The Pentagon should focus the F-35 strike fighter on dealing with high-end contingencies and not look at it as a replacement for most existing fighter force structure, said Michael O’Hanlon, director of research for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. During an Aug. 6 discussion in Washington, D.C., on the findings of the Pentagon’s Strategic Choices and Management Review, O’Hanlon suggested reducing the planned F-35 buy by roughly half and sizing the F-35 fleet to deal with threat scenarios associated with nations like China, Iran, and North Korea. O’Hanlon said F-35s wouldn’t be necessary for missions like enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria. “There’s always a nice extra margin of safety in having a stealthy aircraft . . . but is it worth $100 billion to the country?” he asked. To fill out the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy force structure, O’Hanlon suggested using a greater combination of fourth generation aircraft—either building more F-16s and F/A-18s or upgrading the ones already in service. While curbing the F-35 buy by half would not save half of the F-35’s program costs, it could save 20 percent to 25 percent, he said. “That’s how you strike a balance,” he said. (Brookings Institution webpage of event, including audio.)
A new report from the Government Accountability Office calls for the Pentagon’s Chief Technology Officer to have budget certification authority over the military services’ research and development accounts—a move the services say would add a burdensome and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
