US Naval Air Power Debate: Super Hornet, 2016

The US effort to replace cold-war era fighters with a new "low end" lightweight fighter has resulted in the F-35A, B, and C for the US Air Force, Marines, and Navy, respectively. It has also resulted in the largest and most expensive military procurement project in history. Over-budget, past-schedule, and under-performing: the F-35 project has become a lightning rod for debate on the future of western air power. Under the current plan it is likely that the US Navy will be forced to operate fewer air wings spread over fewer aircraft carriers, using a mix of legacy Super Hornets and F-35Cs. Many critics claim this is an unacceptable loss of capability. One argument to cut costs while maintaining capability has been to eliminate the "supercarrier" from the US Navy and instead rely upon smaller, non-catapult carriers (like the upcoming Queen Elizabeth class from the UK) and utilize the STOVL (short take off vertical landing) F-35B exclusively. The smaller carriers are cheaper to procure and operate, so more than one would replace a single current carrier. This smaller individual "footprint" would provide greater flexibility by being scalable to the level of force required to accomplish the mission. On the other hand, others have argued that the greater cost of the F-35C relative to the current generation of aircraft (F-18E/F/G Super Hornets) means fewer aircraft and therefore less capability. They argue that the Navy should forgo the F-35C entirely and continue to purchase Super Hornets until a new design can be devoloped without the burdens of commonality with the Air Force and Marine versions. This scenario is part of a three-part series that attempts to test these three options (baseline F-35C/Super Hornet mix, F-35B only, and Super Hornet only) against a real-world crisis situation. The player is invited to try all three senarios and evaluate for themselves which option is superior. This version presents the baseline: an estimated near-future carrier air wing reduce