WT Forums

" Financial Times
Rumsfeld clashes with air force over Joint Strike Fighter
By Peter Spiegel in London
Published: January 3 2005 22:10 | Last updated: January 3 2005 22:10

Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, has rebuffed an effort by the US air force to cut its order of Joint Strike Fighters by a third - a proposal senior air force officials had hoped would save its prized F/A-22 programme.

Air force top brass had sought a cut of about 500 JSFs in their 2006 budget proposal to Mr Rumsfeld - from 1,700 to 1,200 - to find money to fund 277 F/A-22 Raptors, a $72bn (€53bn) programme that recently moved into initial production.

But Mr Rumsfeld, who has never been a strong supporter of the Raptor, refused to back the shift and is expected to submit a request for all 1,700 JSFs when the Pentagon makes its annual budget submission to Congress next month.

The Pentagon will instead seek only 180 Raptors, according to people briefed on the decision-making process. The cut is expected to save about $10.5bn during the next six years. Both fighters are built by Lockheed Martin.

The battle over the Raptor has been the most hotly contested procurement debate inside the Pentagon under Mr Rumsfeld's watch. With advanced stealth technology and the ability to fly at supersonic speeds for long distances, the Raptor has been the prized air force programme for almost a generation.

But Mr Rumsfeld and some of his closest aides have sought to cut the programme for years, arguing it was a cold war-era fighter designed for outdated high-speed dogfights.

By contrast, the JSF - which will be purchased by the air force, navy and marines as well as the British armed forces - is much cheaper and designed for both air-to-air fighting and the kind of ground-attack missions the Pentagon expects.

"JSF meets Rumsfeld's criteria for a 'transformational' programme," said Loren Thompson, defence analyst at the Lexington Institute. "It is multi-service, it is multi-mission and it's low cost."

The $10.5bn cut in the Raptor is part of nearly $30bn in spending cuts during the next six years expected to come in the Bush administration's 2006 budget request.

According to internal budget documents disclosed on Monday by the newsletter InsideDefense.com, the biggest cuts will come in about half a dozen programmes, including the C-130J, a cargo plane that will be cancelled for the air force and curtailed for the Marine Corps saving $5bn, and in missile defence, where a similar saving is sought.

Next to the air force, the most severely affected service is the navy. It will see two ships cut from its new destroyer programme, saving $2.5bn, and the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy retired, saving $1.2bn.

Despite the procurement cuts, the Pentagon's overall budget is expected to remain at 2005 levels because of continuing costs of Iraq."

F-22 is far superior to JSF, and Rumsfield, with his quixotic notions and need to "adapt our military to fight the War on Terror" (as if wars against geopolitically powerful nations are over) , is limiting it.

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

According to internal budget documents disclosed on Monday by the newsletter InsideDefense.com, the biggest cuts will come in about half a dozen programmes, including the C-130J, a cargo plane that will be cancelled for the air force and curtailed for the Marine Corps saving $5bn<i></i>

not that i liked reading much in there, but how does cutting the C-130 help to conform? (pleasse note smell of sarcasm)

Perhaps the administration is counting on Congress to reverse this recommendation, so they can claim it wasn't their fiscal irresponsibility that busted the budget. Am I too cynical again?

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<i>This is somebody else's take on it:</i>


F/A-22 IN COMBAT: During the final, gray days of December, while much of official Washington was away on vacation, the beleaguered leadership of the USAF fought a losing battle to defend their service’s future against budget-cutters in the OSD. Departing SECAF James Roche played little part in the deliberations, leaving Gen. John Jumper, Air Force chief of staff, in a severely weakened position. Jumper accepted the best deal he could get, with potentially grave consequences for his beloved service. The December battle ostensibly was about how many F/A-22 Raptor fighters the Air Force could buy, and how the DoD would absorb billions of dollars in last-minute budget cuts imposed by the White House’s OMB. But that was only part of the story, because the budget gap provided an excuse for senior political appointees around SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld to impose their will on the one service that had successfully resisted OSD’s priorities over the past four years. In other words, the struggle was as much about the meaning of military transformation as it was about money, with competing views of the future clashing over the fate of the Raptor. Gen. Jumper views the stealthy, twin-engine fighter as his service’s No. 1 transformation priority. Advisers to Rumsfeld question whether it is transformational at all, and have been trying for years to terminate the program at a fraction of the Air Force’s stated requirement. The requirement, for 381 planes, is driven by the need to equip each of 10 Air Expeditionary Forces with a squadron of 24 Raptors. That might sound like a requirement for 240 planes, but when standard Air Force methodology is applied for providing training, attrition, test and other back-up planes, the total works out to 381. The service at one time hoped to buy more, but it has consistently stated that 381 was the minimum number needed to sustain force rotations in future wars. Jumper and other Air Force leaders contend the Raptor is far superior to the single-engine F-35 JSF - more lethal, more survivable, more capable of sustaining high speeds for prolonged periods. They say it is the only suitable replacement for increasingly decrepit F-15 fighters, which exhibit numerous signs of age such as metal fatigue and rotting insulation on internal wiring. And they say that without the F/A-22, they cannot preserve global air superiority into the middle decades of the 21st century. OSD isn’t buying any of that. Senior political appointees, such as Stephen Cambone, undersecretary for intelligence, think the services are investing too much money in conventional weapons and not enough in the tools needed to fight unconventional adversaries. They view air superiority as an area in which the United States enjoys “excessive overmatch” - in other words, a war-fighting advantage so massive that it can safely absorb budget cuts to fund more pressing priorities. There are other areas where OSD and the Air Force don’t see eye-to-eye on future needs. For example, Gen. Jumper champions a multi-mission electronic aircraft designated E-10 as the successor to the E-3 AWACS and E-8 JSTARS, whereas Cambone favors using satellites or unmanned aircraft for future surveillance missions. But it is Raptor that has been the most persistent source of friction, with Cambone repeatedly trying to cut the fighter and the Air Force consistently resisting. Roche successfully rebuffed OSD’s efforts to impose its view of transformation on his service, blocking efforts to buy more B-2 bombers in 2001, threatening to resign over proposed F/A-22 cuts in 2002, and defending E-10 against proponents of SBR in 2003. But Roche’s resistance was bought at a price; the Air Force gradually lost supporters in OSD, while the Army’s and Navy’s willingness to embrace the official interpretation of transformation was warmly greeted. Roche’s departure under a cloud of procurement scandal thus leaves the Air Force in a very vulnerable position as bills for Iraq come due and the 2005 QDR approaches. With Air Force acquisition executive Marvin Sambur also planning to be gone in January and Pete Teets, Air Force undersecretary, expected to deplane in March, Jumper and his fellow generals are left with almost no political cover for their priorities within the Pentagon. OSD, of course, has its own problems. Cambone and Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, who are leading the current campaign against Raptor, have both been discredited by events in Iraq. So has Mr. Rumsfeld. <b>In fact, Rumsfeld is so besieged that many insiders think he may leave shortly after delivering his budget testimony to Congress in March. That, presumably, would also be the end of the road for Cambone and Wolfowitz, which leads some observers to suspect that the F/A-22 fight is mainly about settling scores.</b> Since OSD’s plan does not contemplate cutting F/A-22 funding substantially until 2008, the Air Force could gamble that Raptor’s opponents will be long gone by then and Congress will restore lost funding. But Rumsfeld’s political demise has been prematurely reported several times in the past, so that can hardly be called a safe bet. It certainly isn’t a bet Jumper would comfortably make. Unfortunately, he may not have a choice. The cost of the Iraq war and the need to cut deficits has furnished the service’s critics with the perfect pretext for imposing their priorities. In a sense, the Air Force is just catching up with the Army and Navy, which have already seen their modernization plans decimated under Rumsfeld. But after dedicating his entire adult life to the Air Force, John Jumper can’t be very happy with his final holiday season on active duty. (Op-Ed by Loren Thompson, COO of the Lexington Institute, in Defense News)

<i>It's sad that it is even plausible that important decisions about the strength of our defense in the 21st century will be mainly about ego battles and turf wars.</i>





THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<i>...and this too:</i>

NO TIME TO PANIC: Just before the start of the new year, word began leaking of the Pentagon’s planned cuts to major U.S. defense programs. News that the F/A-22 Raptor fighter program would be cut from 277 to about 160 planes arrived in a Dec. 29 New York Times article, two months before the Bush administration will submit its proposed 2006 defense budget to Congress. More revelations are in store as senior DoD officials brief more members of Congress to cushion blows to lawmakers and their constituents. These include cutting at least one of the Navy’s 12 aircraft carriers, delaying the purchase of submarines and the DD(X) future destroyer, drastically slowing the Air Force’s SBR and E-10 radar plane, and even trimming some missile defense programs. None of this is surprising. Although the Pentagon has been more tightlipped about the 2006 budget than any in memory, the Washington cognoscenti have warned of cuts of about $60B in defense spending to cover Iraq War costs and check the ballooning U.S. budget deficit. Big programs are like banks. They get robbed because that’s where the money is. <b>In this case, the F/A-22 is suffering to preserve Lockheed’s other new tactical airplane, the F-35 JSF. The Air Force wanted to cut 600 planes to protect the Raptor. Still, SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld, never a Raptor fan, had enough sense not to kill the world’s most sophisticated fighter.</b> The bad news is that Raptor unit costs could soar, mimicking the B-2 horror scenario of the 1990s: getting 21 planes for the price of 132. The prospect of such cuts could scare investors from the defense sector, even though they should know that giants like Lockheed are not too dependent on any particular program. On Wall Street, the gravest sin is to fall short of expectations. Miss earnings by pennies per share and investors can steer clear of you for many quarters. High-profile budgetary casualties can do that. <b>The European outlook is no rosier. In Britain, BAE SYSTEMS and Cobham have revised their guidance, and London is pondering cuts of its own. </b>EADS, wracked with a brutal and bruising management struggle, also has reduced its public expectations. Before investors reach for their ejection handles, it’s time for a reality check. These aren’t the chronic underachievers that during the late 1990s infuriated investors - and the Pentagon - with their inability to deliver because of their inability to sort out merger-related financial and managerial problems. Mergers and acquisitions have left the big names with balanced product portfolios that are cash and dividend engines. And the executives running these companies are savvy enough to roll with the punches. Was Lockheed Martin trying to buy Titan as a hedge against falling fighter sales? The company won’t say. Moreover, the products that these companies make generally work, and work well. The Army’s Stryker infantry vehicle by General Dynamics, a vehicle once derided as an overweight, top-heavy deathtrap, has saved the lives of soldiers and civilians alike in Iraq. Profit-taking by investors is healthy and normal. But let’s hope that the Pentagon has the wisdom to plan its cuts wisely, and explain them clearly to keep from scaring investors so badly it handicaps the industry’s ability to raise capital. (Editorial in Defense News)

<i>Cutting the F-22 buy (and other things, like tankers?) is necessary to save the F-35 program. They know that the economics don't work if the F-35 buy is reduced. That whole program is based on economies of scale. If you cut the buy of F-35's they will end up costing what F-22's cost. Foreign buyers will back out and buy Eurofighters, Rafales and Sukhois. This is a big gamble. It may turn out that the USAF only gets 160 F-22's and no F-35's. I knew it was a mistake for the USAF to cave in and buy the F-35B. It did not have the intended effect of preserving the F-22 buy, and saved the F-35 to fight another day. A-holes.</i>



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

Edited by - a10stress on Jan 04 2005 11:54 AM

_________________
????

Rumsfeld is trying to go out with a bang

"Steady boys. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance" - Major General John Sedgwick's last words on May 9, 1864, just before he was shot dead by a Confederate sharpshooter

This whole thing amazes me.

It's the F-111 all over again...

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

Donald Rumsfield and Dicj Chaney have done more damage to the U.S. armed forces than Bin Laden and his band of merry idiots ever will.

"The worst football halftime show is still better than a soccer game." - Ron "Tater Salad" White.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Donald Rumsfield and Dicj Chaney have done more damage to the U.S. armed forces than Bin Laden and his band of merry idiots ever will.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

How so? I don't think Rumsfeld/Cheney have been any better or worse than the past few that held the posts.

The realization is that we don't have the money we had before during the Reagan era, nor do we have the threat we had before. IMO, we still need to fund defense before some of the more questionable social programs we currently flush money into, but we also have to be smart about buying tons of these gee-whiz gizmos that won't help us fight current and projected battles or defend ourselves.

My $.02

First of all, Rummy has been adopting W's public speaking skills (or lack thereof)... it's not ok. I know a backpedal when I see one.

2nd... Rummy's a cold war retread. You know how things were done back then. Again, it's not ok.

3rd... Rummy doesn't like the Guard. That's a separate issue entirely, but it's still not ok.

Sleep tight tonight... your Air Force is awake.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
First of all, Rummy has been adopting W's public speaking skills (or lack thereof)... it's not ok. I know a backpedal when I see one.

2nd... Rummy's a cold war retread. You know how things were done back then. Again, it's not ok.

3rd... Rummy doesn't like the Guard. That's a separate issue entirely, but it's still not ok.

Sleep tight tonight... your Air Force is awake.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Rummy may have been from the cold war era, but I give him credit for not buying into cold war weapons systems simply to provide corporate welfare to defense contractors. Things were done differently back then......mil wants it, mil pretty much gets it. Money was good for big-budget defense systems, and the threat dictated their need. Times have indeed changed.

It's like the old thing about base closings. I'd much rather see an unneeded base closed rather than the dollars spent on upkeeping and building new stuff on a little used facility, when we have current weapons systems in need of upgrade, not to mention money for basic maintenance and parts. These days, we can't have everything we want, that's just a fact of life for good or for bad; yet the pentagon still spends money on POS and/or unneeded weapon systems like they're a drunken sailor. Just look at the V-22.

Regards the Guard/Reserve, I hadn't heard many specifics on Rummy's stance on that, could you elaborate? Are you referring to readiness? Their being treated like they're practically active-duty? Training? Equipment?



Edited by - Type 7 on Jan 08 2005 02:15 AM

"Just look at the V-22."

I'd really rather not. <img src=newicons/anim_puke.gif border=0 align=middle>

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

hey snipe what would you say to free ride along in a v-22.

I think i'll pass.

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

I just don't get it...Which is nothing new, but looking at this situation in a simplistic mindset, why not let the USAF flesh out its tactical strike fighter requirements with thw F/A-22...Let the USN run with the F-35C, axe the VTOL variant, and let the Brits manufacture it under liscense to fill their needs...Or better yet encourage the Brits to go back to a conventional carrier force, after all...The French have one CV....

It looks to me the bastard child in this whole situation is the F-18E/F...The Tomcat could have undergone a life extension program untill the F-35C was ready, then been phased out at that point. I really do not understand what the Super Hornet does to compliment the F-35C with the exception of a second seat in the F...

We seem to have a need and a threat enviornment to justify the F/A-22, with the F-35 filling the remaining voids, and giving the USN what it needs for a strike fighter...

Snipe is very right, it is the F-111 all over again, except there is no vaunted Mig-25 enigma to push funding for the F-14/15 when the bottom falls out of this thing.

Just my thoughts, take them for what they are worth...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>By contrast, the JSF - which will be purchased by the air force, navy and marines as well as the British armed forces - is much cheaper and designed for both air-to-air fighting and the kind of ground-attack missions the Pentagon expects.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Funny, but according to Lockheed Martin AND the JSF Office... the F-35 is NOT designed for air to air combat, its designed for strike...


CAG out...