Now here's a budget item on the chopping block that is near and dear to many TRR readers' hearts. The $435 million proposed new-engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Questions:
-Does the F-35 need new engines or is this just a jobs program for Boehner's district in Ohio where they are built? It seems there is discord between the military and politicians as to the necessity of an engine upgrade.
-Why can't the F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-117 platforms be upgraded instead?
-With the tactical successes of far cheaper drone aircraft, how much need is there for cutting-edge manned aircraft, going forward?
-Isn't it the purpose of most defense spending to support the vast military-industrial complex in politically favored districts? And if so, why not continue to manufacture and sell existing platforms to our allies and not force taxpayers to pay for unnecessary upgrades until ours really need it?
3 comments:
I think you're mis-stating the situation, with all respect. The F-35 program is to replace the AF's F-16's and A-10's with the "A" model, the USMC A-8's with the "B" model, and the Navy's F/A-18 with the "C" model. It's a multi-national program that is hugely important. Of the alternatives you noted, the F-15 and F-16 are still in production for foreign AF's and could be made to work - the ones the USAF owns are very old. The F-22 is a world class air superiority fighter with some ground attack capability. Gates has killed the program, and the line is nearly dead. I support building more. The F-117 is gone - out of service and 1970's stealth technology.
The engine situation is complicated. All the versions noted now are flying with Pratt and Whitney F-135 engines. GE and Rolls Royce are developing an alternative engine, the F-136, that is not as far along in development and would need further funding to put in production. Both are world class - the most powerful fighter engines ever.
There is something to be said for alternative engines. Our F-16 fleet flies with engines made by either GE or PW.
With today's budget, all funding for the F-136 comes out of the overall F-35 program. I reluctantly say it must be defunded and all our eggs put in the F-135 basket. If the Brits want to fund the F-136 for their F-35's to support Rolls Royce, I say they should do so.
Bottom line: We really need the F-35 fighter program, although the USMC version is the problem right now and may be killed - which would help the other versions. Both the Russians and the Chinese have recently flown stealth air superiority fighters. Without control of the air, wars are lost.
I'm not suggesting that we abdicate our ownership of the air, just that we might not need quite so much manned hardware up there. And if we do as I suggest and mostly stay out of other nations' business unless we have vital interests there, we wouldn't need so much. I figured you'd know far more than I do about the in's and out's of the defense-hardware industry and history. That's partly why I posted this.
My position is that we're too big to consider most parts of the world outside our vital interests. We let Hitler think we were too soft and isolationist to fight. We let the Russians think Korea was outside our concern in 1950; we told Saddam we were indifferent to Kuwait in 1990; we left Afghanistan alone from 1990 until 2001.
Plenty of folks disagree.
Post a Comment