F-35 - TransTracker on Diigo

10 Jun 09

Procurement and research and development are the chief areas in which Defense Secretary Robert Gates has sought savings in the proposals he announced in April. He has proposed cuts to programs including the F-22 fighter, the DDG-1000 destroyer, the Army's Future Combat System, the presidential helicopter fleet, the transformational communications satellite, aircraft carrier production runs, the airborne laser missile defense program and the next-generation bomber. These are solid proposals; he could make additional cuts to the V-22 Osprey and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programs, as well as existing nuclear weapons platforms.

It is important to note, though, that these aren't cuts in current costs; they are cuts in plans. When you eliminate a defense program, you still typically must buy something to replace aging equipment, even if the alternative is less expensive. Moreover, a lot of equipment (much of it purchased under Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush) is wearing out, and we need to replace it soon.
- Or....here's a radical idea. Maybe it would be cheaper to buy the shit we've already paid to develop! Ya know, instead of paying for it, then shit canning it, and then paying AGAIN to develop other stuff!! The problem with these kinds of "analyses" is that they never take into account the money we have already spent. They only consider from today forward. Long term responsibility with our defense dollars means not making decisions now that, in effect, wastes all the money we have already spent. But alas, politicians don't think that way. - on 2009-06-10
Add Sticky Note

07 Mar 09

Desolation Row

This is a great chart illustrating the problems faced by the Air Force. After fifteen years of neglect, the average age of fighters in the Air Force fleet has risen to just over 20 years, double the previous highest average. And with SecDef Gates and President Obama sending signals that the F-22's days are numbered, the problem will only get worse.

www.airforce-magazine.com/...DesolationRow.aspx - Preview

air_force airpower F-22 F-35

February 5, 2009— If you want to know why USAF fighters are so old, look no further. In the Sixties, Seventies, and Eighties, fighter purchases (vertical bars) generally oscillated between 150 and 400 a year. Turnover was heavy, so average age (red line) hovered around 10 years. Then, in 1992, came the crash. Fighter purchases fell to almost nothing and have stayed in that desolate spot through three presidencies. With no replacements, fighters have stayed in service, growing long in the tooth. The average fighter is now an unprecedented 21 years old.

Artwork by Heather Lewis

26 Feb 09

Obama vows to help troops, cut weapon programs

www.spacewar.com/...s_cut_weapon_programs_999.html - Preview

F-22 F-35 fcs procurement future war

President Barack Obama said his upcoming budget would increase the number of US soldiers, state the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cut "Cold War-era" weapons programs.

Setting out his priorities for military spending, Obama said late Tuesday in his first address to a joint session of Congress that he wanted to provide relief to men and women in uniform with higher pay and more boots on the ground.

"To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines," Obama said.
- Of course, "Cold War-era" is now an epithet that encompasses fighter and bomber aircraft, as well as tanks too. How is it that we are "providing relief" to or "relieving strain" from our forces by increasing their numbers but not giving them the weapons they need to fight? What will soldiers and Marines use for air support when the Air Force has no aircraft? Will soldiers and Marines feel relief or strain when they come under enemy air attack for the first time in decade because the Air Force wasn't given the tools to maintain air superiority? - on 2009-02-26
Add Sticky Note
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already warned of major cutbacks, citing expensive weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter aircraft as possible targets.

"It's obviously one of the programs that, along with a number of others -- many others -- that we will be looking at," Gates said earlier this month.
- But of course it's obvious. I mean, when you're top-line fighter is 30 years old and has literally been falling out of sky lately, has been grounded almost as long this year as it has been flying, it obvious and makes total sense that you would seriously consider canning its replacement that you've already spent years and billions of dollars to develop. Makes perfect sense! [heavy dose of sarcasm] - on 2009-02-26
Add Sticky Note
3 more annotations...
- The United States cannot "eliminate national-security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything," Gates wrote in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs.
  - True. But we also can't eliminate security threats without weapons. And with the F-22, F-35, and FCS all on the chopping block--i.e. all the major modernization efforts--one is left to wonder if Gates and the
    "New Establisment" really get that physical infrastructure in the form of weapons is still necessary, that war is not just a matter of mind. - on 2009-02-26
  Add Sticky Note
- New weapons "have grown ever more baroque, have become ever more costly, are taking longer to build and are being fielded in ever dwindling quantities," he said.
  - So, in the case of the F-22, is cutting the number produced and fielded going to solve wither the "dwindling quantities" problem or the "more costly" problem? No. Part of the reason that numbers are dwindling Mr. Gates is that you are buying fewer. You have less because you bought less. Now, though not all of the cost increase problem is because of dwindling numbers--i.e. there are legitimate and serious problems in procurement that drive up costs--nonetheless, cutting the order and buying fewer increases the cost per unit. So, to a certain degree, you have fewer because you chose to have fewer, and those fewer units that you do have cost more because you chose to have fewer! You are to a large degree causing the problem that you are using to justify taking more of the actions led to the problem in the first place! - on 2009-02-26
  Add Sticky Note
- Gates has made clear that counter-insurgency is the immediate priority, and that fleets of new ships, squadrons of sophisticated aircraft and a network of hi-tech army vehicles may be of little use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  
  Apart from the F-22 Raptor fighters, which cost about 350 million dollars each, other candidates for possible cuts are F-35 and F-18E/F aircraft, the Navy's new generation destroyer -- the DDG-1000, a new amphibious ship, and computer-linked Army vehicles, known as Future Combat Systems.
  - Right, because our forces have made no use of airplanes, tanks, ships, or information networks in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And additionally, we all know that what we're doing right now (i.e. counterinsurgency) is all we'll ever do in the future, because we all know that that's how life works. Like, for exmaple, right now I'm writing a blog post, meaning that all I'll ever do from here on out will be to write blog posts. So, while I was planning what to eat for dinner, what I need to do this weekend, a conference for this fall, and all sorts of other stuff, it is clear now that I can just forget all of that because none of it relates to writing this blog post, which is, again, obviously all I'll ever do from now on. [Again, heavy dose of sarcasm.] The idiocy behind the dominant thinking of the "New Establishment" is mind boggling, and dangerous. - on 2009-02-27
  Add Sticky Note

14 Nov 08

Opinion: Joint Strike Fighter - The Latest Hotspot in the U.S. Defense Meltdown

An opinion piece from Janes Defence Weekly from early September written by two Boyd acolytes and 1980s "reformers," Pierre Sprey and Winslow Wheeler. The two trot out the typical "reformer" arguments used against every system they dislike: It's too expensive; it doesn't work now; it will never work; smaller, cheaper, low-tech is inherently and inevitably better; etc. Their piece is followed by a reply from those invovled in the F-35 program. Again, as usual, they make it clear that Sprey and Wheeler's arguments are based on inaccuracies, distortions, and over simplifications, basically the same tactics they used in the "reform" debates of the 1970s and 1980s.

www4.janes.com/...doc_view.jsp - Preview

airpower air_force F-35

TransTracker 's Library tagged F-35 → View Popular

Obama's Pentagon Budget: Not Enough for Defense

Desolation Row

Obama vows to help troops, cut weapon programs

Opinion: Joint Strike Fighter - The Latest Hotspot in the U.S. Defense Meltdown

Selected Tags

Related Tags

Sponsored Links

Top Contributors

Groups interested in F-35

Argos Media