Forum: General F-35 Forum

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is set this week to reveal his strategy that will guide the Pentagon in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from its budget...

http://tinyurl.com/89y7e6b

"The chief target for weapons cuts is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, one of the most expensive weapons program in history. The Pentagon has plans to spend nearly $400 billion to buy 2,500 of the stealth jets through 2035, but reductions are expected.

The debate centers on how necessary the advanced stealth fighter really is and whether missions could be carried out with the less expensive F-16s. The main advantage of the F-35 is its ability to evade radar systems, making it difficult to shoot down — an attribute that is important only if the United States anticipates a war with another technologically advanced military.

F-16.net Sponsor

Panetta can recommend, the president can influence, Congress decides.

Realistically, Panetta will be serving his last few days this time next year. Furthermore, we aren't going to see a serious reshuffling of federal spending until after the next election. Although the deficit is primarily driven by entitlement spending, I believe defense will be cut because it will be politically necessary.

I think we may see reduced buys for a few years, but the JSF is going to continue because it must. We'll see reductions in force levels, MRAPS orders, etc before the F-35 is seriously threatened.

We can all thank the US Congress both for this deficit spending mess AND the JSF being the only game in town. Thank you, US Congress! Is there ANYTHING they can't screw up?

If you actually read the article, it wasn't Panetta who was suggesting the F-35 being cut. it was talking about the "debate." Panetta has said repeatedly (including earlier articles in the NYT) that the F-35 is the military's most important acquisition and it will be prioritized above all others.

Nice try Cxxtxx; you complain that LM and the Military is guilty of misleading the public, when you're doing a fine job of doing it yourself.

Last edited by cxxtxx on Jan 04, 2012 - 04:54 AM; edited 2 times in total

stereospace wrote:

Realistically, Panetta will be serving his last few days this time next year.

hb_pencil wrote:

Nice try, you complain that LM and the Military is guilty of misleading the public, when you're doing a fine job of doing it yourself.

Two thing jump right out from the quotes above...

1) Stereospace, if you actually believe--and I'm including quantum probabilities in this--that ANY Republican candidate (who is in the race right now) has a chance winning the 2012 presidential election against Barack Obama, you have a painful shock coming. You are going to be a VERY unhappy camper for the next five (5) years my friend. And after Barack gets done, Hillary Clinton is going to be President for 8 more years. I hate to burst your bubble, but simple demographics extincts the Republican brand by 2025.

2) As to the second quote--I merely posted a link to the complete NYT article and provided verbatim text from that article. If you think that is someway misleading, you must also believe that Rick Santorum is gonna be the next president.

Chad

cxxtxx wrote:

2) As to the second quote--I merely posted a link to the complete NYT article and provided verbatim text from that article. If you think that is someway misleading, you must also believe that Rick Santorum is gonna be the next president.

Chad

You didn't "merely post a link and provided verbatim text." If you did that you would have included the line above it that stated this was not Panetta's views but that of an outside analyst. You made an assertion by selectively quoting what the article said in order to imply he said something different.

hb_pencil wrote:

You didn't "merely post a link and provided verbatim text." If you did that you would have included the line above it that stated this was not Panetta's views but that of an outside analyst. You made an assertion by selectively quoting what the article said in order to imply he said something different.

You might want to read it again there partner, and after you do, send me a PM with your apology. The snippets are NOT part of a quote, and they are not the views of an outside analyst, they are in the mainbody of the story, part of Bumiller & Shanker's narrative. (Note the " ... " in the first line. Yeesh...

Chad

P.S. So you are voting for Rick Santorum then?

cxxtxx wrote:

part of Bumiller & Shanker's narrative.

....and that's all those comments are. They're not an insight into what the pentagon's recommendations will be, merely a misguided assumption that the F-35 is a "Chief Target" because it is a "BIG Target".

They possibly looked at a list of military program budgets and said "Oooo that one looks big, they can cut a lot of that" without any background knowledge of the US fighter recap.

Anyone want to put bets on what the planned US F-35 numbers reduction will be for the decade?

cxxtxx wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

You didn't "merely post a link and provided verbatim text." If you did that you would have included the line above it that stated this was not Panetta's views but that of an outside analyst. You made an assertion by selectively quoting what the article said in order to imply he said something different.

You might want to read it again there partner, and after you do, send me a PM with your apology. The snippets are NOT part of a quote, and they are not the views of an outside analyst, they are in the mainbody of the story, part of Bumiller & Shanker's narrative. (Note the " ... " in the first line. Yeesh...

Chad

P.S. So you are voting for Rick Santorum then?

Frankly, given all the shoddy analysis you've put out in the last month, I'm not surprised by your inability to grasp this.

munny wrote:

cxxtxx wrote:

part of Bumiller & Shanker's narrative.

....and that's all those comments are. They're not an insight into what the pentagon's recommendations will be, merely a misguided assumption that the F-35 is a "Chief Target" because it is a "BIG Target".

They possibly looked at a list of military program budgets and said "Oooo that one looks big, they can cut a lot of that" without any background knowledge of the US fighter recap.

Precisely. Almost every comment Panetta has said is that the F-35 will be prioritized over all others.

munny wrote:

Anyone want to put bets on what the planned US F-35 numbers reduction will be for the decade?

Okay I will, but it takes some time and effort to explain. First, let me suggest that appointing Leon Panetta as Secdef was an extremely shrewd move by the President. Right now the most pressing concern DoD faces is its budget and the politics surrounding it. While Panetta might not have the security bonafides of his predecessor, he's got better political acumen than almost anybody else available.

So you need to understand the calculated political effects of the Secdef's actions and statements. The release of a proposed budget strategy is an broad attempt to have the most egregious aspect of the 2011 budget control act's sequestration mechanism be removed; across the board 9.3% cuts. As it stands all programs (budget lines) in the DoD's budget must take a haircut, regardless of their effect. The F-35, being a larger project can afford the hit, but others would not and would collapse. Furthermore its highly inefficient; sure the F-35 can absorb thecut, but it would likely cause more problems in the long run.

So the proposed budget strategy is an attempt to show to congress that they have a plan to get to the obligated savings, but done in a way that lessens the harm to the overall security interests of the United States. This might help get something pass congress, which is the biggest challenge of such an plan. Although the Administration has said it does not want to change the law, the fact that Panetta has been allowed to proceed illustrates what the administration is willing to do.

Now the last couple of months has really made clear what the administration's overall geo-strategic view of the world is. Its one word: Asia. The fact that Obama announced a new marine base in northern australia, as well as his comments about Asian collective security really illustrate that point. Its also emphasized by recent personnel changes. Michele Flountroy's departure from DoD's Policy Shop for one... she was more of a counter insurgency/south east asia oriented individual when geo-strategic views of asia are to the fore.

So given the renewed focus on Asia, Its a question about strategy and operational concepts. The whole Airsea Battle is really the overall blueprint for where the US Sees its threats... its countries with integrated denial of access strategies: ie China. While the actual doctrine is undefined now, I'd argue that its underlying bones are already present. The DDX/Zumwalt program, Virginia class, Littoral combat ship, and the F-35 are all key parts of that. And of these the F-35 is considered the most critical program due to Tacair rust out.

Now sequestration requires cuts from 2013 to 2021, when the balance of the US buys occur after 2021. The first couple of years is about 9.3%, but it slackens to 8.0 in 2021. There are several scenarios which I'll propose, but some

For any reasonable scenario, the F-35's RDT&E budget cannot be cut at all, except if you cut the B variant. Furthermore its not cost effective to do that. So really the main variable you can play around with is Concurrency production pre-2016 and full rate production after that point. These are my scenarios:

#1 Concurrency cuts all the way to 2016... so 30~40 aircraft till then. In a way this should be considered a near bare bones F-35 program without cutting a limb (ie a variant). RDT&E can't realistically be cut without severely damaging the program, so reducing the concurrency to a near bare minimum (30 planes) basically is the most you can do. The QLR offers significant political cover to do this, and congress seems quite willing to endorse these cuts. The question then is how will the FRP Ramp-up occur in 2016. With such a low number its going to affect how quickly the entry into service can occur, so you might see a slower buy rate purely because the USAF does not actually have the capacity to train new pilots. It might be that the full production rate does not occur until 2018 or 19.

#2 the cancellation of the Marine Corps variant, ala the Simpsons Bowles plan. I think this is the least likely to happen. However what I can see is that development for this variant is slowed significantly and once again "detached" from the rest of the program. I can't see a cancellation in the cards when the president has basically made it clear that the Asia pacific will be the the main focus of US security interests for the next 50 years.

#3 There are no cuts, and they follow the schedule as currently outlined. I think its less likely than #1 series of scenarios but its certainly a possibility. All three services desperately want the F-35. Furthermore its quite possible that congress will just mandate funding for the F-35 to remain as is. Given the absolutely massive tacair shortfall and the "pressing" defense requirements in Asia, there is a significant possibility this will occur... but can only happen if Congress agrees to the Panetta plan and offers the defense department discretion on determining the cuts. I think thats actually quite likely. Other pet projects will be curtailed instead, like the Next generation bomber, a new Ford Class carrier, among others.

So what are the unknowns? Going forward I think we don't know how will congress actually deal with the sequestration cuts. There is every possibility that congress will seek to undo or soften the blow from them. I think that's less likely in the short term due to the Obama's administration veto promise. The problem is that the time for such a deal is right now. The budget cycle means that much of the planning will occur in the summer and fall. So unless a deal is reached in the next five months the trigger will be implemented.

However if the economy continues to improve, its possible that the administration in 2014 will ask for an increase in defense funding. The F-35 could be a major beneficiary, possibility returning it to its current production plan. Its tough to say right now, but it should be interesting.

cxxtxx wrote:

stereospace wrote:

Realistically, Panetta will be serving his last few days this time next year.

hb_pencil wrote:

Nice try, you complain that LM and the Military is guilty of misleading the public, when you're doing a fine job of doing it yourself.

Two thing jump right out from the quotes above...

1) Stereospace, if you actually believe--and I'm including quantum probabilities in this--that ANY Republican candidate (who is in the race right now) has a chance winning the 2012 presidential election against Barack Obama, you have a painful shock coming. You are going to be a VERY unhappy camper for the next five (5) years my friend. And after Barack gets done, Hillary Clinton is going to be President for 8 more years. I hate to burst your bubble, but simple demographics extincts the Republican brand by 2025.

2) As to the second quote--I merely posted a link to the complete NYT article and provided verbatim text from that article. If you think that is someway misleading, you must also believe that Rick Santorum is gonna be the next president.

Chad

That's not contributing to the discussion.

cxxtxx wrote:

Two thing jump right out from the quotes above...

1) Stereospace, if you actually believe--and I'm including quantum probabilities in this--that ANY Republican candidate (who is in the race right now) has a chance winning the 2012 presidential election against Barack Obama, you have a painful shock coming. You are going to be a VERY unhappy camper for the next five (5) years my friend. And after Barack gets done, Hillary Clinton is going to be President for 8 more years. I hate to burst your bubble, but simple demographics extincts the Republican brand by 2025.

Chad

The last elections don't seem to support your premise, not that this is in any way on topic.

SecDef is due to release the department's new strategy on Thursday. Cuts to the F-35 program seem to be minor, but it appears that F-35B (and V-22) is still vulnerable. From Politico:

THE NAVY AND AIR FORCE would largely be protected, since they are the focus of the AirSea Battle concept guiding U.S. strategy in the Pacific, but aren’t likely to survive unscathed. Wired’s Danger Room reports today that the Air Force would lose about 200 planes under the plan, but only minor cuts are expected to the F-35 program.

THE MARINES ARE ALREADY SET TO SHRINK under a strategic review Amos ordered last year, but are also a key element of the AirSea Battle concept. Officials are keeping close watch on the fate of the Corps’ two signature aircraft programs, the F-35B STOVL fighter and the V-22 Osprey.

http://www.politico.com/morningdefense/ ... se401.html

This needs to be properly understood. The statement that the F-35 faces minor cuts means from the next budget. It doesn't reflect future considerations. Today's plans are subject to tomorrow's change in Administration, Congress, requirements, and economic health.

Stating the USAF loses 200 aircraft is a near term force reduction. If they lose one fighter wing today that's one less wing that in future requires new aircraft unless force structure is then expanded. The trend is further reduction not expansion. Long term USAF force structure does directly impact how many F-35's are required by the USAF.

One or two fewer fighter wings from the 16 in the last QDR does mean the total F-35 buy will be reduced which doesn't include one or more fighter wings flying a fighter sized UCAS instead of the F-35 which will certainly happen but has also till now not at all been addressed in terms of the "official" USAF F-35 requirement.

If one were to assume the USAF ends up with 10 F-35A wings that requires around 1,100 (720 combat coded in the wings and the rest for training, spares, etc.). Ten strike wings is actually the old number from the QDR, does not include these new 2012 cuts, possible additional force structure reductions, the impact of fighter class UCAS, etc.

This isn't a slam on the program or a prediction the F-35 should be reduced or cut. The USAF desperately needs the F-35 and in as many numbers as it can afford. Rather this simply points out the old 1,700+ is not going to happen and continuing to rely on this number does not serve us well. It's more than possible the total F-35 buy remains large enough, including exports, to maintain economy of scale and keep costs for rising that much based on a lowered total buy; however, for a host of reasons including the new force reduction the numbers being thrown around regarding how many F-35A's will be purchasing every year in the future should be considered at best suspect and perhaps more realistically simply misleading.

Some more crystal ball gazing....

Obama plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... Z020120104

"(Reuters) - The Obama administration will unveil a "more realistic" vision for the military on Thursday, with plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops and invest more in air and sea power at a time of fiscal restraint, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday....

...Though specific budget cut and troop reduction figures are not set to be announced on Thursday, officials confirmed to Reuters they would amount to a 10-15 percent decline in Army and Marine Corps numbers over the next decade, translating to tens of thousands of troops....

...Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to hold a news conference to flesh out the contents of the review after Obama's remarks, which are also expected to stress the need to rein in spending at a time when U.S. budgets are tight...."

And our next war of choice will be with the army we have at the time and not the army that Obama had, right?

BTW: The death spiral has started already.

Will the USMC wind up with fewer JSFs than the USAF has F-22s?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 4020120105

hcobb wrote:

And our next war of choice will be with the army we have at the time and not the army that Obama had, right?

BTW: The death spiral has started already.

Will the USMC wind up with fewer JSFs than the USAF has F-22s?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 4020120105

@hcobb..... Orginally the F-35 was suppose to ramp up 41 aircraft for LRIP-5 but the pentagon just froze production at 30 aircraft until they get more cycles on the static test aicraft.

The reporter for Reuters obviously isn't up to speed on the F-35 program.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget