Thanks for pointing me to this article Doug!
Every part of the DoD budget is facing scrutiny and is under pressure except for the F-35.
That makes no sense. Squadrons are being cut, aircraft carriers are in danger and troops are being forced out, yet the number of F-35 required remains the same.
How can that be? Well Hasik put pen to paper with a couple of his buddies and he came out with a real number on how many are required (assuming that they can get this thing to work at all...)
Be warned though. Its eye opening and shows again how out of balance the budget is, how little planning is actually going into it and how its based on wishful thinking and not the needs of the nation.
With the current civilian and military leadership, we're properly screwed. We definitely need better.
Note: Yes it is an old article but since we haven't seen any adjustments to procurement planning its extremely relevant today.
Every part of the DoD budget is facing scrutiny and is under pressure except for the F-35.
That makes no sense. Squadrons are being cut, aircraft carriers are in danger and troops are being forced out, yet the number of F-35 required remains the same.
How can that be? Well Hasik put pen to paper with a couple of his buddies and he came out with a real number on how many are required (assuming that they can get this thing to work at all...)
Read the entire article here.
I am, of course, greatly speculating, but such an end strength would likely call for an American purchase plan for only about 750 F-35s. I might note that this figure is much lower than even the Simpson-Bowles Commission or the Domenici-Rivlin Task Force recommended. That's because those folks took the US Air Force's "required" number as received wisdom, and just argued for buying F-16s instead. As I noted above, I had something more analytical in mind. My estimate also has much to do with how these aircraft might be apportioned amongst the services. How exactly that would work is hard to say, but if the Marine Corps needed 200 for ten or fewer helicopter carriers, and the Navy needed 600 for fewer than ten super-carriers, then the USAF might round out the total with the remaining 700. Here I am assuming that the Navy and the Air Force would retain their favored planes of the 1990s, the F-18E/F/G and the F-22, respectively. Remember that the F-35s are meant to replace F-16s, F-18s, A-10s, and some of the F-15s. The Navy will eventually buy at least 600 Super Hornets and Growlers, and the Air Force will keep at least 150 Raptors flying—if that service eventually figures out how to keep the planes from choking their pilots. That would lead to requirements for about 200 F-35Bs, 550 F-35A, and perhaps no F-35Cs at all. That last one is, after all, the airplane meant only the US Navy, but that the US Navy seems not much to want.
Be warned though. Its eye opening and shows again how out of balance the budget is, how little planning is actually going into it and how its based on wishful thinking and not the needs of the nation.
With the current civilian and military leadership, we're properly screwed. We definitely need better.
Note: Yes it is an old article but since we haven't seen any adjustments to procurement planning its extremely relevant today.
