|
|
|
Subject:
The Growing Air Power Fighter Gap
mustang22
7/7/2009 11:05:32 PM
|
| Since World War II, the U.S. military has used air power as a decisive force multiplier to prevail in peacetime and in combat. In fact, "American ground forces have not come under attack from enemy air forces since the Korean War."[1] Usually, the military with the best and most fighter aircraft achieves air superiority (control of the airspace over the operational zone).
Accordingly, Air Force leaders consider their air superiority mission their second highest priority, behind only nuclear deterrence.[2] The U.S. military has consistently gone one step further by establishing air supremacy, in which "the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference."[3] The Air Force attains air supremacy by destroying an enemy's ability to fight in the air. Indeed, the U.S. military's strength and capacity to shape the outcome of military operations depend heavily on the country's fighter aircraft.
No foreign nation or new advanced fighter platform poses an immediate threat to America's air power. Rather, President Barack Obama's fiscal year (FY) 2010 defense budget request is jeopardizing U.S. dominance in the air. The request continues the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program but would end production of the F-22A Raptor at 187 fighters and retire 250 of the oldest fighters.[4] This would not produce sufficient new fighters to replace the legacy planes as they retire from service.
Inadequate funding to replace the legacy fighter fleets, which have worn out faster than anticipated and are nearing the end of their service lives, constitutes the greatest dilemma for the services. Also problematic is the potential lack of funding for research and development for future upgrades of the latest U.S. fighters or for initial development of a sixth-generation fighter.
As the FY 2010 defense authorization and appropriations bills move through Congress, Membersshould provide additional funding to acquire enough new aircraft to replace the legacy fighters with additional fourth-generation and fifth-generation fighters. Congress needs to ensure that the nation maintains a substantial deterrent and should add funding for robust research and development of future upgrades to the latest U.S. fighter aircraft and for the development of a sixth-generation fighter.
The Growing Fighter Gap
Members of Congress and Department of Defense (DOD) officials have warned for years of an impending "fighter gap" and its implications for U.S. national security. A fighter gap is essentially a deficit between the services' fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements based on emerging and possible air threats to U.S. security.
In April 2008, Lieutenant General Daniel Darnell testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Air Force could have a requirement gap of over 800 fighters by 2024.[5] However, after release of the President's FY 2010 budget, Air Force leaders announced a combat Air Force restructuring plan to "eliminate excessive overmatch in our tactical fighter force and consider alternatives in our capabilities."[6] Instead of seeking to address the projected fighter gap, the Air Force plans to accelerate the retirement of 250 legacy fighters, including 112 F-15s and 134 F-16s. The Air Force believes it can save $3.5 billion over the next five years and reinvest those funds to reduce current capability gaps. However, budgetary restrictions--not a changing threat environment--appear to be driving this fundamental shift in security policy.
During the same hearing, Rear Admiral Allen Myers projected a "most-optimistic" deficit of 125 strike fighters for the Department of the Navy, including 69 aircraft for the U.S. Navy and 56 for the Marine Corps.[7] This projected gap, set to peak around 2017, was considered optimistic because it assumed that the service life of F/A-18 Hornets could be extended from 8,000 flight hours to 10,000. The original service life was 6,000 flight hours.
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report in April 2009 unveiled a potentially larger gap, citing a briefing to House Armed Services Committee staffers in which the Navy projected that its strike fighter shortfall could grow to 50 aircraft by FY 2010 and 243 by 2018 (129 Navy and 114 Marine Corps fighters).[8] However, in a move that emphasized lingering disagreement among the White House, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and Congress, a senior Pentagon planner reportedly claimed on April 7, 2009, during a private briefing with lawmakers that the Pentagon's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation had concluded there was no Navy strike fighter shortfall.[9]
The data on available fighters did not change between April 2008 and April 2009, but the Pentagon is now dangerously altering its policy as if it had. This move reflects Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates's desire to "reform" and "balance" Pentagon priorities by accepting more risk in the conventional mi |
| |
|
|
|
