Monday, September 09, 2013

Disarmament by F-35? By Giovanni de Briganti

Only under threat of cancellation do we begin to see a bit of urgency from Lockheed Martin and the Program Office.  Its too little, too late.  This airplane is destroying Defense budgets worldwide.
Note:  I've stated repeatedly that the F-35 is gobbling up the Marine Corps budget and that many much needed programs (like the MPC) are being sacrificed on the altar of that airplane.  I've also stated that other nations are being forced to do the same.  Fortunately it appears that many are waking up to that fact.  Marines are now asking if the F-35 is worth the cost.  

via Defense Aerospace.com

PARIS --- The latest round of Dutch defense cuts is an apt illustration of how defense readiness across NATO is being damaged by government insistence on procuring the F-35 fighter at whatever cost, despite its recurring delays and very serious technical faults and design shortcomings.

Two prospective buyers, Canada and the Netherlands, have established firm price caps on their F-35 acquisition budgets to prevent cost blow-outs, but because costs continue to increase, the number of aircraft they will be able to buy is being constantly reduced. This also reduces their military usefulness, as the fewer the aircraft, the lower their overall operational effectiveness.

The Netherlands are an apt illustration of the dangers of such an approach. It was originally due to buy 85 F-35s, but successive Dutch governments have reduced this number to 58, which, as the Algemene Rekenkamer (AR), the independent state auditor, concluded in its Oct. 25, 2013 report, are not even enough to fulfill Dutch commitments to NATO. Nonetheless, the F-35 program will absorb half the defense ministry’s total capital expenditure budget for six years, starving other programs of funding.

The current Dutch government now simply plans to buy as many aircraft as it can with its €4 billion budget – fewer than 40, the Rekenkamer estimated. But even to afford this reduced number, it must cut most other defense spending.

The latest round of cuts, reported Sept. 5, is worth €330 million, and will entail the sale of a logistics support ship which is still being built, the scrapping of an entire Army battalion and the mothballing of six or seven more F-16 fighters.


The situation is broadly similar in Canada, where the government has placed a price cap of $8.9 billion on its F-35 acquisition budget, without being able to say how many aircraft this will buy. Yet, it is gradually becoming apparent that cuts in other parts of the defense budget will be needed to protect F-35 funding, and an Aug. 13 report in the National Post was headlined “F-35 purchase may force Conservatives to chop infantry battalion from cash-strapped military.”

And it’s really no different in the United States. Under the pressure of sequestration, the Pentagon will have to choose between a “much smaller force” or a decade-long “holiday” from modernizing its weapon systems, to quote defense secretary Chuck Hagel.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon acquisitions chief, has already indicated that the F-35 program, and a few other top priority programs, will be protected from further cuts, but this means that “remaining programs in the procurement account would have to be cut even more than the 16% average reduction for the whole [acquisition] account,” as the Lexington Institute’s Lauren B. Thompson recently noted.

In the United States as in the Netherlands and Canada, the F-35 is soaking up much of the available acquisition funding, at the expense of other programs or activities that will have to be stretched out or cut altogether. One example is the US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program, which Defense News reported Sept. 2 may be cut from 52 to 24, and others are still emerging.

On current trends, the US Air Force one day will fly only F-35s, KC-46 tankers and the future Global Strike bomber, along with a few – by then elderly - F-22s. This will be a stunning loss of capability compared to the large and diversified combat fleet it operates today, but that is their choice, made by elected representatives and, indirectly, approved by voters.

But there is no reason for US allies to display the same stubborn insistence on buying the overpriced and underperforming F-35. This has already put some allies onto the slippery slope where they must sacrifice other programs to pay for ever-lower numbers of F-35s. Italy, for example, has already said it will reduce its F-35 off-take from 130 to 90 or fewer, while the UK is currently committed to buying 48, instead of the 150+ it originally planned, although it ultimately intends to buy more.

If current, short-sighted policies continue, these governments – whether in Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway or other countries – will wake up one day and realize they have forsaken their entire military capabilities to pay for a squadron or two of F-35s they cannot afford to fly.
This is one time misery does NOT enjoy company.

Western defenses are being raped.

The F-35 is moving from being an expensive boondoggle to being a threat to national security in the free world.

19 comments :

  1. I don't think anything is going to change when sequestration hits again this fall. The F-35 is now protected by law from defense cuts and it looks like it's locked in. Also, seeing as how the press stopped giving attention to Boeing's Advanced Super Hornet, I think Frank Kendall's remark that he doesn't expect the Navy's F-35 acquisition plan to change much probably means that he will not allow the Navy to buy the upgrades for the F/A-18E/F/G fleet. I do agree that this thing is powder keg waiting to blow up in our faces, but what I think is going to actually do it will be something really bad happening. I think a failed military operation due to a lack of equipment or F-35's getting shot out of the sky is the only thing that will make someone want to kill this program, which by then it will have cost American lives and blood and already be too late.

    I completely agree that this is the greatest danger to American national security interests right now and it is disarming the armed forces of the free world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Holy shit Sol, you remind me of Chicken Little.

    The European defense budgets have been in FREE FALL since the 1990s.

    Shit, the US is FREAKING NATO at this point. Who gives a shit about what some pissant little Euro nation who spends almost no cash on it's military can and can't do?

    Their economies are SHIT, and they REFUSE to pay for a real military.

    I thought you HATED the LCS? So why are you crying that it's being cut?

    I suggest you go pleasure yourself to you your precious A-10 and Harrier somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why would i go elsewhere when this is my blog? are you insane? i'm not crying about the LCS. its an article. European militaries are not all the same. the Northern European country have brought tremendous capability to NATO. additionally they have contributed to the mission in Afghanistan. lastly the economies of europe are not all the same. many of the northern countries are doing quite well.

      if i remind you of Chicken little then you remind me of the Village Idiot.

      Delete
    2. Contribute in Afghanistan.....

      1,000 troops is a HUGE commitment.....

      The Northern European nations are all pacifists or have tiny militaries that are essentially for show.

      Delete
    3. some of those nations are smaller than US states and you want to denigrate the contribution that they made to our fight in Afghanistan? amazing. you want to call them pacifists just because they don't want to spend as much on defense as we would like? you're pissed because they don't want to get involved in foreign entanglements?

      you're looking at the end of the globalism that the Bush admin brought forward full force (i think Clinton introduced it with NAFTA). the F-35 is the last gasp effort of the NEO-Cons to shape the world according to their ideals and so is Syria.

      its being rejected out of hand.

      but even worse is the evidence that budgets and defense are inseparable.

      if the critics had concentrated more on the cost of the airplane instead of capabilities then it would have died long ago.

      Delete
  3. “greatest danger to American national security interests”….

    Really?

    Not international terrorism?
    Not political correctness when facing threats (Ft Hood shooter = “workplace violence” anyone)?
    Not entitlement programs eating up the ENTIRE budget within a few decades?
    Not China trying to take over a vast majority of the South China Sea?
    Not the BigO wanting to arm the Syrian rebels, whom a lot of them are linked to AQ?

    None of those real-world issues rises to “greatest danger”, but the F-35 does?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the only issue that you're even remotely in the ball park on is China. but the F-35 won't solve that. a strategy that addresses it will involve reforming trade, tech transfers and getting the defense budget in order.

      their is tremendous waste in the defense budget. the F-35 is just making it worse.

      international terrorism? we could solve that within the course of a year. the problem is that we have been nation building instead of fighting terror. we fuck shit up then leave should be our mantra.

      Syria? a bad distraction made worse by an incompetent president. we shouldn't be in this situation. funny enough, Russia is going to save him from himself.

      entitlements? no one wants to honestly talk about the issue. right now the elderly are the richest part of society. why? entitlement programs. you want to reform that? good luck but they view themselves as middle class taxpayers. so what can we do? fix what we can and deal with it one bite of the apple at a time. its obvious that defense is up first so lets get at it.

      additionally i see that F-35 supporters are rallying around the talking point of entitlements eating up the budget. ok. but we're talking about the defense budget.

      sorry Spudman. everyone sees it. the F-35 is on the verge of collapse. supporters can get frantic but they're still acting stupidly.

      Delete
    2. So a tri-service program that was initially planned to be 1.5% of the DoD budget and ended up 2.3% (through 2037) is somehow a “tremendous waste”? That is only a reduction in every other program of about 0.8%. If your program cannot survive a reduction of less than 1% of you budget, then maybe there are other issues at play.

      Btw, any program over budget technically makes it worse… which is pretty much every program in existence.

      [adjusts tinfoil hat]
      I think a big part of BigO’s OCare plan was to swallow up so much of the budget that it hurts the military through budget pressures and infighting.
      [/adjusts tinfoil hat]

      Delete
    3. either you're being delusional or you're not paying attention. the Marine Corps has cancelled the MPC, delayed the ACV and is threatening the JLTV to pay for the F-35. we might see delays in the CH-53K program for the same reason. the Navy has cut (which i hate) the LCS and we're hearing grumblings that the carrier fleet will be cut to pay for the program.

      we're hearing that more programs maybe cut if sequestration continues.

      but instead of realizing that neither Republicans or Democrats are interested in saving the defense budget and that the time of defense haircuts is here, you're wanting to blame everything else.

      no one is defending defense. everything else is getting cut to save the F-35. that WILL NOT LAST LONG. its a given that this program will be reduced. its a given that partners will bail. its just a fact. if you can't see it its because you don't want to.

      Delete
    4. Those are external issues which the F-35 cannot be blamed for (the overall budget being lowered, etc).

      The Services realize that aircraft take the longest to develop & procure so they are the last to be cut (any delay or cut causes ripple effect problems), especially a tri-service international program.

      Delete
    5. no . this airplane and the F-22 took the longest to develop. before these planes, we saw a steady stream of airplanes coming online that were advanced but cheap. what we call airplane upgrades are in essence new airplanes. before we would have wrapped them in new airframes. now we're simply upgrading the avionics inside existing airframes.

      but more importantly, the air arms of the services are being pitted against other areas. that means that the F-35 is gobbling up the Pentagon budget and that is a condition that will not last.

      Delete
    6. umm, the F-14, F-15,F-16, and F-18 ALL had delays and issues.


      The F-16 was taken to court due to it's FBW system killing a test pilot.

      Should we have canceled it and just stuck with upgraded F-4s?

      Delete
    7. you're talking about engineering challenges. i'm talking about the cost of the airplane. the listed jets didn't kill the purchase of other much needed weapon systems. this one is.

      sorry son. you can get as fired up as you want but this puppy is shitting all over the house and we got to put him out back...if we don't he's going to ruin everything. a juvenile example but a perfect one when it comes to the F-35.

      Delete
  4. Don't forget all the great, robust, mission systems the F-35 has working today! 12 years after contract award. Oh wait, there are none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again, complete and utter LIES from the Drive by Blogger.

      While they have not reached IOC yet, plenty of the mission systems, sensors, etc are working just fine.

      Delete
    2. Great Lockheed Martin talking points.

      Delete
  5. Off topic Sol, but what do you think about what Russia is doing about Syria?

    http://defense-update.com/20130907_45211.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i think the Russians are playing chess while our guys are playing checkers. they take slips of the tongue by the can't shoot straight bunch and then pound them over the head with their own words.

      this is already a defeat for the Obama admin. they were going to lose the vote in Congress. the lost the battle for international public opinion and he's reduced to appealing to people over the bodies of dead children.

      but dead is dead whether by bullets, artillery or chemical weapons. you can't classify death differently just because those who died were killed by unique weaponry.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.