• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Air Force Cutting Purchase of the JSF by 1/3

Status
Not open for further replies.

46Driver

"It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gon
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report


Jumper Confirms Air Force Plans To Cut Joint Strike Fighter Purchase
By Marc Selinger
12/15/2004 02:33:52 PM


The U.S. Air Force chief of staff confirmed Dec. 14 that the service intends to cut its planned buy of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

While declining to discuss specific numbers, Gen. John Jumper told the Defense Writers Group that "I think that we will see an overall decrease in the Joint Strike Fighter total requirement." The Lockheed Martin F-35 will be more capable than the F-16 and A-10 it is designed to succeed, so a "one-for-one replacement" will not be needed, he said.

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer at the Lexington Institute, has said that the Air Force wants to cut its purchase of 1,763 JSFs by about a third (DAILY, Dec. 6). The change could be reflected in the Bush Administration's fiscal 2006 defense budget request, which the White House plans to send to Congress Feb. 7.

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps already have cut their JSF procurement from 1,089 jets to 680 as part of an effort to make their fighter force more integrated.

Jumper also provided more details about plans to add the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant to the Air Force's F-35 mix, saying the service intends to buy about 200 to 250 STOVLs. Jumper previously said the Air Force would buy "hundreds" of the short-takeoff planes (DAILY, Sept. 14).

The Air Force wants the STOVL variant to provide close-air support, because the aircraft will be able to use short runways located near ground troops. The service's other JSFs will be in the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) configuration.

The Air Force STOVL will be a modified version of the one the Marine Corps plans to acquire.

In other comments, Jumper said he will meet Dec. 21 with Gen. Lance Lord, head of Air Force Space Command, to "solidify" plans to develop near-space systems, or those deployed at altitudes between 65,000 feet and 300 kilometers (186 miles). Air Force officials have said that airships providing persistent surveillance are strong candidates for near-space deployment (DAILY, Sept. 15).

Turning to airlift, Jumper said the Air Force is considering increasing its use of C-130 transports in Iraq so ground forces could send fewer supply convoys through hostile areas. The Air Force, which has been flying 64 C-130s in Iraq, is looking at whether it should use those aircraft more frequently or send more C-130s to the area.

On the tanker controversy, Jumper insisted the Air Force could conduct a fair competition for new aircraft, even though the service has favored the Boeing KC-767 over the Airbus KC-330. Jumper said that internal Air Force e-mails that seemed to denigrate EADS for its original KC-330 offering simply reflected the fact that the aircraft had no refueling boom. A KC-330 boom now is being developed (DAILY, Sept. 7).

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) released the e-mails, saying they undermine the Air Force's claims that it is willing to consider aircraft besides Boeing's (DAILY, Nov. 22). The Air Force is expected to conduct a new competition sometime after the Pentagon briefs Congress the week of Dec. 20 on the results of a Defense Department-commissioned study of tanker options (DAILY, Nov. 23, Dec. 9).

Addressing unmanned aerial vehicles, Jumper said Predators fired dozens of Hellfire missiles in the recent Fallujah, Iraq, operations and were especially effective against "small targets," such as snipers. Predators firing Hellfires were a novelty a few years ago but are now "routine," he said.


Aerospace Daily & Defense Report is a newsletter from Aviation Week's Business Intelligence Services; click here to try a FREE TRIAL subscription. If you already subscribe, login here.
 

cindy

Registered User
We are rapidly losing our overseas basing options. Except for long range bombing, the air force strike fighter is losing it's edge. Or has lost it's edge.

The Navy on the other hand can re-locate a 5 acre airfield close in. Cruise missle undersea spear tips are also readily available. Capable of navigating 75 percent of the earth's surface, both of these platforms give the Nation the edge it needs.

AF is fighting tooth and nail, but slowly Rummy is getting his way.

Go Navy, Beat Air Force!
 

Acoustix99

Registered User
pilot
Regardless, this will probably be cut even further with the rapid advance in UCAV technology. I fear the age of the fighter might be drawing to a close (good thing I went Helos)
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
cindy said:
We are rapidly losing our overseas basing options. Except for long range bombing, the air force strike fighter is losing it's edge. Or has lost it's edge.

The Navy on the other hand can re-locate a 5 acre airfield close in. Cruise missle undersea spear tips are also readily available. Capable of navigating 75 percent of the earth's surface, both of these platforms give the Nation the edge it needs.

AF is fighting tooth and nail, but slowly Rummy is getting his way.

Go Navy, Beat Air Force!

There are further cuts being contemplated.

http://ebird.afis.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20041217342231.html

Granted, it is the Boston Globe, but I would not be suprised if they are actually considering the cuts. Think about it, 3 carriers with their associated Air Wings and their escorts, that is billions of dollars in savings. And now with the Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the Navy can better respond to conflicts and does not need 12 carriers anymore. At least that would be the excuse used if they do cut the carrier force.

Why such huge cuts, our toys are costing more and more every year and we have to cut something. With estimates of the cost of the war in Iraq so far approaching $225 billion, something has to give.

So what could be cut.....hmmmmmm.....?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041215/ts_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc

The Pentagon plans to spend more than $50 billion over the next five years on all aspects of missile defense, aiming to weave in airborne, ship- and space-based assets. The system that failed on Wednesday is know as the ground-based midcourse system, or GMD. By some estimates, the Pentagon has already spent $130 billion on missile defense efforts.
 

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
It is my understanding that the Navy and the battle groups are already over-tasked as it is. Now they want to cut them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top