In retrospect, killing the RAH-66 Comanche was almost too easy. It's only customer -- the US Army -- volunteered to cancel it. The program's industrial constituency nervously gambled that the army's promises to re-invest the Comanche budget would be heeded, which miraculously came true. There were no international industrial partners with a financial, political and strategic stake in the program. All it took to sign the Comanche's termination memo was a recommendation by the army's famous "council of colonels", which was approved by Secretary and chief of staff.
It's inevitable that the next administration will explore every option to fix the bulging US Air Force/US Navy fighter shortfall, but it's hard to imagine at this point that killing the F-35 will be seriously considered by decision-makers, even if it is advocated behind the scenes by the program's enemies.
Thanks to all who shared their thoughts about this critical issue yesterday. The comments really highlighted the political and bureaucratic issues with canceling the F-35, even by those who believed it was a good idea.
I can confidently guarantee that we'll hear more about this debate in the months ahead, and it will be useful I think for us to remember our initial reaction.
It's inevitable that the next administration will explore every option to fix the bulging US Air Force/US Navy fighter shortfall, but it's hard to imagine at this point that killing the F-35 will be seriously considered by decision-makers, even if it is advocated behind the scenes by the program's enemies.
Thanks to all who shared their thoughts about this critical issue yesterday. The comments really highlighted the political and bureaucratic issues with canceling the F-35, even by those who believed it was a good idea.
I can confidently guarantee that we'll hear more about this debate in the months ahead, and it will be useful I think for us to remember our initial reaction.
on October 7, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply
Flight testing... flight testing and .... flight testing.
Show me some flight testing of real war systems on a real airframe (BF-1, AF-1 etc) and maybe I can show some confidence.
All we have from Lockmart/Pentagon at the moment is spin and sophistry.
on October 8, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply
It's probably worth looking at this from the perspective of the folks who put this motion: Congress & the Pentagon.
For the last 50+ years the US and NATO have prepared for the Big One but it never came. Instead we (and by "we" I mean mainly the Anglosphere nations) have fought a series of small wars and counterinsurgencies. This may be because nuclear weapons have made fighting a Big One unthinkable for all parties or it may be because most wars occur in failed or failing states, or both. Regardless, that's the actual history of our conflicts.
Most of the air power you need to apply in those situations is in the form of CAS and most of those munitions these days are PGMs. That situation calls for something very much like an F-35.
F-22s are first day of the war aircraft - kick the doors in. Once air superiority is established, most late generation fighter-bombers are free to operate as strike aircraft without harassment from the air. What the F-35 will bring to the party that F-16s and F-18s will not is advanced avionics suites, advanced targeting systems and front aspect stealth, which will increase the difficulty of targeting by advanced MANPADS. Once air supremacy is achieved, you can load the hard-points with munitions just like current strike platforms.
So it's a compelling argument I think, if you look at it rationally. What bothers me is that all actors aren't rational. I'd feel a whole lot better about all this if we traded five hundred F-35 CTOLs for another three hundred F-22s.
I also strongly believe the USN needs an air superiority aircraft of the F-22 class. They go into harms way regularly and they need that first day of war capability as much as the USAF.