[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1255-1260]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE F/A-18E/F SUPER HORNET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.


           The Problem of International Narcotics Trafficking

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida, for the presentation that he just gave. I would 
add a couple of things to it; first of all, that in Kosovo the KLA 
Albanians have been described by the CIA and FBI as some of the most 
ruthless and dangerous cocaine and heroin dealers in the world. In 
Europe they are the major threat, and we are starting to see the 
function of that now. They operate out of Kosovo. They have a clear 
hand.
  Secondly, in Afghanistan, another area in which the terrorists are 
selling drugs to support the mujaheddin, the Hamas, and recently in 
Israel, that Israel is having trouble with right now in Lebanon. So I 
would thank the gentleman for his presentation. The lives of our 
children and our grandchildren are at stake, and the information that 
he brings I have read not only in several articles, but have been 
briefed by our classified sources.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk on something a little different tonight. 
On February 7, a member of the other body delivered on the Senate floor 
what has become an annual tirade of false and misleading statements 
concerning the Navy's number one weapons system procurement, the F-18E/
F Hornet. He concluded at best that the aircraft is not better than the 
current airplane, and probably is worse, and it is enormously more 
expensive than continuing with the present FA-18C and D models.
  Mr. Speaker, I have two models here. The first is the F-18 C/D. The 
second is the F-18 E/F. What I will show in this next hour is the 
extreme advantage of the latter over the C/D model, and why it is 
necessary that the Navy has its number one aircraft for the future.
  Secondly, the gentleman from the other body has never served in the 
military who was talking about these two aircraft. He has a zero rating 
from all defense groups and agencies. He stated his own opinion as 
fact, and I would say that the gentleman in the other body is extremely 
factually challenged. The gentleman has never served in the armed 
service. The only credential that he has is that he is liberal.
  I say this based on my knowledge and experience in carrier aviation, 
and on intelligence briefs presented to me recently by the Department 
of Defense and by the Central Intelligence Agency. It concerns, first, 
the current, and more importantly, the projected military threat that 
will face our defense forces over the next decade. We need to take 
seriously a look at not only what the current threat is that we could 
face, our men and women in all services, and secondly, it concerns the 
weapons we are planning to acquire to defeat that threat.
  When we look at the threat, we look at the future threat 10 years, 20 
years, even 30 years from now, it should be determined on what 
direction we go with the planning and the aircraft and equipment that 
we buy presently, and the training of the men and women in our Armed 
Forces.
  I would say that many of the Members have received this intelligence 
briefing. I would encourage the gentleman from the other body to do so. 
The classified briefings can bring insight into what those actual 
threats are and the direction that we need to go.

                              {time}  2030

  I would ask, Mr. Speaker, what brings Duke Cunningham, a Republican 
from California, why should I be such another expert, other than the 
gentleman in the other body?
  First of all, I served 20 years in the United States Navy. I was a 
Top Gun student. I was a Top Gun instructor. I was commanding officer 
of the adversary squadron. I was on the Defense Authorization 
Committee, and I am now on the Defense Committee on Appropriations and 
sat in on many of the Intel briefings. I would tell the gentleman that 
I have flown the F-14. I have flown the Air Force F-15. I have flown 
the F-16, the F-18C/D and the F-18E/F that we are talking about. I have 
flown in the Middle East, and I flew in Israel in 1973 and 1974. I have 
flown against enemy aircraft in combat, and I have shot down many of 
those aircraft. I have also flown against them in peacetime to judge 
their capabilities, and I helped develop the tactics against those 
particular aircraft.
  The gentleman in the other body has none of these capabilities or 
none of this knowledge.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilirakis). The Chair would advise the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) that he should refrain from 
characterizing the position of an individual Senator, even if not 
mentioning the Senator by name; and the gentleman should also refrain 
from urging an individual Senator to take a particular position.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would particularly recommend that the 
gentleman in the other body get the briefings on potential threats 
posed by forces by Iran, Iraq and Libya, in North Korea and China. 
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the Speaker look at 
the Russian SU-37 with the AA-10, the AA-11 and AA-12 missile, because 
in today's fleet, if our pilots in the F-14, the F-15, the F-16 or 
current F-18 meet this SU-27, with the Russian missiles and their 
jammer and their radar, our pilots will die 95 percent of the time.
  That is not spin, Mr. Speaker. That is fact.
  I would recommend these briefings on the capabilities of carrier 
battle groups to meet and defeat these particular threats and the 
tactics involved in them, which I deal with on a daily basis. The 
capabilities of carrier aviation today center on two tactical aircraft, 
both of which I have flown, the F-14 and the F-18 Hornet. The Navy has 
upgraded them throughout the years. As they buy an airplane, new 
equipment, new electronics, new stealth capabilities, are placed on 
those aircraft.
  The F-14 airframe was designed in the 1960s, and the F-18 in the 
1970s. We

[[Page 1256]]

have added many things to those aircraft, trying to keep them with the 
capability to meet those threats that I have previously talked about.
  When the F-14 was designed, the Navy desperately needed a high speed 
interceptor. Right after the Vietnam War, Mr. Speaker, there were many 
that thought that our only threat was going to be Backfire bombers 
coming in from the former Soviet Union. We trained many of our pilots 
as interceptor pilots, although the Navy Fighter Weapons School, which 
we know as Top Gun, continued to learn how to fight the F-14 and F-18 
in what we commonly call a dog fight.
  Counterfleets of projected cruise missiles were also a threat coming 
in not only at the carriers but our battleships and our troops 
embarked, and our aircraft were designed to meet that particular 
threat. That performance dominated the design at the expense of 
reliability, maintainability, survivability, and versatility.
  The F-14 today is very expensive to maintain, and each cost per 
flight hour is an extreme mode.
  In early mid-1970, Congress, in its wisdom, directed both the Navy 
and the Air Force to develop their next generation of tactical 
aircraft. The F-18, and for the Air Force the F-16; and if we want to 
look I do not have a model, Mr. Speaker, of the F-16 but if we want to 
look at the Russian-built MiG 29, it is very similar. As a matter of 
fact, the Soviets stole the plans of our F-18 and our F-16 and devised 
this particular airplane called the MiG 29.
  They also stole the plans for our older F-111 and created a MiG that 
is very poor performing. They stole the wrong plans, because in my 
opinion the F-111 could not shoot down the Goodyear Blimp, but they 
stole the plans and thought it would be a good airplane because it had 
variable swept wing like the F-14.
  All of these aircraft have served our Nation well and they have been 
equally successful by our forces, by both our men and women in Desert 
Storm and other areas. But they are limited.
  The aging fleet of the F-14 Tomcats, many of which are over 20 years 
old, Mr. Speaker, are difficult and expensive to maintain because they 
were designed before modern survivability. We call it VSEVO.
  Mr. Speaker, we know it as stealth capability, and those techniques 
have been developed over the years since the F-14 and the F-18 models 
were developed. Like the F-14, the early models of the F-18 were 
growing long in the tooth; and even the most recently built F-18C/D 
model are no longer able to keep up with the evolving threat, i.e., the 
SU-27, which is a Russian variant, the SU-35 and SU-37, which are 
projected Russian threats in the next few years, along with their AA-
10, AA-11, and AA-12 missiles, which are superior to our best missiles 
in a dog fight.
  The limitations of the F/A-18C/D Hornet and the ability to handle 
that threat is a serious threat today, Mr. Speaker. They performed well 
in Desert Storm and Allied Force and Desert Fox. All I can say is we 
are very, very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the SU-27, with the Russian 
add-ons were not available in Kosovo, because our long-range stand-off 
weapons, our aircraft would not have known, both in the intercepted and 
the dog fight, that they were coming, and our pilots would have 
suffered at the hands of those pilots.
  That brings me to my major premise, Mr. Speaker, the necessity of 
acquiring a larger, longer range, more survivable, and more capable F-
18E/F Super Hornet. Many people fought off the B-2 and its production. 
The B-2 was one of our most successful aircraft in Kosovo. It had no 
losses. It launched out of the United States on missions, and if we 
look at the target damage in Kosovo impacted most of the target damage 
itself.
  The F-22 is a future airplane by the Air Force. It will be able to 
meet the threat of the SU-35 and SU-37 in the future, but at the same 
time we are debating in Congress the additional cost of that particular 
airplane. If anything, we need to double the numbers, reduce the unit 
cost and proceed with the test and evaluation so we can take a look at 
introducing that particular airplane capability against the future 
threat of Russian and Chinese airplanes.
  Let me give another example, Mr. Speaker. I went to Patuxent River, 
Maryland, and as a test pilot I am able to fly aircraft. A few weeks 
ago, General O'Ryan was flying the F-16. I was able to be in the F-15 
and doing the test results on the new F-22. We did high angle attack 
work, which means a very slow high angle, high claim rate speed, and 
also the VSEVO test, which is the performance and acceleration test of 
different aircraft.
  In this particular airplane, the F-18E/F where I flew at Patuxent 
River, Maryland, let me give you the difference in capability. In 
Vietnam, I was shot down on my 300th mission in combat, after engaging 
some 22 MiGs on the 10th of May 1972 and shooting down three of those 
MiGs. On other occasions, I had to ingress a target at very low level, 
50 feet to 100 feet. I would pitch the plane that I was flying, at that 
time was an F-4 Phantom, and I would go over the ground looking at my 
map and hitting certain positions on that map within seconds.
  At a given time, I would pop the airplane up, roll to take a look at 
that target and quite often it took a long time to find that particular 
target, Mr. Speaker. At that time, I was very vulnerable to those 
gunners while I am looking for that target climbing.
  With this particular airplane, when I flew at low level, some 600 
knots at 50 to 100 feet above the ground, it handles very capably and 
that is another reason that the airplane is good because one can take a 
young Jonathan Livingston Seagull that has never set foot in a jet 
before and they feel very, very comfortable with the handling qualities 
of this aircraft.
  I flew it in at 600 knots, popped up; and before I got there, miles 
away from the target, I was able to lock that target up with two 
different systems, which I cannot discuss because it is classified. I 
not only locked up the bridge with two systems, I knew exactly where it 
was so when I pulled up, all I had to do is roll, put the airplane on 
the target, drop the ordnance and then break out, which limited the 
amount of vulnerability that I was vulnerable to enemy aircraft fire 
and/or other aircraft.
  So that in itself, Mr. Speaker, is a big advantage over the F-18C/D, 
or even the F-14.
  Early F-18s, the A, the B, the C and then later the D models, have 
been strengthened over the years to withstand stress of recovering back 
aboard a carrier, with more and larger weapons. We have added sensors 
to these older F-18s, countermeasures, advance systems, black boxes, 
electronics; and the Hornets have become even more densely packed and 
heavy.
  What does this mean, Mr. Speaker? It basically means that this older 
model of the F-18, because we have added so much weight, there is no 
more capacity to add weight to this airplane and, secondly, that when 
we add the weight on there, we cannot grow anymore. All the new systems 
to combat these aircraft that I previously mentioned, SU-27, SU-35, SU-
37, all their missiles, all of their capabilities, I have no more room 
to put it in this airplane. It is full. The F-18E/F has room to grow 
over the next 20 years, which is a big advantage.
  I would ask the Speaker to put himself in the Sea of Japan, or put 
his son or his daughter in an aircraft, coming aboard in the Sea of 
Japan in the dead of winter, a pitching deck, bad weather, and you can 
only land on that carrier one time because the increased weight of this 
aircraft as it has grown throughout the years, you are limited in the 
amount of fuel that can be brought back aboard. If you do not land that 
airplane on the flight deck, you have to go back up through the bad 
weather, you have to find a tanker and be able to tank. If you drop the 
weapons that you are carrying, you could drop half a million dollar or 
million dollar weapons off of that airplane so you can back aboard the 
carrier, and that is a waste in itself and cost millions of dollars, 
especially if you are early on in a war when it has not started but yet 
you carry ordnance just in case the battle begins.
  The worst part of this, Mr. Speaker, is that our young men and young

[[Page 1257]]

women, if they miss that carrier deck in those kind of conditions, in 
the Sea of Japan or areas where the weather is bad and cold, if they 
have to eject, the pilots wear today a survival suit, but they have 
less than 10 minute survivability time; and chances are our helicopters 
and our search-and-rescue efforts will not find them before they die.

                              {time}  2045

  The aircraft that we are talking about that the gentleman in the 
other body talks so badly about that says it was not better, I can 
bring four of these heavy duty weapons back aboard and I can carry 
enough fuel for 15 passes at that carrier deck in case there are 
problems with the deck, if there are problems with the weather or even 
the tailhook itself on this particular airplane. So it means 
survivability to those men and women in those circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was in Vietnam, we had problems bringing Rockeye, 
which is a bomblet, back aboard the carrier and quite often we did not 
have time to stick around on the target to develop that particular 
weapon because we ran low on fuel. F-18E/F extends the range of the 
current F-18 by drastic amounts, not only giving the pilot time on 
target but survivability in an area which could be very hostile to 
enemy threats.
  Another advantage of the new F-18E/F because the defense budget has 
been so low and because many of the deployments to Somalia, to Haiti, 
to Iraq four times, to Bosnia, to Kosovo, to bombing aspirin factories 
have cut off the defense budget; and we have not had the advantage of 
the particular airplane to allow it the capabilities that we need in 
this particular airplane.
  What this aircraft offers is it can itself, if we take off these 
weapons off this pylon, the airplane is built as an air-to-air tanker. 
It can give us an additional thousand pounds of fuel, which will allow 
us to go over a thousand miles, where the F-18/CD has as little as 370 
miles of range.
  So the gentleman in the other body that spoke about the capabilities 
of this older CD being worse than the current F-18E/F that we have 
coming up is just not the case. I would tell the gentleman that he is 
incorrect, and I would tell him to get not only, I do not know if I can 
do that, if I can advise him to take briefs, Mr. Speaker, but if he 
does not, he should. I do not know if I can advise him or not under the 
rules. But if he is overly concerned that the Super Hornet will cost 13 
percent more than the older airplane, I would ask him to think about 
the capability of this aircraft not only in cold weather in saving our 
pilots, the ability of this airplane to be a tanker so that this one 
will not run out of fuel, but the Hornet in studies has been shown that 
this airplane will die in combat four to one to this airplane. Why?
  First of all, you have the endurance and the range to go to the 
target not direct but in a route that avoids enemy threats. Secondly, 
if you are engaged by enemy threats, you have the fuel to get back to 
the carrier, where, with this airplane, just to use an afterburner will 
cause you to run out of fuel or could cause you to run out of fuel. 
This additional 13 percent in cost will save four aircraft to one in 
combat with different studies. And I think that is very critical.
  Mr. Speaker, I took this airplane up at Pax River and also flew it. 
Because the aircraft itself, when it was being initially tested, had a 
condition that they call wing drop. When you take this aircraft, 
generally at speeds in which you are trying to close in very close to 
the enemy, and we will not shoot another F-18, let us at least use a 
Russian airplane, if we are trying to close in on another airplane 
close aboard, what was happening, something that they did not look at 
in a test bed was a condition called wing drop.
  If you would pull under certain PSF, different G-loadings, different 
altitudes, then what happened is the air flow over the wing of this 
aircraft would cause one wing to depart other and then the wing would 
drop, which is a tactical disadvantage and could even cost you that 
fight.
  Engineers went in. I flew the airplane at 40,000 feet; and I then 
flew it at 35,000 feet, and I then flew it at 30,000 feet trying to 
duplicate the wing drop after the engineers had fixed it. We could not 
duplicate it.
  But during this time, the point that I would make, my chase pilot 
flew at 25,000 feet just saving their fuel while I did all of these 
other tests using in and out of afterburner, under high-G loading not 
only in military power but maximum power, burning fuel at a very high 
rate, this aircraft was sitting at 25,000 feet at maximum endurance 
just saving its fuel. Even with all of that, I ended up with 3,000 
pounds more fuel, Mr. Speaker.
  What does that mean? It means that our pilots, if they are engaged, 
will have a much higher capability not only of survivability but the 
ability to engage the enemy.
  On May 10, 1972, I was engaged by 22 MiG-17s, 19s and 21s over North 
Vietnam, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell you about the ensuing dogfight. I 
was fortunate enough to shoot down three of those 22 MiGs. But, in 
that, you use a tremendous amount of fuel; and if you have got 100 or 
200 or 300 miles to return to your carrier or to your airfield, the Air 
Force, then you have a good chance of losing that aircraft.
  The F-18/C model has done well in the past, but yet its stealth 
capabilities that we have added today to that particular airplane were 
not developed until later on. The new aircraft, the F-18E/F, gives us a 
much higher chance of survivability in the intercept. The Russian 
radars are very large. They had jammers that are very difficult to 
actually see where this particular airplane is, Mr. Speaker.
  What the F-18 does is that his missiles, the bad guy's missile, is 
better than our missile today, not in the future but today. We cannot 
only see where he is not, we cannot see where he is. And what happens 
is that he fires a missile at me if I do not have stealth capability 
and our pilots die. Now, that is a pretty serious thing, Mr. Speaker, 
whether you are sitting in that cockpit or you have a family member 
that is sitting in that cockpit.
  What this stealth capability in this new F-18E/F does is that enemy, 
with his powerful radar, cannot see our aircraft, or, at least, by the 
time he sees it, it gives us time to lock up his airplane and to fire 
our AMRAM or other type missiles, which gives us the capability to 
shoot him down and to have him come back in a ball of fire instead of 
us.
  Now, that might be not significant to many people, Mr. Speaker, but 
it is for the men and women that we ask to fight our battles.
  I would say to the gentleman in the other body, when he says that the 
older F-18C/D is better than this airplane, he is wrong. When he says 
it has longer range than the newer airplane, he is absolutely wrong. 
When he says it has better stealth capability, he is wrong. And when he 
says it is an airplane that we should not buy, Mr. Speaker, in my 
humble opinion, the gentleman is wrong.
  We need to look very carefully at the future, Mr. Speaker, and to see 
what technologies we have to put into those aircraft. I have a real 
concern. If the gentleman in the other body wants to take a look at a 
system that could have problems in the future, this country, the United 
States of America, has never built, Mr. Speaker, an airplane that is 
inferior to what the enemy threat is. We are not going to put our men 
and women up in the air with an airplane that we think that they cannot 
survive in. We just have not done that in this country.
  Even during World War II, when the Japanese Zero was superior to many 
of our aircraft, industry came about and developed superior aircraft, 
like a P-51, like a P-38, like other aircraft that turned the tide of 
that war. And we cannot do that today. But I would tell my colleagues, 
Mr. Speaker, that I have a real concern with an upcoming aircraft, not 
the F-18E/F, but with an aircraft called the Joint Strike Fighter.
  The Joint Strike Fighter, the U.S. Air Force is going to replace its 
F-16, which is an attack aircraft. The U.S.

[[Page 1258]]

Marine Corps is going to use it as a vertical takeoff, what we call a 
jump jet, to replace the ailing Harrier.
  The United States Navy is selected to take a low-end or a low-cost 
variant of that Joint Strike Fighter. And we must take a look before we 
buy or develop that aircraft first, is its design going to allow our 
pilots in all the services to win in combat? Can they meet that future 
air-to-air threat and air-to-ground threat? Can they fight those future 
threats?
  I do not want a fair fight, Mr. Speaker. There is no such thing as a 
fair fight when you are a fighter pilot, and there are no points for 
second place because second place means you are captured or you are 
dead. And I do not want to build an airplane that I cannot defeat an 
enemy or that my children or your children cannot defeat that enemy.
  I hope the Joint Strike Fighter program succeeds. Battle group 
commanders will surely welcome it in year 2012 to begin sharing on its 
flight deck with the F-18E/F. But I will continue to argue to the best 
of my ability from now until that speculated time that we need to be 
equipping our airwings with the F-18E/F and ensure that the other 
systems that we put our pilots in can meet that threat.
  This year, in Congress, we debated the F-22. The F-22 will meet the 
threat of the SU-35 and the SU-37, which is the future aircraft. Right 
now, in my opinion, it is one of the few airplanes that will meet that 
threat. Unfortunately, the airplane today is $187 million a copy. The 
research and development is over $20 billion dollars. And the cost of 
the electronics, hopefully, will not go up.
  If we do anything, Mr. Speaker, we should double the buy of the F-22. 
Because what they did is, with Lockheed and the Air Force, they cut the 
buy of the F-22 in half. When you take all this research and 
development money and you put it on a lesser number of airplanes, each 
of those airplanes, when you pile those additional costs, it is more 
than if you had a whole bunch of them. So, in the future, I think we 
need to double the buy of the F-22, not only for the cost but the fact 
that when you get into an engagement, it is like a food fight, you may 
have some airplanes over here and some other here and some behind you 
that are in the threat, and if you only have two air superiority 
fighters, you may not be able to cover everybody that is in trouble. 
And it is another issue that is coming up before this Congress. I hope 
we can resolve this, as well.
  It is not just because of the superior ability to bring expensive 
smart weapons back to the ship or because spectacular improvements in 
survivability. It has a wealth of additional enhancements, the F-18E/F.
  I will confine myself to three, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the 
increased range. Secondly, the airborne tanking capability. And C, I 
mentioned briefly, the capability for growth. The combat radius of the 
Super Hornet carrying 4,000-pound weapons, that is a lot of bombs on an 
airplane; and the drag, like when you stick your hand out of a car, 
that is called drag, but the drag on those aircraft is tremendous.
  That airplane can go 500 nautical miles, compared to only 370 miles 
of this aircraft. Every battle group commander since the F-18 
deployment in 1983 has recommended this extra range.
  The GAO reported highly critical initially of the F-18 at the time 
and it emphasized the limited range of the F-18C/D. I criticized it 
myself. And they asked us to continue buying the A-7, which was a much 
older airplane with less capability, and I disagreed with that.
  At least one of these same GAO analysts that was responsible for the 
recommendation now states that the extra range of the Super Hornet is 
unnecessary and that the previously unsatisfactory range of the 
original Hornet is adequate.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Speaker, this absurd and contradictory analysis is all the more 
unsettling when combined with the fact that in the days of the original 
Hornet, the Navy had A-6 tankers to enhance the range of our aircraft 
for in-flight refueling. These vulnerable aircraft have since been 
retired, leaving the aging S-3, which has very limited tanking 
capability, as the only tanker for the fleet today.
  Fortunately, the F-18E/F unlike the F-18C/D was designed to carry 
fuel tanks. You see all of these stations underneath can be loaded with 
fuel tanks. What is the advantage of that? It can fly at speeds and 
altitudes most suitable for the combat mission unlike slower, less 
maneuverable ones. Let me give an example.
  In Vietnam, we used to go up and try to tank behind a C-130. It was 
so slow that I used as much burner getting the two or 3,000 pounds of 
fuel out of that airplane than I got. I burned more fuel than I 
actually received, but at least I was heading toward the target. This 
aircraft can act as a tanker and tank at the same speed as the other F-
18s and be just as maneuverable. This gives the battle group commander 
the capability to launch one or two Super Hornets, each carrying two 
smart missiles, accompanied by an additional Super Hornet configured as 
a tanker, and after a single refueling outbound leg, the missile-armed 
aircraft will strike the enemy targets a thousand miles away and 
return, a thousand miles and return. Remember, this airplane was 370 
miles only. So again the gentleman in the other body was wrong and 
misinformed.
  The big part of this airplane is the maintainability. I have spoken 
about the F-14 and its capability. If you have an aircraft that is a 
tanker and also can act as a fighter, it gives you another fighter 
airborne. Plus you do not have to have all the other maintenance people 
to maintain a totally different airplane, to have different parts on 
the carrier because this aircraft is the same as the airplane you are 
going out to fight with as a tanker. The parts are common, they are 
easier to keep, and that way you also keep more aircraft up on that 
carrier deck making your readiness much, much higher.
  With two-thirds of each launch serving as strike aircraft and the 
third serving first as the tankers and then as combat air patrol 
between the battle group and the enemy, tremendous new capabilities and 
flexibility and alternatives accrue to the battle group commander.
  My final attribute of the F-18E/F is its capability for growth. The 
reason the F-18 A, B, C and D models have remained effective is that we 
have built up those systems since the early 1980s and they have been 
upgraded every 2 years, incorporating new radars, mission computers, 
forward-looking infrared sensors, and weapons employment capabilities 
as I noted earlier. This capacity for further modernization has been 
exhausted, and there is no more room. Not only is the current F-18C/D 
already too heavy to incorporate any additional systems, without 
considerable redesign there is no space to locate such systems or black 
boxes, as we refer to them in the military.
  Likewise, there is no additional electrical power or cooling capacity 
to accommodate the new equipment. So in short, Mr. Speaker, the old 
aircraft cannot keep up not only with the threat but the modernization 
necessary for our men and women to win in combat and to complete their 
mission. The F-18E/F has, like its predecessor the F-18A/B did in the 
day, the access of electrical power, cooling capacity, and cubic space 
to accommodate 20 years of growth and therefore will be able to 
incorporate new sensors, countermeasures and weapons still on the 
drawing board. One of the advantages is that the high technology of the 
new F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter as it develops, will be able to use 
those same weapons systems, those same radars in this aircraft and 
exchange them because there is plenty of room for growth, up to 20 
years, which should be just about the service life of the F-18E/F 
before we go to the Joint Strike Fighter and whatever comes next.
  I began these remarks with the opinion that they are the most 
important of my career. I believe this because I feel that the F-18 is 
essential to the preparedness and success of carrier aviation and naval 
air power projection for the next 20 years, Mr. Speaker. As events in 
both the Arabian Gulf and in the Adriatic Sea have borne out recently, 
our land-based tactical assets

[[Page 1259]]

are not always welcome on otherwise friendly real estate. Quite often, 
we will have to engage it with a battle group or a carrier air battle 
group. That, combined with the Air Force, the Marine Corps and the 
Navy, in joint exercises and joint combat, our troops should be able to 
withstand those enemy threats.
  But I do not think there is anyone on either side of the aisle or the 
gentleman in the other body that would have our men and women engage an 
enemy in a system where they knew that they could not win and they 
would either die or be shot down. The engineer and manufacturing 
development phase is complete. The operational evaluation is complete. 
The airplane is ready. It is ready to put to the fleet.
  Back in 1992, the Navy presented its $4.8 billion estimate for this 
phase in FY 1990 dollars. The Navy and the contractors have come in 
below those costs. Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Northrup Gramine, 
Raytheon, General Electric aircraft engines have brought the program in 
well below the cost estimates, and it is a superior aircraft, Mr. 
Speaker. Congress also specified that the F-18 production costs not 
exceed that of most F-18C/Ds by more than 25 percent. This aircraft 
came in at 13 percent the cost.
  Frankly, I have been a little skeptical of some years ago to whether 
the F-18E/F could live up to its billing and I was wrong. It has. I was 
skeptical that the radars would not meet the threat but it has. For the 
preceding 2 years an annoying, relatively minor anomaly has shown up in 
certain combinations of speed and altitude, and I addressed that. It is 
called wing drop. That has been completed and finished by our 
engineers, not only not at the expense of our stealth capability nor 
our range as you would think that you have to hang something else on 
the airplane. At the end of an exhaustive process, the fixes were 
finished, the wind tunnel tests are done; and we are ready to buy this 
airplane for the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps 
if they so choose.
  I would be comfortable in this airplane, Mr. Speaker, fighting 
against the threats that we have today. And the threats that we have 
tomorrow we will have to upgrade this aircraft as well. The Navy's most 
successful initial sea trials on board the U.S.S. Stennis CVN-74 in 
January 1977, the dual F-18E/F is virtually identical to the front and 
rear cockpits and can be flown in training with our student pilots. 
This airplane is one of the easiest aircraft I have ever flown to bring 
aboard or take off on an aircraft carrier, making it user friendly for 
our young pilots as they enter the fleet. That is important as well, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Eight production Super Hornets have been delivered to Fleet Readiness 
Squadron 122 at Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, where the cadre 
of instructor pilots is unanimous in its approval of how well the Super 
Hornet performs day and night and under most grueling conditions. It 
can be conducted aboard a ship within a test range of shore or in 
simulated combat fights.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a Commander 
Operational Test and Evaluation Force, COMOPTEVFOR, released the 
results of the OPEVAL, specifically that the aircraft was found to be 
operationally suitable and operationally effective. The highest grade 
attainable in a test of this type or ever from an aircraft from the 
United States. They also recommended the aircraft for fleet 
introduction.
  I would say to the gentleman in the other body once again, he is 
wrong. Boeing Super Hornet awarded the NAA Collier Trophy, Washington, 
D.C., the National Aeronautic Association announced today, Mr. Speaker, 
that the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has been selected to receive the 
NAA Collier Trophy recognizing the top aeronautical achievement in the 
United States for FY 1999. That in succinct order, Mr. Speaker, is why 
that I say the gentleman in the other body, if he wants to man up in 
one of the older airplanes, I will man up in the new one, and he will 
die in a fireball all tensed up.

      2-11-00--Boeing's Super Hornet Awarded NAA's Collier Trophy

       Washington, DC.--The National Aeronautic Association 
     announced today that the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has 
     been selected to receive the NAA Collier Trophy recognizing 
     the top aeronautical achievement in the United States for 
     1999.
       The Boeing Company, the Hornet Industry Team, and the 
     United States Navy were recognized for, ``designing, 
     manufacturing, testing, and introducing into service the F/A-
     18E/F multi-mission strike fighter aircraft, the most capable 
     and survivable carrier-based combat aircraft.''
       In announcing the selection of the winner, NAA President 
     Don Koranda commented, ``The selection of the Super Hornet as 
     the 1999 Collier winner is an excellent example of the 
     technical achievement and teamwork of America's aerospace 
     industry.''
       The NAA's Robert J. Collier Trophy, established in 1911, is 
     awarded annually, ``For the greatest achievement in 
     aeronautics and astronautics in America, with respect to 
     improving the performance, efficiency, and safety of air or 
     space vehicles, the value of which has been thoroughly 
     demonstrated by actual use during the preceding year.'' The 
     trophy, on permanent display at the Smithsonian's National 
     Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, is considered the 
     greatest and most prized of aeronautical honors in America.
       The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a flexible, multi-
     mission aircraft capable of performing a variety of tactical 
     missions including air superiority, fighter escort, close air 
     support, day/night precision strike, and all-weather attack. 
     It was designed to replace three Navy aircraft, the A-6 
     Intruder, the F-14 Tomcat, and the earlier model Hornets. In 
     addition, the aircraft will significantly increase an 
     aircraft carrier battle group's capability to independently 
     carry out sustained operations in support of national 
     interests.
       The F/A-18E/F has greatly increased performance, 
     efficiency, and safety over the Hornet and has also reduced 
     the maintenance requirements with 42 percent fewer parts than 
     its predecessor. The aircraft has 25 percent greater payload, 
     three times the ``bring-back'' to the aircraft carrier, five 
     times more survivability, a 40 percent increase in range, and 
     17.3 cubic feet of growth volume for future systems.
       In 1999, the Super Hornet completed the most thorough and 
     challenging operational evaluation in the history of naval 
     aviation. Its test program was a unique partnership between 
     the Hornet Industry Team and the Navy that used a fully 
     integrated team to conduct developmental flight and ground 
     testing concurrently from a single location. During its 
     ``Test and Evaluation'' phase, the F/A-18E/F has flown 6,876 
     mishap-free hours, including 2,917 hours in 1999. As it 
     entered service in November, 1999, the Super Hornet exceeded 
     all Navy and Department of Defense operational requirements. 
     In addition, Congress approved a multi-year procurement 
     demonstrating confidence in the program.
       Additional evidence of the success of the program is 
     illustrated by a number of technical ``firsts.'' The Super 
     Hornet has an unlimited angle of attack that provides 
     exceptional maneuverability in combat, fly-by-wire controls 
     and Full Authority Digital Electronic Engine Control (FADEC), 
     and a flight control system that automatically compensates 
     for damage or failure. Its documented performance makes the 
     Super Hornet the most versatile, capable, and survivable 
     strike fighter aircraft in the world.
       Formal presentation of the trophy will take place at the 
     annual Robert J. Collier Presentation Banquet, which will be 
     held on Wednesday, May 3, at the Crystal Gateway Marriott 
     Hotel in Arlington, VA. For further information, please visit 
     NAA's web site at www.naa-usa.org, send an e-mail to 
     [email protected], or call 703-527-0226.
       The National Aeronautic Association is the National Aero 
     Club of the United States and the nation's oldest aviation 
     organization, founded in 1905. Its primary mission is the 
     advancement of the art, sport, and science of aviation and 
     space flight. NAA is also the United States representative to 
     the Federation Aeronautique Internationale, the 88-country 
     organization that oversees all aviation and space records 
     established worldwide. NAA consists of more than 100 member 
     organizations. NAA oversees many of aviation's most 
     prestigious awards and trophies and is a member funded, not-
     for-profit association.
       The Commander Operational Test and Evaluation Force 
     (COMOPTEVFOR) released the results of OPEVAL, specifically 
     that the aircraft was found to be Operationally Suitable and 
     Operationally Effective (the highest grade attainable from 
     the test). They also recommended the aircraft for fleet 
     introduction.
       Press release follows:

       ``Super Hornet'' Operational Evaluation Results Announced

       The Navy announced today the results of the F/A-18E/F Super 
     Hornet operational evaluation (OPEVAL). The OPEVAL report 
     awarded the best possible grade to the Super Hornet, calling 
     it ``operationally effective and operationally suitable.'' In 
     addition, the report recommended the aircraft's introduction 
     into the fleet.

[[Page 1260]]

       Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jay Johnson, stated ``The 
     F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the cornerstone of the future of 
     naval aviation. The superb performance demonstrated 
     throughout its comprehensive operational evaluation was just 
     what we expected and confirms why we can't wait to get it to 
     the fleet!''
       Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) at China Lake, 
     Calif., flew 1,233 hours in over 850 sorties and expended 
     more than 400,000 pounds of ordnance in the Super Hornet 
     during nearly six months of flights. The 23-member aircrew 
     tested the aircraft in a complex variety of tactical missions 
     representing the operational arena.
       The Navy's Program Executive Officer for Tactical Aircraft 
     Programs, Rear Adm. Jeffrey A. Cook commented, ``This is the 
     best news the Navy's carrier forces have received in a long 
     time. It will ensure that throughout the next twenty years 
     the fleet will be capable of countering the evolving threat. 
     My congratulations to the Navy's Operational Test and 
     Evaluation Command, the men and women of VX-9, and the entire 
     naval aviation systems team.'' The purpose of the OPEVAL was 
     to test the aircraft in a realistic fleet setting to 
     determine its operational effectiveness as a weapon system, 
     and its suitability to be maintained and operated by the 
     Navy. No new deficiencies were found and the report validated 
     the aircraft's superior capabilities.
       ``I'm really excited about the results,'' said Capt. James 
     B. Godwin III, F/A-18 program manager, ``and we got the best 
     grade possible from OPEVAL--operationally effective and 
     operationally suitable. This report confirmed that the Super 
     Hornet is a very mature product. We have been recommended for 
     full fleet introduction.''
       The OPEVAL report specifically cited the aircraft's key 
     enhancing features--growth, bringback, survivability, range 
     and payload--as qualities relative to current fleet 
     operational capabilities. The successful completion of OPEVAL 
     continues the Super Hornet along the road to a milestone III 
     decision, and then approval to start full-rate production and 
     multi-year procurement.

                          ____________________