Chapter 20

AVIATION FORCES

INTRODUCTION

Aviation forces are composed of fighter, bomber, and attack aircraft, as well as specialized aircraft. The specialized aircraft perform a wide variety of functions, such as aerial refueling, airborne warning and control, electronic warfare and air defense suppression, and reconnaissance and surveillance. Helicopters and airlift aircraft also are part of the aviation force structure; these systems are addressed in the chapters on Land, Maritime, and Mobility Forces.

Aviation forces can respond rapidly to threats from the air, land, or sea. Their diversity and flexibility reflect, in part, the differing roles and missions of the Services that provide them -- land-based forces from the Air Force, carrier-based forces from the Navy, and expeditionary land- and sea-based forces from the Marine Corps. The rapid deployability and global reach of these forces make them particularly important in the post-Cold War era. The utility of aviation forces was demonstrated again last fall in the operations that helped stabilize the military situation on the ground in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Aviation forces continue to play a key role in peacetime presence missions.

Reflecting these complementary capabilities, the following broad goals guide aviation force planning:

• Aviation forces will continue to be sized to meet the requirements of two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRCs), as well as to carry out overseas presence missions.

• High readiness is key to keeping forces prepared for prompt employment. Aviation forces will be based overseas where appropriate to provide an immediate combat capability.

Based on these priorities, plus threat and affordability considerations, the Department will continue to maintain:

• Twenty Air Force general purpose fighter wing equivalents (13 active, seven reserve).

• Up to 181 long-range Air Force bombers (10 active squadrons, three reserve).

• Eleven naval carrier air wings (10 active and one reserve) operating on eleven active carriers plus a reserve/training carrier available for deployment.

• Four Marine air wings (three active and one reserve).

Acquisition programs supporting these objectives include fielding, by FY 2000, 20 B-2 bombers with conventional attack capabilities, while continuing development of the F-22 fighter and F/A-18 E/F fighter/ attack aircraft. Over the past year, significant progress has been made in defining the future Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which will be a product of the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program initiated in 1993

MISSIONS

Aviation forces perform the following missions:

• Air Superiority -- protect the United States, its forces, and its allies from air attack; attack and suppress enemy air forces and air defenses; gain and maintain control of the skies, allowing friendly ground, naval, and air operations to proceed.

• Strike Warfare -- conduct air attacks against critical enemy ground targets; interdict or destroy enemy surface forces and their vital functions; provide close air support.

• Surveillance and Reconnaissance -- use a wide variety of sensors to monitor air and surface areas of interest to the United States; acquire, process, and disseminate targeting information for delivery of weapons by air, land, and maritime forces; provide damage assessment.

• Deterrence -- prevent aggression against the United States and its allies by providing a ready and flexible means of responding to threats against vital interests.

• Military Operations Other than War -- support counterdrug, insurgence and counterinsurgence, counterterrorism, peacekeeping and peace enforcement, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief operations.

To carry out these missions, the Joint Force Commander (JFC) will normally designate a Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC) to provide centralized direction and control of the various aircraft employed in an air operation. The JFACC is the critical link between the air assets available for an operation and their integration into a joint force capable of accomplishing the missions the JFC requires.

Aviation forces conducted a variety of combat and noncombat operations during 1995. These included enforcement of the no-fly zones in Iraq and Bosnia and Herzegovina, strikes conducted during NATO Operation Deliberate Force on Serb forces violating the UN accords in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and interceptions of aircraft suspected of making illegal drug deliveries to the United States.

THREATS

Aviation forces must be capable of countering a broad range of threats. Intelligence estimates project future potential regional aggressors as having the capability to field 500 to 1,000 combat aircraft, as well as ground and naval forces with significant surface-to-air weapons capability. In addition to threats of this magnitude, aviation forces must be able to contend with weaponry of increasing sophistication. Examples include:

• Advanced airborne electronic equipment and weapons that are being widely marketed. New radar, electronic countermeasures, weapons, and other equipment can be fitted on existing aircraft at a much lower cost than buying new aircraft. Highly capable weapons, such as the Russian-made AA-11 or Israeli-made Python 4 short-range missile and the French-made Mica medium-range missile, could significantly increase the ability of foreign air forces to challenge U.S. air operations.

• Advanced fighter aircraft, under development by several nations, that could challenge the capabilities of current U.S. weapon systems. One example is the French Rafale, a single-seat fighter that combines good maneuverability with a reduced radar cross section and infrared signature. This aircraft is planned to achieve initial operational capability in 1999 in the French navy; a land-based variant, expected to be an export candidate early in the next century, could be available to potential adversaries.

• Dense and highly capable integrated air defenses, resulting from the export of modern surface-to-air missiles, radars, and command, control, and communications (C3) equipment. These systems have advanced electronic features that are difficult to counter and could pose a serious challenge to the quick and successful prosecution of an air campaign.

Over the last year, trends in the projected capabilities of potential adversaries were reassessed. Given the difficulty, cost, and time entailed in developing and maintaining fighter forces, it was judged that adversary nations might choose to emphasize acquisition of ground-based air defenses as the highest-leverage method of countering U.S. air power. Accordingly, strengthening U.S. capabilities for locating and destroying mobile, ground-based air defense systems has been deemed a high priority.

FORCE STRUCTURE AND CAPABILITIES

Force Structure

The end of the Cold War has permitted a major restructuring of U.S. aviation forces. The goal is to build smaller, more flexible forces capable of countering emerging threats and sustaining a credible forward presence.

The Air Force is programmed to have a total of 20 fighter wing equivalents (FWEs) at the end of FY 1996. The term fighter wing denotes an organizational unit comprising varying numbers of fighter aircraft, depending on the unit's mission. A fighter wing equivalent, on the other hand, is a metric denoting 72 combat-coded fighter aircraft. During FY 1996, the Air Force will make an additional net reduction of one wing equivalent to reach the goal of 20 FWEs by the end of 1996. The resulting force will include the mix of aircraft shown in Table IV-7.

This structure emphasizes air-to-ground missions because regional contingencies are expected to present a less challenging air-superiority threat in the near- to mid-term than existed during the Cold War. The bulk of the Air Force's fighter aircraft (F-15s and F-16s) will maintain a good air-to-air capability, however, permitting forces to be allocated as needed.

The Air Force is retiring both its F-4G and F-111 fleets in 1996, reflecting the high cost of maintaining the small remaining inventories of these older aircraft. With the F-111's retirement, the longest-range fighter/ attack missions will be performed by F-15Es. B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers will complement the F-15E in this role as they receive munition upgrades and additional spares for sustained conventional operations. (Upgrade programs for the bomber force are described later in this chapter.) Some F-16C/Ds have been modified to provide some of the capability of F-4Gs for locating and suppressing enemy air defense missile sites. Most F-16A/B models will be retired, including those operated by air defense squadrons in the continental United States. These aircraft are no longer needed in the operational force, given that adequate numbers of newer F-16C/Ds will be available during the next 10 years. Beginning by FY 2010, the Joint Strike Fighter, derived from the ongoing JAST program, will replace all remaining Air Force F-16s. Between FY 2005 and FY 2010, the Air Force structure is projected to be short the equivalent of about one wing of fighter aircraft, reflecting the higher anticipated rate of peacetime attrition relative to new aircraft deliveries over these years. Possible hedges to fill that gap are discussed in the Modernization section of this chapter.

Table IV-7
(Fighter Wing Equivalents -- FWEs)
Aircraft Type	Mission	Total FWEs	Active FWEs	Reserve/Guard FWEs
F-15A/B/C/D	Air superiority	4.1	3.5	0.6
F-15E	Long-range attack	1.8	1.8	0
F-16C/D	Multirole [a]	11.4	6.2	5.2
F-117	Attack	0.5	0.5	0
A-10	Close air support	2.2	1.0	1.2
Total		20.0	13.0	7.0
[a] Capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground operations.

Naval aviation also is being restructured consistent with the force goals developed during the Bottom-Up Review. The Navy has retired two active and one reserve carrier air wing (CVW), leaving 10 active wings and one reserve wing. A-6 attack aircraft continue to be retired, with the last of these planes scheduled to leave the force in FY 1997. With the A-6's retirement, the Navy will deploy two types of fighter/attack aircraft aboard its carriers: F/A-18s and F-14s. An air-to-ground upgrade is being provided for most F-14s to give them the capability to employ laser-guided bombs (LGBs) from medium to high altitudes; this modification entails equipping the aircraft with LANTIRN forward-looking infrared pods. F-14s incorporating this feature will be available beginning in 1996.

MARINE CORPS AIR WINGS

The structure of the basic carrier air wing will evolve throughout the 1990s as A-6s are phased out of the force in favor of a mix of F/A-18 C/Ds and modified versions of F-14 fighters (see Table IV-8). The number of fighter/attack aircraft in each wing will decline to 50 from the current level of about 56. The smaller wings will be more flexible because they will operate a greater percentage of multirole aircraft, thus increasing the average number of precision strike-capable aircraft from 36 to about 50. The multirole Joint Strike Fighter is projected to enter the force beginning around 2010, replacing the F-14 in the Navy and both the AV-8B and F/A-18 in the Marine Corps.

The Marine Corps will maintain four air wings -- three active and one reserve -- throughout the program period. Marine wings will be equipped as shown in Table IV-9. In addition to the single-seat F/A-18 (which is identical to Navy models), the Marine Corps employs the two-seat F/A-18D as a multirole fighter, and also as a reconnaissance, forward air control, and tactical air control system for operations at night and in adverse weather. The AV-8B, while capable of multiple missions, is used primarily in the close air support role.

Table IV-8
Composition of Carrier Air Wings
Air Wing Type	Aircraft Type (PMAI per CVW)	Number of Air Wings
		FY 1995	FY 1996	FY 1997	FY 1998	FY 1999
Transitional	F-14 (20), F/A-18 (20), A-6 (16)	--	--	--	--	--
Power Projection	F-14 (20), F/A-18 (24), A-6 (16)	6	3	--	--	--
Littoral	F-14 (14), F/A-18 (36)	4	7	10	10	10
Reserve	F-14 (14), F/A-18 (36)	1 [a]	1	1	1	1
Total Navy Combat Aircraft (PMAI) [b]		574	544	478	478	478
NOTE: PMAI = primary mission aircraft inventory. Denotes aircraft authorized to combat units for performance of their basic missions; excludes aircraft maintained for other purposes, such as training, testing, attrition replacements, and reconstitution reserves. [a] From 1995 on, the reserve air wing will include 36 PMAI F/A-18s, operated by two Navy Reserve squadrons (24 PMAI) and one Marine Reserve squadron (12 PMAI). [b] Total PMAI shown consists only of Navy F-14s, F/A-18s, and A-6s. The Marine Corps will provide sufficient active F/A-18 squadrons to ensure 36 PMAI F/A-18s per deployed carrier air wing (actual numbers based on operating tempo requirements of each Service as determined by the Department of the Navy Tactical Aircraft Consolidation Plan).

Table IV-9
Composition of Marine Air Wings --End FY 1998 (Fixed-Wing Combat Aircraft -- PMAI and Squadrons)
Aircraft Type	Mission	Active PMAI (Squadrons)	Reserve PMAI (Squadrons)	Total PMAI (Squadrons)
F/A-18 A/C	Multirole	96 (8)	48 (4)	144 (12)
F/A-18D	Multirole	72 (6)	0	72 (6)
AV-8B	Close air support	140 (7)	0	140 (7)
Total				356 (25)

Emerging needs and efficiency considerations have led to a new approach to managing Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18, F-14, AV-8B, and EA-6B peacetime deployments. In effect, these aircraft will form a common pool for satisfying requirements of specific deployments. This approach increases flexibility for assigning either Navy or Marine squadrons to any naval mission and will help ensure that neither Service experiences excessive personnel deployments. Even though the pool of available Marine aircraft will decrease with the planned retirement of two F/A-18 squadrons by the end of FY 1997, up to four Marine F/A-18 squadrons (and possibly one EA-6B squadron) will be scheduled to deploy aboard aircraft carriers over the next three years to support Navy operations. Navy F/A-18 or F-14 squadrons will also deploy as necessary to support Marine operations.

Capabilities

The speed with which aviation forces can deploy worldwide underscores their importance in the post-Cold War era. Aviation forces would be heavily involved in all phases of an MRC, with their employment adapted to meet changing needs as the conflict unfolded:

• Phase I -- Halting the Invasion. Aviation forces play a crucial role in the United States' initial response to distant contingencies. In particular, the use of both land- and carrier-based strike aircraft to interdict enemy armor formations in the opening days of a conflict is key to delaying an enemy's advance until reinforcements arrive in the theater. Heavy bombers are expected to contribute increasingly to this early antiarmor role by the end of the decade as advanced conventional weapons and logistics support for sustained operations become more commonly available to them. Elimination of enemy weapons of mass destruction would also be an early priority for aviation forces, as would establishment of air superiority. Gaining control of the skies is critical to the effective conduct of air-to-ground operations as well as to the protection of U.S. and coalition forces, particularly at debarkation points.

• Phase II -- Force Buildup. The buildup of aviation forces in the theater would enable air superiority to be sustained, while adding the capability to perform a variety of surveillance and ground attack operations. In the Gulf War, for example, aviation forces played a vitally important role during the buildup phase in reducing Iraqi ground combat strength through the direct bombardment of maneuver units. Aviation forces also could be used during the force buildup to attack targets deeper in enemy-held territory, such as logistics and command elements.

• Phase III -- Counteroffensive. Once sufficient combat strength was available in the theater, U.S. and coalition forces would launch a counterattack. Aviation forces would focus more of their effort during this phase on direct support of friendly land forces maneuvering against enemy ground formations.

• Phase IV -- Ensuring Postwar Stability. Once the enemy had been defeated, some aviation forces would remain in the theater to enforce the peace. Their tasks would include maintaining air superiority, performing surveillance of the region, and carrying out additional ground attacks, if required.

Overall aviation force structure goals, derived in the Bottom-Up Review three years ago, are as follows:

• About 10 Air Force FWEs, augmented by 100 long-range bomber aircraft, would be needed to prosecute a single MRC. This force building block leads to a total objective of 20 FWEs, plus bomber aircraft, for two nearly simultaneous MRCs.

• Four to five carrier air wings, plus the aviation elements of one to two Marine expeditionary forces or MEFs (four to five brigade-equivalents), would be needed for a single MRC. Carrier air wing warfighting contributions and deployments associated with peacetime presence requirements generate a need for 10 Navy active carrier air wings and one composite Navy/Marine Corps reserve air wing. The ability of expeditionary forces to redeploy quickly over large distances has led to the determination that three MEFs (seven brigade-equivalents) are sufficient for two nearly simultaneous MRCs.

• Forces for lesser contingencies would be drawn from this basic structure. In these smaller operations, Service aviation elements could be employed jointly or alone.

A principal concern in conducting ground attack operations in the initial phases of an MRC is maximizing the effectiveness of existing munitions at night and in adverse weather, while minimizing aircraft attrition. To improve force effectiveness and reduce aircraft attrition, the Department plans to acquire a wide range of advanced munitions. These weapons will be completing their development programs over the next several years. The specific pace and scope of weapons acquisition programs will depend in part on broader questions about wartime need and the number and type of delivery systems involved.

The difficult question of the most appropriate mix of weapons and delivery systems is being considered in an ongoing DoD analysis, the Deep Attack/Weapons Mix Study (DAWMS). DAWMS was expanded by Presidential direction earlier this year, following a National Security Council assessment of additional B-2 bomber procurement. The study is evaluating aggregate requirements for air-to-ground weapons and their delivery systems for two nearly simultaneous MRCs, plus possible demands from lesser contingencies. It also is reviewing command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence (C4I) architectures and related systems that support the planning and execution of deep attack missions. The study, with expanded treatment of force structure considerations, is planned for completion by the end of 1996. Emerging results will be used in establishing procurement priorities and inventory goals for the Department's FY 1998 budget request and the FY 1998-2003 Future Years Defense Plan.

The Deep Attack/Weapons Mix Study will draw on a variety of other studies, including work accomplished last year in the Heavy Bomber Force Study carried out for the Department by the Institute for Defense Analyses. The new study also will benefit from the ongoing implementation of the Capabilities-Based Munitions Requirements Process, which was established several years ago by the Joint Staff to improve the integration of joint force needs and capabilities. Moreover, the study responds directly to the recommendation of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces that the Department conduct an assessment of all U.S. deep attack systems to determine the appropriate force size and mix. Finally, the study fulfills last year's request by Congress that the Department provide a report justifying future planned development and production of precision guided munitions.

AIR FORCE FIGHTER/BOMBER FORCES

The Air Force provides versatile and responsive striking power for employment worldwide on short notice. The Air Force can move seven to eight FWEs into a theater as an initial response to an MRC, with additional FWEs following within the first month. Long-range bombers also can contribute to an initial MRC response, flying directly from the continental United States if need be. Where the local infrastructure permits, these forces can operate directly from airfields in a conflict region. If local facilities are limited but include at least a runway and water supplies, expeditionary operations can be supported with bare base kits, such as those used by Air Force combat and support aircraft in the Gulf War.

The Air Force maintains a significant overseas presence in peacetime, enhancing both deterrence and crisis-response capability. Those forces permanently stationed overseas demonstrate the United States' commitment to friends and allies and help promote regional stability. The Air Force plans to maintain about two FWEs at bases in the western Pacific and two FWEs at bases in western Europe for the foreseeable future. In practice, average deployment levels during FY 1995 exceeded that objective by approximately two FWEs, representing deployments in Southwest Asia and the Adriatic region that are not part of the permanent overseas basing plan.

To help ease the burden of unanticipated contingencies, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard squadrons were deployed routinely during the past year in support of operations over Iraq and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Reserve component forces are playing an expanded role in operations such as these, thus reducing pressures on the active force.

BOMBER MODERNIZATION

The bomber force is composed of B-2, B-1, and B-52 aircraft. Table IV-10 shows the current and projected inventories of these aircraft. The force counts reflected in the table represent the primary mission aircraft inventory (PMAI) and therefore exclude training aircraft (typically 12 B-1s and 12 B-52s). The training aircraft do not have the weapons loading crews and readiness spares kits generally required for forward deployments. At present, the total inventory of 94 B-52Hs and 95 B-1Bs exceeds the number of PMAI aircraft that are fully funded in terms of operations and maintenance, load crews, and spare parts in FY 1996-1999. All of the B-52s and B-1s in the inventory, including those in attrition reserve, will be kept in flyable condition and will receive planned modifications in a timely manner. The Department plans to increase the B-1B PMAI to 82 by 2001, when modern weapons are available to enhance the bombers' effectiveness in conventional operations.

Table IV-10
Air Force Long-Range Bomber Inventory (PMAI/TAI)
Aircraft Type	FY 1995	FY 1997	FY 1999	FY 2001
B-52	62/94	44/66	44/66	44/66
B-1	48/95	48/95	48/95	70/95
B-2	6/7	10/13	13/17	16/20
NOTES: PMAI = primary mission aircraft inventory; TAI = total aircraft inventory. The force structures shown are for the ends of the fiscal years.

Because of its stealth characteristics, the newest U.S. bomber -- the B-2 -- is extremely difficult to detect, especially at night and in adverse weather. The B-2's ability to penetrate heavy defenses is further enhanced through its employment with air-superiority aircraft and electronic warfare aircraft that conduct standoff jamming. B-2 bombers will be able to carry general-purpose bombs, as well as cluster munitions and the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). Current plans call for the procurement of 20 operational B-2s (16 PMAI). To date, nine B-2s have been delivered to Air Combat Command.

B-2 capability will increase throughout the decade as new aircraft are delivered and existing systems are progressively upgraded from the test configuration and Block 10 design to the more capable Block 20 and Block 30 versions. In 1996, Block 20 aircraft will have the Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS), improved communications and offensive avionics, and a limited ability to deliver GPS-aided munitions. By 2000, the entire B-2 force will achieve the Block 30 configuration, featuring better stealth characteristics, improved offensive and defensive avionics, and the ability to employ a wider range of improved weapons, such as the JDAM. During the transition to the Block 30 standard, some aircraft will be undergoing conversion and will not be immediately available for deployment. The Department is studying the cost-effectiveness of potential B-2 upgrades beyond the Block 30 configuration.

The B-1, which is programmed for use solely in conventional missions by the end of 1997, will be the backbone of the future bomber force. By the end of the decade, programmed upgrades will give the B-1 an advanced navigation system integrated with the Navstar GPS, and an improved communications system. Enhancements to the aircraft's computers and electronic countermeasures system are slated to follow around FY 2002. Other programmed upgrades will give the B-1 the ability to carry several types of advanced weapons. By June 1996, the B-1 will be able to deliver the entire family of advanced cluster munitions (CBU-87, CBU-89, CBU-97). This will increase the aircraft's effectiveness against large area targets and armored vehicles in low-to-medium threat environments. The JDAM will be integrated on the aircraft in FY 2000, followed by the Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) in FY 2002 and the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) in FY 2003.

The B-52 can be used in either the nuclear or conventional role. The B-52's nuclear capabilities are described in the chapter on Strategic Nuclear Forces. For conventional missions, the B-52 carries a full complement of unguided weapons. In addition, it is the only launch platform for the Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM). Some B-52s have been modified to carry Have Nap standoff precision weapons and Harpoon antiship missiles. Future modifications will enable the entire B-52 force to carry JDAM, JSOW, and WCMD, as well as CALCM, Have Nap, and Harpoon.

The FY 1995 Heavy Bomber Force Study concluded that the currently planned bomber force, acting in conjunction with other U.S. forces, is adequate to meet the expected demands of a two-MRC scenario. Moreover, the study concluded that buying additional Block 30 B-2s would be less cost-effective than upgrading the more numerous B-1 force, upgrading the 20 planned B-2s beyond the Block 30 configuration, or expanding the planned arsenal of advanced conventional munitions.

In a major regional conflict, heavy bombers would be used to deliver large quantities of unguided general-purpose bombs and cluster munitions against area targets, such as ground units, airfields, and rail yards. The more advanced munitions now coming on line or in development will enable bombers to bring a wider range of targets under attack, while taking better advantage of the bombers' large payload capacity. The long-range capability provided by bombers could make them the first major U.S. weapon system on the scene in a rapidly developing crisis, particularly in regions where the United States does not routinely maintain forces. Here, too, their ability to have an immediate impact on a conflict by slowing the advance of enemy forces, suppressing enemy air defenses, and inflicting massive damage on an enemy's strategic infrastructure will increase dramatically over the next 10 years.

NAVAL AVIATION FIGHTER/ATTACK FORCES

Naval and Marine air wings are self-sustaining forces, capable of conducting prolonged operations independent of overseas basing. Rotationally forward-deployed, carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups provide a prompt means of responding to crises. The planned Navy/Marine Corps force structure will sustain continuous overseas deployments of about three carrier air wings afloat and five Marine fighter/attack squadrons ashore. Employed in conjunction with ground and Air Force units, these forces enable the United States both to respond initially to crises and to conduct sustained combat operations.

Power projection in support of littoral warfare remains a top priority for the Navy. Carrier-based aircraft are capable of a wide range of other functions, however, from overseas presence and humanitarian assistance to peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Because of their inherent flexibility, carrier forces can be tailored to the initial needs of a deployment and then be reconfigured to meet emerging demands as the operation unfolds.

Marine air elements are employed as part of Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs). Operating from ships or land bases, Marine aircraft provide offensive and defensive support, as well as close air support, for Marine ground units. In an amphibious operation, aircraft based on carriers and embarked on amphibious ships would provide the air support initially required by a MAGTF. Once a foothold had been established in a region, these aircraft would move quickly ashore, where they would operate from expeditionary fields, created if necessary by the landing force using temporary matting carried aboard maritime prepositioning ships. Expeditionary airfields include all of the command, control, and logistics elements necessary for combat operations, and they can be redeployed to other locations if circumstances warrant. Under a new initiative funded in the FY 1997 budget, one of three Marine Corps F/A-18 squadrons now operating from Iwakuni, Japan, on a rotational basis will be permanently stationed at that location. Forward basing one unit will free two other squadrons from the rotational cycle, easing operational tempos.

SPECIALIZED FORCES

Specialized forces have taken on added importance in the post-Cold War era. These forces contribute to all phases of military operations. Three of their most important missions are aerial refueling, electronic warfare and suppression of enemy air defenses, and aerial reconnaissance and surveillance.

Aerial refueling is critical to the effective employment of aviation forces. Not only do tanker aircraft facilitate the rapid deployment of combat forces, they greatly increase the efficiency of air operations. Aerial refueling significantly extends the range and endurance of combat aircraft; it increases effective operating tempos; and it enhances flexibility in the employment of both land- and sea-based aviation forces. Aerial-refueling aircraft for in-theater employment include Air Force long-range tankers (discussed in the chapter on Mobility Forces), as well as Navy and Marine Corps tactical aircraft. With the impending retirement of the A-6 force, the Navy will rely primarily on multimission S-3s and F/A-18 E/Fs for tactical aerial refueling, while the Marine Corps will use KC-130s. In addition, a portion of the Air Force KC-135 fleet is being given multipoint probe/drogue refueling capability, which will increase the Air Force's ability to refuel Navy and Marine Corps aircraft in flight. Existing Air Force KC-10s also have probe/drogue refueling capability, but these dual-purpose aircraft may have higher-priority airlift tasks early in a contingency.

Electronic warfare and air defense suppression forces locate and neutralize enemy air defenses. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all operate aircraft for these purposes, as shown in Table IV-11.

Table IV-11
Airborne Electronic Warfare Aircraft (PMAI as of FY 1995)
Surveillance/Electronic Intelligence	Support Jammers (Standoff and Escort)	Lethal Suppression
Rivet Joint / RC-135 (10 A/C -- Air Force)	EF-111 (24 A/C -- Air Force)	F-4G Wild Weasel [a] (24 A/C -- Air Force)
EP-3 (12 A/C -- Navy)	EC-130 Compass Call (10 A/C -- Air Force)	F-16 HTS [b] (72 A/C -- Air Force)
ES-3 (16 A/C -- Navy)	EA-6B (60 A/C -- Navy/Marine Corps)	F/A-18 HARM [b],[c] (456 A/C -- Navy/Marine Corps)
EA-6B (60 A/C -- Navy/Marine Corps)		EA-6B [b],[c] (60 A/C -- Navy/Marine Corps)
[a] Retirement of all F-4Gs will be complete by the end of FY 1996. [b] F/A-18s, EA-6Bs, and F-16s equipped with the HARM Targeting System (HTS) have independent targeting capability similar to that of the F-4G, but with less coverage in both frequency and location. [c] Some aircraft have overlapping capability; the missions noted are secondary.

To ease the transition to the new Joint Force concept, the retirement date for the EF-111 force has been slipped one year, to FY 1998. Once EF-111s leave the inventory, the mission of tactical support jamming for the Air Force will be assumed by Navy/Marine Corps EA-6Bs. The Navy will upgrade a total of 120 EA-6Bs (104 PAI) for this purpose, extending the aircraft's service life and updating their mission avionics system. The latter enhancement will include the provision of a new receiver system utilizing lightweight, off-the-shelf products. The upgraded EA-6Bs will provide critical support for joint force operations. The Air Force will supply a number of electronic warfare-trained aircrews to selected Navy squadrons to facilitate such operations.

Under a comprehensive series of studies begun in FY 1994, the Department is assessing the future adequacy of U.S. electronic warfare capabilities. The studies are examining requirements for electronic warfare aircraft, aircraft self-protection and expendable countermeasures, and lethal and nonlethal suppression of enemy air defenses. The compatibility of projected electronic warfare capabilities with low-observable technologies also is being investigated. The first phase of the assessment resulted in the plan to retire EF-111s and replace them with EA-6Bs. Further results of the analyses, expected later this year, will be used to identify capabilities that electronic warfare forces may require in the long term.

Airborne reconnaissance and surveillance systems are a primary source of information on enemy air and surface forces and installations. As such, they bridge the gap in coverage between ground- and satellite-based surveillance systems and the targeting systems on combat aircraft. Airborne reconnaissance systems fall into two categories: standoff systems, which operate outside the range of enemy air defenses; and penetrating systems, which are employed within enemy air defense range (see Table IV-12).

Penetrating systems carry imaging sensors for close-up applications, which make them especially useful for small areas and point targets. At present, most such systems are film cameras carried on reconnaissance-capable fighters. These comparatively unwieldy systems are being phased out of the inventory. By the turn of the century, the penetrator force will consist mostly of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as the Predator employed over the former Republic of Yugoslavia. The current force of F-14 Tactical Aerial Reconnaissance Pod System (TARPS) aircraft and a small force of Marine F/A-18Ds carrying electro-optical, infrared, and synthetic aperture radar sensors developed under the Advanced Tactical Air Reconnaissance System (ATARS) program will be maintained as a hedge against uncertainties in UAV acquisition. The sensors in the F/A-18D also may be used in the F/A-18 E/F to replace the F-14 TARPS.

Table IV-12
Airborne Surveillance and Reconnaissance Forces (Total Active Inventory) [a]
Standoff	FY 1996	Planned FY 2001	Penetrators	FY 1996	Planned FY 2001
E-2C Hawkeye	89	79	RF-4C	18	0
E-3B/C AWACS	33	33	F-14 TARPS (Pods)	49	49
E-8C JSTARS	3	20	F/A-18D (RC)	0	31
U-2R/S	32	32	Pioneer	43	20
RC-135V/W Rivet Joint	14	14	Tactical UAV	0	64
EP-3E	12	12	MAE UAV	10	40
ES-3A BGPHES	16	16	HAE UAV	3	14
OV-1D Mohawk	22	0
RC-12 Guardrail	30	36
RC-7B	5	6
NOTE: The force structures shown are for the end of the fiscal years. [a] Reflects PMAI as well as backup and attrition aircraft and reconstitution reserves.

Standoff systems carry long-range sensors, such as radars and signals intelligence (SIGINT) collectors. These systems provide most of the broad-area information used to assess the progress of a combat operation; they also provide targeting data for ground and naval forces and combat aircraft. The most modern and capable standoff systems will be maintained throughout the program period. These include Navy E-2Cs and Air Force E-3s for airspace surveillance, early warning, and fighter control; U-2s for ground reconnaissance; and RC-135s, EP-3s, ES-3s, and RC-12s for SIGINT. The E-8C, the airborne element of the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), will enter service in 1997. The OV-1D fleet will be phased out entirely in the mid-1990s.

READINESS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Training and exercise programs are key to the readiness and combat effectiveness of aviation forces. Each of the Services maintains excellent training facilities where joint large-scale, live-fire exercises can be held. Major aviation training exercises include:

• About three Red Flag/Green Flag exercises annually at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. These exercises provide composite force package training for Air Force squadrons on about an 18-month rotational basis, in addition to training for Navy/ Marine Corps and coalition forces. Air Force units conduct similar training in an annual Maple Flag combined forces exercise held in Canada.

• Four to five carrier air wing exercises per year at Fallon, Nevada. This program provides predeployment integrated strike training for carrier air wings.

• Ten to twelve combined-arms exercises at 29 Palms, California. These drills provide combined-arms training and combat-readiness evaluations for Marine strike squadrons operating in support of ground forces.

More than 200 joint exercises are planned for FY 1996. These include Cope North in the western Pacific, Bright Star in the Middle East, Global Archer and Roving Sands in the United States, and Fuertes Defensas in Latin America.

Most aviation units have adequate supplies of war reserve spares and munitions. Some shortfalls remain in war reserve spares for F-15E fighters, B-1B bombers, and KC-135 tankers. Those shortfalls will be eliminated in FY 1996 for the F-15E, in FY 1997 for the KC-135, and by the end of the decade for the B-1B.

F404 engine availability for the F/A-18 has been a key readiness concern, since the F/A-18 accounts for more than 50 percent of the Department of the Navy's tactical aviation assets. Introduction of redesigned components, coupled with funding increases, is expected to bring to an acceptable level the number of aircraft in need of replacement engines. Unexpected failures in critical components could have programmatic impacts, however. Initiatives to modify acquisition regulations on competition could lessen impacts on F404 readiness.

Peacetime training requirements are now adequately supported by stocks of replenishment spares and other consumable material. Constraints on funding for spare parts procurement could lead to shortfalls in the future, however.

Unplanned deployments during 1995 led to reductions in the flying hours of some aircraft, with adverse readiness consequences. Surge operations undertaken on short notice, as was the case in the Adriatic, inevitably forced compensating drawdowns elsewhere. Contingency operations also displaced some regular training by forces participating in those operations. These problems need to be managed better, and the Department is continuing to work with Congress to preserve management and funding flexibility for contingency operations. These issues are discussed in greater detail in the Readiness chapter of this report.

MODERNIZATION

The roles and missions performed by aviation forces determine their modernization requirements as well as their overall structure. Meeting future goals will require highly capable aircraft and support systems that are easy to operate and maintain, and that can be procured in sufficient numbers at an affordable cost. Reflecting these considerations, acquisition programs for aviation forces are designed to:

• Sustain aircraft modernization. New aircraft procurement must support long-term force structure goals and protect U.S. qualitative advantages.

• Improve aviation force weapons. Acquisition of advanced standoff weapons will reduce aircraft exposure to enemy air defenses and enhance single-pass target destruction capability, thus increasing aircraft survivability. Improvements in electronic warfare systems will keep aviation forces capable of countering the most advanced threats.

• Dominate the collection and exchange of intelligence data. Programs in this area will ensure that critical targeting and intelligence information is available immediately to friendly forces, and denied to potential adversaries.

Over the next decade, funding for tactical aviation modernization must increase significantly if the planned force structure is to be maintained and replenished with new aircraft as necessary. Despite anticipated funding increases, the average age of the fighter force will grow dramatically until around FY 2005. These trends are illustrated in the following charts.

Highlights of modernization programs for U.S. aviation forces are presented below. As this report went to press, funding needed to support the Department's recapitalization initiatives was under review. Annual production rates and funding objectives for some programs addressed in this chapter could change as a result of that assessment. Moreover, other changes could be made as a result of subsequent reprogramming requests. The figures given here reflect the status of programs at the time of the report's publication; adjusted figures, where applicable, will be included in the President's budget submission to Congress.

Sustaining Aircraft Modernization

Two major fighter/attack aircraft acquisition programs -- the F-22 and F/A-18 E/F -- are being pursued. The F-22, being developed by the Air Force as a replacement for the F-15C, will ensure the continued superiority of U.S. forces against long-term advances in the air-to-air and surface-to-air missile capability of potential adversaries. The F-22's low-observable characteristics, supersonic cruise speed, maneuverability, and advanced avionics will enhance its effectiveness in the air-superiority role. The F-22 also will be capable of conducting air-to-ground operations, carrying two JDAMs internally or -- with a greater chance of detection -- a larger external load. The F-22 program has been rephased. The first engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) aircraft is scheduled to fly about May 1997; long-lead funding for four preproduction aircraft will be released in 1997. Tests of a full-scale model are being conducted to confirm the aircraft's low-observable signature qualities; software development and integration are continuing as well. Plans call for production deliveries to begin in FY 2000, with initial operational capability slated for FY 2005.

The F/A-18 E/F, being developed by the Department of the Navy, builds on the proven combat capability of the current C and D models of this aircraft. The new versions will incorporate improvements in range, payload, and survivability, offsetting some of the capabilities lost with the retirement of the A-6. The first EMD model of the F/A-18 E/F made its initial flight in November 1995. The $4.8 billion F/A-18 E/F EMD effort will end in FY 2001, and procurement of the first 12 of a planned inventory of 1,000 operational aircraft will begin in FY 1997. Initial operational capability is planned for FY 2001. Recent modernization decisions will allow F/A-18 E/F production to reach the planned maximum rate one year earlier than previously anticipated.

The Marine Corps is upgrading and extending the service life of its AV-8B fleet by remanufacturing older, day-attack-only aircraft to the latest night-attack/radar configuration. In addition to the radar upgrade, these aircraft are receiving more powerful engines. The AV-8B remanufacturing program was begun in March 1994, and the first flight of a remanufactured AV-8B took place in December 1995. Plans call for a total of 76 aircraft to be remanufactured, with a maximum production rate of 16 aircraft per year achieved beginning in FY 1999.

The remainder of the fighter/attack force -- F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, A-10s, and F/A-18 C/Ds -- will receive capability upgrades of a more modest nature, such as provisions to carry new munitions and tactical data processing enhancements. For the longer term, replacements may be needed for the Air Force's deep-interdiction fighter aircraft, the F-15E and F-117. The successor system, known as the Replacement Interdiction Aircraft, would be fielded sometime after FY 2010.

Neither the F-22 nor the F/A-18 E/F is sufficient to meet the full range of fighter modernization needs. The F-22, while very capable, never has been intended to fill the full 20-wing Air Force structure because of its high cost relative to other aircraft. The F/A-18 E/F also cannot meet all future Navy and Marine Corps needs, being neither sufficiently survivable for the highest-risk operations nor capable of short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) operations. Accordingly, an innovative joint service approach is being taken, merging these diverse needs into a family of common aircraft to avoid the prohibitively high cost of conducting three separate but parallel development programs. The resulting Joint Advanced Strike Technology program, initiated by the Department in late 1993, is now entering a concept demonstration phase intended to reduce risk prior to commencement of the subsequent EMD phase.

The Department conducted a thorough review of the JAST program over the last year. That assessment endorsed the overall JAST concept and achieved agreement among participating Services on desired aircraft characteristics. The development funds originally earmarked for this program, before program content was well-defined, have proven insufficient for the current plan. Funding for the program's development phase (FY 1997-2001) has been increased, and a study of appropriate tasks and funding for the later EMD phase has been initiated. Commencement of EMD is now planned for FY 2001, in contrast to last year's projection of FY 2000. Initial production of the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft derived from this program is anticipated in about FY 2005, with first deliveries to operational units in FY 2008 and initial operational capability slated for approximately 2010.

The JSF, as now envisioned, will share an airframe substantially common among all users. Its powerplant will be a single, higher-thrust derivative of an engine of the size developed for the F-22. The Marine Corps version will be capable of STOVL operations. The plane will be designed to carry two guided bombs and two medium-range air-to-air missiles internally (plus other weapons on wing-mounted stations when appropriate). Although expected to be primarily a single-seat aircraft, some two-seat variants may be developed. The adoption of internal carriage for some weapons will enhance the aircraft's survivability. The decision to provide for internal carriage of weapons was based on analyses of projected threats and the belief that substantial signature reduction will be necessary, at least for aircraft employed early in a conflict. Avionics are being defined now, and are expected to draw from work done for the F-22, F/A-18 E/F, and other programs. The JSF is expected to be considerably more capable than the Air Force F-16 and Marine Corps AV-8B, although it will be larger and more expensive than those aircraft. On the other hand, the JSF will be capable of meeting the Navy's needs at a much more affordable cost than previously planned successor systems, such as the now-cancelled A-12 and A/F-X programs.

Plans call for the award of JAST demonstration phase contracts in October 1996 to two competing contractor teams. The teams selected would each design, develop, and fly concept demonstration aircraft as part of the preparation for the EMD phase. These aircraft will be used to evaluate handling qualities during carrier landing approaches; flight control systems; powerplant integration; and for one variant of each competitor, STOVL characteristics. Construction of the demonstrator aircraft will also help to refine manufacturing approaches that would produce the highest degree of commonality among variants.

Present plans call for the JSF to replace the F-16 in the Air Force, the F-14 in the Navy, and the AV-8B and F/A-18 A/C/D in the Marine Corps. Because these earlier aircraft were built at comparatively high annual rates during the 1980s (up to 180 F-16s and 84 F/A-18s yearly, for example), JSF production levels of well over 100 aircraft per year will be needed in spite of the significant reductions that have been made in the aviation force structure in recent years. Further, the JSF will not become available soon enough to avoid some modest force structure shortfalls during the first decade of the next century. Without a major new acquisition effort, however, there will be a precipitous decline in the fighter forces of all the Services around FY 2005, as shown in the following charts.

Because of the demand for large numbers of aircraft, the risk of JAST development delays, and the possibility that existing fighters could wear out sooner than expected, the Department believes there is merit in providing some mid-term hedges against force structure declines. There is a risk, for example, that a significant number of the Air Force's older F-16s will have to be refurbished substantially if they are to attain an 8,000-flying hour lifetime. There is no precedent for operating high-performance fighter aircraft over such a long life, twice that achieved thus far in operational F-16s. Alternatives available to the Department in the future to fill major force structure shortfalls range from reactivating and updating older aircraft that have been placed in secure storage (including about 400 F-16A/Bs and 150 A-10s by the late 1990s) to, at a higher cost, procuring additional new aircraft of existing types. Accordingly, $760 million has been programmed during FY 1999-2001 for modernization and upgrades of Air Force tactical aircraft. Depending on the circumstances, these funds could be applied to JAST, to upgrades of existing aircraft or further production of existing designs, or to modernization of tactical aircraft weapons and reconnaissance, surveillance, and communications systems.

As a result of congressional action, six additional F-15E and six F-16C/D fighters were authorized in FY 1996 for the Air Force. After reviewing these programs, the Department decided to add four more F-15Es and four more F-16C/Ds in FY 1997. The scheduling and pricing of this procurement are being assessed; for the F-16, it is complicated by a lack of the prior-year funding for long-lead items normally needed to commence production. The Department is continuing to assess its ability to sustain its tactical air fleets, and may consider additional procurement of F-15E and F-16 aircraft if circumstances warrant.

Highlights of aircraft modernization programs are provided in Table IV-13.

Table IV-13
Aircraft Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1995 Actual	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Budgeted	FY 1998 Planned
F-22
RDT&E	2,280.6	2,164.9	2,003.0	2,215.0
Procurement	--	--	--	48.7
F/A-18 E/F
RDT&E	1,248.7	823.8	360.5	157.0
Procurement	--	229.7	2,226.8	2,885.5
JAST
RDT&E (Navy)	98.3	81.6	239.6	421.8
RDT&E (Air Force)	85.3	81.8	263.8	431.1
RDT&E (DARPA)	--	29.8	78.4	23.9
F-14
RDT&E	34.1	17.8	9.9	11.3
Procurement	138.0	102.5	201.6	242.5
AV-8B
RDT&E	9.6	26.2	16.9	11.1
Procurement	132.0	251.7	318.9	324.2
F/A-18 C/D
RDT&E	29.5	45.3	43.1	43.2
Procurement	1,008.4	796.9	--	48.7
F-15
RDT&E	20.3	162.1	143.1	114.5
Procurement	108.6	351.7	179.7	--
F-16
RDT&E	133.2	166.1	142.2	118.9
Procurement	87.5	161.5	111.2	--

Improving Aviation Force Weapons

Improvements are being made in the air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons carried by combat aircraft. Future air-to-air weapons for fighter aircraft will include enhanced versions of both the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and the AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range missile. Air Force and Navy AMRAAM procurement continues throughout the FYDP, with improvements being made in a number of performance areas. The joint AIM-9X program is currently in the demonstration/validation phase of development; a decision on EMD will be made at the end of this year, with production scheduled to begin in 2001. The increased capabilities of these upgraded systems will offer a distinct advantage to U.S. forces in combat.

New air-to-ground weapons with increased standoff range and improved accuracy will provide added benefits in combat operations. These include:

• The ability to attack highly defended targets from the outset of hostilities, without first having to destroy a series of peripheral defenses sequentially.

• Neutralization or reduction of the effectiveness of enemy antiaircraft systems. This will reduce aircraft losses and speed the follow-on use of direct attack weapons, which usually are less expensive than standoff munitions.

• The extension of the effective reach of precision weapons far beyond the combat radius of the delivery platform, and with less exposure.

The 1997-2001 program reflects one principal change from the munitions modernization plan described last year -- the decision to acquire the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) to fill the gap left by last year's cancellation of the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM).

Highlights of munitions programs for FY 1997-2001 are presented below:

• Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile. A long-range, survivable standoff weapon with excellent autonomous navigation capability and an autonomous terminal seeker. The standoff capability of this weapon will enable it to hold highly defended targets at risk while minimizing aircraft attrition. The program will enter the demonstration/validation phase in FY 1996; EMD will begin in FY 1998 and production in FY 2000. Maintaining low unit costs and minimizing life-cycle cost impacts are important goals in the development of this system.

• Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW). A long-range, aerodynamically efficient glide weapon with excellent autonomous navigation capability. The initial (baseline) model, which will carry combined effects bomblets, will provide an accurate, low-cost standoff method of delivering tactical munitions in all types of weather. A follow-on version will carry a Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW)-derived BLU-108 payload for standoff antiarmor capability. Further planned improvements will provide a unitary warhead and a man-in-the-loop seeker for increased accuracy and target discrimination. EMD for both the BLU-108 and unitary variants began in FY 1995. The baseline version will enter production in FY 1997, followed by the BLU-108 and the unitary variant in FY 2000.

• Sensor Fuzed Weapon. A tactical munitions dispenser containing 10 BLU-108 submunitions, each with four Skeet antiarmor warheads for top attacks on enemy armor. SFW is designed to achieve multiple kills against armored vehicles in day or night and in adverse weather. The system has been in low-rate production since FY 1992; a decision on full-rate production is scheduled for mid-FY 1996.

• Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). Under the first phase of this program, existing general-purpose bombs will be provided with an improved guidance capability based on an inertial navigation system (INS) coupled with satellite-borne GPS data. INS/GPS guidance will permit the delivery of free-fall munitions in adverse weather, while improving bombing accuracy from medium and high altitudes. A subsequent product improvement program providing accuracy equivalent to that of today's laser-guided bombs is being assessed. As a result of JDAM's pilot program status, low-rate initial production has been accelerated nine months, to the latter half of FY 1997. In October 1995, the Air Force awarded a contract for EMD and for the first 4,635 JDAM kits at an average unit cost of $18,000, less than half the original $40,000 estimate.

• Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM). A modified Harpoon antiship missile that incorporates an AGM-65 Maverick imaging infrared seeker and Walleye datalink for man-in-the-loop control. An upgraded version of the weapon, known as the Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), will provide about a 60 percent increase in range over the baseline SLAM missile. The SLAM-ER incorporates enhancements in aerodynamic performance, survivability, anti-jam guidance, and hard-target capability, while providing for more rapid mission planning. About 500 SLAM missiles will be converted to the SLAM-ER configuration between FY 1997 and FY 2001.

• Wind-Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD). A modification kit that inertially measures wind and provides corrections to advanced cluster bomb dispensers, thereby improving delivery accuracy from higher altitudes. This modification will be made to the CBU-87 (combined effects munition), CBU-89 (Gator), and CBU-97 (SFW). A decision has been made to procure 200 additional EMD units in FY 1997 to provide an early capability for near-term contingencies. Delivery of production units will begin in FY 1999.

Highlights of weapons modernization programs are provided in Table IV-14.

Table IV-14
Aviation Weapons Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1995 Actual	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Budgeted	FY 1998 Planned
JASSM
RDT&E	--	24.1	198.6	214.0
Procurement	--	--	--	--
JDAM [a]
RDT&E	89.6	117.2	73.8	51.6
Procurement	--	--	23.0	101.5
JSOW [a]
RDT&E	169.2	121.2	109.8	78.1
Procurement	--	25.5	72.5	113.0
SFW
RDT&E	1.4	--	--	--
Procurement	112.7	165.5	131.1	140.2
SLAM
RDT&E	59.0	52.0	22.3	29.3
Procurement	72.2	45.7	22.9	26.7
WCMD
RDT&E	26.3	50.3	56.3	18.2
Procurement	--	--	--	16.8
[a] Includes both Navy and Air Force funding.

Dominating the Collection and Exchange of Intelligence Data

The Services are beginning to field a new generation of airborne reconnaissance and surveillance systems that provide real-time information to a variety of users. The fast pace and increased lethality of battlefield operations dictate that intelligence, warning, and targeting data be collected and passed to combat forces in a timely manner. Navy E-2 and Air Force E-3 aircraft that provide airspace surveillance, warning, and fighter control will have their primary sensors upgraded via the APS-145 program and Radar System Improvement Program (RSIP), respectively. In addition, E-3s are being equipped with a passive electronic detection system. Production of E-8C (JSTARS) radar surveillance aircraft and ground station modules will continue throughout the 1990s, greatly improving capabilities for detecting and tracking enemy ground vehicles. The Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), already deployed or being installed on many of these command and control aircraft and planned for many tactical aircraft, has been designated one of the Department's primary C3I data links. A planned follow-on, the Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS), will be interoperable with allied equipment.

The U-2R force is being equipped with new engines to improve operational performance, and several sensor improvement programs are under way. The RC-135V/W Rivet Joint and EP-3E signals intelligence collection forces will complete their product improvements and will incorporate elements of the Joint Airborne SIGINT system, which will ultimately be used on all airborne reconnaissance systems.

The Department will make significant investments in UAVs during the 1990s. Short-range tactical UAVs have demonstrated substantial utility in regional deployments. For example, the Predator Medium-Altitude Endurance (MAE) UAV system, developed as an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD), has been used in the Balkans to help monitor weapons movements. The High-Altitude Endurance (HAE) UAV ACTDs initiated in FY 1994 will lead to even more capable demonstration systems that could be deployed during contingencies; these systems could be procured in larger quantities around the year 2001. In 1995, the Air Force formed its first operational UAV squadron to exploit emerging opportunities. Acquisition of additional Hunter UAV systems has been terminated in order to focus resources on acquiring MAE UAVs, a newer Tactical UAV system, and a more common UAV ground station architecture. Hunter systems already procured will be used by the Army for operations concept refinement and training.

Key elements of airborne surveillance and reconnaissance modernization programs are shown in Table IV-15.

Table IV-15
Airborne Surveillance and Reconnaissance Modernization Programs
	Current Dollars (Millions)
	FY 1995 Actual	FY 1996 Actual	FY 1997 Budgeted	FY 1998 Planned
E-2
RDT&E	49.7	53.0	79.1	41.5
Procurement	284.0	216.2	154.6	266.0
E-3
RDT&E	81.5	91.4	57.6	29.8
Procurement	135.7	223.6	287.9	125.9
E-8
RDT&E	166.3	167.1	207.3	206.4
Procurement	656.6	523.0	559.1	497.0
U-2
RDT&E	2.3	23.7	29.2	39.4
Procurement	179.5	190.1	152.5	141.3
RC-135
RDT&E	16.7	35.3	3.6	4.5
Procurement	290.2	188.9	160.2	200.4
Endurance UAV ACTDs
RDT&E	195.5	216.2	193.1	210.6
Procurement	--	--	60.0	59.0
JTUAV/Tactical UAV [a]
RDT&E	122.5	74.5	55.9	51.1
Procurement	172.4	41.5	--	75.0
[a] JTUAV in FY 1995; Tactical UAV from FY 1996 on.

CONCLUSION

Aviation forces have adapted well to the challenges of the post-Cold War security environment. The flexibility and worldwide deployability of these forces make them particularly valuable for providing an initial response to unanticipated contingencies.

Fighter/attack aviation forces face several key decisions in the immediate future. The forces acquired during the 1970s and 1980s -- in particular the large fleets of F-16s and early F/A-18s -- must be superseded in the foreseeable future by aircraft offering new capabilities. Although the future forces will be smaller than those of the past, new aircraft production will be needed in large numbers, beginning no later than about FY 2005. The Joint Advanced Strike Technology program has the potential to meet this need, and the Department has significantly increased the funding allocated to this program over the last year to help it achieve that potential. Further delays imposed on the JAST program could be expected to have a serious impact on the future force structure.

There are risks in the planned approach. Large inventories of older aircraft, such as the F/A-18 A/C, are experiencing rising maintenance costs, yet must be retained in operation long enough to permit their orderly replacement about 15 years from now. It is uncertain that some of these older aircraft can be operated economically for such unprecedentedly long life spans. The Department continues to investigate hedges that could reduce these risks, including reactivation and refurbishment of older aircraft in secure storage. In the meantime, sustained funding for maintenance and improvement of the existing force is essential.