Air Force chief links F-35 fighter jet to China

XaNDeR

New Member
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force Secretary, drawing an unusually explicit link to China, said on Wednesday the United States should stick with a $299 billion plan to buy more than 2,400 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets.
ADVERTISEMENT

Michael Wynne, who runs the Air Force as its top civilian, rejected a prominent research group's call to consider slashing by as much as half the planned purchase -- the Pentagon's costliest weapons-buying plan.

"How big do you think China is?" he said, pausing for effect. "Twenty-one B-2s. Think about that," he said referring to the limited number of advanced Northrop Grumman Corp bombers in the U.S. arsenal.

"I need the Joint Strike Fighter to come along," Wynne told a forum organized by the private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which called for the possible deep cuts on the ground the F-35 lacks the range needed to fight a potential foe like China.

Pentagon planners, in a strategic road map last year as part of a once-every-four year review, singled out China's rise to great power status as a potential threat to U.S. military predominance.

Possible points of conflict include Taiwan, military supremacy in Asia and worldwide competition for oil and other scarce resources.

In alluding to China's vast land mass, Wynne drew a rarely stated public link between China and the Pentagon's core plan for upgrading U.S. air power for decades to come.

The Pentagon plans to buy 2,443 multi-role, radar-evading, F-35s through 2034 in three models as a replacement for the F-16 fighter and a range of other warplanes.

Key F-35 subcontractors include Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems Plc . Interchangeable engines are being built by United Technologies Corp's Pratt & Whitney unit, on the one hand, and a team of General Electric Co and Britain's Rolls-Royce Plc, on the other.

Wynne did not address the center's arguments about the implications of the F-35's relatively short range in any future conflict with China.

Acquiring so many F-35s "now seems neither affordable nor needed, and the U.S. buy can probably be reduced by as much as 50 percent without driving unit costs through the roof or abandoning close allies," the center's study said.

Eight countries -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway -- have joined the United States to fund the single-seat, single-engine F-35.

Wynne faulted critics he did not name for saying, as he put it, "Let's not buy too many of these. Let's throw our partners under the bus" and invest in longer-range ways to attack.

Expanding on other U.S. officials' comments, Wynne said China's shootdown of one of its own weather satellites had been intended as a warning to the United States.

The January 11 use of a ground-based ballistic missile to destroy a low-orbit satellite was "just to tell us -- little message: 'Don't think you're safe up there. Space is not a sanctuary any more'."

He said China's antisatellite test -- its first, decades after the United States and Soviet Union halted their own -- was an "egregious act" that had created 15,000 bits of new debris.

The United States relies heavily on space for military superiority, high speed communications and monitoring threats to strategic stability.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070920/pl_nm/china_usa_arms_dc_1
 
Last edited:

battlensign

New Member
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force Secretary, drawing an unusually explicit link to China, said on Wednesday the United States should stick with a $299 billion plan to buy more than 2,400 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets.
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael Wynne, who runs the Air Force as its top civilian, rejected a prominent research group's call to consider slashing by as much as half the planned purchase -- the Pentagon's costliest weapons-buying plan.

"How big do you think China is?" he said, pausing for effect. "Twenty-one B-2s. Think about that," he said referring to the limited number of advanced Northrop Grumman Corp bombers in the U.S. arsenal.

"I need the Joint Strike Fighter to come along," Wynne told a forum organized by the private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which called for the possible deep cuts on the ground the F-35 lacks the range needed to fight a potential foe like China.

Pentagon planners, in a strategic road map last year as part of a once-every-four year review, singled out China's rise to great power status as a potential threat to U.S. military predominance.

Possible points of conflict include Taiwan, military supremacy in Asia and worldwide competition for oil and other scarce resources.

In alluding to China's vast land mass, Wynne drew a rarely stated public link between China and the Pentagon's core plan for upgrading U.S. air power for decades to come.

The Pentagon plans to buy 2,443 multi-role, radar-evading, F-35s through 2034 in three models as a replacement for the F-16 fighter and a range of other warplanes.

Key F-35 subcontractors include Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems Plc . Interchangeable engines are being built by United Technologies Corp's Pratt & Whitney unit, on the one hand, and a team of General Electric Co and Britain's Rolls-Royce Plc, on the other.

Wynne did not address the center's arguments about the implications of the F-35's relatively short range in any future conflict with China.

Acquiring so many F-35s "now seems neither affordable nor needed, and the U.S. buy can probably be reduced by as much as 50 percent without driving unit costs through the roof or abandoning close allies," the center's study said.

Eight countries -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway -- have joined the United States to fund the single-seat, single-engine F-35.

Wynne faulted critics he did not name for saying, as he put it, "Let's not buy too many of these. Let's throw our partners under the bus" and invest in longer-range ways to attack.

Expanding on other U.S. officials' comments, Wynne said China's shootdown of one of its own weather satellites had been intended as a warning to the United States.

The January 11 use of a ground-based ballistic missile to destroy a low-orbit satellite was "just to tell us -- little message: 'Don't think you're safe up there. Space is not a sanctuary any more'."

He said China's antisatellite test -- its first, decades after the United States and Soviet Union halted their own -- was an "egregious act" that had created 15,000 bits of new debris.

The United States relies heavily on space for military superiority, high speed communications and monitoring threats to strategic stability.

I think you will find that there is a reason that they call them "Advertorials". :D ;)
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
well, they have to give some reasons to continually justify the extravagant defense spendings and use up my tax money.
 

ELP

New Member
Sec USAF's are the hired help. They come in from industry somewhere, many not knowing a heck of a lot about the USAF and say a lot of things. Sometimes those things are right sometimes not. Stating that the F-35 is important to the USAF specifically needs a lot of justification when it is bleeding from every orifice, needing funding for a bunch of other important items: E-8 replacement (E-10), B-52SOJ, Tankers, speeding up funding for the C-5 upgrade program (C-17 can't do it all) that's the extreme short list and a bunch of other boring facilities things the public never sees that allow the USAF to run every day. The idea that getting a large order of short range land based fighter aircraft for Pacific operations that we can currently ill afford and that this will address our supposed need to force structure against China needs some help. Those land bases in the region are vulnerable. Carrier based JSF will be of some use. Of course throwing out the warning card that the U.S. taxpayer can't let down allies that have sunk money into this project will have a lot of play with the pork minded congress. Wynne will wake up when he leaves that job and goes back into industry and rediscovers that a lot of the stuff he is sitting on as lets say a board of directors position, depends on Chinese investment capital.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
To be fair, dealing with the rise of china in the next 30 years does go beyonde the Taiwan issue. You may well see something occur (if we are talking about a hypothetical conflict with china) in SEA with wars (perhaps by proxie) with the US and its allies. Imagine a conflict in Tailand with PROC backed Burma or other SEA's nations. In that case F35A's will be extreemly usefull, especially in comparison to the ulternative which is nothing or F16 block 50's! Anyway if the chinese threat grows and the possibility of a conflict in SEA or EA becomes a realistic possibility you will see more US allied air bases in the region. But to expect such a conflict to be confined to the yellow sea, east and south china sea's is short sighted strategically IMO. Anyway i dont see how a nimitz class CVN is somehow less vulnerable that an air base located on allied soil???? Sure they dont have AIEGIS but with PAC2/3, THAAD, E3, F22A and no SSK/SSN threat, i would rather be on a land base than a CVN.
 

ELP

New Member
I'll take the CVN. That includes a very long reach with Tomahawk and UCAS-D (1500 mile radius) IF that pans out. The idea that a carrier is easy to find hasn't always been so. Then of course the converted OHIO class with around 154 or so each Tomahawks will cause problems too. Add long range bombers with long range stand off and if it gets fielded the hyper-sonics.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
I think will be a very bad idea to cut the order of 2443 F-35's. We can't just use F-16's for another 30 or 40 years, they are already wearing out and need to be replaced. And the F-35 can cary more missiles and bombs than the F-16 and it is stealthy to.
 

ELP

New Member
Sounds good, except the rest of the USAF is not being funded properly, airlift, ISR, etc. not to mention that we don't have enough people to stand up AEFs for a real shooting war and not just the terrorist bug hunts going on. JSF production should go with increased funding as an increase in GDP. The check book is not balancing out in the long run for USAF.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Sounds good, except the rest of the USAF is not being funded properly, airlift, ISR, etc. not to mention that we don't have enough people to stand up AEFs for a real shooting war and not just the terrorist bug hunts going on. JSF production should go with increased funding as an increase in GDP. The check book is not balancing out in the long run for USAF.
Yeh the Air Force says it need an additional $20 billion in funding to buy all that stuff you said. All I can do is hope Congress passes a bill that would support all of the military's needs, that includes the Army, Navy, Marines and the Air Force.
 

neil

New Member
at present there are just so many problems for the USAF.. and all have to do with funding..

current operations in the 'war on terror' is wearing out aircraft fast and adequate numbers of replacements seem to be unaffordable.. I think the USAF is trying its best to hold on to as many F35's as possible before the administration shlashes the programme as they did with the F22..

for a long time now US military superiority has largely revolved around air power.. and how long has there been talk of the so called "great train wreck" when many US aircraft reach their max age..? clearly this issue should be given more priority.. and should have been given more priority..

and the US obviously cannot afford to ignore the rapid military build up of China.. even if the two countries have better relations with each other than the US had with the soviets it would be foolhardy to ignore the asian giant..

I believe F35 will be more than adequate for the future battlefield.. back in the 70's and 80's when the F16 was fielded it was meant as a lightweight air superiority fighter.. and in the end it turned out to be one of the best multi role planes the world has ever seen..

give the F35 a fair chance..

to return to my opening statement.. everything comes back to funding.. there isn't enough money to go around and everyone knows that.. however the US is currently spending less on defence as a percentage of GDP, than it did during the Vietnam conflict.. (just a thought:))
 

Vladimir80

Banned Member
US spends far too much on defence. We could totally revamp all of our armed forces for what USAF want to spend on this project. PLAAF is much weaker than USAF give it credor for. The only challenge in the world to USAF is VVS and then it could only challenge on the defence. No one is aggresive nation anymore except the US and they have many domestic problems like worst healthcare system in the world. Even Cuba is better but they want to spend money on planes they don't need. Funding need to find new priorities.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
at present there are just so many problems for the USAF.. and all have to do with funding..

current operations in the 'war on terror' is wearing out aircraft fast and adequate numbers of replacements seem to be unaffordable.. I think the USAF is trying its best to hold on to as many F35's as possible before the administration shlashes the programme as they did with the F22..

for a long time now US military superiority has largely revolved around air power.. and how long has there been talk of the so called "great train wreck" when many US aircraft reach their max age..? clearly this issue should be given more priority.. and should have been given more priority..

and the US obviously cannot afford to ignore the rapid military build up of China.. even if the two countries have better relations with each other than the US had with the soviets it would be foolhardy to ignore the asian giant..

I believe F35 will be more than adequate for the future battlefield.. back in the 70's and 80's when the F16 was fielded it was meant as a lightweight air superiority fighter.. and in the end it turned out to be one of the best multi role planes the world has ever seen..

give the F35 a fair chance..

to return to my opening statement.. everything comes back to funding.. there isn't enough money to go around and everyone knows that.. however the US is currently spending less on defence as a percentage of GDP, than it did during the Vietnam conflict.. (just a thought:))
I agree with you, it's all about spending and we should give the F-35 a chance, I see it as the next F-16. And your right on the whole china issue, we just can't ignore their military build up and we must prepare for the worst.
 
Top