October 8, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence
WASHINGTON ― The Democratic split over the size of future defense budgets will come to a head in the new Congress, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., predicted Tuesday.
The outcome of the long-simmering dispute would take on higher stakes if some pre-election polling becomes a reality and Democrats retake Congress and the White House. Though President Donald Trump and his supporters claim the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left, Smith's remarks suggest the party's future direction, at least on defense spending, is not yet settled.
Instead of slashing next year's $740 billion defense budget, as some progressives want, Smith is pushing, “a rational Democratic, progressive national security strategy,” as he called it. That stance seems to align Smith with his party's pragmatic standard-bearer, Joe Biden, who's said he doesn't foresee major defense cuts, if elected.
“I don't think that rational policy involves 20 percent defense cut, but that fight is going to be had,” Smith said at an event hosted by George Mason University. “There are extremists on the right and extremists on the left, and what I'm trying to do is say, ‘Let's go for pragmatic problem solving.' I don't see extremism solving problems.”
If Democrats are swept into power Nov. 3, it will be by voters opposed to President Donald Trump from across the political spectrum, Smith said. To hold on that mandate, Democrats would need to govern with a broad coalition and not overreach from the left on issues like defense.
“Okay, we can win an election because people are appalled by Donald Trump,” Smith said, “but that doesn't mean that they're endorsing us in any sort of huge, dramatic way.”
After the House passed an early version of last year's defense policy bill without Republicans aboard, negotiations to reconcile it with theWhite House and GOP-held Senate dragged for months before a compromise bill passed Congress with progressive priorities stripped from it, leaving them dissatisfied.
This year, many of the progressives' priorities were deflected from the House's version of the bill, and it passed the chamber with support from more than half of Republicans and more than two-thirds of Democrats.
Military spending remains popular with most Republicans, and they largely opposed progressive amendments in the House and Senate this summer to slash the authorization bill by 10 percent. HASC member Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., called the House amendment, “a deeply irresponsible stunt.”
Biden and congressional Democrats are already under pressure from progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who have been part of a campaign to direct spending away from the military in favor of healthcare, education and jobs. Massive spending on national security, they say, didn't protect the country from COVID-19.
“You have a progressive movement in the party now that is really motivated and mobilized around foreign policy and national security issues, and that's not going away,” Matt Duss, a Sanders foreign policy aide, told Defense News last month. “That is something a President Biden will have to work with, and I think his team understands that.”
As both Biden, Trump and lawmakers of both parties have called for the U.S. to extricate itself from the Mideast and end the “endless wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, Smith said it's important to educate a war-weary American people about why it's unwise to retreat from the world stage ― marked by hotspots in Libya, Syria and West Africa.
“We've got to make the case to them: ‘Here's why the defense budget is what it is, here's why we're trying to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish, and here's why it's in your best interest,'” Smith said. “And we're going to be very aggressive about having public hearings and public discussions to listen to people, to listen to those concerns and try to address them.”
The Pentagon's five-year defense plan indicates it will request flat defense spending after 2021, and ― amid pandemic-related expenses and historic deficits ― the budget is widely expected to stay flat regardless of who is president. Smith pretty much echoed that view Tuesday.
“I think the reasonable assumption is yeah, the defense budget is going to be flat for a while ― and there is no reason on Earth in my view that we cannot defend the United States of America for $700 to $740 billion,” Smith said. “So I think the better question, the question to focus on, is how do we get more out of it?”
On that one, Smith echoed some ideas from his committee's bipartisan Future of Defense Task Force. Its report emphasized the need, in order to compete with a surging China, to divest from some legacy programs and heavily invest in artificial intelligence, among other potentially game-changing technologies.
Citing a spate of acquisition failures, Smith said Washington has to work with its defense contractors “about how we spend our money and the results we get for that money.” He also acknowledged the need to protect key contractors stressed by the pandemic's economic impacts and strengthen the industrial base overall.
Smith defended the Pentagon's allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars in pandemic relief funding for items like jet and submarine parts instead of increasing the country's supply of medical equipment.
The remarks seemed to set him at odds with liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who have asked the Defense inspector general to look into the department's “reported misuse” of funds. The Democrat-led House Oversight and Reform Committee, Financial Services Committee, and select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis are conducting a joint investigation.
“Three committees in Congress are now investigating this, and I'm not one of them because there's nothing to investigate here, in my view,” Smith said. “This was part of the CARES Act: We gave a billion dollars to DoD to deal with COVID-related expenses. Very specifically, it said one of the COVID related expenses you could deal with was the defense industrial base, which they did. And now we're chewing on them for doing that.”
Smith said the Pentagon did “nothing illegal,” but he suggested it's reasonable to explore whether DoD balanced the money it received appropriately and whether its payments to large contractors are flowing to smaller, more vulnerable firms, as they should.
“I think it is important to make sure we keep the industrial base going,” Smith said, “but there's going to be pressure on that [decision].”
May 31, 2021 | International, Aerospace
The US Air Force is asking the US Congress to let it retire 201 aircraft in fiscal year 2022, in order to reinvest savings from not operating and maintaining those aircraft into research and development, as well as procurement of next-generation aircraft and weapons.
March 19, 2024 | International, Aerospace
The Air Force has not requested more money for ARRW in 2025, and plans to wind down the prototyping program this year.
September 13, 2018 | International, Aerospace
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The two biggest manufacturers of military aircraft have been busy marketing new versions of their fighter jets to the U.S. Air Force, but the service's top official told Defense News in an exclusive interview that it's not actually interested in purchasing either of them at the current moment. This summer, Defense One broke two major stories about sales pitches from Boeing, which is proposing an advanced version of the F-15 to the Air Force, and Lockheed Martin, which has been pushing a hybrid version of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 joint strike fighter similar to what it is reportedly offering Japan. But just because those companies are offering new jets, doesn't mean that the Air Force wants them. In an exclusive Sept. 5 interview, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said she believes the service needs to expend its precious financial resources on stealthy, fifth-generation platforms — specifically the F-35 — and thus buying even an advanced fourth generation fighter like the so-called F-15X is not in the cards. "We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth generation aircraft,” she said. "In any of the fights that we have been asked to plan for, more fifth gen aircraft make a huge difference, and we think that getting to 50-50 means not buying new fourth gen aircraft, it means continuing to increase the fifth generation.” What about a new fifth generation plane that would combine the F-35 and F-22? Wilson shut down that idea as well, saying that proposal "is not something we're currently considering.” In a statement, a Lockheed spokesman said that the company was focused on the F-35 program but also looking into generational leaps in capability “to ensure our technology, including existing aircraft, remains a step ahead of advancing threats.” Boeing declined to comment on this story. The Air Force secretary's proclamations seem to pour cold water on both Lockheed and Boeing's sales pitches, but it is always possible that others inside the service are in favor of buying the F-15X and F-22/F-35 hybrid — and that they could continue making the case to Air Force leadership, potentially winning them over. Sources that spoke to The War Zone said Boeing was in “very serious” talks with the Air Force over the F-15X, but that the service had shied away from making its interest public so as to not to derail it's number-one procurement priority, the F-35. Defense News has also heard from multiple sources that the Air Force has been in talks with Boeing over the F-15X for over a year, though it's unknown at what levels those conversations currently reside. Experts who spoke with Defense News said it's very likely that the Air Force intends to keep its focus on ramping up F-35 production for the time being, but that alternative platforms could very well be considered in future years. However, it is the F-22/F-35 hybrid, not the F-15X, that they believe stands a better chance of being adopted by the Air Force. Defense One, which broke the story about Lockheed's hybrid offer, wrote that the proposed jet would involve taking the F-22 airframe and outfitting it with some of the F-35's more advanced mission systems, though some structural changes could also be involved. “Every F-22 hybrid or derivative I've seen has been great,” said Rebecca Grant, a defense analyst with IRIS independent Research. The Air Force is in great need of such a stealthy air superiority aircraft because it only procured 183 F-22s, she said. Its other plane that specializes in the air-to-air fight, the F-15C/D, was originally fielded in the 1970s. Grant said she interprets Wilson's dismissal of the F-22/F-35 hybrid as a reflection of near-term requirements and priorities, noting that “job one is acquiring the F-35.” But in the future, that jet could be what the service decides it needs to contend with current and future threats. David Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Power Studies and a retired Air Force lieutenant general, agreed that the service should continue buying F-35s for the time being. However, the F-22/F-35 hybrid might be a good option for the service in the future, when it begins looking for a next-generation air superiority jet, which the Air Force has variously called Penetrating Counter Air and Next Generation Air Dominance. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2018/09/12/air-force-not-considering-new-f-15-or-hybrid-f-22f-35-top-civilian-says/