Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DoD Buzz: How To Reduce Navy Fighter Gap: CBO

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-04-10 06:49 AM
Original message
DoD Buzz: How To Reduce Navy Fighter Gap: CBO
Edited on Fri Jun-04-10 07:07 AM by unhappycamper



How To Reduce Navy Fighter Gap: CBO
By Greg Grant Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010 3:39 pm
Posted in Air, Naval, Policy

There is a pretty wide divergence out there on how big the much discussed Navy-Marine Corps strike fighter gap may turn out to be.

The Navy’s head of aviation programs, Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, recently told reporters that his worst case projections put the shortfall at about 177 aircraft peaking in 2017.

Yet, by tweaking “mitigation levers” — which includes how long older versions of the F-18 continue to fly, the delivery rate of new Super Hornets, how soon F-35s can begin to roll off the production line in large numbers and the demand from combatant commanders for carrier strike – that shortfall can be reduced to about 100 aircraft, he said.

Even that potential shortfall is nothing to get excited about, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a speech earlier this month: “Should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds?”

Not surprisingly, lawmakers disagree, both with the Navy’s numbers and Gates’ dismissal of the gap. In their write up in the 2011 defense budget, the House Armed Service Committee said the Navy’s strike fighter gap could be as large as 250 aircraft by 2017. In order to reduce the looming shortfall, the HASC moved money from other accounts in the budget to add eight more F-18 E/F Super Hornets to the bill.



unhappycamper comment: One of the best replies in the discussion following the thread:

"Sadly, decreasing the very expensive carrier force isn’t one of the options."


BTW, that new Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier? Best case estimate for what that bad boy will cost us is eleven point five billion dollars ($11,500,000,000) sans people, weapons and airplanes. That's an expensive target barge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-04-10 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Buy a Carrier, buy a Carrier Group.
So, who are we going to fight with all of this firepower, the Taliban?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC