How To Reduce Navy Fighter Gap: CBOBy 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.