However, the Air Force has not demonstrated that these benefits are compelling. Decision to Reduce Squadrons Was Not Based on Analysis

The Air Force’s reduction in squadron size was neither evaluated in a systematic manner, nor supported by documented studies. Consolidating Fighter Squadrons Could Reduce Costs

Organizing the fighter force into 24-aircraft squadrons reduces the total number of squadrons and results in more economical operations than squadrons of 18 aircraft. Feasible Alternatives Exist for Increasing Squadron Size

The Air Force could modify its current configuration of fighter aircraft in a more cost-effective manner to increase the number of squadrons with  24 aircraft. This modification would entail consolidating some existing F-15 and F-16 squadrons with other squadrons to better maximize base utilization. These officials stated that because their bases previously had 24 aircraft per squadron and facilities were sized for  24 aircraft, returning to 24 would be little to no problem. These factors include keeping aircraft with the same state of modernization and mission characteristics together. The alternative of consolidating fighter squadrons worldwide would consolidate the F-15 and F-16 aircraft into 7 fewer squadrons than the Air Force currently plans and increase 17 squadrons to 24 aircraft and 2 squadrons to 30 aircraft. This alternative could save the Air Force a projected $115 million annually. Table I.4 compares the Air Force’s planned basing with alternative four. Comments From the Department of Defense

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objective of this review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of operating the fighter forces in smaller squadron sizes and the implications this might have on the Secretary of Defense’s efforts to reduce defense infrastructure.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed the cost-effectiveness of the Air Force's reconfiguration of F-15 and F-16 fighters into smaller squadrons, focusing on the consequences this might have on the Secretary of Defense's efforts to reduce defense infrastructure costs.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) while smaller 18-aircraft squadrons provide more deployment flexibility than 24-aircraft squadrons, the larger configuration provides enough deployment flexibility to meet the Air Force's needs; (2) the ability of squadron commanders to manage the personnel and tasks of 24-aircraft squadrons has not proved to be a problem; (3) the Air Force's decision to reduce squadron size from 24 to 18 aircraft was not based on organized analysis or documented studies; (4) using 24-aircraft squadrons instead of 18-aircraft squadrons could reduce costs; (5) by consolidating some existing F-15 and F-16 squadrons with other squadrons to better maximize base utilization, the Air Force could cost-effectively increase the number of 24-aircraft squadrons; (6) all 18-aircraft squadrons could return to their original size of 24 aircraft with little or no effort and expense; (7) if the Air Force consolidates its squadrons, it should keep aircraft with the similar modernization, mission characteristics, and engine types together; and (8) at least four alternatives exist to consolidate the Air Force's squadrons that could save between $25 million and $115 million annually.