CRS: US Air Force Has a Modernization Problem

WASHINGTON – Shrinking budgets may force the US Air Force to revise its modernization plan by reducing aircraft buys or postponing critical programs, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Research ServiceCenter.

Although the pending expiration of sequestration caps offers some relief, the Air Force may not be able to afford its ambitious plan to modernize aging fleets, CRS’ Jeremiah Gertler wrote in a Dec. 11 report. The Air Force has several major projects in the pipeline, including the development of the Long Range Strike Bomber, the ramping-up of F-35 joint strike fighter buys, and the KC-46 replacement tanker program.

Unless the Air Force revises its topline, the service may be forced to reduce annual quantities of the F-35, defer the follow-on KC-Y tanker, or fund LRS-B through a separate budget, Gertler writes.

Together, the top five Air Force priorities — LRS-B, KC-46, F-35, C-130 cargo aircraft, and remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) — account for $67.2 billion over the next five years, according to Gertler. But these are not the service’s only modernization requirements. The service also plans to recapitalize its ground surveillance fleet, the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) ground-surveillance fleet,; buildt a new Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH),; develop a replacement for Air Force One; and procure T-X, a new advanced trainer aircraft, called T-X.

How to fund LRS-B is a major point of contention within the Air Force. Spending for the new bomber, currently right now funded through the R&D budget, is projected to triple over the next five years, Gertler writes. LRS-B, CRH, the presidential aircraft replacement, T-X, and JSTARS recap will likely shift from R&D to the procurement budget at roughly the same time,  – setting up a battle for resources.

Increasing the Air Force’s modernization budget after sequestration caps expire is not a given, particularly as other Pentagon priorities, like the Navy’s effort to replace its Ohio-class nuclear submarines, come to a head. But Gertler warned that reducing or deferring spending may lead to gaps in important capabilities, and he urged the Air Force to think carefully about which programs to prioritizees.

One possible area to make cuts is Tthe F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant, which currently represents 42 percent of the Air Force’s five-year budget for the top nine programs, is one possible area in which cuts could be made, Gertler wrote. Some say reducing the annual buy from 60 to 48 aircraft a year would free up approximately $1 billion per year for other priorities, he wrotewrites. However, the report says that this estimate does not take into account the increased cost of other F-35 models to other services and allies due to a reduction in the overall buy, costs incurred by extending the F-35 line, or capability gaps created through the delayed introduction of more modern aircraft, he wrote.

The Pentagon is currently re-evaluating the requirement for F-35 quantities in response to a congressional directive. A report accompanying the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act directed the US Secretary of Defense to submit a report within 180 days to either revalidate the current requirement, or identify a new one for the total number of F-35s needed.

"This was based on two arguments: (1) that the strategic deterrence mission of the SSBN(X) was a national mission, not unique to the Navy, and (2) that funding the procurement of SSBN(X)s outside the Navy’s shipbuilding budget would preserve Navy shipbuilding funds for other Navy shipbuilding programs," he wrote. "The same arguments could be applied to LRS-B.,"