QDR and Strategy Changes

[Cliff]

So am I. However, I don't think anyone on this thread has said or implied that. The policy discussion you started has essentially been on policy, not the technical merits.

Sir-

Agreed, I was referring to recent media coverage. There have been some suggestions here that F-35 is a follow on or more advanced than the F-22 as well.

The Thuds were bought for one war and used in another because the wrong war had been used to justify their purchase.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Thud was designed in 1955, entered service in 1958... what was the "wrong war"? Are you saying that the Cold War was the right war to be fighting in 1958... I'm not sure I understand. If you're talking about Vietnam, I agree that the Thud was not right for that... see my point on focusing on only one end of the spectrum.

The announced strategy change, eliminating the myth of two war capability, will presumably be reflected in the QDR. If that reality is indeed reflected in the QDR and if what has been dribbling from most in the DoD heirarchy over the last few months is correct, the focus will be on the full spectrum of warfare and not just current fights. Thus I suggest you have been the one emphasizing training and buying for only one type of war, DoD does not appear to be doing that and no one else on this thread appears to be doing so.

Not true! If I was arguing that we should not fund the increase in the size of the Army, or that we shouldn't buy MRAPs, etc, then I think you could say I was arguing for buying for only one type of war. I am saying that we need to have a minimum of MODERATE RISK force across the spectrum... IE, I believe this nation can afford to buy enough forces to allow us to have a moderate level of risk regardless of the level of conflict.

My point is that only the low end of conflict is being funded in the current budget... the USAF in particular is eliminating about about 10% of its fighters to get more ISR assets... while not buying enough new fighters. I think we can do both.

That 'Full Spectrum' bit means that everything from dropping nukes to getting in the mud will be required / desired. We differ on what that means apparently. You see it as focusing on only one type of war, the current flavor thus producing a shortfall in a program you support. I see it as reflecting a realistic apportionment of funds among a number of needed programs -- to include curtailing purchase of one aircraft I've strongly supported as has been stated on this board numerous times.

I'm not saying it focuses on only one type of war... I am simply saying that I think we are accepting a lot more risk than people think we are, and I think if folks truly understood the risks involved they would make different decisions. I don't think that while we are involved in two conflicts we should have an essentially flat topline, leading to what basically amounts to across the board cuts. Trying to pay for the entire war out of our regular budgets is crushing not only procurement, but the training that I think everyone here agrees is important.

That apportionment includes attempting to accelerate the purchase of an aircraft with less capability in some respects but which can be exported and for which agreements to buy from other nations exist thus lowering it's net cost to the US and enabling more of those aircraft to be purchased. As well as, of course, honoring those agreements, which may require added R&D or Engineering Change Proposal funding and thus impose unwanted but regrettably necessary unanticipated costs. That, as they say, is life...

The net cost to the US is not going to be that much lower for the F-35.... OBTW it is not anywhere near done with testing, and will almost certainly have many of the same problems the F-22 did. I'm not saying to not buy the F-35... we need it too. I am saying that we need both.

I think we are mostly in violent agreement, with the one exception being that I think we can afford to fund a moderate risk force at the high end of the spectrum.

V/R,

Cliff