Obama defense cuts create estimated 200 Naval fighter jet shortage

Retired Naval officer, Adm. Paul Rohrer, assesses Obama’s budget cuts in today’s SF Examiner op-ed.

Key to Adm. Rohrer’s analysis is Obama’s dependence upon the development of the new proposed F-35, Joint Strike Fighter, that was “originally designed to save costs by providing a single fighter-jet platform that could then be custom fit to serve the Air Force, Marines and Navy.”

Problem is the development, currently at an estimated cost of $400 bil is overbudget by 45%, and years behind schedule.

Obama’s budget foregoes meaningful funding for F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets in favor of the yet to be delivered F-35, Joint Strike Fighter, which was originally designed to save costs by providing a single fighter-jet platform that could then be custom fit to serve the Air Force, Marines and Navy.

The reality is that GAO has recently reported what many people who follow defense programs already knew — that the JSF is years behind schedule and at a current cost of $400 billion, is 45 percent over budget. So far, the F-35’s lifetime program costs could well top $1 trillion, making it the most expensive single item in the history of Pentagon spending.

The delays are even worse. Even the most optimistic estimates say the Navy’s version of the JSF will not be operational for another six years, and this will create a shortfall in the Navy’s inventory of carrier-based fighter aircraft of 200 jets.

Since an aircraft carrier will typically carry about 50 fighter aircraft, that shortage is equivalent to taking four aircraft carriers out of service.

It’s far better to continue to provide our aircraft carriers with currently available F-18 Hornets than risk this kind of shortfall. As we saw during the recent standoff with Somali pirates who kidnapped American ship Capt. Richard Phillips, whenever there is trouble in the world, the Navy is certain to get the call.

The cuts don’t make sense. Pouring hundreds of billions more into the F-35 JSF program after it has gone way over budget and fallen way behind schedule is no way to enforce budget discipline in the Pentagon.

The Bush admin 2009 defense budget and supplemental spending on Iraq and Afghanistan came to $647 billion. Obama’s 2010 defense budget, together with his supplemental request to fund Iraq and Afghanistan, comes to $617 billion… a $30 billion cut, or less than the the $36.5 bil the taxpayers gave to Citibank.

The Admiral suggests this is a fool hardy return to the Clinton “hollowed out military” days, aided by a majority GOP Congress, during a time when the nation is at war in not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but on the high seas with Somalian pirates and their jihad movement buddies.

He also noted that in the wake of a North Korean missile test – and I might add Iran’s March test of a new air-to-surface missile, as well as today’s announcement that NK is threatening a 2nd nuclear test – Obama’s timing for his suggested $1.4 billion cut in land-based missile defense systems could not be worse.

Instead, Adm. Rohrer finds himself depending on Congress to straighten out an inexperienced CIC… not one of his favorite remedies.

The cuts don’t make sense. Pouring hundreds of billions more into the F-35 JSF program after it has gone way over budget and fallen way behind schedule is no way to enforce budget discipline in the Pentagon.

Let’s be clear: Any cut in the availability or readiness of our top fighter aircraft compromises the effectiveness of our carrier groups and safety of the sailors and Marines serving in them.

As a military man, I’ve never been fond of having 535 secretaries of defense. But given what Obama is proposing, it is imperative that Congress restores the critical combat readiness that is threatened by the Obama defense budget.