The U.S. Air Force general responsible for the troubled F-35 light attack bomber programme caused a stir with his blunt criticisms of the principal contractors, Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney.
At an Australian air show, Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan, left a few contractors' jaws dropped when he lambasted Lockheed and Pratt for trying to "squeeze every last nickel" out of the U.S. government for the F-35.
What seemed to get everybody in a tizzy was that Bogdan made his brusque statements publicly and in a country that is getting cold feet over its own plans to buy the F-35.
"Airing dirty laundry in front of a key customer who's on the fence about buying more competing aircraft, is a very dangerous game," said aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. He said Australia is already considering plans to buy more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets [it actually just did order another 24], which could [will] wind up reducing its planned purchase of 100 F-35 fighter jets.
"By implying that the contractors are greedy ... he could inspire politicians to cut funding as a form of punishment, which would raise unit costs and inspire them to cut funding again. It's the classic death spiral," Aboulafia said.
A similar dynamic undercut an Air Force's plan in the 1990s to buy 750 F-22 fighter jets from Lockheed, raising the unit cost and leaving the Air Force with just 183 planes in the end.
Aboulafia said the negative comments could also affect a 60-plane South Korean competition that pits Lockheed's F-35 against a modified Boeing Co F-15 fighter and Europe's Eurofighter Typhoon.
"South Korea should have been a slam dunk; now it's a horse race," he said, noting that the F-35's rising cost made the F-15 look like a "pretty good deal" for Seoul, which had long been expected to follow Japan's lead in ordering F-35 planes.
It's ironic that Washington refused to allow any other country to buy the F-35's big brother, the F-22, when it could have sold a lot of them and now, with the F-22 programme a smoking ruin, it's having a great deal of trouble persuading those same customers and allies that its F-35 is worth buying.
6 comments:
I like the way the response strongly implies that a US general's duty is to the interests of US military contractors rather than to, say, the US military and perhaps through that to the effectiveness of US military allies.
I mean, we all knew but it's interesting to see someone come out and admit it.
absolutely
With Boeing pitching the F 18 at half the price, it wouldn't be at all surprising to hear that Canada has decided to award Boeing the contract.
If they can cut their own apostates off quickly, they can certainly do the same for Lockheed-Martin.
Rounding out the bigger picture, Major General Smedley Butler, USMC said this in 1933.
"I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. "
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
>plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
That Lt. General should resign if he wants to give his opinions in public. Generals should be completely apolitical, and the F-35 program is very political.
Under Obama, military people offering their opinions on all sorts of political hot topics has become all too common. It's just weak for Generals to succumb to the media's call for their "personal opinions".
If I'm not mistaken Gen. Butler rose from enlisted ranks to ultimately the top US General when he retired. He also won two (that's 2) Congressional Medals of honour and managed to thwart the coup that the elite planned to overthrow FDR, who had committed class treason in their eyes. As with Watergate, only the lowly emissaries paid any price for the attempted coup, while the true elites (like Dubya's grand daddy - Walker) escaped and carried on doing business with the Nazis!
Post a Comment