Thanks for the article Andrew.
via Reuters.
Combatant Commanders will insist on having carriers available. Combatant Commanders don't see a slowdown in the need for forward deployed forces in this chaotic world. What this also means is that the death spiral (as I've predicted) is about to hit full force this fall. Left unsaid is what will happen to the other variants. Amos will die in a ditch over the F-35B but he's in a much weakened position and opponents of this program will drop a few well placed e-mails to Congressional staffers and he won't testify. Additionally many will be driven mad by the idea that he will once again offer up the Amphibious Combat Vehicle for delay.
This is almost a done deal. They'll fight it but the F-35 program is being recognized for what it is. An unaffordable boondoggle.
via Reuters.
Defense officials say the Navy is looking at an array of options, including buying fewer coastal warships built by Lockheed Martin Corp and Australia's Austal, and delaying orders for the Navy's F-35 C-model, also built by Lockheed to land on aircraft carriers.Follow the link to read the whole thing but make no mistake about it...
Lockheed, Austal and other Navy suppliers such as General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc are awaiting news about how the Navy would cut spending in its fiscal 2105 budget plan now being prepared.
The services are working to finalize their plans in coming days so they can send them to top Pentagon leaders for review.
Mabus said the Navy was doing all it could to protect training and readiness, but warned that if the cuts stayed in place, sailors and Marines might have to deploy without adequate training within 12 to 18 months.
Training and maintenance had already been scaled back, while protecting funding needed for deployments, but the forecast cuts would eventually begin to affect those areas, he said.
He said naval forces remained in the Middle East at the ready to deal with Syria, but ongoing budget cuts could undermine the Navy's ability to provide those military options to the president in the future.
"Unless we act to address the damage of continuing resolutions and sequestration, there are options which may be limited or just not available in the future," Mabus said.
Continued budget cuts could force the Navy to eliminate more than three dozen planned maintenance periods for its warships, and ground more than 200 aircraft.
Mabus also warned that the Navy's efforts to rebuild its fleet and drive down acquisition costs would be jeopardized if budget cuts forced it to break multiyear acquisition contracts.
If the Navy has to choose between carriers with Super Hornets or fewer carriers with F-35Cs, the more carrier argument will win everytime.Its nothing sinister. Its just the way things are.
Combatant Commanders will insist on having carriers available. Combatant Commanders don't see a slowdown in the need for forward deployed forces in this chaotic world. What this also means is that the death spiral (as I've predicted) is about to hit full force this fall. Left unsaid is what will happen to the other variants. Amos will die in a ditch over the F-35B but he's in a much weakened position and opponents of this program will drop a few well placed e-mails to Congressional staffers and he won't testify. Additionally many will be driven mad by the idea that he will once again offer up the Amphibious Combat Vehicle for delay.
This is almost a done deal. They'll fight it but the F-35 program is being recognized for what it is. An unaffordable boondoggle.
From AW by(who else? :))Bill Sweetman:
ReplyDelete«One industry source notes that a T-X Gripen also would be suitable for aggressor training, or as a companion trainer for F-22s and F-35s — which, unlike earlier USAF fighters, are not being acquired in two-seat versions. (The USAF has added T-38s to F-22 units in that role.) Beyond that, a source close to USAF leadership notes that “it is not a long step to an affordable air defense fighter to replace (Air National) Guard F-15/F-16 units.”»
The sharks are smelling blood in the water...
which is why the USMC should bail on this early. if the Marine Corps pulls out now we can preserve something.
Deletenow we can deal. say we give up the F-35B and put into development immediately a STOVL attack/fighter that can operate off LHDs...can we get MPCs put into production immediately? can we limit the number of battalions we lose? can we keep the CH-53K on track?
but if we wait we lose it all. everything. pain and suffering to produce nothing.
I see the sharks smell blood in the water. I wonder who will be the first victim
ReplyDeleteSo thinking the unthinkable, would the Gripen, or a North American development of it, designed from the beginning to be rugged, easily supportable from dispersed bases with a small ground crew etc etc be a good fit to replace the Harrier II for the Marine Corps for shore based squadrons ? Obviously it could not fly from the America class or other amphib-flat tops, but perhaps you could eek out the life of the Harrier II or go all Helo ?
ReplyDeleteHey Sol, you might want to read this little tidbit I found on Reuters
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/korea-fighter-idUSL3N0H81H920130912
Check your inbox for more info.
I read that. Honestly, I think it's too little too late. Several South Korean sources are saying that it's pretty much a done deal and that when their version of the defense budget gets voted on the only option they will have is whether to by F-15SEs or no aircraft at all.
DeleteAnother bought and paid for service chief? Not impressed. They fly what the govt can buy. Hell I'd be riding in a EFV if money was no option. The Marine Corps would be flying STOVL capable F-22s and we'd be sailing on Nimitz carrier sized LHDs if money wasn't an issue.
Deletebut it is.
so the ROKAF Chief can sit down, shut the fuck up and fly whatever they give him.
If high tech weapon program like F-35 will become unaffordable for a wealthiest nation in the world... Then the problem its not the cost of the program its the strange selfimposed sequestration.
ReplyDeleteUSA is now a big bully/world policeman who keep all potential conflicts local and small. But what if Big Policeman will show weakness? European armies is laughing stock, 100-200 thousands soldiers, 100-200 tanks and planes per Germany/France/GB, some of them even have one carrier. If US will not interfere, then what about Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Egypt?
But this actually could be a good thing, Europe is occupied by muslims, no one except gays and feminists like them, some form of cleansing is unavoidable. Kosovo was not forgotten, serb villages harvested by albanians to provide organs for israely clients will not go unpunished. Without US big policeman around, this euro boiler can actually blow up and begin at last the next Reconquista.
dude.
Deletewrong.
our defense budget dwarfs the next 10 combined. the airplane is unaffordable because we need a balanced defense. if it was all about the USAF and naval aviation then fine. but one thing we've seen. defense ministries/dept that buy what they can afford can ask for increases and they get them.
look at what Poland is doing!
additionally the problem with the middle east MIGHT be that the west has interferred with it in the past. artifical borders, artificially mixing tribal peoples onto confined areas...it might be a good thing to stay away.
personally i can't wait for the US to turn inward.
the rest of the world hates us and it'll be fun to watch them burn without us.