Brought to you by the Center for Defense Information
1500 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20005
(202)862-0700 * Fax (202)862-0708 * http://www.cdi.org
| ISSUE #6 | August 21,1997 |
| ISSUE #6 | August 21,1997 |
Fighter Aircraft: Do We Need "Better Than the Best"?
by Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr., USN (Ret.), Deputy Director,
ecarroll@cdi.org
Today U.S. military forces are supported by an aerial armada of fighter aircraft operated by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
| Type | Service | Number |
|---|---|---|
| F-14 | Navy | 316 |
| F-15 | Air Force | 620 |
| F-16 | Air Force | 809 |
| F/A-18 | Navy/Marine Corps | 705 |
| AV-8 | Marine Corps | 156 |
| F-117 | Air Force | 54 |
| Total | 2,660 |
These numbers tell only part of the story of the capabilities of U.S. fighters. They are enhanced by supporting aircraft which provide early warning and fighter direction services while electronic warfare aircraft jam and deceive enemy detection and fire control systems. Coupled with electronic and infra-red countermeasure systems built into U.S. fighters, both their offensive and defensive capabilities are greatly increased. Beyond any question, existing U.S. fighters can quickly dominate the airspace above any zone of conflict, ashore or at sea.
While some of the basic designs of these six aircraft go back more than 20 years, they have been continuously upgraded with new engines, sensors and weapons. Many are new production or remanufactured models with years of useful service life remaining.
Nevertheless, the highest priority and most costly weapons programs in Pentagon plans are three new fighter planes which were originally proposed to defeat new generations of Soviet fighter aircraft in the 21st Century. A recent Defense Department report, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), recognized that the numbers originally proposed are now excessive given the demise of the Soviet Union. The new program calls for:
| Type | Service | Original Proposal | QDR Proposal | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-22 | Air Force | 438 | 339 | $43.4 billion(1) |
| F/A-18E/F | Navy/Marines | 1,000 | 548 | 40.3 billion(2) |
| JSF | AF/Navy/MC | 3,000 | 2,852 | Undetermined(3) |
Given the historic record of price increases and cost overruns in weapons programs, a realistic estimate of the cost of producing these 3,739 new fighters would be in excess of $300 billion.
There is no existing or foreseeable threat to U.S. air superiority anyplace in the world. Pentagon plans to replace the best fighters in the world (which have already been bought and paid for) with even better new fighters at a cost of $300 billion places the United States in a senseless arms race with itself. No one else is even close!
NOTES:
(1) According to an Air Force General, this estimate was made in about 30
minutes without formal analysis. Earlier estimates for 438 ranged as high
as $85 billion.
(2) Another unrealistic estimate. The original cost reported to Congress
for 1000 F/A-18 E/F aircraft was $80 billion.
(3) No authoritative figure exists but informally the estimate for 3,000
Joint Strike Fighters was originally in the range of $213 billion.
NATO Expansion Cost Studies Just Skimming the Surface
by Tomas Valasek, Research Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org
Yet another federal agency has released a study on the costs of NATO expansion. The General Accounting Office (GAO) joined the fray this week with its "Report to Congressional Requesters: NATO Enlargement - Cost Estimates Developed to Date Are Notional."
The GAO study both criticizes and reinforces the flaws of other existing cost analyses done by the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Defense, and the independent RAND Corporation.
First, as GAO points out "there will also be additional costs associated with subsequent decisions to invite additional countries to join NATO." Current cost studies cover 4 countries at most, whereas 12 nations have applied for NATO membership. Even more are taking part in the Partnership for Peace and have informally indicated their interest in joining the alliance.
How much would such all-out expansion cost? The government cost studies don't really say, which indicates that either the U.S. and NATO are not serious about expanding to "all European democracies" or the U.S. leadership is not honest about NATO expansion's true costs.
Secondly, NATO expansion's impact on the U.S. - Russian relations carries other financial costs. Partly as a result of NATO's push eastward, Russia changed its nuclear doctrine to allow the first use of nuclear weapons. This policy, in turn, would seem to increase U.S. reliance on its own nuclear arsenal. In 1995 alone the U.S. spent $27 billion preparing to fight a nuclear war.
These costs dwarf the direct price tag for NATO expansion. They could have been lowered or eliminated if the U.S. and NATO had chosen a more constructive transatlantic policy instead of expanding NATO while excluding Russia.
NATO expansion has ramifications far outside the alliance. As such, the ultimate cost in financial and security terms may far exceed current estimates. The federal government is doing the American public a disservice by withholding important facts.
The F-14: Teaching an Old "'Cat'" New Tricks
by Chris Hellman, Senior Research Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
The F-14 "Tomcat" has been the Navy's premier air superiority fighter for two decades. With a maximum speed of more than twice the speed of sound, the F-14 can engage as many as six targets at once at ranges of up to 100 nautical miles. There are currently just over 300 F-14s in the Navy's inventory. They will be replaced by the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" as the new aircraft become available.
In the meantime, the Navy has purchased a number of "off-the-shelf" systems to improve the F-14's performance and give it a "strike" capability against ground targets. A recent report by the General Accounting Office found that by purchasing these existing systems, the Navy significantly enhanced F-14 performance at lower cost and in a shorter time than if it had tried to develop entirely new systems.
For example, by purchasing the Air Force's Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) system, the Navy gave the F-14 a 24 hour strike capability about two years earlier than would otherwise have been possible--and at a savings of $200 million.
F-14s also performed well during the Navy's recent SURGEX exercises, during which the Navy ran sorties 24 hours a day for 96 straight hours. According to Rear Admiral John Nathman, commander of the battle group that conducted the exercise, the F-14s "really carr[ied] their load. They can go after some very difficult targets."
The Navy had planned to spend $81 billion to buy 1,000 F/A-18E/F aircraft to replace the F-14 and the A-6 Intruder aircraft. The service also has plans to purchase 600 of the anticipated 2,852 plane production run of the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), a program that could cost the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps over $200 billion. But the Quadrennial Defense Review, released in May, recommended that the F/A-18 E/F purchase be reduced to between 548 and 785, depending on when the JSF becomes available. The continued high performance of the F-14 fleet, however, and its low cost relative to the F/A-18E/F, suggests that Navy ought to reconsider the decision to proceed with the "Super Hornet" program, especially since the last F-14s will remain in service until 2010, three years after the JSF is scheduled to begin production.
(For further information, see GAO's "Navy Aviation: F-14 Modernization Initiatives Should Enhance the Aircraft's Operational Performance" (NSIAD-97-233R) GAO reports can be ordered electronically from the GAO home page at http://www.gao.gov)
The World's Leading Arms Dealer--Again
by David Isenberg, Senior Research Analyst, disenber@cdi.org
In case anyone had a doubt as to who is the world's biggest arms dealer, the Congressional Research Service's (CRS) latest figures, as tabulated in this year's annual "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations" (just released), give the "honor" to (drum roll please) the United States.
According to the CRS figures, in 1996 the United States signed arms transfer agreements with a value of nearly $11.3 billion. This was 35 percent of all such agreements worldwide and was more than the combined total of the next two highest sellers, the United Kingdom and Russia.
In terms of arms deliveries, the United States also ranked first with nearly $13.8 billion or 45.8 percent in such deliveries worldwide. This is the sixth consecutive year that the United States has led in global arms deliveries. This year's figure also is more than the total for the next three highest countries: the U.K., Russia and France, who were tied for third place.
Turning to arms sales to developing countries, where most of the wars take place, the United States also predominated in 1996. In terms of arms transfer agreements with Third World nations, the U.S. total was $7.3 billion, 38 percent of all such agreements and nearly twice as much as Russia, the second biggest seller. This is an increase of over $3 billion from the previous year. In actual arms deliveries to developing nations, the United States again ranked first, delivering arms valued at $9.5 billion, 43 percent of all such deliveries.
Latin America is an example of just how dominant the U.S. is in arms transfers. For years, military contractors have complained that they have been unfairly shut out of the Latin American arms. Yet the CRS figures show that between 1993-1996, the United States ranked first in terms of new arms agreements in this part of the world. The U.S. total of $809 million dollars was 15.8 percent of the market, close to twice as much as Great Britain and Russia who were tied for second place. What is most significant about this statistic is that the U.S. was dominant even before the recent Clinton Administration decision to reverse the previous policy of a presumption against arms sales to the region.
Continuing to supply arms to volatile regions of the world will almost certainly come back to haunt us. In this case being number one is a liability, not an honor.
(To find out more about international arms sales please visit our arms trade database at http://www.cdi.org)
America's Defense Monitor: The Nuclear Threat at Home
Radiation and fallout from nuclear test explosions, and toxic waste generated by nuclear weapons and related facilities continue to menace the United States and its citizens. Currently more than one in four Americans lives within four miles of a toxic waste site. Cleaning up such sites will cost taxpayers at least $230 billion, and could take 50 years or more.
The program features dramatic footage of above-ground nuclear tests and contaminated facilities, interviews with community leaders in areas directly affected by the US government's atomic carelessness, and an eye-opening discussion with former Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary.
If you've ever bit into a Washington apple, or washed down a meal with a glass of tap water, don't miss this half-hour documentary exploring the environmental legacy of the Pentagon's Cold War nuclear buildup.
In the Washington, DC area, America's Defense Monitor airs Sundays at 12:30 PM on WHMM-Channel 32. Outside the DC area, check local listings. VHS copies are also available from the Center for Defense Information and the transcript is available at: http://www.cdi.org/adm/Transcripts/739/
Publisher's Note:
The Weekly Defense Monitor would like to welcome aboard Col. Dan Smith, USA (Ret.) as the new editor of this publication. Dan is an Associate Director here at CDI, and members of our "Peacekeeping Citation List" or our "QDR List" will already be familiar with his fine work. Dan can be emailed with your comments, criticisms, and congratulations at: dsmith@cdi.org