REPORTS ON SERVICE-LIFE EXTENSION OF F/A–18 AIRCRAFT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

SEC. 114. REPORTS ON SERVICE-LIFE EXTENSION OF F/A–18 AIRCRAFT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.(a) Cost-benefit Analysis of Service Life Extension of F/A–18 Aircraft.—Before the Secretary of the Navy may enter into a program to extend the service life of F/A–18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours, the Secretary shall—(1) conduct a cost-benefit analysis, in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A–94, comparing extending the service life of existing F/A–18 aircraft with procuring additional F/A–18E or F/A–18F aircraft as a means of managing the shortfall of the Department of the Navy in strike fighter aircraft; and(2) submit to the congressional defense committees a report on such cost-benefit analysis.(b) Elements of Cost-benefit Analysis.—The cost-benefit analysis required by subsection (a)(1) shall include the following:(1) An estimate of the full costs, over the period covered by the future-years defense program submitted to Congress under section 221 of title 10, United States Code, with the budget of the President, of extending legacy F/A–18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours, including—(A) any increases in operation and maintenance costs associated with operating such aircraft beyond a service life of 8,600 hours; and(B) the costs with respect to the airframe, avionics, software, and aircraft subsystems and components required to remain relevant in countering future threats and meeting the warfighting requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands.(2) An estimate of the full costs, over the period covered by such future-years defense program, of procuring such additional F/A–18E or F/A–18F aircraft as would be required to meet the strike fighter requirements of the Department of the Navy in the event the service life of legacy F/A–18 aircraft is not extended beyond 8,600 hours.(3) An assessment of risks associated with extending the service life of legacy F/A–18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours, including the level of certainty that the Secretary will be able to achieve such an extension.(4) An estimate of the cost-per-flight hour incurred in operating legacy F/A–18 aircraft with a service life extended beyond 8,600 hours.(5) An estimate of the cost-per-flight hour incurred for operating new F/A–18E or FA–18F aircraft.(6) An assessment of any alternatives to extending the service life of legacy F/A–18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours or buying additional F/A–18E or F/A–18F aircraft that may be available to the Secretary to manage the shortfall of the Department of the Navy in strike fighter aircraft.(c) Additional Elements of Report.—In addition to the information required in the cost-benefit analysis under subsection (b), the report under subsection (a)(2) shall include an assessment of the following:(1) Differences in capabilities of—(A) legacy F/A–18 aircraft that have undergone service-life extension;(B) F/A–18E or F/A–18F aircraft; and124 STAT. 4156(C) F–35C aircraft.(2) Differences in capabilities that would result under the legacy F/A–18 aircraft service-life extension program if such program would—(A) provide only airframe-life extensions to the legacy F/A–18 aircraft fleet; and(B) provide for airframe-life extensions and capability upgrades to the legacy F/A–18 aircraft fleet.(3) Any disruption that procuring additional F/A–18E or F/A–18F aircraft, rather than extending the service life of legacy F/A–18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours, would have on the plan of the Navy to procure operational carrier-variant Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.(4) Any changes that procuring additional F/A–18E or FA–18F aircraft, rather than extending the service life of legacy F/A–18 aircraft beyond 8600 hours, would have on the force structure or force mix intended by the Navy for its carrier air wings.(5) Any other operational implication of extending (or not extending) the service life of legacy F/A–18 aircraft that the Secretary considers appropriate.(d) Report On Operational F/A–18 Aircraft Squadrons.—Before reducing the number of F/A–18 aircraft in an operational squadron of the Navy or Marine Corps, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that discusses the operational risks and impacts of reducing the squadron size. The report shall include an assessment of the following:(1) The effect of the reduction on the operational capability and readiness of the Navy and the Marine Corps to conduct overseas contingency operations.(2) The effect of the reduction on the capability of the Navy and the Marine Corps to meet ongoing operational demands.(3) Any mechanisms the Secretary intends to use to mitigate any risks associated with the squadron size reduction.(4) The effect of the reduction on pilots and ground support crews of F/A–18 aircraft, in terms of training, readiness, and war fighting capabilities.(e) Report On F/A–18 Aircraft Training Squadrons.—Before reducing the size of an F/A–18 aircraft training squadron, or transferring an F/A–18 training aircraft for operational needs, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that describes—(1) any risks to sustaining required training of F/A–18 aircraft pilots with a reduced training aircraft base; and(2) any actions the Navy is taking to mitigate the risks described under paragraph (1).