But many military experts suggest that retiring fighter planes early while the Air Force points to its overall shortage of warplanes will simply accelerate the falloff in force strength. Budget authorities call this trend the “fighter bathtub,” referring to chart lines that show a rapid drop in available fighters before an eventual increase.

Critics of this strategy warn that it could leave the Air Force unprepared for a major emergency. But Air Force officials appear willing to run that risk, confident that they can generate enough room in the budget for replacement fighters and other new technology.

“The Air Force has more tasks than resources to accomplish them,” said the official, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss budget plans. “The bottom line is that the programmers are looking for ways to save money, pure and simple.”

The Air Force has yet to officially release its budget plan, the official said, adding that the plan could change further once the Obama administration takes office. Still, he said the Air Force’s leadership will stand by the 300-plane retirement plan as a “corporate decision.”

Critics of the Air Force’s budget strategy warn that the service runs the risk of institutionalizing its smaller budget line when the White House submits its fiscal 2010 spending plan to Congress — something that happened in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, when the Air Force reduced personnel to save money. The best way to ensure funding for Air Force projects is to keep the budget at par.

“The notion of reducing force structure really gnaws at some of us, because once it goes away, you aren’t getting it back,” the official said.

But air power advocates contend that the jockeying for the new fighters is well worth it. The planes are crucial, they say, to sustaining America’s global air supremacy. The F-15 and F-16 fleets, they say, are no longer sophisticated enough to handle the threats posed by countries such as China, whose air defense systems grow deadlier every year.

“Air superiority should be only the minimal level of capability,” said former Air Force official Richard Hallion. “What you want is air supremacy. You want to totally dominate the opponent.”

But detractors are not convinced. Air Force leaders “did this knowing full well that they were creating a crisis,” said retired Pentagon analyst Franklin C. “Chuck” Spinney.

Guard on Budget Alert

The most direct hit from the Air Force’s early fighter-retirement plan is likely to fall on the Air National Guard, which depends on hand-me-down planes from the Air Force and therefore flies the oldest fighters. The Guard took on an increased mission in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has been heavily deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

With its overstretched fleet, the Air National Guard was counting on taking on the Air Force’s old F-15s and F-16s — especially since its oldest planes have been retired faster than those in any other branch of the National Guard. In 2007, an aging Missouri Air National Guard F-15 broke in half in midair, prompting the temporary grounding of hundreds of Air Force planes.

John Goheen, director of communications for the National Guard Association of the United States, said the attrition rate in the Air National Guard’s fighter force has some leaders worried that its fighter plane inventory could deteriorate further as tough budget calls accumulate during the next session of Congress.

“A lot of people in the Air Guard feel that given recent history, they’re going to bear the brunt,” he said. “That’s the fear.”

Air Guard units are already preparing for smaller fighter fleets. Since the closure of the Air Guard bases, the Air Force has issued orders that require some Guard units to share airplanes with active-duty squadrons. Virginia’s 192nd Fighter Wing at Richmond was paired up with Langley Air Force Base after its F-16 fleet became a casualty of the 2005 BRAC cuts. And North Dakota’s Air Guard leaders have adapted to its F-16 cuts by seeking out new missions using non-fighter aircraft.

“The lesson from our experience is that states should look for ways to work with the Air Force instead of fighting it,” said a North Dakota congressional aide. “The typical congressional engagement on Guard issues is ‘I want to keep what I have forever.’ But the fighter world is getting smaller.”

Congress to Weigh In

In the months ahead, Congress will wrestle with decisions about fighter funding and broader defense budget issues. Christopher S. Bond , the Missouri Republican who co-chairs the Senate National Guard caucus, opposes the proposed early fleet retirement, arguing that its impact on the Air Guard alone threatens to jeopardize the homeland defense mission.

As for the larger fighter force quandary, Bond says there is still no Plan B for maintaining force strength in the event of delayed delivery of the F-35s, which are behind schedule and over budget by billions of dollars.

The early fleet retirements “are very shortsighted, and without replacements, it’s a tragic mistake,” said Bond.

He contends that buying new F-15s and F-16s is a viable back-up plan. The Boeing Co. builds the F-15 in his home state.

Congressional aides say lawmakers who base or build legacy fighters in their districts and states could push defense authorizers and appropriators to prevent the Air Force from retiring the aircraft. Such tactics have been successful in keeping barely functional planes such as old C-5A cargo planes in service for years against the Air Force’s wishes.

“Plans to retire aircraft generally set off multi-year discussions,” said one committee aide. “I predict this one will get a pretty rocky reception.”

Air Force officials also are not forecasting an easy time in getting their wish list through Congress — even after making the cuts in fleet strength to help pay for it. “To get through these tight budget times, services need to honestly make concessions,” said Birkey. “But in order to do that, they have to feel like there’s trust in the system. Otherwise, what’s the motivation?”

FOR FURTHER READING: Pentagon’s fraying war machine, 2008 CQ Weekly, p. 2666; Air Force budget strategy, p. 622; BRAC legislation (PL 110-5), 2007 CQ Almanac, p. 2-5; impact of BRAC cuts, 2005 CQ Weekly, p. 875.