$67B plus $14B or so in upgrades via poor management by the USAF (and others) of what was a good idea (the F-22...um...120-130 combat-coded ones anyway) and going on to $60B or so for the Just So Failed F-35, just doesn't look good.
Yet, the people that brought you whole portions of this gross mismanagement are "unfazed" by F-35 troubles.
Surprised?
7 comments:
More cash for comments from the US to make Australia feel better about the JSF? I just can't come at the JSF with the more I read about design and capability. The Performance spec from the outset is not right...
From today's Australian (defence Editor) 25th Feb 2013. Brandon Nicholson.
"THE Joint Strike Fighter will be a spectacularly good aircraft that will outclass anything Australia will encounter in the region, according to the commander of US air combat forces in the Pacific.
General Herbert J. "Hawk" Carlisle, a fighter pilot with more than 3600 hours' flying time, told The Australian he had no doubt the JSF would emerge from its developmental issues as an extraordinary aircraft.
The multi-role JSF, now officially known as the F-35 Lightning II fighter-bomber, is intended to replace the RAAF's F/A-18 Hornets and its already retired F-111 long-range bombers.
General Carlisle said the JSF program was huge and complex. "And like any other developmental program it's had its bumps and bruises and challenges," he said. "With great aeroplanes, developing technology at this level is not easy and you're bound to have some setbacks along the way. When we work our way through all the challenges that any program faces I think it will be indispensable to the arsenal for the United States and certainly in the Asia-Pacific.
"I think our partners like Australia are going to discover the same thing: that it's a very impressive aeroplane."
General Carlisle said the US and its allies had been lulled into a false sense of security in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Everything more than eight feet off the ground we owned," he said. "There is going to be more of a challenge in different environments."
The 51 JSFs now operating in the US were grounded on the weekend as a precaution after a cracked turbine blade was found in an engine during recent checks.
Strike Fighter or Fighter Bomber...
Looking at ever dwindling specs - Joint Lowrider Cruiser would be more suiting.
From an American perspective, how could any weapons system ever be good enough to be worth risking our credibility with our allies, our relationships with our allies, and the military capabilties of our allies? I feel like American leaders are forgetting about these risk in thier cost benefit analysis, and thats inexcuseable, seeing as how they continue to tell thier people and the world "trust us, we know what we're doing."
Don't you think this is due to a history of economic pressure US have put on several NATO countries as soon as they have said they are looking into non-US equipment?
Like they did when Hungary said the Gripen interested them? The day after Rumsfeld took airforce 1 over and threatened with economical sanctions?
Yes Peter, that has a lot to do with things. Horrible long term thinking.
Eric; see this very interesting paper concerning Reasonable Defence - A Sustainable Approach to Securing the (US) Nationa: http://comw.org/pda/reasonable-defense-a-sustainable-approach-to-securing-the-nation/. These extracts are relevant to debate this forum:
3.4.1 - Fighter modernization.
'In prospect, the F-35 JSF exceeds discernible defense requirements. Moreover, the program is overly expensive and suffers serious development problems. The Reasonable Defense model would cancel outright the Marine Corps and Navy versions of the F-35. It would limit yearly procurement of the Air Force version to 18 and terminate the program entirely after delivery of 250 aircraft. All useful assets of the Marine Navy and Marine Corps F-35 efforts would be transferred to the Air Force.
Reasonable Defense foresees reducing the total all-service inventory of fighter aircraft from the previously planned (Circa 2011) number of 3,150 to 2,780 aircraft (excluding bombers). This allows a significant reduction in purchases over the next 15-20 years. With the F-35 program limited to 250 USAF aircraft, the Services will fulfil most of their remaining requirements with advanced versions of the F-16 and F/A-18E. An outstanding need is for a new Marine Corps close air support aircraft that is simple, rugged, fuel-efficient and able to carry ample and various ordnance. It need not be a supersonic aircraft or one capable of VTOL, but it should be able to fly off big deck aircraft carriers.'
^^
If 2,780 is the appropriate and sufficient Total all-service TACAIR force size going forward, then there would actually be a pretty sizable all-service acquisition strategy still to implement.
For example:
USN - There's a ton of Hornets needing to be replaced, very soon. Older Block 1 Super Hornets could need replacement within 10-15 years as well.
USMC - ditto the Hornets (or give them expensive, comprehensive SLEP/MLU).
USAF - There's a good chunk of broken old block F-16s needing to retire (or requiring a substantial SLEP/MLU as reliable modern aircraft). Some of the A-10s are better off being retired too, as are a good number of F-15C/D which are very expensive to maintain (being old and broken). Even more critically, the newer block F-16s existing in service should be planned for retirement between 2025 and 2030.
So right there, you're looking at a definite need to be procuring some substantial mix of new-build Tactical platforms for USAF starting by around 2020 at the latest.
The F-35 indeed might not be the appropriate airframe to fit that acquisition requirement, thus a mix of alternative stopgap and longer-term procurement is more likely the more prudent strategy.
Could some of these next-gen LO and VLO UCAV being talked about and in development be part of this future 'mix'? Arguably yes.
What USAF needs most of all is a strategic Tactical aviation Procurement budget master plan to work off for at least the next 15 years. Accordingly, USAF needs to sit down behind closed doors and negotiate a deal with Congress for a firm, long-term TACAIR recapitalization funding strategy and requirement. USAF needs to wrap their head around a known, fixed, realistic TACAIR procurement budget for an extended term! e.g., say $4.2Bn new-build annual procurement with a 1.9% YoY inflation adjusted increase.
Then, simply just work off that fixed budget to fulfill the noted medium-/long-term USAF tactical inventory requirement! Whether that equates to eventually 18x mature F-35/yr being procured (+ other platforms as needed to complement the inventory requirement), that would of course have to be better assessed as part of the new equation the, depending how prudent or sustainable such an acquisition rate would be in fitting USAF's requirements, etc.
Post a Comment