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. F/A-18C carrier recovery payload deficiency has not occurred as the Navy predicted. 2.3.) 2.4.) 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. The Joint Strike Fighter Is Predicted to Be More Affordable and More Capable Than the F/A-18E/F

The JAST program office is developing technology for a family of affordable next generation JSF aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. JSF Predicted to Cost Less Than the F/A-18E/F

The driving focus of JAST is affordability. Historically, reductions in annual production rates have increased the per unit procurement cost of aircraft. 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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.