Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'

[tigershark]

Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
The U.S. Navy is mulling proposals to bridge a "strike fighter gap" next decade by buying more F/A-18 E/F fighters or delaying the naval version of F-35 Lightning II, and that's worrying other Joint Strike Fighter customers.  "The Navy is definitely looking at another buy of F-18s and both accelerating or slowing down F-35, and we have run some numbers to help them answer their questions," said Air Force Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis, the F-35 program executive officer. "Any time there is a discussion of a service or country pulling out airplanes from the program, the other service leaderships get very concerned. But we have told the Navy that buying them sooner at greater rates gives you a lower cost and more capability on your decks than any other buying profile." Navy leaders say they're fully committed to the JSF, but are facing a "strike fighter gap" between 2016 and 2025 as F/A-18 jets are retired but before the JSFs come on line, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, told lawmakers.   To fill the gap, the Navy is looking at options that include upgrading some older planes to delay their retirements, buying from 50 to 282 more F-18s, and either speeding or delaying JSF.   Navy leaders worry that upgrading older F-18s may not make financial sense. Yet buying more JSFs earlier may be tough, because initial batches of the more capable Lockheed Martin jet will cost more than Boeing's F-18.
If the Navy eliminates the 25 carrier versions that it plans to buy each year for a decade, that "will increase the cost of the other planes that are being bought in those years," Davis said. "If you take hundreds of airplanes out of the program, of course the unit prices go up."
Moreover, a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that the roughly $1 trillion program is more than $38 billion over budget and could be 27 months behind schedule.
Davis rejects the GAO's findings, and said the program is achieving its milestones.
The Navy pushed back vigorously on any suggestion that its support of the JSF program was shaky.
"For the record, we stand by JSF," said Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon. "It will bring enhanced capabilities to the fight and is the future strike fighter for the Navy and the joint force, and we stand by it."
Maj. Gen. Davis agreed the Navy isn't being "subversive" about its commitment to the program, but simply faces a money crunch.
"They have a very tough economic argument," JSF's Davis said. "It depends on how quickly they see F-18s falling out of service. … There is no doubt if we make the numbers match, the Navy would be on F-35 a lot faster.
"I don't agree with the premise they don't like the airplane. I believe they are honorable."
The JSF, which was recently reviewed by the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), is expected to receive approval to begin its second Low Rate Initial Production phase.
Maj. Gen. Davis declined to comment on the DAB review. He said, however, that based on new calculations, the projected cost of the carrier variant has dropped 3 percent.
The Navy, the only apparent customer for the carrier variant, intends to buy about 25 aircraft annually starting in 2014. Current service plans call for buying a total of 360 of the carrier variant and 320 of the short-takeoff and -landing (STOVL) variant for the Marine Corps.
Meanwhile, the Navy has bought 332 F-18 Super Hornets and plans to buy another 161. And Boeing has just introduced a new version of the F-18, dubbed the 4.75 version, and is eager to land more Navy and international orders.

Full story
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS

[RecceJet]

A newer version than the E/F/G? Interesting!

[tigershark]

I saw this before Block-III Hornet a perfect lead in aircraft for some future bid but I can't find it.  I'm at work but I know there's an article about this I remember it and saying sounds like a Boeing sale pitch.   I think the Navy doing the right thing in a way and making sure out of there two options at least one can be bought and fielded.   For an aircraft most people hated it seems to lasting a long time and doing well maybe the Block-III frame will grow into a F-15 size with engines and fuel load to match. 

Lockheed is getting a little trash talk in this other forum I don't know enough about them or really the building or construction part of the industry,to say anything about them.   

[WRCKid]

Do we know what the other JSF costumers are looking to purchase as an interim fighter? Australia has opted to go with the Super Hornet, the RN? RNLAF?, etc?

[Globetrotter]

Well I have an idea! Take those F-14s back right now!!!!!!!!!

[Webmaster]

Do we know what the other JSF costumers are looking to purchase as an interim fighter? Australia has opted to go with the Super Hornet, the RN? RNLAF?, etc?

I think Australia has been the only export customer that has a gap to fill or has actually realized it will exist. The RN's gap is caused by early retirement of the Sea Harrier, which was a defence spending decision, air defense frigates filling the fleet air defence gap, the RAF Harrier force is being put through probably its final upgrade and now merged with the RN to form the Joint Harrier Force. So Harrier GR.7/9s operating from the carriers now. As far as the UK is concerned, there's no need for an interim. And the new carriers aren't ready before the JSF arrive anyway.

RNLAF is putting the F-16 through the last one or two stages of the MLU upgrade. There's not really a gap in fighter capability for now, actually between now and 2015 I think about 20-30 F-16s may be taken off charge before there's any gap. If sales + crashes will exceed that number there will be a gap in the future, but not so big that it justifies an interim right now (other NATO partners might just fill in for our F-16s around the world). If JSF gets delayed though, we'll have a gap. Unlike Australia it seems the RNLAF is not too concerned about it, maybe we'll end up lending F-16s from someone. Personally, I'd love to see an interim, as it would finally and crystal-clear justify all my concerns about betting all our money on the JSF.

Other partners have bigger as well as younger/alternative fleets to cope with any delays. (Turkey, Israel, Singapore, Italy) And Denmark, Norway, Canada don't seem too concerned about having less aircraft in future, so I don't see them needing an interim either. Having said, Denmark and Norway are really taking their alternatives serious.

They'd all be looking at surplus US F-16s though as interim, not S. Hornets, especially not a tricked-out expensive version. With the exception of Canada, maybe, but I don't think its government is concerned at all about their jets. It can do good in the competitions though, I can see some Eastern European country, Middle-Eastern country and maybe an Asian going for it, if offered at the right price. But at the moment, I think their biggest opportunity abroad is Switzerland.

[Webmaster]

maybe the Block-III frame will grow into a F-15 size with engines and fuel load to match. 

There's little info on it in the article, but "dubbed the 4.75 version", it kinda tells me it's mostly weapons, avionics, software upgrades and maybe some uprated engines and RAM edges, but not a radical new version, otherwise they'd call it something more exciting.

I hope this is a sign of Boeing becoming more pro-active towards the fighter market. Offering a new version based on opportunity recognition instead of waiting for customers to express their demands. Taking a bit of a risk! Might finally give them an edge over LM!