Forum: Program and politics

Here's an article published yesterday in the L.A. Times:

Pentagon May Scrap Jet Plans

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22 programs could be cut in budget moves and as strategies shift to meet unconventional threats.

By Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Facing severe budget pressures, the Pentagon is developing plans to slash the Air Force's two prized fighter jet programs, according to Defense Department officials and outside experts.

Military planners are debating options to scale back the Air Force's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the stealth F/A-22 fighter, as some defense officials question spending billions on weapons that have little use against terrorist networks and other unconventional threats.

Such a move would be an enormous blow to the Air Force, which has spent years developing the two weapons to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets. The budget cuts could encounter fierce resistance from lawmakers, including some from California, whose districts would be hit hard by the economic repercussions.

Yet as the Pentagon conducts a top-to-bottom assessment of its entire arsenal, defense officials are mindful that the military buildup that followed Sept. 11 is coming to an end. The war in Iraq, which now costs the Defense Department more than $4 billion per month, is contributing to the budget squeeze that jeopardizes some of the Pentagon's most desired — and expensive — weapons.

The Joint Strike Fighter program is projected to cost $245 billion, a price tag shared by the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and nine U.S. allies, including Britain, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Turkey. It is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program, and the Air Force has by far the largest part of the budget; it hopes to purchase 1,763 of the planes to replace the F-16 fighter.

The Air Force also plans to acquire 179 F/A-22s, each costing about $345 million.

A Pentagon decision to scale back the programs would be the strongest signal yet of a significant change in strategic priorities. With Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld trying to transform the military to deal with unconventional threats, many say that weapons built for dogfights and eluding enemy radar are increasingly irrelevant.

"What does Al Qaeda's air force look like?" said one defense official working on the Pentagon's assessment, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review.

The Pentagon's overall budget is expected to grow by 8% between now and the end of fiscal year 2011. Yet with the military planning to field about a dozen big-ticket planes, ships and submarines during that period, the Pentagon estimates that its budget for new weapons will balloon by 34%.

Some of these weapons, such as the Army's Future Combat System — a fleet of combat vehicles linked to a computer network — and the Navy's DDX destroyer, are being eyed for cutbacks to prevent a budget crisis later.

Because U.S. troops are heavily engaged in the Middle East and Central Asia, officials say there is little room to cut personnel costs from the Pentagon budget. Weapons, they say, are the only target for cost reductions.

Although Pentagon officials contend that no final decision has been made about the fate of the two Lockheed Martin-designed jets, some inside the Defense Department say that the deepest cuts could come in the Joint Strike Fighter program. According to one source, the Pentagon could cut the Air Force's allotment of the planes by half.

Officials involved in the review process say that the option of canceling one or both of the programs is on the table, although it is extremely unlikely — in part because such a move would cause a furor among members of Congress. The fact that close allies are involved in developing the JSF is another factor that should keep the program alive, the officials say.

Although Lockheed is the prime contractor for both jets, about 40% of the JSF is assembled at Northrop Grumman Corp.'s plant in Palmdale. Most of the F/A-22 is built at Lockheed's plant in Marietta, Ga.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said it was too early in the review process to know what specific programs might be cut or expanded, and that planners were still identifying which types of missions the military ought to be preparing for.

"It's definitely premature to say we're looking at cuts," said DiRita, who stressed that there were months remaining in the review — due before Congress by early February — and that no proposals had been presented to Rumsfeld.

He did say that Pentagon officials hoped to make some decisions about weapons programs by September or October, as the Defense Department prepared its fiscal year 2007 budget.

The Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22 have been plagued by cost overruns and production delays. In April, the Government Accountability Office called the JSF's original business case, laid out by the Pentagon in 1996, "unexecutable."

"When you have difficult budget choices to make, several of the Pentagon's expensive modernization programs become likely targets," said Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

"The JSF sits at the top of that list."

Air Force officials are vigorously lobbying to preserve their coveted weapons, and supporters of the two programs point out that the emergence of China as a potential long-term threat is the best case for a large investment in fighter jet technology.

Last week, a Pentagon report warned that China's military buildup threatened the balance of power in Asia, and that within a decade China's military could pose a threat to modern militaries on the continent.

Air Force officials, who consider protecting the F/A-22 their top priority during the review process, argue that the jet's stealth technology makes it essential for eluding the advanced radar systems the Chinese are developing.

The Pentagon has scaled back the number of F/A-22 jets it intends to buy from 381 aircraft to 179. But Pentagon officials say that deeper cuts in the number of planes purchased are possible.

Rumsfeld has repeatedly criticized the length of time it can take for a weapon to move from the drawing board to operational testing to deployment in the field.

"There's no question that the longer it takes to field a program, the more expensive it becomes," DiRita said.

The Pentagon has billed the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review as a crucial step in the long-term effort to transform the military into a lighter, more agile fighting force.

As defense officials try to predict the types of threats U.S. forces will confront, they face hard choices about spending billions on weapons that in most cases were first envisioned during the Cold War.

Many defense experts point out that the success of Iraqi insurgents against U.S. troops is evidence that few enemies will choose to fight the U.S. military on the conventional battlefield.

Instead of buying expensive technology, they point out, the future of warfare requires that the Pentagon invest in counterinsurgency warfare and bulk up spending on armored vehicles, language training and civil affairs programs.

"The big cuts in fighters being considered are just one instance of a far broader rethinking in the Pentagon spending priorities," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank in Arlington, Va. "Much of the impetus for these cuts originated in the Iraqi insurgency and in the need to wage a protracted war against terror."

-------------------------

Vulnerable birds

A look at the two fighter jets that may have their budgets cut in a cost-cutting plan by the Defense Department; both jets are in production and not yet in use:

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Users: Air Force, Navy and Marines, and some foreign militaries
Schedule: Test flights are to begin in 2006.
Program cost: $245 billion
Contractors: Lockheed Martin Corp., main prime contractor. Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems, principal partners.
Manufacturing locations: Center fuselage by Northrop Grumman in Palmdale and El Segundo. Final assembly by Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth.

F/A-22 Raptor

Users: Air Force
Schedule: To be operational by the end of the year.
Program cost: $64 billion
Contractors: Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp.
Manufacturing locations: Wings and aft fuselage by Boeing in Seattle. Final assembly by Lockheed Martin in Marietta, Ga.

Sources: U.S. Air Force, Airforce-Technology.com, Boeing

F-16.net Sponsor

I say keep the raptor.. It still has potential, the JSF however is a white elephant which will become a mill stone for future defence procurment programs.

I agree, their really is no need for the F-35. The F-35 is designed to strike an enemy without being seen, but we already have the F-117 which can do the same job, as well as the Raptor with some modifications. So the JSF program would be almost a complete waste of money. I'd say we should axe the JSF, and use most of it's funds for the Raptor (After all $245 billion would do the Raptor alot of good).

As for the Navy, they could just order more Super Hornets, sure they wouldn't be pure stealth aircraft, but they would be good enough. Also, the USMC, and the UK could just update their Harriers for 21st century combat.

Just my Two Cents

worth.

But the Problem is that the Air frames of the Harriers are starting to need to be replaced completly.

What I fail to see is the limited view of the Pentagon in this case.

They speak that they don't need high tech Jets to hunt down terrorists or in unconventional threats theaters but that is only today. What about tomorrow? I realy don't think that conventional war has come to an end.
Just look at the Iraq Invation (even if Iraq wasn't realy a match for the US Forces after 10 years of embargo).

Crap! Here we go again...

OK, how old are our jets and how many do we have for spares....

Forestin is right, many of the aircraft that the F-35 is to replace really are getting old, and in even the current F-35 timeframe, will be ready to retire.

Additional Super Hornets are an option for the Navy and Marines, but the F-35 is intended for a very long lifespan (from the plans I've heard) and how will those Hornets compete in another 30 years? Or once-again reworked Harriers? Or even European F-16A-MLU's?

A dramatic reduction of the F-35 program with the large unit price increases that would likely follow could make several of the current (and future) potential customers look elsewhere (Eurofighter, Gripen, maybe even Rafale) which would further increase unit costs, probably reducing the purchase number, causing... (you get the idea.)

The Air Force was 'golden' after the '91 Gulf War. They 'proved' that airpower could, if not win a conflict, at least make one much, much easier for ground forces. The budget swung the Air Force's way and it could get almost anything it wanted (C-17, F-22 development, F-35 development, etc...)

Quote:

Instead of buying expensive technology, they point out, the future of warfare requires that the Pentagon invest in counterinsurgency warfare and bulk up spending on armored vehicles, language training and civil affairs programs.

We're now in a conflict that is mostly ground forces based and the pendulum is swinging back. But, as was stated above, what happens tomorrow? Iraq won't be our last conflict and we need to not only prepare for what we are facing today, but also 10, 15, 20+ years down the road.

Quote:

"The big cuts in fighters being considered are just one instance of a far broader rethinking in the Pentagon spending priorities," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank in Arlington, Va. "Much of the impetus for these cuts originated in the Iraqi insurgency and in the need to wage a protracted war against terror."

China will probably not stop advancing their weapons systems, both in technology and in numbers, if we purchase 180 F-22's and say, 350 (yes, out of my hat, just like a rabbit) F-35's how many advanced fighters (even if they are some type of advanced J-10 or Su) would China need in 20 or 25 years to somewhat 'even the playing field'?

Quote:

Last week, a Pentagon report warned that China's military buildup threatened the balance of power in Asia, and that within a decade China's military could pose a threat to modern militaries on the continent.

How many of our above aircraft would/could we deploy to a single combat theater, while also 'watching the homefront'? And - do we want to put ourselves into a position where we would be fighting in the air on an even, or even close to an even playing field?

Quote:

"What does Al Qaeda's air force look like?" said one defense official working on the Pentagon's assessment.

My question is what will China's look like in 25 years...

Mike Kopack

I hate to say it folks - but we need to replace the Viper pretty soon. Or go through a major rework or buy some new ones. It pains me to say that because I love the jet. But she's getting old and wearing out and has carried much more of the burden than the F-15 ever did.

Quote:

But she's getting old and wearing out

Absolutely right, falconfixer860261. Vipers are wearing out structurally, big time - there's been Falcon UP, SLIP, SLEP and Falcon STAR to fix the problems, but they're finding out more and more problems all the time. Even the F-15 is not immune to this problem, there's already been a Class A due to structural failure. So far the Viper community has been lucky, but it might be a matter of time...

Another equally important reason for the US to stick with the F-35 is its credibility with international partners. The Raptor is simply non-exportable, the Block 60 E/F and Hornet E/F are fine airplanes, but are at best at parity with the threat fighters now entering service. Cancelling the F-35 will show the US is not a reliable partner, and send committed and potential customers into the waiting arms of Eurofighter and Dassault.

Ive heard the F-22 is exportable to a degree...

Ive seen proposals for both Japan and Australia for an exported version of the F-22. On that point allone, canceling the JSF, we can make up by dumbing down a few F-22s to export version and selling them out. But still the F-22's role and the F-35s role are completely different. Britain doesnt need an air superiority fighter, it just got the EF2000. They need an A2G fighter and while the F-22 has limited capability to do that it is not the delivary capability of the F-35.

I agree our fleet is gettin old and I fail to see why congress will slash these programs. Im gonna be more #%#@% if my tax dollars already spent were wasted on a program with no product. I say they keep it. The figures above on the money needed for each program... Of that much money how much has already been spent?

-Aaron

parrothead wrote:

Crap! Here we go again...

OK, how old are our jets and how many do we have for spares....

You expect the bean counters to listen to logic? Man what planet are you from? They're already going on about "the Raptor is just too expensive. The costs are out of control and it's up to $345 million a piece". Do the idiots know what "R&D" costs mean? Apparently not. And then they'll whine about corruption when they discover cutting ten Raptors doesn't save them $3.45 billion dollars. It's enough to make you want to scream Doh

This article came out of the LA Times which tells me all I need to know. This is just rumors and propaganda. The 3 services + the 2 Brit services have already pi$$ed away a lot of money to get the jet online. We even made provisions in the BRAC to plan around the AF's two new center pieces, the Raptor and the 35.

Granted, we won't get the number we want. We won't even get the number LM wants, but we will get a healthy number. Remember, we all saw what happened with the Army and the Comanche program. The same mistake won't be made again.

I don't see us exporting the Raptor. Export will be an option for the 35, and this is where the U.S. can go "ch-ching!" The 35 is not a "White Elephant". It's a Cash Cow. The U.S. (and more to the point, LM) is sitting on a gold mine right now. They're not going to let it go.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

TC I totally agree with you in thats how it should be with the F-22. Im going to clarify what I heard off the grape vine. 1.) Japan was offered an export 22 as an offer for a 5th generation fighter by Lockhead Martin when they expressed interest. Key words there are that LM made the offer. I've had more than one conversation with my friend that used to work export controll that told me sometimes LM got in the habit of offering stuff they knew theyd not be able to sell... 2.) While reading a defense site on Australias AF maintained (most likely as F-16.net is, by the fans of the air frames and stuff). The site had a picture of the F-22 as a future prospective to enter the Australian AF implying that they already have been made the offer and are considering the option, or they are just talking for publicity.

Personally... I can see in maybe 15 years we will allow some of our closest allies to have an export version... I would like to see Japan and Britain offered one since they have been some of the best allies to the US since WW2 and for Britain even longer. I know Britain doesnt need the offer. (they have the EF2K) but it would still be nice to extend it...

-Aaron

Ohh sh*t. Here we go again...

The 22 will be left alone, but probably downsized for sure. The 35 I dont know. Were just too far in too let the jets go down the pipe. I agree that the 35 may very well be a cash cow. It seems like some generals have a serious weed up their you know what, and they dont seem to realize.

Shev

True... the 35 does have some stuff going its way.. but eventually I think war between the US and china is highly unlikely.. at least one which involves weapons.. the battlefield of tomorrow for the US and chinese is economics.. seems to me the chinese have already given up fighting the US using guns.. they prefer stocks and trade as thier weapon of chioce. back to the topic the Pentagon could look to reduce the numbers on the F-35C.. as i still feel that the raptor can take up many of the duties of this version..again this is an ameatur weekenders opinion. Whistle

.

I sincerely hope the f-35 program suceeds. The F-35 seems a logical and technological evolution of fighting aircraft in the 21st century. In Britsh service the Typhoon and F-35 would complement each other. In US service the Raptor and the F-35 would be a frightening combination for any potential adversary.

Deterrance works.

Forum: Program and politics

Pentagon may scrap jet plans