The next few years are going to be tough, but Air Force and Defense Department leadership are committed to protecting airmen, their families, and the service’s core capabilities, said Air Force Secretary Michael Donley. To achieve the reductions outlined in the first part of the recent debt reduction deal, the Defense Department will have “to get savvy” and learn to accept more risk in certain areas. It will require terminating some programs, streamlining others, and “making some tough choices” about the core tenants of America’s national security strategy, said Donley at the Air Force Association’s Air & Space Conference at National Harbor outside D.C., Monday. However, added Donley, as the service works to sustain the oldest aircraft fleet in history, certain programs must proceed. There is no alternative to the F-35 strike fighter. “It must succeed,” said Donley. Similarly, the Air Force is committed to developing a long range strike family of systems, including a new bomber, and to moving forward with a new aerial refueling capability. It also must protect ISR and continue to build on the growth in that area over the last 10 years. In addition, the Pentagon must maintain the nuclear triad, sustain and develop freedom of action in cyberspace, and sustain the Air Force’s commitments to US Special Operations Command, said Donley.—Amy McCulloughAnd there you have it. The USAF insists that it needs the F-35A. The USMC desperately needs the F-35B and the Royal Navy is waiting for the F-35C.
The critics have lost. Additionally when you add all the jobs that are attached to the program in all the different states then it will be impossible to kill it now. That would spike unemployment and despite the deficit we just can't afford to do that now. Consider it a jobs program with tangible benefits.
Another article on the AFA website caught my attention. This one deals with a Senate Committee slashing the production rate on the F-35.
The Senate Appropriations Committee's defense panel on Tuesday cut $695 million from the F-35 strike fighter program and recommended that aircraft production remains at Fiscal 2011 levels for two more years. These moves are meant "to limit outyear cost growth," said Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), SAC chairman, in explaining the defense panel's mark-up of the Fiscal 2012 defense appropriations bill. Although the panel "strongly" supports the program and is encouraged by its progress since last year's restructuring, it felt that "excessive concurrency in development and production still exists," said Inouye. The defense appropriators also were concerned that the number of production aircraft "continues to ramp up" even though the program is only 10 percent complete. "For each aircraft we build this early in the test program, we will have to pay many millions in the future to fix the problems that are identified in testing," he said. (Inouye's statement)The highlighted area is the part that was left out of most reports on this event. Additionally Senator Hutchison, Republican from Texas only agreed to the slow down because she was assured that the program is safe and that production will be allowed to ramp up to planned rates.
Seems like the bad week has been fully reversed.
Luv it!
UPDATE*
Elements of Power has voiced his opinion on the Senate Committee's action and its a must read. Catch it here.
i actually agree iwth the committee, best to have some good test planes now, iron out the bugs and problems in it (which happens with any new machine), and then integrate those into the new production craft. our current fleet will last a few more years and by then the F35 will have matured from a new aircraft with bugs being worked out to one of the most lethal assets in the US military arsenal.
ReplyDeleteAbout the jobs produced from the F-35 program, wouldn't the purchase of F-15SEs, F-16Es, and more F-22s create just as many jobs for a lower cost?
ReplyDeleteRe:Jobs - Not really because the FMS F-35s that are not being produced will not translate to F-15SE, F-16, and certainly not F-22 sales.
ReplyDeleteand we are still selling the F16, nations are still buying it, so it wouldnt add any net jobs if we just keep that line open, because my guess is nations who cant afford or cant operate the F35 will go with something like the F16 for the forseeable future, especially if they have no major threats other than other less developed nations and dont have to fight against stealth. the F16 latest models being built are still very capable, just not what the US needs but capable for many nations.
ReplyDeleteHow well did that work out in Brazil, India, etc. As newer 4.5/5th gen fighters come on the market FMS sales will drop if there is not any US fighter that can compete.
ReplyDeleteCountries that need & can afford the F-35 are not going to "settle" for a F-16. They are going to go with whatever meets their needs and provides the best protection.
btw, LM is not shutting down the F-16 line. If there are countries that want it, they can still buy it.
my point was some nations dont need 4.5/5 gen figthers, like nations in africa, some SE asian nations, central europe, etc. larger powers like india and brazil have the money to handle those advanced aircraft, others dont and can settle for proven 4th Gen. figthers. Taiwan is begging for newest F16s (and its a shame we arent giving it to them).
ReplyDelete