The F/A-18E/F program is the successor to prior unsuccessful attempts to modernize the Navy’s tactical aviation fleet. The Navy’s initial focus was on replacing its high-end A-6 attack aircraft. The programs that were initiated in that regard—the A-12 and then the A/F-X—were eventually canceled. The Navy also initiated studies to upgrade its multirole F/A-18 low-end tactical aircraft. The upgraded F/A-18 effort was designated the F/A-18E/F. At a projected total program cost of $63.09 billion (fiscal year 1996 dollars)/$89.15 billion (then-year dollars) the F/A-18E/F program is one of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) most costly aviation programs. In January 1988, the Navy awarded a fixed-price incentive contract to McDonnell Douglas Aerospace and General Dynamics Corporation to develop the Advanced Tactical Aircraft, later designated the A-12. In June 1988, the Navy and McDonnell Douglas also completed a study, known as Hornet 2000, to study upgrade options to the F/A-18 because of the long development cycle of planned future fighter aircraft. The A-12 was to begin replacing A-6Es in the mid-1990s. The Air Force was also considering a version of the A-12 to replace its high-end F-15E, and F-111 strike aircraft. On January 7, 1991, after making almost $2.7 billion (then-year dollars) in progress payments, the Navy terminated the A-12 program because of technical and cost reasons. Almost immediately after terminating the A-12 program, the Navy requested funding to modernize the F/A-18. A new joint Air Force and Navy program—designated A-X and later A/F-X—was also initiated to replace their high-end attack/strike aircraft with more advanced stealthy aircraft. The A/F-X was to begin fielding a more affordable Navy A-6E replacement aircraft around 2008. The A/F-X program office estimated it would cost $22.8 billion (then-year dollars) to develop the A/F-X and $50 million to $100 million to procure each aircraft. In 1993, DOD’s Bottom-Up Review concluded that DOD had too many new aircraft programs and that future defense budgets would not support both the F/A-18E/F and the A/F-X program. Therefore, in accordance with the review’s recommendations, the Secretary of Defense announced that the A/F-X advanced tactical aviation program would be canceled, the F/A-18E/F program would continue, and the services’ efforts to field a next generation joint strike fighter aircraft would be pursued through a Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program. The family of three common aircraft that is to ultimately result from the JAST effort is called the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The three JSF variants are intended to be (1) a first-day-of-the-war, survivable strike fighter aircraft to complement the F/A-18E/F for the Navy, (2) an advanced short-takeoff and vertical-landing aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 for the Marine Corps, and (3) a multirole aircraft (primary air-to-ground) to replace the Air Force F-16 and A-10 aircraft. In May 1992, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition approved the Navy’s Milestone IV, Major Modification F/A-18E/F. A $5.783 billion (fiscal year 1996 dollars)/$5.803 billion (then-year dollars) F/A-18E/F development estimate was based on the combined cost to develop the airframe and the engine and to pay other government costs. The airframe development contract was awarded to McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, with Northrop Grumman Corporation as the prime subcontractor. McDonnell Douglas makes the forward fuselage, the wings, and the aft wing/horizontal stabilizers. Northrop Grumman makes the forward center fuselage, the aft center and aft fuselage sections, and the aft fuselage vertical tail sections. The Navy has contracted with General Electric Corporation to develop the F/A-18E/F’s engine. The engine will be provided to McDonnell Douglas Aerospace as a government-furnished item. Most of the avionics development costs for F/A-18E/F are not included in the E/F’s development cost estimate. As of December 31, 1995, the Navy had spent about $3.75 billion on the development phase of the F/A-18E/F program. Initial operational capability of the F/A-18E/F is scheduled for 2000, and fielding of the first operational carrier-based squadron is scheduled for 2003. Procurement of 1,000 aircraft for the Navy and the Marine Corps is planned through 2015. We initiated this review because of the magnitude of funds involved in the F/A-18E/F program. We included the F/A-18C/D, F/A-18E/F, and JSF in our review to determine whether continued development of the F/A-18E/F is the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy’s tactical aircraft fleet. In conducting our work, we evaluated data used to justify the F/A-18E/F program. We reviewed various documents, including the Hornet 2000 study; Navy documents such as acquisition reports; the Operational Requirements Document; and related cost, engineering, and test data supporting the decision to develop the F/A-18E/F. This data showed that the F/A-18E/F was approved to correct deficiencies in current F/A-18s that the Navy said existed or were projected to materialize. The F/A-18 deficiencies cited were in range, carrier recovery payload, and survivability. Improvements in F/A-18E/F growth space and payload over the F/A-18C/D were also cited by the Navy in seeking E/F approval. Our specific objectives were to determine whether the operational deficiencies in the F/A-18C/D that the Navy cited in justifying the E/F program have materialized and, if they have, the extent to which the F/A-18E/F would correct them; ascertain whether the F/A-18E/F will provide an appreciable increase in operational capability over the F/A-18C/D; and review the reliability of the cost estimates for the F/A-18E/F and compare those estimates with the costs of potential alternatives to the E/F program. To accomplish these objectives, we acquired data on the current operational capabilities of the F/A-18s and the status of the F/A-18E/F development effort from the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and the builders of the F/A-18s: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Northrop Grumman Corporation, and General Electric Corporation. We obtained various studies, test results, performance data reports and interviewed Navy and contractor officials. Using these data, we conducted various analyses and calculations, which are explained in the appropriate sections of our report, to verify the deficiencies in range, carrier recovery payload and survivability predicted for the C/D, and to ascertain the probability that the E/F would correct those deficiencies. To ascertain whether the F/A-18E/F will provide an appreciable increase in operational capability over the F/A-18C/D we focused on payload capacity and growth potential. These areas were also cited by the Navy in justifying the E/F program. We interviewed Navy and contractor officials and reviewed data from contractor studies, system specifications, and Navy reports. We evaluated the Navy’s projections that indicated that the C/D would have no growth potential to accommodate future avionics requirements. We also compared the weapons capacity of the C/D with the potential capacity of the E/F. Additional information concerning F/A-18C/D operational deficiencies and the need for the E/F was obtained from documents and interviews with officials from the Center for Naval Analysis and the Defense Intelligence Agency. To evaluate the validity of the F/A-18E/F procurement cost estimates, we examined the assumptions on which the estimates were based in terms of numbers of aircraft to be procured and the number of aircraft to be produced each year. We made these analyses because the Congress and DOD have expressed concerns in the past that the Navy’s assumptions were not realistic, given the probable limited availability of annual funding. To make this evaluation, we acquired data and interviewed officials in the Naval Warfare’s Aviation Requirements and Aviation Inventory directorates, and the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff For Aviation within the Marine Corps. We obtained procurement cost data provided to the Congress in the annual Selected Acquisition Report and aircraft inventory data used by the Navy to calculate the E/F’s projected procurement cost, which is based on a combined Navy and Marine Corps buy of 1,000 aircraft. From this data, we developed and then compared F/A-18C/D and E/F recurring flyaway cost projections. We also compared projected E/F operational and cost projections with those of the JAST JSF. This information was acquired from the JAST program office, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (their Marine Corps Short-Takeoff Vertical Landing Strike Fighter effort was combined with JAST), and the contractor teams working on the JSF effort. The contractors are a consortium of McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Northrop Grumman Corporation, and British Aerospace; Boeing Corporation; and Lockheed Martin Corporation. We obtained the contractors’ and the JAST program office’s estimates for the future JSF and calculated the cost of continuing procurement of the F/A-18C/D in lieu of proceeding with the F/A-18E/F program. Our methodology for calculating comparative costs for the C/D and E/F programs is explained in detail in appendix I where we present those cost comparisons. DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report. The comments are presented and evaluated in their entirety in appendix III. We conducted our review from December 1994 through December 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The F/A-18E/F is intended to replace current F/A-18C/D aircraft and to perform Navy and Marine Corps fighter escort, strike, fleet air defense, and close air support missions. The current F/A-18C/Ds have proven their value to the battle commander by providing the capability to perform diverse missions and excellent payload flexibility under dynamic wartime conditions. However, the Navy stated that in order to maintain a superior level of combat performance into the 21st century, the F/A-18 will require increased range, increased carrier recovery payload, and improved survivability. Our review determined that: The Navy’s F/A-18 strike range requirements can be met by either the F/A-18E/F or F/A-18C/Ds. The increased range of the E/F is achieved at the expense of aerial combat performance, and even with increased range, each aircraft will still require aerial refueling for low-altitude missions against most targets. F/A-18C carrier recovery payload deficiency has not occurred as the Navy predicted. F/A-18Cs operating in support of Bosnian operations routinely return to the carrier with operational loads that exceed the Navy’s stated carrier recovery payload capability. Although survivability improvements are planned for the F/A-18E/F, the aircraft was not justified to counter threats that could not be countered with existing or improved F/A-18C/Ds. Also, the effectiveness of a survivability improvement planned for the E/F is questionable and might better be attained at less cost with the next generation JSF. The Navy is reporting that F/A-18E/F strike ranges are significantly greater than the specifications require. Those E/F strike range projections are based on a high-altitude mission, which results in increased fuel efficiency and range, whereas the E/F contract stipulates specifications for a low-altitude strike mission. McDonnell Douglas Aerospace data show that the F/A-18C/D can also achieve the E/F’s low-altitude strike range specification if it carried the larger external fuel tanks that are planned to be used on the E/F. Navy data also shows that the C/D, without the larger external tanks, could exceed the target distances stipulated in the E/F system specifications by flying the same high-altitude mission as the E/F. Also, we found that the design changes needed to achieve the F/A-18E/F’s range improvements will adversely affect its aerial combat performance relative to the F/A-18C/D. Should the Navy not be able to fly the more fuel-efficient, high-altitude mission profiles, both the E/F and the C/D will need aerial refueling to reach a majority of targets in many of the likely wartime scenarios that either aircraft would be employed. In justifying the F/A-18E/F, the Navy cited, among other factors, the F/A-18C/D’s inability to perform long-range unrefueled missions against deep, high-value targets. The Navy incorporated major airframe modifications to the F/A-18E/F to increase its long-range strike capability. However, we found that the F/A-18C/D can achieve greater ranges without making modifications to its airframe. These ranges will exceed the F/A-18E/F’s low-altitude range specifications. F/A-18E/F specifications call for the aircraft to have a range of 390 nautical miles while performing low-altitude bombing with four 1,000-pound gravity bombs and using two 480-gallon external fuel tanks. This strike range is 65nm longer than the reported 325nm low-altitude strike range of the F/A-18C/D using two smaller 330-gallon external fuel tanks and carrying four 1,000-pound gravity bombs. The F/A-18E/F will achieve its greater strike range primarily from its greater internal fuel capacity and larger wings, and its larger 480-gallon external fuel tanks. In total, F/A-18E/Fs will carry 980 gallons more fuel (450 gallons external/ 530 gallons internal) than F/A-18C/Ds. The 480-gallon tank planned to be used on the F/A-18E/F uses new filament-winding technology and a toughened resin system to produce a lightweight external fuel tank. It carries 45 percent more fuel than the 330-gallon tank, but its diameter is only 3.1 inches greater and it has the same empty weight as the 330-gallon tank. F/A-18 E/F program officials informed us that the 480-gallon tanks planned for the E/F cannot be carried by the C/D. Furthermore, current Navy operational documents will not allow 480-gallon external tanks on the C/Ds. However, we have identified McDonnell Douglas and Navy studies that state that the larger 480-gallon external fuel tanks can be used on existing F/A-18C/D aircraft. The 1988 Hornet 2000 study, prepared by a team led by the Naval Air System Command with the Center for Naval Analyses and McDonnell Douglas assisting, addressed the issue of carrying larger 480-gallon external fuel tanks on existing F/A-18C/Ds. The study reports that “Range/radius improvements can be achieved with larger external fuel tanks. The 480 gallon fuel tank rather than the 330 gallon can be accommodated on inboard wing stations of all configurations, including the baseline.” “The 480-gallon fuel tank was initially designed for carrier use, but the production version has been modified for use on the Canadian CF-18. Additional testing must be completed to requalify the fuel tank for carrier use and the aft pylon attach point will require strengthening for the carrier environment. The modifications appear to be low risk.” A 1991 McDonnell Douglas report, “480 Gallon External Fuel Tank,” concluded that the 480-gallon external fuel tank can be carried on the F/A-18C/D inboard wing stations for carrier operations. According to the report, use of the 480-gallon tank on the C/D does not require any structural changes to the aircraft and the 480-gallon tank can be used with all weapons qualified for the F/A-18C/D. The report also stated that the new 480-gallon tank increases the multimission capability and flexibility of the F/A-18 fighter. As shown in figure 2.1, the 480-gallon fuel tank extends the C/D strike interdiction range flying low-altitude missions with two external tanks from 325nm to 393nm. This increased range exceeds the 390nm specification range for the F/A-18E/F flying the low-altitude strike mission profile. Range (in nautical miles) E/F strike range specification (390nm) Additionally, the McDonnell Douglas report stated that the 480-gallon tanks increase the deck cycle time of the F/A-18C/Ds configured for a fighter escort mission, to over 3 hours. Also, the report noted that two 480-gallon tanks on the C/D effectively replace three 330-gallon tanks. This gives the mission planner the option to have the C/Ds carry additional weapons, sensors, or fuel on the centerline station. Recent Navy range predictions show that the F/A-18E/F is expected to have a 683nm strike range, carrying two 2,000-pound precision-guided bombs. The Navy plans to achieve this significant range, a range that approaches that planned for the canceled A/F-X program and the Navy’s JAST variant, by flying F/A-18E/F strike missions with the larger 480-gallon tank and using a more fuel-efficient, survivable, and lethal high-altitude mission profile rather than the specified low-altitude profile. However, as shown in figure 2.2, the same Navy predictions show that F/A-18C/D’s strike ranges also increase significantly when flying at high altitudes because of increased fuel efficiency at higher altitudes. According to Navy data, the F/A-18C/D flying at high altitudes with its normal configuration of three 330-gallon external fuel tanks has a range of 566nm—176nm more than the F/A-18E/F’s strike range specification. According to Navy and contractor documents, key factors in determining combat performance of an aircraft are thrust, turn rate, and acceleration. The Navy stated that to maintain the combat performance of the larger and heavier F/A-18E/F relative to the F/A-18C/D, it would develop and incorporate new higher thrust engines. However, program data shows that the range improvements sought by the larger and heavier F/A-18E/F will be achieved at the expense of the aircraft’s combat performance and that the F/A-18E/F’s aerial combat performance in key areas will be inferior to current F/A-18C/Ds. The F/A-18E/F’s larger fuel capacity, due to its larger size, allows the aircraft to achieve greater range than the F/A-18C/Ds. The F/A-18E’s empty weight without fuel and ordinance is about 6,100 pounds heavier than that of the C’s. The E is 4.3 feet longer than the C, and its wing area is 25 percent greater. The F/A-18E can carry about 6,600 more pounds of fuel than the F/A-18C. The F414-GE-400 engine being developed for the E/F by General Electric is designed to provide added thrust to compensate for the added weight of the aircraft and fuel. (See fig. 2.3.) According to program documents, the F414-GE-400 engine generates about 22,000 pounds of uninstalled thrust, a 37.5-percent increase over the F404-GE-400 engine used in the F/A-18A/B and some early F/A-18C/D aircraft. However, technical manuals show that the F/A-18E/F’s F414-GE-400 engine develops only 20,727 pounds of uninstalled thrust. Furthermore, the latest F/A-18C/Ds are equipped with an enhanced version of the F404 engine, known as the F404-GE-402 Enhanced Performance Engine. This new engine that was developed to meet foreign buyers’ requirements for better combat performance has been adopted for Navy use. The enhanced engine increased the uninstalled thrust from 16,000 to 17,754 pounds. Consequently, as shown in table 2.1, the F/A-18E/F has about a 17-percent improvement in uninstalled thrust over the C/Ds fitted with the F404-GE-402 Enhanced Performance Engine, rather than 37.5-percent reported in program documents. This limited improvement in uninstalled thrust, coupled with a much heavier operationally loaded F/A-18E/F, means that the E/F will have less air-to-air combat capability in its sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration than F/A-18C/Ds with the enhanced performance engines. Sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration contribute to an aircraft’s combat performance and survivability by increasing its ability to maneuver in either offensive or defensive modes. Navy data comparing the F/A-18C to the F/A-18E shows the following: At sea level, the F/A-18C’s sustained turn rate is 19.2 degrees per second, while the F/A-18E’s sustained rate is 18 degrees per second. The instantaneous bleed rate of the F/A-18C is 54 knots per second, whereas the F/A-18E will lose 65 knots per second in a turn. At 15,000 feet, the F/A-18C’s sustained turn rate is 12.3 degrees per second, while the F/A-18E’s sustained rate is 11.6 degrees per second. The instantaneous bleed rate of the F/A-18C is 62 knots per second, whereas the F/A-18E will lose 76 knots per second in a turn. Aircraft acceleration affects an aircraft’s combat performance in a number of ways, ranging from how quickly the aircraft can reach its area of operation to its ability to close the gap in air-to-air engagements or to evade air-to-ground missiles. Navy data shows the following: At 5,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.08 Mach in 21 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E will take 52.8 seconds. At 20,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 34.6 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes 50.3 seconds. At 35,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 55.80 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes 64.85 seconds. The F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.6 Mach in 2 minutes 12 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes 3 minutes and 4 seconds. In justifying the low-altitude 390nm strike range specification for the F/A-18E/F, the Navy cited the F/A-18C/D’s shorter strike range (325nm flying the low-altitude mission profiles) and its inability to perform long-range unrefueled missions. Current Navy modeling projects that the F/A-18E/F will have a strike range of 465nm when flying the specified low-altitude mission profile, or 75nm greater than the 390nm development specification. However, the Center for Naval Analysis reported that with these ranges, the F/A-18E/F and F/A-18C/D will both need aerial refueling to reach most targets in two of the most likely wartime scenarios if high-altitude mission profiles are not flown. A 1993 Center for Naval Analysis report indicates that the E/F, even with its range improvement over the F/A-18C/D, would require in-flight refueling to reach a majority of targets in many of the likely wartime scenarios in which the E/F would be employed. The Center’s 1993 report was consistent with its 1989 report that concluded that an upgrade to the F/A-18C/D (now identified as the F/A-18E/F) would probably retain its need for in-flight refueling. Therefore, according to the 1989 report, the desire for additional internal fuel should not be the driving force in the design of the F/A-18E/F. The Navy cited an anticipated deficiency in F/A-18C carrier recovery payload capacity as one of the primary reasons for developing the F/A-18E/F. In 1992, when seeking approval for the F/A-18E/F, the Navy stated that F/A-18Cs procured in fiscal year 1988 had a total carrier recovery payload capacity of 6,300 pounds. However, it projected that F/A-18C enhancements planned through the fiscal year 1993 procurement (delivery in fiscal year 1995)(Lot XVII) would increase the aircraft’s operating weight and decrease its total carrier recovery capacity to 5,785 pounds. It said this condition would constrain the ability of the carrier’s air wing to fulfill its full spectrum of training requirements—especially under the worse case scenario of conducting night training and carrying greater amounts of reserve fuel needed for a divert field landing. As shown in table 2.2, the F/A-18C carrier recovery payload capacity is substantially greater than the Navy projected it would be and, in fact, is greater than when the F/A-18C was introduced into the fleet in late 1987. As indicated in table 2.2, current F/A-18Cs have 7,013 pounds of carrier recovery payload capacity, rather than the 5,785 pounds the Navy predicted. The higher carrier recovery payload capacity calculation is the result of the Navy, in 1994, increasing the F/A-18C’s maximum allowable carrier landing weight from 33,000 to 34,000 pounds, thereby adding 1,000 pounds to the payload and (1) replacement of the canceled Advanced Self Protection Jammer with a lighter system, the ALQ-126 and (2) a prior overestimate of weight needed for contingencies. The F/A-18C’s better than projected carrier recovery payload is being demonstrated during actual flight experience of the F/A-18Cs flying military operations in Bosnia. (See fig. 2.4.) According to data provided by the F/A-18 program office, as shown in table 2.3, F/A-18Cs routinely bring back 7,156 pounds of recovery payload. The Navy achieved this recovery payload by increasing the F/A-18C’s maximum landing weight to 34,000 pounds and decreasing the reserve fuel level from 5,000 to 3,500 pounds. The Navy has stated that although it is currently able to bring back a full operational load of existing weapons, it will not be able to bring back the heavier, more expensive precision-guided munitions planned for the future. Because the Navy has demonstrated the ability to manage the recovery payload of the F/A-18C by increasing the maximum landing weight of the F/A-18C by 1,000 pounds for Bosnian operations, we attempted to determine whether the maximum landing weight could be further increased to compensate for future munitions. Navy program officials did not know whether the maximum landing weight could be increased further; however, the Hornet 2000 Technical Report states that the carrier landing design gross weight of the F/A-18C can be increased to 37,000 pounds with landing gear and other changes, thereby providing an additional 3,000 pounds of recovery payload. Adding this weight to the total carrier recovery payload shown in table 2.2 would result in a total recovery payload of 10,013 pounds for the F/A-18C. That amount of carrier payload recovery for the F/A-18C is greater than the 9,000 pounds of payload sought for the F/A-18E/F. The Navy is seeking to improve F/A-18E/F survivability compared to the current F/A-18C/D by reducing its detectability and the probability of it being destroyed. Although survivability improvements for the F/A-18E/F are planned, the F/A-18E/F was not justified to counter a particular military threat that could not be met with current F/A-18C/Ds or F/A-18C/Ds that will be enhanced by additional planned survivability features. In addition, the effectiveness of an F/A-18E/F survivability improvement is questionable. Moreover, the JSF represents an alternative, affordable next generation aircraft that is projected to surpass the survivability of the F/A-18E/F at less cost. In August 1993, we reported that the F/A-18E/F was not justified to counter a particular military threat that could not be met with current capabilities. In responding to our report, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition disagreed with our conclusion that the F/A-18E/F decision was not threat based. He referred to the April 1993 “Report to Congress on Fixed-Wing Tactical Aviation Modernization,” which he stated included intelligence data on projected threats in the post-year 2000 period, which require improvements in the survivability of tactical fixed-wing aircraft. He stated that these improvements were part of the process for approving the modification of the F/A-18C/D to the F/A-18E/F. We reviewed this report and found that although this study discussed future threats, it was in system-to-system engagements, not as part of a force package where other assets are used to increase aircraft survivability. According to Navy officials, the F/A-18E/F will be operated as part of a force package—just as the F/A-18C/D currently operates. These aircraft will not operate alone as the stealthy F-22 and the Navy’s JSF are planned to be. (Chapter 4 discusses the JSF and its planned survivability features.) The relative importance of a threat-based justification for the E/F is also supported by a March 24, 1992, memorandum from the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition. It said that the main consideration in the timing of buying the F/A-18E/F was not an emerging threat. This is consistent with statements contained in the May 1992 F/A-18E/F Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis Summary. According to the summary, the Navy’s current F/A-18 warfighting capability was expected to be adequate in dealing with the projected threat beyond the turn of the century. Further, the key components of potential threats have stabilized in response to East European political economic shifts. Also, the Commonwealth of Independent States’ emphasis on development and deployment of advanced air, ground, and naval weapons had greatly declined, particularly the anti-air warfare threat. According to the May 1992 F/A-18E/F Acquisition Plan, the aircraft’s weapon system architecture was to be essentially the same as the F/A-18C/D Night Attack aircraft. An October 1995 F/A-18 program brief and a more recent Naval Intelligence study on strike warfare state that the F/A-18C is survivable against all current air-to-air threats. The October brief further states that the F/A-18C Night Strike Hornet (compared with previous F/A-18s) increased the exchange rate against the MiG-29 by a factor of 4, increased survivability against surface threats, and is 23 percent more effective in strike warfare. Additional improvements have subsequently been made or are planned for the F/A-18C/D to enhance its survivability. For example, according to Navy program documents, improvements were made to reduce its radar detectability. Although these improvements are classified and cannot be discussed in this report, Navy and contractor officials agreed that the radar detectability has been reduced. Other improvements to the F/A-18C/D include the following: The F404-GE-402 Enhanced Performance Engine to provide increased combat performance and, therefore, increased survivability. The ALR-67(V)3 Advanced Special Warning Receiver and the ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing System (chaff and flares) will be installed on new F/A-18C/Ds to alert the aircrew of potential threats and automatically deploy countermeasures, thereby decreasing the probability of the aircraft being hit should it be fired on. Standoff weapons, such as the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response, improved Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), and AIM-9X to be installed on the F/A-18C/D will improve its standoff range from the threat and thus further improve its survivability. The Navy listed reduced aircraft radar signature as an objective and key measure of aircraft survivability when discussing F/A-18E/F survivability improvements. Navy and McDonnell Douglas officials said they have significantly reduced the F/A-18E/F’s frontal radar signature compared to the C/D model. The specifics of how radar signature reduction is achieved are classified. However, according to Center for Naval Analysis and Navy officials, the F/A-18E/F’s reduced radar signature only helps it penetrate slightly deeper than the F/A-18C/D into an integrated defensive system before being detected. When Navy officials referred to the F/A-18E/F’s reduced frontal radar signature, they cite low observability improvements made to the aircraft structure. However, because the F/A-18E/F will be carrying weapons and fuel externally, it will diminish the radar signature reduction improvements derived from the structural design of the aircraft. The need to carry weapons and fuel internally to maintain an aircraft’s low observability is consistent with low observability or stealthy aircraft designs, such as the F-117, the A-12, the A/F-X, the F-22, and the B-2, all designed to carry fuel and weapons internally. “While very beneficial in a one-on-one engagement, nose-on to the threat, treatments to enhance the survivability of a conventional aircraft by reducing the forward aspect observable level is not sufficient to successfully penetrate a typical threat environment. The long detection and engagement range of modern threat systems against the side sector of an Enhanced Conventional Aircraft will significantly decrease the likelihood of a successful mission.” “Further, the addition of external stores to enable an Enhanced Conventional Aircraft to accomplish a military objective, may well eliminate much of what is gained in reduced threat capability, even in the nose region.” This is further validated by the current JAST program commitment to designing its JSF to carry its weapons internally because carrying weapons externally does not meet the Navy’s reduced signature needs for first day survivability. The JAST office concluded that the treatment of external equipment, to limit their negative effect on radar signature reduction, would be expensive and would have a negative effect on aircraft performance, supportability, and deployability. In summary, the JAST office has concluded that the most cost-effective and overall operational beneficial solution if low observability is required, appears to be carrying weapons and other equipment internally. In December 1995, the F/A-18E/F program office asked McDonnell Douglas to define the work necessary to develop simple, affordable, low-observable treatments for certain equipment that will be carried externally on the E/F aircraft. The program office stated that the E/F program has produced a low-observable aircraft, but that low-observable externally carried equipment and weapons were outside the scope of the E/F program. The program office stated that this equipment, when installed on the E/F with low-observable compatible weapons, would be necessary to yield a low-observable weapon system. In addition to the operational capability improvements discussed in the preceding chapter, the Navy also stated that the E/F (1) was needed to provide critically needed space for avionics growth and (2) with its two additional weapons stations, would be more lethal. However, our review indicates that the decline in avionics growth space has not occurred as predicted, and weight limitations, problems when weapons are released from the aircraft, and the limited increase in weapons payload associated with the new weapons stations raises concerns about how much increased lethality the E/F will have. In justifying the need for the F/A-18E/F, the Navy stated that the additional space to be provided by the F/A-18E/F was critically needed because by the mid-1990s, the F/A-18C/Ds would not have space to accommodate some additional new weapons and systems under development without removing an existing capability. However, as previously discussed, an increased threat is not driving decisions to add new systems. Furthermore, the growth space deficiency anticipated for the F/A-18C/D has not occurred as predicted. According to 1992 Navy predictions, by fiscal year 1996, the ongoing program to upgrade the F/A-18C/D’s avionics would result in an aircraft with only 0.2 cubic feet of space available for future growth. However, in 1995, McDonnell Douglas representatives indicated that the F/A-18C had at least 5.3 cubic feet of space available for system growth. This additional space is available from the following two sources: Replacing the F/A-18C/D’s ammunition drum with a linear linkless feed system would provide 4 cubic feet of additional space in the gun bay. The right leading edge extension on the F/A-18C, which is an extension of the frontal aspect of the wing, has 1.3 cubic feet of space available for growth. Furthermore, indications are that technological advancements will result in additional avionics growth space. The effect of these advancements, which include such things as miniaturization, modularity, and consolidation, are indicated in some upgraded avionics systems employed on the F/A-18C/D. We reviewed the changes scheduled for the F/A-18C/D between fiscal years 1992 and 1996 and identified seven upgrade replacement systems that would be used in the latest versions of the F/A-18C/D and the F/A-18E/F. We found that because of the reduced size of modern avionics systems, in total, the new systems provided 3 cubic feet of additional space and reduced the total avionics systems’ weight by about 114 pounds. Table 3.1 shows the details of this calculation. The Navy also contends that the availability for growth on the F/A-18C/D is not possible due to the lack of sufficient power and cooling capability. However, according to McDonnell Douglas engineering representatives, the F/A-18C/D’s power and cooling needs have not been validated through an actual test. Rather, the statements that the C/D has no more growth capability are based on analysis using estimated and outdated data. Additionally, the Hornet 2000 study suggested options to increase power and cooling capacity within the current space/volume of the baseline F/A-18 aircraft. To increase the aircraft’s power capacity, the report suggested a new generator system with more than a 30-percent increase in power a monitored bus system capable of shedding selected loads when one generator becomes inoperative. To increase the F/A-18C/D’s cooling capacity, the Hornet 2000 report stated that the air cooling system could be modified to increase capacity by 47 percent. The F/A-18E/F is designed to have more payload capacity than current F/A-18C/Ds as a result of adding two new wing weapon stations—referred to as the outboard weapons stations. However, unless the current problems when weapons are released from the aircraft are resolved, the types and amounts of external weapons that the E/F can carry may be restricted. Also, while the E/F will provide a marginal increase in air-to-air capability, it will not increase its ability to carry the heavier air-to-ground weapons that are capable of hitting fixed-targets and mobile hard targets and the heavier stand-off weapons that will be used to increase aircraft survivability. As illustrated in figures 3.1 and 3.2, airframe modifications, such as larger geometrically shaped engine inlets and additional weapon stations, have reduced the critical distance between several F/A-18E/F weapon stations. A NAVAIR representative stated that it has been estimated that the distance between the inboard weapon stations and the engine inlet stations on the E/F has been reduced by about 5 inches compared to the C/D. The distance between the new outboard (stations 2 and 10) and mid-board stations (stations 3 and 9) is smaller than between the mid-board (stations 3 and 9) and inboard stations (stations 4 and 8), 35 inches versus 46 inches, respectively. The space reduction adversely affects the E/F’s capabilities. For example, wind tunnel tests show that an external 480-gallon fuel tank or a MK-84 2,000-pound bomb, carried on the inboard station, will hit the side of the aircraft’s fuselage or make contact with other weapons when released. Additionally, according to the representative, the limited distance between the new outboard and mid-board stations, coupled with outboard pylons that are shorter and closer to the wing, will cause problems when releasing large, finned weapons, such as the High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). F/A-18E/F airframe changes have also increased adverse airflows that exacerbate these problems. Wind tunnel testing shows that the F/A-18E/F is experiencing increased yaw and pitch motion of its external equipment. The increased yaw motion is the result of increased air outflow at the nose of a weapon and increased inflow at the tail of a weapon, causing the tail of the weapon to make contact with the aircraft. Similarly, the increased pitching results from the air sweeping over the nose of a store in a downward direction while an upward airflow causes the tail of the store to make contact with the aircraft. The Navy and McDonnell Douglas are studying a number of airframe fixes to correct the airflow problem. They are also studying options that place tactical restrictions on weapon deployments. These options include reducing the number of weapons the E/F carries and reducing the speed the aircraft is flying when the weapons are released. Our analysis showed that the F/A-18E/F will provide a limited increase in payload over the C/D model. In the air-to-air role, as shown in table 3.2, the F/A-18E/F will have a two-missile advantage over the F/A-18C/D. The F/A-18E/F’s new outboard stations are limited to carrying weapons weighing no more than 1,150 pounds per station. In the air-to-ground role, this precludes the F/A-18E/F from carrying a number of heavy precision-guided munitions such as the Harpoon, Standoff Land Attack Missile, Laser Guided MK-84, Guided Bomb Unit-24, and WALLEYE II that weigh more than the weapon station weight limit. Consequently, because of these limitations, the F/A-18E/F will carry the same number of these heavier precision-guided munitions as the F/A-18C/D. The JAST program office is developing technology for a family of affordable next generation JSF aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. (See app. II for a discussion of JAST program objectives and approach.) The Navy plans to procure 300 JSFs and use them as a stand alone, first-day survivable (stealthy) complement to the F/A-18E/F. The first Navy JSF aircraft is scheduled to be delivered in 2007. On the basis of contractor trade studies and a recent Naval Intelligence assessment, JSF is projected to have an overall combat effectiveness greater than the F/A-18E/F. JSF is also projected to have a lower unit flyaway cost than the E/F. Concept exploration and development trades studies from three major potential aircraft production contractors—Boeing Corporation; Lockheed Martin Corporation; and a consortium of McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Northrop Grumman, and British Aerospace Corporations—indicated that an affordable family of stealthy strike aircraft could be built on a single production line with a high degree of parts and cost commonality. (See fig. 4.1 for JAST concept.) According to the JAST Joint Initial Requirements Document, the recurring flyaway cost of the Navy variant will range from $33 million to $40 million (in fiscal year 1996 dollars), depending on which contractor design is chosen. The JAST office projects that the Navy’s JSF variant will have operational capabilities, especially range and survivability, that will be superior to the F/A-18E/F. It is too soon to determine the extent to which the JSF cost and performance goals will be achieved. The driving focus of JAST is affordability. Contractor studies indicate that JAST has the potential to reduce total life-cycle cost by approximately 40 percent. Life-cycle cost is made up of research and development costs, production costs, and operations and support costs. According to a McDonnell Douglas study, their JAST proposal would have a flyaway cost 14 percent lower than the F/A-18E/F. To arrive at these goals, the contractor studies concluded that the family of aircraft would have to contain such features as: a single, common engine; use of advanced avionics and exploitation of off-board sensors; advanced diagnostics to reduce supportability costs; maximum commonality to include a common fuselage for all service variants that could be built on a common production line; and affordable requirements. According to the participating contractors and the JAST program office, tri-service commonality is the key factor in achieving JSF affordability goals, and if this commonality is to occur, the services must compromise on operational needs. The Navy’s JSF variant is expected to be the most costly of the three service variants due in part to carrier suitability features and the greater operational capability in range and internal payload proposed for the Navy’s variant. Current unit recurring flyaway cost objectives for the Navy variant range between $33 million and $40 million (fiscal year 1996 dollars), based on a total buy of 2,816 aircraft for the three services. This compares to $53 million per unit recurring flyaway (fiscal year 1996 dollars) for the F/A-18E/F based on total procurement of 660 E/F’s at 36 per year. According to the JAST office’s Joint Initial Requirements Document, the JSF cost objectives are based on projected budget constraints and service needs. The JAST program office projects that significant life-cycle savings for JSF are achievable through implementation of new acquisition processes, technologies, manufacturing processes, and maintenance processes being developed as part of the JAST program. Depending on the degree of commonality between the service variants and the ability to implement other cost-saving measures, the JAST office projects the total life-cycle cost could be as much as 55-percent less than if it used traditional acquisition and production processes. The participating contractors presented the results of their concept development studies to the JAST office and the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisitions and Technology) in August 1995. The presentations outlined the latest design capabilities and projected costs for each of the services’ JSF designs. The JSF is expected to have an overall combat effectiveness greater than any projected threat and greater than the F/A-18E/F. The Navy’s JSF variant is also expected to have longer ranges than the F/A-18E/F to attack high-value targets, such as command and control bunkers, without using external tanks or tanking. Unlike the F/A-18E/F, which will carry all of its weapons externally, the Navy’s JSF variant will carry at least two air-to-ground and two air-to-air weapons internally. By carrying its weapons internally, the JSF will maximize its stealthiness and thus increase its survivability in the high threat early stages of a conflict. The Navy expects that its JSF variant will have the capability to go into high-threat environments without accompanying electronic warfare support aircraft in the first day or early phase of a conflict and be survivable. For example, the JSF would have the capability to attack these high-threat targets without jamming support from EA-6B aircraft that the F/A-18E/F would need to be survivable against integrated air defense systems and sophisticated aircraft that would still be operating during the early stages of a conflict. Combat range improvement was a primary objective of the F/A-18E/F program. JAST program contractor studies indicated that the Navy variant would have significantly greater range than the F/A-18E/F using internal fuel only and even greater range after the enemy threat is reduced and the aircraft can use external fuel tanks. The potential cost of the F/A-18E/F aircraft has been a source of debate among the Congress, DOD, and the Navy for many years, starting before the program was formally approved. Our review indicated that the Navy’s cost estimates to procure the F/A-18E/F are still questionable. The $43.6 million (fiscal year 1996 dollars) unit recurring flyaway costestimate for the F/A-18E/F is understated. The estimate is based on a 1,000-aircraft total buy that is overstated by at least one-third because the Marine Corps does not plan to buy the E/F and an annual production rate that the Congress has stated is probably not possible due to funding limitations. Reducing the total buy and annual production rate will increase the unit recurring flyaway cost of the F/A-18E/F from $43.6 to $53.2 million (fiscal year 1996 dollars). In May 1992, the Office of the Secretary of Defense approved the Navy’s request that the F/A-18E/F be approved as a Milestone IV, Major Modification program, even though some Defense Acquisition Board participants had the following concerns about the program: E/F development cost projections had increased from $4.5 billion to $5.8 billion (then-year dollars); the unit cost of the E/F was estimated to be 65 percent greater than F/A-18C/D unit cost; the projected development cost of $5.8 billion (then-year dollars) was underfunded by as much as $1 billion; the cost of E/F pre-planned product improvements are not included in either development or production estimates; and the E/F was considered an upgrade to the F/A-18C/D rather than a new start, even though the E/F airframe was projected to be only 15-percent common to the C/D. In evaluating the fiscal year 1993 DOD budget request, the Congress addressed its F/A-18E/F concerns and established a number of fiscal limits on the program. The $5.783 billion (fiscal year 1996 dollars)/$5.803 billion (then-year dollars) F/A-18E/F development estimate, presented to the Defense Acquisition Board, was established as a funding ceiling for development costs. Also, the Congress stated that F/A-18E/F unit flyaway costs should be no greater than 125 percent of the F/A-18C/D’s unit flyaway cost. Congressional concern about E/F unit cost projections was based in part on the high annual production rate that the Navy used in arriving at its per unit procurement estimates. The Navy projected that beginning in 2007, and continuing through 2015, it would procure 72 F/A-18E/Fs per year. The Congress believed this was unrealistic and directed that DOD calculate a range of unit costs based on production rates of 18, 36, and 54 aircraft per year. According to program officials, they are not required to report revised cost estimates based on the change to production rates until an early operational assessment is completed in the spring of 1996. DOD’s F/A-18E/F unit recurring flyaway cost estimate is $43.6 million (fiscal year 1996 dollars). This cost is understated because the total F/A-18E/F procurement levels and annual production rates that are essential for predicting acquisition unit costs are overstated and contract estimates for initial production aircraft are higher than projected. In calculating the F/A-18E/F unit acquisition costs, the Navy assumed it would procure 1,000 aircraft from 1997 through 2015—approximately 660 for the Navy and 340 for the Marine Corps at a high annual production rate of 72 aircraft. However, the Marine Corps does not plan to purchase any F/A-18E/Fs, and indications are that once the Navy’s JAST variant becomes available fewer F/A-18E/Fs will be procured annually. The Marine Corps Aviation Plan and the Marine Corps Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation in a 1994 memorandum and in 1995 testimony before the Congress stated that the Corps plans to “neck down” to one aircraft in the future. It plans to replace all of its current F/A-18C/D and AV-8B aircraft with the Advanced Short-Takeoff and Vertical-Landing aircraft now under management of the JAST program. Because the Marine Corps does not plan to procure any F/A-18E/Fs—data from a Navy’s program cost analysis report and discussions with NAVAIR cost officials and confirmed by the Marine Corps identifies 340 aircraft as the programmed Marine Corps buy—the total F/A-18E/F buy would be reduced from 1,000 to 660 aircraft. The likelihood that fewer F/A-18E/Fs will be procured is possible once the JSF, projected to be more capable and less costly than the E/F, becomes available around 2007. Additionally, the E/F unit cost is affected by a lower-than-projected annual production rate. The Navy’s unit cost calculations assumed an annual peak production rate of 72 aircraft for 8 years, representing over half the production run. The Congress, in its fiscal year 1993 Authorization Conference Report, questioned whether an annual production rate of 72 aircraft was realistic and directed the Navy to provide cost-estimates for smaller production quantities (18, 36, and 54) with the results of the F/A-18E/Fs initial operational assessment, which is scheduled for the spring of 1996. However, data shows that E/F production rate is expected to be lowered to only 36 F/A-18E/Fs annually rather than 72. Historically, reductions in annual production rates have increased the per unit procurement cost of aircraft. The Navy has not provided us the increased unit cost based on reduced annual production rates. Therefore, we approximated what the unit cost increase would be based on a total procurement of 660 rather than 1,000 aircraft and an annual production rate of 36 rather than 72 aircraft. Using the A/F-X cost model to predict the effect of total buy and annual production rate changes on recurring flyaway cost, we calculated that the F/A-18E/F unit recurring flyaway cost would be $53.2 million (fiscal year 1996 dollars) rather than the $43.6 million (fiscal year 1996 dollars) estimated by DOD. The $53.2 million unit recurring flyaway cost for the F/A-18E/F indicates that the E/F would have a unit recurring flyaway cost that is 189 percent of the F/A-18C/D’s unit recurring flyaway cost ($53 million compared to $28 million). As shown in appendix I, this cost difference in unit recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $17 billion (fiscal year 1996 dollars) or savings of over $24 billion when expressed in then-year dollars, if the Navy were to procure 660 F/A-18C/Ds rather than 660 F/A-18E/Fs. Our estimated savings do not include the cost of C/D upgrades, such as the larger 480-gallon external fuel tanks for improved range nor the strengthened landing gear to increase carrier recovery payload. However, our estimated savings are conservative because they also do not include planned E/F upgrades and are based on recurring flyaway costs that do not include the other items that make up total procurement costs. (See app. I for a discussion of how unit costs are computed.) Additionally, our estimated savings do not include savings that would accrue from having fewer type model F/A-18 aircraft in the inventory. The cost benefits would result from having common aircraft spare parts, simplified technical specifications, and reduced support equipment variations, as well as reductions in aircrew and maintenance training requirements. Also, there are other indications that F/A-18E/F procurement costs could increase further. According to contractor estimates, the cost of LRIP for the E/F is currently projected to be 8.5-percent greater than estimates provided to the Congress. DOD faces funding challenges as it attempts to modernize its tactical aircraft fleet through the Air Force’s F-22 program, the Navy’s F/A-18E/F program, and the tri-service JSF program. Various DOD officials have recognized that funding for each of these programs may not be forthcoming. In that event, DOD will be forced to make some funding trade-offs among these three competing aircraft programs. In prior reports, we offered alternative procurement strategies for the Air Force’s F-22 program. Regarding the Navy’s F/A-18E/F program, DOD’s next major decision is whether to proceed into production. The Navy has spent about $3.75 billion (then-year dollars) on the E/F engineering and manufacturing development effort and plans to spend $57.31 billion (fiscal year 1996 dollars)/ $83.35 billion (then-year dollars) to procure 1,000 aircraft. This report demonstrates that the justification for the E/F is not as evident as perhaps it was when the program was approved in 1992 because the E/F was justified, in large part, on projected operational deficiencies in the C/D aircraft that have not materialized. This report also demonstrates that proceeding with the E/F program is not the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy’s tactical aircraft fleet. Therefore, the information provided in this report should be fully considered before a production decision is made on the E/F. Such consideration should take into account the following. Operational deficiencies in the F/A-18C/D cited by the Navy in justifying the need for the F/A-18E/F—range, carrier recovery payload, survivability, and system growth—either have not materialized as projected or can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the F/A-18C/D. Furthermore, E/F operational capabilities will only be marginally improved over the C/D model. The E/F’s increased range is achieved at the expense of combat effectiveness and increased F/A-18E/F payload capability has created weapons release problems that, if not resolved, will reduce the F/A-18E/F’s payload capability compared to the F/A-18C/D. A more cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy’s tactical aircraft fleet exists. In the short term, the Navy could continue to procure the F/A-18C/D aircraft. In the mid-term, upgrades could be made to the C/Ds to further improve the C/D’s operational capabilities. These upgrades could include such things as: using the larger 480-gallon external fuel tanks to achieve more range; modifying landing gear to increase carrier recovery payload; using advanced avionics that require less space, cooling and power; and incorporating add-on survivability features. For the long term, the Navy is considering JSF as a complement to the F/A-18E/F. DOD is predicting that the next generation strike fighter will provide more operational capability at less cost than the E/F. Therefore, the next generation fighter should be considered as an alternative to the F/A-18E/F. The F/A-18E/F will cost more to procure than DOD currently projects. The $43.6 million (fiscal year 1996 dollars) unit recurring flyaway cost estimate is based on a total buy of 1,000 aircraft—660 for the Navy and 340 for the Marine Corps—at a high annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year. However, the Marine Corps does not plan to buy the F/A-18E/F aircraft and the Congress has stated that an annual production rate of 72 aircraft is not realistic. Reducing the number of aircraft to be procured and the annual production rate to more realistic levels would reduce the total program cost but would increase the unit recurring flyaway cost of the aircraft to about $53 million (fiscal year 1996 dollars). In a related report on the F/A-18E/F, we stated that the Navy’s plan to procure the E/F appears to contradict the national military strategy, which cautions against making major new investments unless there is “substantial payoff.” We pointed out that Navy data show both the C/D and E/F are expected to hit the same ground targets with the same weapons. Pursuing other alternatives, rather than proceeding with the F/A-18E/F program, would save billions of dollars. Continued procurement of the Navy’s less expensive F/A-18C/D aircraft (the fiscal year 1996 unit recurring flyaway cost of F/A-18C/Ds is $28 million compared to $53 million for the F/A-18E/F) could be done only to the level needed to sustain inventories until the next generation strike fighter becomes available. Furthermore, reliance on the more affordable next generation strike fighter as the Navy’s primary tactical aircraft would help keep that aircraft affordable by increasing the total buy. Given the cost and the marginal improvements in operational capabilities that the F/A-18E/F would provide, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense reconsider the decision to produce the F/A-18E/F aircraft and, instead, consider procuring additional F/A-18C/Ds. The number of F/A-18C/Ds that the Navy would ultimately need to procure would depend upon when the next generation strike fighter achieves operational capability and the number of those aircraft the Navy decides to buy. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOD said that it is convinced that the fundamental reasons for developing the F/A-18E/F remain valid. Since DOD provided no data or information that we had not acquired and analyzed during our review, we have not changed our position that procuring the E/F is not the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy’s tactical aircraft fleet. We recognize that the E/F will provide some improvements over the C/D. However, the C/D’s current capabilities are adequate to accomplish its assigned missions. Based on the marginal nature of the improvements and the E/F’s projected cost compared to the alternatives discussed in this report, we believe that our recommendation that DOD reconsider its decision to produce the F/A-18E/F aircraft and, instead, consider procuring additional C/D aircraft until the next generation strike fighter becomes operationally available represents sound fiscal planning. We formulated our position within the context of current budget constraints, the decreased military threat environment, and statements by DOD officials, such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that DOD’s current plans to upgrade its tactical aircraft fleet will not be affordable. Additionally, as we pointed out in our report, the national military strategy directs that major new investments should have substantial payoff. We do not believe that procuring the F/A-18E/F would meet this test. DOD’s entire comments and our evaluation are included in appendix III. DOD requested funding in its fiscal year 1997 budget request to begin procurement of the F/A-18E/F. The Congress may wish to direct that no funds may be obligated for procurement of the F/A-18E/F until it has fully examined the alternatives to the E/F program. In that regard, the House National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (H.R. 3230, sec. 220) directed such an examination, and a DOD deep strike study is expected to be completed by the end of 1996. Delaying the authority to begin procuring the E/F would allow DOD to complete its study and time for the Congress to asses the results of the DOD study and the information in this report as it decides whether DOD should be provided funding to proceed with the F/A-18E/F program.

Summary: GAO reviewed the Navy's plan to procure with F/A-18E/F aircraft, focusing on: (1) whether operational deficiencies in the F/A-18C/D cited by the Navy to justify the need for the F/A-18E/F have materialized and, if they have, the extent to which the F/A-18E/F would correct them; (2) whether the F/A-18E/F will provide an appreciable increase in operational capability over the F/A-18C/D; and (3) the reliability of the cost estimates for the F/A-18E/F and a comparison of those estimates with the costs of potential alternatives. GAO found that: (1) the F/A-18C/D could achieve strike ranges greater than required by the F/A-18E/F system specifications; (2) F/A-18C/D aircraft in service in Bosnian operations have achieved a carrier recovery payload capacity greater than the Navy's predicted carrier recovery payload capacity; (3) while the F/A-18E/F is predicted to have improved survivability over the F/A-18C/D, the F/A-18E/F was not justified on the basis that it was needed to counter a particular military threat that could not be met with current capabilities, and planned F/A-18E/F survivability might be better attained at less cost with the next-generation strike fighter; (4) despite the Navy's prediction, the F/A-18C/D has the additional space required for new avionics systems; (5) F/A-18E/F payload capability may not occur until air flow problems are corrected; (6) the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter is projected to cost less per aircraft, and be more capable than the F/A-18E/F; (7) reducing the total number of F/A-18E/F aircraft to be bought and the annual production rate to levels tat are more realistic than the Navy estimated will result in the F/A-18E/F costing about $9.6 million more per aircraft than originally estimated; and (8) the Navy would save $17 billion in recurring flyaway costs if it procured F/A-18C/D aircraft rather than F/A-18E/F aircraft.