Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Fighter Gap: Myth or Reality?
GlobalSecurity.org ^ | September 29, 2009 | Mackenzie Eaglen

Posted on 10/14/2009 5:39:43 AM PDT by myknowledge

Many senior members of the U.S. military, defense officials, members of Congress, and analysts have long-warned of the growing fighter gap facing the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps 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.

At a hearing just last year, defense officials testified projecting 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. 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. At the same hearing, the Air Force was projected to also have a requirement gap of over 800 fighters by 2024.

A Congressional Research Service report in April 2009 unveiled a potentially larger gap, citing a briefing 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).

Yet, at a recent conference hosted by the Air Force Association, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates dismissed talk of the fighter gap as "nonsense."

Military Requirements and Current Inventory

The U.S. achieves and maintains air superiority and supremacy with fighters from the Air Force, the Navy's aircraft carriers, and the Marines' carrier-based and land-based air wings. Typically, a fighter force is superior to any potential opponent if it has at least the following three elements: Technically superior aircraft, including flight performance (speed, range, and maneuverability), avionics (sensors, navigation systems, computers, sensor fusion, data displays, communications, electronic support measures), and armament. Numerical sufficiency. Exceptionally trained pilots and crews and an adequate pool of replacements and well-trained new pilots.

The modern battlefield demands that multi-mission combat aircraft perform air-to-air combat; air-to-ground strike missions with precision-guided bombs and autonomous cruise missiles; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions.

Fifth-generation fighters are also highly effective in irregular warfare and counterinsurgency operations. In addition to carrying large payloads and operating over vast areas, such as Afghanistan, fifth-generation fighters can better coordinate attacks against insurgent forces by sharing the same tactical picture through data links and tracking moving ground targets with their active electronically scanned array radar. Using sensor fusion capability to integrate targeting information from their own sensors and other sources into a single tactical picture, the F-22 and F-35 can more accurately identify and target enemy forces. This also helps to reduce casualties from friendly fire and collateral damage.

Foreign Capabilities

To fully assess the implications of the widening U.S. fighter gap, Congress must consider the future capabilities of states that may potentially challenge U.S. fighter aircraft in the coming decades as fifth-generation fighters become the mainstay of the future force and legacy aircraft retire. These capabilities include foreign advanced attack aircraft, jammers, infrared search and tracking sensors, ultra long-range missiles, surface-to-air missiles, radar detection, anti-stealth technologies, and electronic warfare.

Twenty years after the Cold War, new regional military powers and former peer competitors are expanding their military capabilities. Regional powers, such as China and possibly Iran, are acquiring Russian air superiority and multirole fighters based on the Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker family. Closer to home, Venezuela is aggressively expanding its air force.

Russia and China

Russia is fielding the Su-34 Fullback strike aircraft, which is based on the Su-27 Flanker and can carry supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles and short-range air-to-air missiles for self-defense. The Russian Air Force plans to field 58 by 2015 and 300 by 2022. The Russian Air Force also has a requirement of about 300 Sukhoi PAK FA fifth-generation fighters. However, Russia appears to be planning for a production run of 500 to 600, which most likely includes planned exports. Russia also appears to be in the early stages of developing a sixth-generation fighter.

China has ordered an estimated 76 Su-30MKK Flanker-Gs and can produce an additional 250 under license, including at least 100 "knock-down kits." It has also received at least 24 Su-30MK2 naval strike fighters. If China modernizes its 171 Su-27SK/UBs to the Su-27SKM standard and assembles another 105 Su-27SKMs under license, it will have roughly 626 multirole fighters available for air superiority missions. This would place China in the same league as the U.S., which has 522 F-15A/B/C/Ds, 217 F-15Es and a planned fleet of 187 F-22s. China is also developing a stealth fifth-generation fighter, variously identified the J-X. It may also benefit from information allegedly stolen on the "design and electronics systems" of the F-35 Lightning II.

Future of the U.S. Fighter Force

The President's proposed FY 2010 budget would diminish U.S. fighter capability. The President has proposed reducing acquisitions of fifth-generation fighters and limiting their upgrades. If Congress complies, the U.S. will risk falling behind internationally and in the technological race for air power. Congress and the President would do well to remember how France, despite having pioneered the use of military aircraft, tanks, and motor transport in World War I, had fallen behind Germany by the beginning of World War II.

Large production runs of air superiority fourth-plus-generation fighters equipped with fifth-generation technology, such as the Su-35BM in Russia and China, could put the U.S. Air Force with its fewer numbers of F-22s and an aging F-15C fleet at a serious disadvantage. History and the ongoing technological arms race suggest that it would be dangerous for the U.S. to assume that the F-22 will have no equal and thus have a decisive advantage over any other fighter aircraft for the next 20 years.

The President's 2010 defense budget request would eliminate one of the two remaining fifth-generation fighter production lines. This would severely limit the options available to Congress if it wants to restart production at some later date. The cost to the taxpayer would also be much higher than if production continues. Finally, the nation would permanently lose many highly skilled aerospace designers and engineers if they are laid off.

Specifically, the U.S. should:

Purchase additional F-22s in 2010. Russia's state-run military industrial base is focusing on producing advanced fifth-generation fighters with some nearly sixth-generation capabilities. Given the U.S. military's global commitments, the 187 F-22s will likely operate in the different theaters, all but ensuring that they will be outnumbered in any potential engagement. Congress should appropriate funds to buy at least the full initial order of 286 F-22s to ensure air superiority over the next two decades, beginning with a purchase of 20 F-22s in FY 2010.

Encourage sales of F-22 allied variant to Japan and Australia. It would provide U.S. allies with the most advanced fighter on the market, increase their interoperability with U.S. forces, reinforce America's hedging strategy in the Pacific, and keep the production line open while reducing the unit cost.

Research viability of building a strike variant of F-22. The FB-22 has a greater bomb load capacity than the F-35, could replace the F-15E, and carry out many missions currently performed by the B-1 and B-2 strategic bombers. The FB-22 could also then become a platform to introduce operational sixth-generation fighter technology. Congress should direct a Pentagon study on the viability of pursuing the FB-22 this year.

Immediately begin research and development of a sixth-generation fighter. Sixth-generation technologies may include a flying wing with morphic wings that deflect and minimize its radar signature and a visual stealth structure that would use micro cameras to take on the appearance of the sky and the ground to make it invisible.

Conclusion

Congress needs to examine carefully whether the planned numbers of new and modernized fighters in the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps inventories will meet service and operational requirements. Careful scrutiny is required given the reported structural problems caused by the stress of combat operations, the current and planned numbers of fifth-generation fighters, and the scheduled phase out of legacy fighters. In the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review process, Congress and the Pentagon should carefully examine the inherent capabilities and qualities of each model of fighter to verify that it can fulfill these requirements and defeat the technological challenges that may be posed by future challengers. Congress must ensure that the U.S. military maintains both its technological edge and adequate numbers of aircraft to maintain U.S. air superiority well into the 21st century.


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: aerospace; f22; f35; fightergap; thinkwalmart; usaf

Su-35S Flanker-E

Su-30MKK Flanker-G

Su-34 Fullback

Su-27SM Flanker-B

Shenyang J-14

Chengdu J-10B

Sukhoi Su-50 PAK FA

Only one plane can counter all these air threats:

F-22 Raptor!


1 posted on 10/14/2009 5:39:43 AM PDT by myknowledge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

What’s the difference between a fifth generation and sixth generation fighter?


2 posted on 10/14/2009 5:47:44 AM PDT by jslade (People that are easily offended OFFEND ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
Only one plane can counter all these air threats:

Sure. You must devour the kool-aid served up by the George Costanza school of ACM:

"Remember men, you're invincible as long as you believe you're invincible."


3 posted on 10/14/2009 5:52:25 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jslade
Fifth generation jet fighter

The F-22 Raptor, manufactured by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, is the first and only 5th generation fighter in operational service. It will be followed by the F-35 Lightning II and Russia's Su-50 PAK FA.

A sixth generation fighter is a proposed successor to a fifth generation fighter and the first ones would enter service between 2025-2030. They would most likely be unmanned and/or autonomous.

4 posted on 10/14/2009 6:08:21 AM PDT by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
U.S. Fighter Gap: Myth or Reality?

Let's not find out the hard way.

5 posted on 10/14/2009 6:10:04 AM PDT by TonyInOhio (I hate Illinois Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Stealth: the “medicine shirt” of modern air combat?


6 posted on 10/14/2009 6:28:08 AM PDT by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
An F-22 got shot down once.

It's junk!

*pffft*

You don't know what you're talking about, FRiend.

7 posted on 10/14/2009 6:32:26 AM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

Is this a Lockheed commercial?


8 posted on 10/14/2009 6:40:29 AM PDT by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
C'mon A.A., use the EA-18G Growler nose art picture! Sheesh.


9 posted on 10/14/2009 7:07:28 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Joe Wilson speaks for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
Large production runs of air superiority fourth-plus-generation fighters equipped with fifth-generation technology, such as the Su-35BM in Russia and China, could put the U.S. Air Force with its fewer numbers of F-22s and an aging F-15C fleet at a serious disadvantage.

Thanks for posting this. If you like numbers, look up the number of aircraft we've used in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, then look at what we have now.

Those conflicts are significant, because unlike our recent and current wars in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, we had to contend not only with surface to air defenses, but also with other fighters. Consider the likely aircraft losses we'd suffer if we fought a similar war today.

For what it's worth, "expert" Juan McCain also supported canceling the F-22 program. Maybe if it had been a Navy fighter he wouldn't have? Hard to say where his loyalties lie, if he has any.

10 posted on 10/14/2009 7:11:09 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

Great pictures!


11 posted on 10/14/2009 7:12:58 AM PDT by LuvFreeRepublic (Support Our Military or Leave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
What saves US lives is being so superior that the other side's air force doesn't even try taking off to oppose us, or runs for the border (eg, Sadaam's air force)

Without air supremacy, we stand to lose a LOT of men in any conflict with a first-rate power (China, the way they're shaping up)

12 posted on 10/14/2009 7:25:44 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
And he overlooks the fact that out of 10000+ MiG-21 Fishbeds being built, hundreds were shot down in various conflicts e.g. Vietnam and the Middle East and he dares to call it junk? (although this is off topic)The MiG-21 is still a useful plane five decades after its first flight, wouldn't you believe that. Also, the F-15 Eagle (A, B, C & D variants) had scored 108 kills for NO losses in A2A combat. That's right, 108 kills for NO losses. And would he dare call it junk? No way. As technology progresses and evolves, we want to be on the leading edge of it, for gaining air dominance.
13 posted on 10/14/2009 7:38:33 AM PDT by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zot

fighter ping


14 posted on 10/14/2009 8:11:30 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

Are we honestly willing to even RISK going into a conflict as second best?

Is our leadership really that stupid? To even RISK it when we don’t need to?


15 posted on 10/14/2009 1:49:14 PM PDT by DNME (All your rights end when the next "national emergency" begins!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Thanks for the ping. There is no substitute for air superiority.


16 posted on 10/14/2009 7:43:40 PM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge; PapaBear3625; TChris; DNME; zot; GreyFriar
Also, the F-15 Eagle (A, B, C & D variants) had scored 108 kills for NO losses in A2A combat. That's right, 108 kills for NO losses.

On the 108:0 record ...it is 100% true, but I have concerns (note: my concerns stem from the fact that I am a fund manager by profession, and when it comes to reporting performance it is very necessary to ensure - to attribute - where your outperformance of the market is stemming from. As in, is it due to my skill as a manager, or is it due to 'luck' or because the market is rising or because of other factors that are not due to my active management).

Thus, when I see the Eagle having such an amazing record, obviously questions have to be asked. Why is that so? Furthermore, I also have to look at who the foe was. Then, I have to look at whether if things were reversed if the outcome would be different.

On the first one, why did the Eagle have such a remarkable record? Well, it was a superior plane to the airframes flown by our foes (i.e. better in virtually every conceivable metric). Furthermore, our pilots were by far superior to the poor souls sent up by the enemy. Then you have to consider the massive support system (e.g. AWACs and situational awareness) that the F-15 enjoyed, leading to the ability to see first and shoot first. Then there were other attributes (including some interesting ones like our side not only having a qualitative advantage, but ALSO a quantitative advantage ...the allied airforces in GW1 for instance had far more air assets compared to the Iraqi side). Thus, the inherent strengths of the airframe, coupled by the superior training and support/complimentary systems, contrasted against the poor pilot training, and monkey-model versions, of the adversary, led to our dominance of the skies.

The second one on the foe is also straight forward. An inept adversary in terms of pilot skills and combat doctrine, flying planes that were easily not the best of what was available (in many cases not even capable of true BVR - against the USAF which concentrates in the BVR arena), did not have an AWACS ability, had armament that was not the best (even though one of their MiG-25s did manage to shoot down a F/A-18), and were not even jamming our BVR shots. Basically, the opponent was weak!

Now, the third question is the interesting one. What if we exchanged aircraft. For instance, instead of us having F-15Cs for air superiority, we had the latest (at the time) SU-27. Instead of us having our AWACs, we had the Russian analogue (based on the A-50 plane). Instead of the AMRAAM, we had the AMRAAM-ski, and instead of the Aim-9 we had the Archer. On the other side, instead of flying MiG-29s and 21s, let's say they had F-16As (with no real BVR) and F-104 StarFighters. Our pilots are still very well trained, just flying Russian planes. The Iraqi pilots are still poorly trained, just flying old-model US planes. Thus, everything remains the same ...just the source of the machines used. So, what happens then?

Anyways, I am not taking away anything from the amazing record posted by the Eagle. But I do wonder what would happen in a total air war against a near-peer adversary (say, China) who had technology that, while significantly less advanced than our bleeding edge technology, still had some teeth. An adversary whose pilot training, while no where near what our pilots go through, has still improved significantly (even if you compare it with where it was 9 years ago). An adversary whose doctrine, while not as honed and refined as ours, has drastically improved both in its efficacy, as well as has been oriented towards meeting a better adversary (e.g. instead of engaging the fighters first, first getting the AWACS and refueling planes with ultra-long range missiles; or saturing the air bases with ballistic missile attacks). An adversary who has invested a lot in jamming capability so as to erode on what for a couple of decades had been seen as a major advantage on our side (i.e. BVR warfare). And, finally, an adversary who, even though still lagging in the qualitative arena, has a major advantage in the quantitative arena (i.e. having very many 4th gen, and a couple hundred 4+ gen, aircraft vs our side that has significantly fewer assets that can be based near that theater of war, and even though we have 5th gen airframes they would be grossly outnumbered, with bases that can be attacked by saturated BM attacks and refueling planes and AWACS that can be attacked ....and the foe also now has AWACs for itself). I am not saying we would lose ...I think we would win the battles ...it is just that there would be combat losses on our side, and you can be certain those losses would be used by the Left and the 'Weeping Masses' (TM) back in the US to castrate the war-effort (just like Viet Nam). A good case I like to give is what would happen if a couple of 'leakers,' say Yakhont-type missiles fired by China (from whatever platform, be it ship, plane or some D-E sub sitting like a manned mine and firing a Klub-type missile), managed to sink an AEGIS ship with all hands? The outcry back home would be interesting, and bad for the war effort. I am sure China saw what happened when some Somalis with RPGs managed to bring down TWO BLACKHAWK HELICOPTERS and killed some very brave US soldiers ...the US withdrew. Thus, I wonder what would happen if a Burke went down. Many people talk about aircraft carriers, but that's thinking too far. Even a saturation attack on Kadena, or the sinking of a Destroyer, would be far more than enough (given that 50% of the population lost its collective balls).

Going back to topic, great record for the F-15. However, it is good to look at why that record is so great, because maybe next time we will not be facing an opponent flying F-104 Starfighters ...erm ...I mean MiG-21s and the like.

Seeing the way fighters like the Raptor are getting cancelled, and how some people (even some here) claim that all is needed are A-10s, makes me realize that someday we will face a near-peer that, even if/when we defeat them, will teach us a lessor writ in blood - American.

17 posted on 10/15/2009 5:27:20 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

Dead U.S. pilots and dead ground troops and sailors are the last thing they need as a result of a nation-state war with the PRC.

Also, compare the media censorship policies of WWII and Korea with that of the current wars in Afghanistan & Iraq. Why aren’t they strictly censored by the government to prevent sensitive information leaked to the enemy?

One other thing: If a nation-state war breaks out, how quickly do you think F-22 Raptors can be replaced? Certainly not at WWII quantities. This jet is too advanced and too expensive. Unless we’d have to commit all of the 1st FW and 3d Wing F-22 Raptors to the Pacific to augment the 18th Wing F-15 Eagles in case of a war for air superiority breaks out against the Chicoms.


18 posted on 10/15/2009 6:15:06 AM PDT by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Going back to topic, great record for the F-15. However, it is good to look at why that record is so great, because maybe next time we will not be facing an opponent flying F-104 Starfighters ...erm ...I mean MiG-21s and the like.

Seeing the way fighters like the Raptor are getting cancelled, and how some people (even some here) claim that all is needed are A-10s, makes me realize that someday we will face a near-peer that, even if/when we defeat them, will teach us a lessor writ in blood - American.

In the skies over North Vietnam, the MiG/US ratio was just 2:1, i.e. in air-to-air battles, we lost 1 for every 2 MiGs we shot down. Our pilot losses were worse, because the MiG pilots were able to bail out over friendly territory, while our pilots could not.

The Chinese can afford to trade multiple planes for each of ours for as long as it takes for us to give up. They have the manufacturing capacity to crank out war materials in heavy volume, and the dollars to pay for it if they choose to. We don't anymore. We don't have the manufacturing capacity, and we don't have the funds. When they choose to build up their forces to war levels, we will not have the resources to match them.

19 posted on 10/15/2009 6:46:18 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson