in production through the 2020s. Decisions about the funding of these programs will
influence the future of individual U.S. aircraft manufacturers, and may well affect the
division of combat roles and missions among the services for decades.
Some in Congress have expressed concern about the need for some of these
aircraft programs on grounds of cost and affordability, and military requirements.
Some in Congress have also expressed concern over the potential impact of these
aircraft programs on the defense industrial base. This report will be updated as
events warrant.
This report replaces Issue Brief IB92115 of the same title.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
F-22A Raptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
F-35 Lightning II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Analysis: Key Issues to Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Affordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Capability Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Force Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Defense Industrial Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Figures
Figure 1. F-22 Raptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2. F/A-18F Super Hornet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 3. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4. ERMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 5. Predator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
List of Tables
Table 1. Estimated Number of Aircraft to Be Procured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. FY2009 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

Tactical Aircraft Modernization:
Issues for Congress
Introduction
Tactical or theater aircraft — fighter planes, fighter/attack planes, and attack
planes — constitute a major component of U.S. military capability. They played a
prominent role in the 1991 Gulf War, and are expected to play a leading role in
contemporary and future military operations, particularly in situations where U.S.
leaders hope to limit or avoid the commitment of U.S. ground forces. Operation
Allied Force, the 1999 war in Kosovo, may have fueled these expectations. During
this 78-day war, hundreds of coalition aircraft attacked Serbian targets, losing only
two aircraft in the process. Navy tactical combat aircraft played a prominent role in
the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom, and tactical aircraft from all
services continue fighting in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Tactical aviation accounts for a significant part of the defense budget, counting
the costs of developing, procuring, and operating aircraft, engines, avionics, and
weapon systems, and personnel, training, and administrative costs. In round
numbers, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps operated approximately 4,200
fixed-wing tactical combat aircraft in 2007. Of these, the Air Force operated about
2,658 and the Navy and the Marine Corps 1,541. In addition to these fixed-wing
combat aircraft, the Services operate about 1,300 armed helicopters.1 This report
focuses on fixed-wing aircraft programs: the Air Force F-22, the Navy F/A-18E/F,
and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The research and development, procurement, and
military construction costs of these aircraft will combine to cost taxpayers an
estimated $418 billion in constant dollars.2
These aircraft have been traditionally referred to as “tactical” aircraft to
distinguish them from the Air Force’s B-52, B-1, and B-2 “strategic” bombers.
When applied to aircraft, “tactical” generally refers to smaller and shorter-ranged
planes, while “strategic” generally refers to larger and longer-ranged aircraft. Both
tactical and strategic types are operated by USAF’s Air Combat Command, which
in 1992 replaced Strategic Air Command (SAC) and Tactical Air Command (TAC).
Reflecting the post-Cold War demise of SAC and TAC, tactical aircraft are
sometimes referred to as “theater aircraft.”
1 See CRS Report RL32447, Military Helicopter Modernization: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Christian Liles and Christopher Bolkcom.
2 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Summary Tables. Department of Defense. OUSD
(AT&L) as of December 31, 2007.

---

CRS-2
The Military Services use alpha-numeric designations (e.g., A-10, F-15, B-52,
F/A-18) to identify the type of mission the aircraft is designed to perform. This
taxonomy can be confusing because it is loosely defined (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter
is a multi-role aircraft, which would suggest an F/A-35 designation) and because,
over time, an aircraft can be modified to perform additional missions. For example,
the B-52 Stratofortress today exploits advanced targeting and precision guided
munitions (PGMs) to conduct close air support (CAS) missions, which are
historically performed by tactical aircraft, not long-range bombers. Generally
speaking, however:
! Fighter planes primarily engage in air-to-air combat, either at
close/visual range or at ranges requiring radar-guided missiles and
stand-off munitions (including “precision-guided munitions”/
PGMs).
! Attack planes focus on air-to-surface combat operations such as
CAS for friendly ground forces engaged in battle, battlefield air
interdiction (BAI) against enemy forces behind the lines, and deep
interdiction (also known as “deep strike”) against the enemy’s
military, political, and industrial infrastructure.
! Fighter/attack planes (also known as fighter-bombers, strike
fighters, or multirole fighters) perform both air-to-air and
air-to-surface missions.
! Long-range bombers and cruise missiles can also be used in BAI
and deep strike operations.
! Increasingly, armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs, are used
to attack ground targets, especially in low-intensity combat or
counterinsurgency missions.
Background
Major changes in the national security environment (e.g., the fall of the Soviet
Union, the terror attacks of 9/11) have informed DOD plans for tactical aviation
modernization. In response to an emerging congressional consensus and
recommendations by the Defense Department’s 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR) of
force structure requirements, the Clinton Administration decided in late 1993 to
continue two major aircraft programs then underway — the F-22, a
low-observable-to-radar (stealthy) fighter for the Air Force; and the F/A-18E/F
version of the F/A-18 fighter/attack plane for the Navy — while also pursuing new
aviation technology initiatives through the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST)
program, which later evolved into the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.
The George H. Bush Administration’s plan for modernizing U.S. tactical aircraft
had focused on four key aircraft programs: (1) the F-22, (2) the F/A-18E/F, (3) the
AFX, a stealthy attack/fighter aircraft to be developed for the Navy and Air Force,

---

CRS-3
and (4) the Multi-Role Fighter (MRF), either a new aircraft or an upgraded version
of the F-16 fighter/attack plane for the Air Force. Since there was no funding for the
MRF and only minimal funding for the AFX, their rejection by the BUR in 1993 was
more a recognition of their demise than the termination of viable programs.
The Defense Department’s first Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released
in May of 1997, recommended buying fewer tactical aircraft than was then projected,
with reduced annual procurement of the F-22 and the F/A-18E/F. The George W.
Bush administration took office with the aim to “transform” the Department of
Defense rather than merely modernize its capabilities.3 Tactical aircraft programs
were reviewed in this context, and in Program Budget Decision (PBD) 753
(December 23, 2004), DOD recommended that the F-22 program be terminated after
the FY2008 purchase.
Current Programs
F-22A Raptor
Built by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, the F-22A features a stealthy design,
advanced engines by Pratt and Whitney, and new avionics by Hughes and other
subcontractors. It is replacing the F-15 as the Air Force’s air superiority fighter. Like
the F-15E, the F-22 will also have air-to-surface attack capabilities. The program
was in competitive prototyping from 1986 to 1991 and then entered engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD), with prototype flights beginning in 1997. On
September 14, 2001, the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) announced its much-
awaited decision that the F-22 program had successfully completed EMD and was
ready to move on to low-rate initial production. On December 15, 2005, the Air
Force announced that a 12-aircraft detachment of F-22s had achieved initial
operational capability (IOC).
Figure 1. F-22 Raptor
3 Unlike modernization, transformation is generally viewed as discontinuous change, or a
“leap ahead” in capabilities. See CRS Report RL32238 for more information on military
transformation.

---

CRS-4
In recent years, tension has emerged between the Air Force, which states a
requirement for 381 Raptors, and DOD’s civilian leaders, who have restricted
spending plans instead to 184 aircraft. F-22 supporters won the debate in the 109th
Congress on whether to grant multiyear procurement (MYP) authority for the final
60 Raptors. (See CRS Report RL31673 for more information on the F-22.)
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Built by Boeing (since its acquisition of McDonnell Douglas in 1997) and
Northrop Grumman, the Super Hornet is a larger and more expensive version of the
older F/A-18C/D fighter/attack plane. It has more range/payload than the F/A-18s
it will replace and has more potential for future modernization. In May 1992, the
program entered EMD, with prototypes beginning flight-tests in late 1995 and
procurement funding beginning in FY1997. In December 2003, the Navy awarded
a five-year, $8.6 billion multi-year procurement contract for 210 F/A-18E/Fs to the
Boeing Company. Procurement of 493 F/A-18E/Fs is currently projected, at a cost
$46.3 billion in then-year dollars.4 Eighty-five electronic attack versions of the
aircraft — the EA-18G will be procured as a replacement for the Navy’s aging EA-
6B Prowler fleet.5 A separate $1 billion contract was also awarded to develop this
aircraft, which is estimated to cost a total of $8.6 billion. The first operational EA-
18G was delivered to the Navy in June 2008.
Figure 2. F/A-18F Super Hornet
F-35 Lightning II
The F-35 Lightening II, also called the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), began in
FY1994 as the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program, which emerged
after cancellations of the AFX and MRF. The JSF program seeks to design, develop,
and produce a family of affordable joint-service fighter/attack planes, with
4 “F/A-18E/F.” Selected Acquisition Report. (SAR) Office of the Secretary of Defense
(AT&L). December 25, 2007.
5 Electronic attack aircraft increase the survivability of attack aircraft by jamming radars
used by enemy aircraft and air defenses and making it difficult for them to target U.S.
aircraft. For more information about electronic warfare and the EA-6B. See CRS Report
RL30639 and CRS Report RL30841.

---

CRS-5
conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft for the Air Force and Navy and
short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps and the
U.K. Royal Navy. In February 2004, Air Force leaders announced that the Air Force
would also procure some number of STOVL variants to improve its ability to
prosecute the close air support (CAS) mission and reduce reliance on access to
forward bases.
The JSF is DOD’s largest cooperative acquisition program. Eight foreign
countries have pledged funds to the JSF program.6 A number of other countries are
being considered for either JSF partnership or as purchasers.7 Participation is related
to the financial contributions to the program by these governments, the British
government being the major non-U.S. contributor of development funds.
From 1997 to 2001, the program was in a competitive design phase involving
prototypes built by both Boeing and Lockheed Martin. On October 26, 2001, DOD
announced that Lockheed Martin won the competition, and would move on to the
production phase. In May 2005, DOD approved a plan to revamp the JSF program
to account for developmental difficulties. The revised plan entails stretching out
development efforts 16 to 22 months, adding $11.7 billion in costs and cutting the
number of aircraft the Defense Department will buy. As now projected, some 2,456
JSFs would be procured. Low rate production was approved in 2008, and operational
service is scheduled for March 2012. The JSF program is currently estimated
(December 2007) at $298 billion.8 In its FY2009 budget, DOD requested no funds
for the JSF F-136 alternate engine program, despite clear guidance from the 109th
Congress that this program was to be pursued. The F-136 was initiated by Congress
in FY1996.9 (See CRS Report RL33390for more information on the F-136 issue.)
6 Australia, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Turkey, and United Kingdom.
7 Israel, Poland, Singapore.
8 See CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program:
Background, Status, and Issues, by Anthony Murch and Christopher Bolkcom.
9 Those in Congress who initiated the alternate engine program hoped to create a
competitive environment during JSF production, in which engine manufacturers would
compete against each other for business. This competition would generate cost savings and
improved engine reliability and performance. Supporters believe the Air Force was
successful in creating such an environment when it funded an alternate engine for the F-16
Falcon.

---

CRS-6
Figure 3. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
The Defense Department has pursued unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) since
World War I. The use of these aircraft for military missions increased very slowly
until the commercial world experienced rapid advances in geo-positioning,
communications, and information technologies in the 1980s and 1990s. Spending on
UAVs has more than quadrupled between 2001 and 2009 ($667 million to $2.9
billion), and the variety of programs and missions is noteworthy.
The Air Force and the Army currently field three armed UAVs that have
increasingly been used to attack ground targets in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere:
the MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper, and Extended Range Multi-Purpose (ERMP)
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) (which is based on the Shadow 200 UAV). The Air
Force plans to purchase 38 Predators and 9 Reapers in FY2009 to add to the 268
Predators and 18 Reapers previously ordered. The Army has purchased 84 Shadow
UAVs in the past, and asks to purchase one more in FY2009.
Armed UAVs appear to complement manned tactical combat aircraft.
Advantages of UAVs include no risk of losing pilots and long dwell time (up to 30
hours), which provides persistent surveillance over the battlefield and the ability to
attack promptly if necessary. Disadvantages of UAVs include a relatively high
accident rate and less flexibility than manned aircraft. Presently, UAVs cannot
engage in air-to-air combat, nor protect themselves effectively against enemy air
defenses. Increased use of UAVs also creates concerns about congested airspace.10
Proposed FY2009 funding for these three UAVs is $871.8 million in
procurement and $68.2 million in R&D. These figures reflect a healthy share of
DOD’s UAV funding but pale in comparison to the three manned aircraft programs
in this report, which tally $13.5 billion in FY2009.
10 See CRS Report RL31872 for more information.

---

CRS-7
Figure 4. ERMP
Figure 5. Predator
Analysis: Key Issues to Consider
Affordability
Given possible constraints on defense spending in future years, can we afford
tactical aircraft modernization programs as currently projected?
For more than 20 years — since 1993 — some observers have predicted a “train
wreck” in DOD’s tactical aviation programs. These observers see too many aircraft
competing for too few dollars. In March 2005, for example, Tactical Air and Land
Forces Subcommittee Chairman Representative Curt Weldon began a hearing by
observing that tactical aviation is “in the midst of a massive train wreck financially.”
Representative Weldon noted that the costs of the F-22 and JSF had increased by
“well over 100” and 80% respectively, and one impact of these increases was reduced
aircraft purchases.11
It may be that a budgetary train wreck is looming. As the table below suggests,
a more apt metaphor for the tactical aviation budget to date may be one of a “slow
11 “Hearing of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services
Committee,” Federal News Service, March 25, 2005.

---

CRS-8
leak.” Over the past 14 years, budget pressures have reduced the number of aircraft
that some estimate DOD can afford by more than 30%.
Table 1. Estimated Number of Aircraft to Be Procured
FY
F/A-22
JSFa
F/A-18E/F
Total
1991
648
2978
1000
4626
1993
442
2978
1000
4420
1997
339
2978
548
3865
2000
333
2866
548
3859
2004
279
2866
462b
3607
2006
179
2443
462
3084
2008
183
2456
493
3132
Source: Estimates by DOD Comptroller, GAO, CBO, CRS.
a. The United Kingdom plans to buy 150 JSFs. However, budget shortfalls may force the UK to
reduce purchases.
b. Does not include 90 EA-18G electronic attack aircraft.
This “slow leak” in tactical aviation funding may continue. Or, budgets may
hold steady. (Few predict that tactical aviation budgets will increase in real terms.)
However, other aircraft acquisition challenges may continue to erode tactical
aviation’s budget. As mentioned above, spending on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs) has more than quadrupled between 2001 and 2009, and DOD’s appetite for
these systems show no sign of abating. All the services wish to recapitalize their
helicopter fleets. Advocates of long-range bombers have been pressuring the Air
Force to maintain its current inventory of bombers, and to field a replacement earlier
than the planned date of 2037. Also, as Congress is well aware, replacing DOD’s
aging fleet of long-range aerial refueling aircraft is a growing priority and will require
sustained investment.
Some also believe that previously unanticipated costs associated with combating
terrorism may mean that the “tac air train wreck” has fully arrived. CRS estimates
that since the September 11 terrorist attacks, DOD has received over $859 billion for
combat operations, occupation, and support for military personnel deployed or
supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for enhanced security at military
installations. DOD and congressional initiatives to increase both personnel benefits
and personnel “end strength” could also increase pressure to reduce tactical aviation
budgets.
The act of matching resources (i.e., budget) to objectives in a procurement
program can be called a “business case.” GAO, for one, has argued that the F-22
lacks a business case (GAO-05-304), and that the JSF’s business case is
“unexecutable” (GAO-05-271). This assertion suggests to some, at least implicitly,
that the relevance of these aircraft, as reflected in their currently planned procurement
quantities, to the current military environment, is unclear.

---

CRS-9
Capability Required
Given the demise of the Soviet Union and the dominance U.S. air forces have
demonstrated in recent conflicts, and the apparent growth of low-intensity conflicts,
what capabilities are required in U.S. tactical aircraft?
The F-22 program was started in the mid-1980s, when the Soviet Union was
expected to continue producing high-performance aircraft and air-defense missiles
that could pose serious threats in the 1990s and beyond. The F-22 was then justified
as an advanced aircraft capable of performing combat missions in a high-threat
military environment. With the demise of the Soviet Union and a much changed
politico-military environment, some question the need to procure large quantities of
such expensive, high-capability aircraft. Alternatives would be to produce only
limited numbers of these aircraft, while upgrading and extending the service lives of
existing aircraft such as Air Force F-15Es and F-16Cs, Navy and Marine Corps
F/A-18C/Ds, and Navy F/A-18E/Fs. Others argue that advanced combat aircraft are
not the most applicable airpower resources for counterinsurgency and anti-terrorism
operations. These observers would reduce planned combat aircraft procurement
programs in favor of increased investments in unmanned aerial vehicles, special
operations helicopters, medical evacuation aircraft, and training and equipping
forward air controllers.12
Others argue that large numbers of high-capability aircraft are still necessary
because Russian aircraft and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) are available to potential
adversaries of the United States and its allies, and some European and Asian
companies may soon be able to market advanced aircraft and SAMs to potential
enemies. In this view, the demise of the Soviet Union does not mean the end of
potential high-threat areas requiring advanced aircraft. Recent acquisitions of fighter
aircraft and surface-to-air missiles by China, and to a lesser degree India, have fueled
some observers’ concerns that these countries may effectively challenge U.S.
airpower in the future. In recent conflicts in Iraq and Yugoslavia, the F-117 stealth
attack plane played a crucial role in destroying targets in high-threat areas. Having
large numbers of such advanced aircraft, it is argued, will help ensure operational
success in future conflicts with well-armed adversaries.
Most of those questioning the modernization plan acknowledge that
proliferation of advanced aircraft and air-defense equipment in the Third World will
require the United States to field some new-generation high-capability aircraft. They
argue, however, that the Gulf War showed the United States has a formidable
advantage in air-to-air combat, which can be maintained by procuring a limited
number of F-22s for use against those adversaries who may be able to make effective
use of modern Russian or European aircraft. They note that the stealthy F-117s used
in the Gulf War constituted a tiny percentage of all tactical aircraft employed against
Iraq, and only a few non-stealthy planes were shot down, even in the early days of
the war. Moreover, they argue that cruise missiles and stealthy B-2 bombers and
non-stealthy B-1s equipped with adequate standoff munitions could be used against
12 See CRS Report RL32737 for more information on the application of airpower to
counterinsurgency missions.

---

CRS-10
heavily defended targets. In this view, F-22s would be procured in some smaller
quantity than the 381 planes currently desired by the Air Force and could be operated
as special “silver bullet” forces.
Others take issue with the need for any F-22s, arguing that the Air Force and
Navy will face generally the same adversary aircraft in the future, and these services
now have roughly equal capability in air-to-air combat as well as considerable
air-to-surface attack capabilities with F-15Es. Others point out that the Navy will
eventually conduct its air-to-air combat mission primarily with the F/A-18E/F. If the
Navy does not need a new generation stealth fighter for the post-Cold War era, they
ask, why is such an aircraft required for the Air Force? Some also argue that the
improved attack capability of the F/A-18E/F will be sufficient for carrier-based attack
missions against the most likely adversaries in regional conflicts. Furthermore, it can
be argued that the successful development of longer-range and more accurate and
lethal standoff munitions would significantly increase the combat effectiveness of
current-generation tactical aircraft.
Force Structure
How many tactical aircraft does the United States need?
The George H. Bush Administration’s proposed base force for the mid-1990s
and beyond reduced force structure to 26.5 Air Force fighter and attack wings, 13
Navy carrier air wings, and 4 Marine Corps air wings (compared to 35, 15, and 4 air
wings respectively in FY1990). Budgetary considerations and radically altered
international conditions led to these reductions, which some argued were appropriate
for the post-Cold War era, while others viewed this force structure as excessive.
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin announced in September 1993 that the Clinton
Administration projected a base force of 20 Air Force fighter/attack wings (13 active,
7 reserve), 11 Navy carrier air wings, and 4 Marine Corps air wings. The 1997 QDR
recommended no major changes in this force structure, although the 20 Air Force
tactical wings would comprise 12 active and 8 reserve wings.
The question of how many wings of tactical aircraft the United States needs for
the “post-9/11” era, and how this number should be determined, is part of an ongoing
debate in the Defense Department and Congress over the proper overall size of U.S.
military forces. Decisions on this issue can affect views on the affordability and
focus of plans for modernizing tactical aircraft. A reduction in the number of air
wings would lead to a corresponding reduction in the number of aircraft to be
procured. However, a reduction in the number of air wings may lead to a decision
to increase the proportions of F-22s and F/A-18E/Fs in the force, on grounds that
reduced forces need more capable equipment.
In an attempt to save money, but maintain combat capability, the Navy-Marine
Corps Tactical Air Integration Plan, proposed in late 2002, reduced the number of
Navy and Marine Corps combat aircraft squadrons by nine.13 Deputy Secretary of
13 See CRS Report RS21488, Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration Plan:
(continued...)

---

CRS-11
Defense Gordon England reportedly views this reduction as a potential model for
DOD’s entire tactical aviation force. In a March 21, 2005 interview, Mr. England
noted that by better integrating Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation, the Defense
Department was able to reduce aircraft purchases and save $35 billion, while
maintaining the same combat capabilities. Increased efficiencies that might be
realized across DOD’s tactical air enterprise might include better integration, and
more common assets, he told reporters. Mr. England advocated that DOD examine
its “whole [tactical aviation] enterprise” and search for efficiencies and savings.”14
Debate over the size of current and projected tactical aviation forces continues
in the 110th Congress. Despite its integration plan described above, the Navy and
Marine Corps now project a shortfall of up to 90 aircraft in FY2017-FY2020.15 In
congressional testimony, Air Force leaders testified that they anticipate a gap of 800
fighter aircraft in 2024 under current procurement plans.16 Critics of Air Force
claims that a fighter gap will emerge argue that such projections are strongly
influenced by assumptions on threats and whether the United States will fight alone
or part of a coalition. Also, some argue that Air Force demands for more fighter
aircraft are driven more by organizational constraints than by actual war fighting
needs, an argument akin to that levied against the Army when it organized itself
principally by Division, rather than by today’s more deployable Brigade Combat
Teams.17
Defense Industrial Base
How should industrial-base considerations be factored into decisions on
tactical aircraft modernization?
The health of the U.S. defense industrial base is a perennial and unsettled issue.
A report by the Defense Science Board published in the Spring of 2000 noted that the
defense industry was in the midst of a painful transition that was complicated by the
“new economy,” which was draining human and financial resources. Unless steps
were taken promptly, the study concluded, the U.S. defense industry would likely be
less competitive and financially viable in 5 to 10 years than it was in 2000. A July
2000 study by Booz-Allen Hamilton reported that the U.S. defense industrial base
was in a state of decline and national security would be affected if then-current trends
13 (...continued)
Background and Issues for Congress, by Christopher Bolkcom and Ronald O’Rourke. A
Carrier Air Wing typically includes four strike fighter squadrons.
14 Christopher J. Castelli, “DEPSECDEF Nominee Sees Potential For DOD-Wide TACAIR
Integration,” Inside the Navy, April 4, 2005.
15 See CRS Report RS22875.
16 Lieutenant General Daniel Darnell, Deputy Chief of Staff Air, Space and Information
Operations, Plans and Requirements. “ Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland
Holds Hearing on the Fiscal 2009 Budget for Air Force and Navy Aviation Programs.”
Congressional Quarterly. Congressional Transcripts. April 9, 2008. p.16
17 William Matthews. “Coming up short; Is the Air Force’s ‘Fighter-gap’ truth or spin?”
Armed Forces Journal International. July 2008. p.26.

---

CRS-12
went unchecked.18 A 2005 study by DOD, however, found no major problems with
U.S. defense industry.19
Congressional decisions on tactical aviation programs have serious implications
for the aerospace sector of the U.S. industrial base, which is a major source of
technological innovations as well as export earnings. Aerospace is the nation’s
leading net exporter of manufactured goods, with exports exceeding imports in 2005
by $39.7 billion (including $10.2 billion in military exports), according to the
Aerospace Industries Association. There is general agreement that there were more
aircraft manufacturers and subcontractors than recent levels of defense spending
could sustain. Consequently, the aerospace industry, like other industries heavily
dependent on Pentagon spending, has been undergoing a shakeout, with some
companies leaving the military aircraft business and others merging with financially
stronger competitors and downsizing production lines.
Congressional decisions on which military aircraft programs to support could
determine which aircraft manufacturers and subcontractors remain in business.
Although the U.S. economy as a whole regularly absorbs declines equal in magnitude
to that projected for defense aerospace, in the short- and medium-term, thousands of
skilled engineering and manufacturing jobs as well as the health of local and regional
economies could be at stake. Some argue that preservation of critical components
of U.S. defense industry is now as important as military requirements, which have
always been matters of judgment based on threat assumptions that are subject to
change. There is no apparent consensus, however, about what is most critical to
future U.S. military requirements or how excess military industrial capabilities can
be converted to civilian production that might enhance international competitiveness
in export trade.
Several questions arise out of the industrial base issue: How many aircraft
manufacturers are needed to support U.S. military needs? To what extent should the
survivability of these firms be taken into account in deciding which aircraft programs
to pursue? Which aspects of the aerospace industry are genuinely unique and vital
to production of U.S. tactical aircraft? How can competitiveness among U.S. defense
contractors be maintained with fewer firms, particularly regarding different design
concepts and cost-reduction innovations in the development and production of
planes? Should foreign sales of U.S. military aircraft be factored into decisions on
which tactical aircraft programs to pursue? How might decisions on tactical aircraft
programs affect U.S. export earnings and international competitiveness of the U.S.
aerospace industry? There are no easy answers to such questions and no consensus
on these industrial base issues, which confront all industrial nations in the early
2000s.
Recently, U.S. companies have lost a number of competitions to European
companies in an area of historic dominance: domestic, U.S. defense aviation.
18 Anthony Velocci, “Industry Prognosis Flags Ominous Trends,” Aviation Week & Space
Technology, July 17, 2000.
19 Sharon Weinberger, “Annual Report Paints Rosy Picture of Defense Industrial Base,”
Defense Daily, March 28, 2005.

---

CRS-13
European companies beat U.S. companies in competition for the prestigious VH-71
Presidential Helicopter, the lucrative KC-X aerial refueling aircraft (tanker) program,
and the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA).20 These awards may encourage lawmakers to
look more closely at the defense industrial base dimension of aviation acquisition
decisions.
Congressional Action
This section presents recent legislative activity on DOD’s four major tactical
aircraft modernization programs. It includes the Administration’s annual budget
request, and annual authorization and appropriations. The Bush Administration’s
FY2009 defense budget included the following requests for tactical aircraft
programs: F-22 ($4.1 billion); JSF ( $6.9 billion); F/A-18E/F ( $2.4 billion); EA-18G
($1.8 billion). Details of the request are summarized in Table 2, below.
Table 2. FY2009 Budget Request
($ millions)
USAF
USN
Procure
Procure
USAF
USN
Program
$
#
$
#
RDT&E
RDT&E
F-22
3164.2
20
700.3
0.0
APCY
327.0
Mods
JSF
1796.5
8
1720.9
8
1524.0
1532.7
136.9
APCY
258.8
APCY
F/A-18E/F
1917.9
23
71.2a
42.6
APCY
450.9a
Mods
EA-18G
1655.6
22
128.9
46.8
APCY
Sources: Procurement Programs (P-1), Department of Defense Budget for FY2009, February 2008.
RDT&E Programs (R-1), Department of Defense Budget for FY2009, February 2008.
Note: APCY = Advanced Procurement, Current Year.
a. Some of these funds would be spent on F/A-18A/C/D models as well as E/F models.
In their report 110-652 (H.R. 5658), House authorizers cut a total of $85 million
from F/A-18E/F and EA-18G procurement (due to foreign sales of F/A-18E/Fs
which will reduce lower unit costs for U.S. aircraft) and added $31 million to Air
Force APCY to fund the JSF competitive engine. Authorizers expressed frustration
that DOD had not followed Section 213 of P.L. 110-181, which requires continued
development of this program. The committee encouraged the Air Force to procure
20 The KC-X award process was found to be flawed and the award to Northrop Grumman
and its partner EADS has been rescinded. See CRS Report RL34398 for more information.

---

CRS-14
more than the 183 F-22s on budget and provided $523 million in advanced
procurement for an additional lot of 20 F-22s in 2010. House authorizers matched all
other funding requests represented in Table 2 above.
In their report 110-335 (S. 3001), Senate authorizers added $35 million to Air
Force procurement and $465 million to the services’ R&D accounts to fund
competitive development of the JSF engine. Like their counterparts in the House, the
Senate Armed Services Committee noted that additional purchases of F-22s in
FY2010 would be necessary to keep the production line open. Senate authorizers did
not advocate additional purchases, but provided $497 million that could be used for
this purpose or, conversely, to shut down the production line. Senate authorizers
matched all other funding requests represented in Table 2 above. Concerned by
testimony that it received from DOD regarding aircraft shortfalls, the committee
requires (Sec. 171) that DOD annually submit a long-term plan for procuring tactical
aircraft so that Congress can make rational judgements about which aircraft programs
to fund.

---