I guess the degree of "horror" involved actually depends on who you ask, but here's an interesting summary of the issue that came out last month from Congressional Research Service regarding the issue:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/crsf-18shortfa-apr09.pdf
It's a great datapoint of the current baseline acquisition plan for E/Fs and JSFs through FY13, but what it really does is lay out the growing gap between operational requirements and on-hand aircraft. According to these figures, there is a 15 a/c shortfall this year, and this will grow to a peak of 243 a/c by FY18 - well within the career paths of a lot of folks on this board. So, if you have an abiding interest in "what percent get jets", this might be a worthwhile read...
Interestingly, this gap is apparently twice the size of what the Navy forecast at this time last year - apparently, the Navy was betting they could extend Hornet service life to 10K hours, but now only believe they can get to 8.6K hrs. It also assumes that JSF production rates will ramp up to forecast rates without issue; if they don't, the gap could become larger.
The author states that Congress essentially has the following options:
• request further information and analysis from DON and/or industry concerning the potential size of the shortfall;
• fund service life extensions of Hornets to as much as 10,000 hours, if such extensions prove feasible and cost effective;
• increase planned procurement of F/A-18E/Fs in coming years;
• increased planned procurement of F-35s in coming years; and
• expedited procurement of a new long-range bomber.
(You can guess who is pitching the last option...)
As an aside, this is an interesting read because, like just about all CRS reports, it is designed to be agnostic to any specific course of action - the authors try and do a Joe Friday / "just the facts, ma'm". Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't - but IMO this one does a decent job.
(In a bizarre twist, the author of this report apparently died last week at age 46. That's hitting a little too close to home...)
http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/crsf-18shortfa-apr09.pdf
It's a great datapoint of the current baseline acquisition plan for E/Fs and JSFs through FY13, but what it really does is lay out the growing gap between operational requirements and on-hand aircraft. According to these figures, there is a 15 a/c shortfall this year, and this will grow to a peak of 243 a/c by FY18 - well within the career paths of a lot of folks on this board. So, if you have an abiding interest in "what percent get jets", this might be a worthwhile read...
Interestingly, this gap is apparently twice the size of what the Navy forecast at this time last year - apparently, the Navy was betting they could extend Hornet service life to 10K hours, but now only believe they can get to 8.6K hrs. It also assumes that JSF production rates will ramp up to forecast rates without issue; if they don't, the gap could become larger.
The author states that Congress essentially has the following options:
• request further information and analysis from DON and/or industry concerning the potential size of the shortfall;
• fund service life extensions of Hornets to as much as 10,000 hours, if such extensions prove feasible and cost effective;
• increase planned procurement of F/A-18E/Fs in coming years;
• increased planned procurement of F-35s in coming years; and
• expedited procurement of a new long-range bomber.
(You can guess who is pitching the last option...)
As an aside, this is an interesting read because, like just about all CRS reports, it is designed to be agnostic to any specific course of action - the authors try and do a Joe Friday / "just the facts, ma'm". Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't - but IMO this one does a decent job.
(In a bizarre twist, the author of this report apparently died last week at age 46. That's hitting a little too close to home...)
