Wings Of Change

0 Comments | Naval Aviation News, May, 2001 | by Mike McCabe

In this Flightline, I would like to share my thoughts on Naval Aviation--where we are today and some of the challenges we will face in the future. Naval Aviation is well down the path with two major revolutions, strike and network-centric warfare. Since Desert Storm, our ability to attack targets with precision weapons has increased more than six times and will continue to improve with the entry of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet into the fleet. The last 11 air wings have deployed and conducted combat operations in superb fashion. Today, every air wing has the capability of employing standoff and through-the-weather precision weapons, such as the Stand-off Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response, Joint Stand-Off Weapon and Joint Direct Attack Munition. Over the past 10 years, our focus has shifted from the number of sorties per target to the number of aimpoints per sortie. Yet, challenges remain, including the number of precision weapons, pods, training ordnance and the availability of ranges. Still, it is difficult for us to talk of "transformation" as something in the future after a decade of so much progress in spite of funding hurdles.

Our next challenge is to improve our ability to detect, track and rapidly destroy relocatable, mobile or moving targets. To do this effectively, we have to move beyond the platform-centric world in which many of us grew up toward the new network-centric would. The new world's synergy of networks, sensors, weapons and fully equipped platforms will carry the day. To enable effective tactical networks, our focus is on procuring systems like the Multifunctional Information Distributor System and Link 16., while we also are moving forward on critical sensor developments, including the E-2C Hawkeye Radar Modernization Program (RMP) and Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared sensor and the Advanced Electronically Scanned Array radar. In terms of weapons we need to move from acquiring ordnance a minimum sustaining rates toward economic order quantity purchases-to reduce unit cost and more rapidly build inventories to required levels.

Our focus must remain on warfighting relevance to the Joint Task Force and the warfighting commanders in chief. We will never have all of the funding we desire--but I doubt there has ever been an admiral in my position so blessed. Our goal is to provide the most warfighting capability we can with the resources we are given. I am pleased to report to you that the staff here in Air Warfare is working in a style that would make you proud. The cooperation and collaboration between the communities is indeed remarkable. Our relationship with the Naval Air Systems Command continues to be strong. New alignments, including the creation of a Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements within OPNAV and a lead-follow relationship between the type commands, are working extremely well. Naval Aviation's leaders share a common vision and will spare no effort to give the fleet the best possible resources and equipment. We have recently begun a new budget cycle with a new administration. Let me give you a sense o f what lies ahead from the perspective of the air warfare requirements sponsor. In the future, you can expect a significant share of our funding to be directed toward current readiness. Raising nondeployed readiness remains a clean priority. One concern is the flying-hour program where we have continued to experience cost growth rates of 14 percent per year. A full two-thirds of this cost growth (8 to 9 percent) is directly attributable to the spiraling costs associated with an aging force. One of the necessary steps to arrest this cost growth is to "recapitalize" the force with new aircraft that are less costly to operate. Our goal is to procure 180 to 200 new aircraft per year--a level we have been unable to reach for some time.

The F-14 Tomcat illustrates the aging aircraft challenge. As the premier strike aircraft in each of our air wings, the F-14 is also the highest cost-per-flight-hour aircraft in the Navy inventory. Due to time compliance requirements (fatigue and correction of deficiencies), keeping the Tomcat just one year beyond its scheduled retirement would cost over $1 billion, and extending the aircraft to 2015 would cost $2.5 billion. The F/A-18E/F cost per flight hour is half that of the F-14. Clearly, our goal to acquire the Super Hornet at a rate that allows the earliest possible retirement of the Tomcat makes sense.

Just as the strike capability of our carriers and air wings has evolved, the composition and capability of the carrier and its associated wing will continue to evolve in both platforms and systems. Focusing on platforms, our future carriers (CVN 77, CVNX 1 and CVNX 2) are on track with adequate funding for development in each of the three carrier programs. Later this year, the study for the follow-on to the EA-6B Prowler will conclude, and we will begin to move from concept to development. At that point each of our communities will be pursuing a "sundown" plan for legacy aircraft: P-3 Orion to Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA); SH-60B/F/H Seahawk to SH-60R and MH-60s; F-14, F/A-18A/B/C/D and S-3B Viking to F/A-18/F and, later, Joint Strike Fighter; and EA-6B to the Airborne Electronic Attack aircraft. Only the C-2 Greyhound, with a service life extension program underway, and the E-2C will remain as legacy aircraft from the present air wing for the foreseeable future. This said, the E-2C will undergo sign ificant warfighting improvements; specifically, RMP and CFC are in play during this budget cycle. The set of improvements will be critical. In my view, conducting modern naval warfare without the very capable E-2 aircraft and helicopters is not possible--regardless of our strike capability.