Latest news with #F-35JointStrikeFighter
Newsweek
23-07-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
F-35 Myths Debunked as Foreign Faith in US Fighter Jet is Tested
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. U.S. President Donald Trump's triumphant strides back into the White House put NATO's European countries, as well as Canada, on edge. His historic skepticism about the alliance was one thing, but military planners in countries buying U.S. hardware began questioning whether the F-35—the world's most expensive weapons program—had been the right choice. The Lockheed Martin-made F-35 is the only real option for Western militaries outside the U.S. to get hold of a fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft, and many of the 20 nations operating or buying them are NATO members. Fifth-generation planes are the most advanced currently in operation, with sixth-generation aircraft in the early development stages. As Trump settled back into the Oval Office, rumors of a "kill switch" started floating around in defense circles. There was—according to the whispers—effectively a button the U.S. could press to control the aircraft bought and operated by recipient countries. Although the Pentagon and analysts quickly tamped down on such talk, when paired with the Trump administration's at times abrasive and unpredictable approach to foreign policy, it made many think twice about just how wise it was to put all the fifth-generation eggs in the F-35 basket. A F-35B Lightning II fighter. The American-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has become arguably the most coveted fighter jet across the globe. A F-35B Lightning II fighter. The American-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has become arguably the most coveted fighter jet across the globe. Chris Hanoch/Lockheed Martin Corporation For now, after months of uncertainty for many U.S. allies, the worries seem to have cooled—at least for now. The U.K. announced at NATO's biggest summit of the year in June that it was buying at least 12 F-35A fighter jets, adding to the F-35B variants it already has. This means the country's Royal Air Force could join NATO's dual capable aircraft fleet, featuring jets certified to carry American tactical nuclear weapons as well as conventional bombs and missiles. The same month, Israel showed what the F-35 can do in combat when it began its campaign against Iran's nuclear sites and scientists. Israel's F-35s were vital in slicing away air defenses and clearing a path into Iranian territory for the rest of its aircraft—and, later, for U.S. forces—to target Tehran's most sensitive sites. But while panic has abated around U.S. trustworthiness as an ally to F-35 countries, the hard look at many nations' dependence on the U.S. shouldn't be cast away so soon, according to some. "The concept of a kill switch has been debunked, but there will always be concerns of over-reliance on a single supply source," retired Air Marshal Greg Bagwell, a former senior commander in the U.K.'s RAF, told Newsweek. The Qualms While experts and officials were quick to downplay concerns over a kill switch as they surfaced in early 2025, they conceded that the U.S. could have a very noticeable impact on how well these expensive aircraft operate, should it choose to influence software upgrades or halt access to intelligence and mission data. NATO has observed the U.S. cutting off its vital military aid deliveries to Ukraine several times and also choke Kyiv's access to American-derived intelligence in a bid to bend Ukraine to its will, namely to join ceasefire talks. Ukraine, U.S. allies could see, was backed into a corner by its dependence on the U.S. "If an F-35 user wanted to use the jets in a way that the United States was not happy with, then that would be a limited capability, because Lockheed Martin would be very soon able to turn off the support tap to the particular nation in question," Andrew Curtis, a retired RAF air commodore, told Newsweek. "So even though there might not necessarily be an actual 'kill switch,' the United States definitely has the capability to make things very difficult for F-35 users." A European official from one of the Baltic states, which stare down Russia directly, said in May there was growing concern that the U.S. could curtail sovereign decision-making for military operations should Russia invade and the eastern flank need to defend itself. The memory of how the U.S. treated Ukraine is still fresh, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Newsweek. The person was referring to all military supplies but indicated a broader worry about the rapprochement with Russia that Trump pursued from the start of his second term. More recently, the president has become more publicly frustrated with Russia as ceasefire negotiations made little headway. "If I were sitting in the Baltics at the moment, I would be thinking very seriously about the F-35 and the constraints that might be put on me" in the long term, Sir Christopher Coville, a retired U.K. air marshal, told Newsweek. A central European official involved with defense planning told Newsweek earlier this year that the countries operating F-35s in Europe had reassured one another their commitment to the fifth-generation stealth fighters was "ironclad." Dutch defense minister Ruben Brekelmans said in March it was in the "interest of all" for the F-35 to succeed. "I don't see any signs of the United States backtracking," Brekelmans added. Munitions are loaded on to an F-35A Lightning II during a 'hot' integrated combat turn on June 11, 2025, at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. Munitions are loaded on to an F-35A Lightning II during a 'hot' integrated combat turn on June 11, 2025, at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. Airman 1st Class Amanda Alvarez/U.S. Air Force The Pentagon had not signaled any intention that the U.S. would restrict use of partner nations' F-35s, the central European official said at the time. To do so would undermine U.S. defense exports across the world, they said, but added Europe's efforts to increase spending and production will gradually sideline all U.S. military imports. The Political Moves Adjusting to hostile messaging from the White House and a trade war at the start of the year, Canada put its planned procurement of 88 F-35 fighter jets under review. Portugal's outgoing government said in March that Lisbon needed to consider the new "geopolitical environment" when considering a recommendation to purchase F-35s, which cost roughly $100 million apiece. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in June the review would be wrapped up by the end of the summer, and that Ottawa had discussed fighter jet and submarine purchases with NATO allies. Trump has repeatedly called Canada the "51st state," a label slapped away by Ottawa. But the hint that the administration could annex Canada has lingered, albeit as an unlikely prospect. Retired Lieutenant General Yvan Blondin, commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force from 2012 until 2015, has advocated for a long, hard look at Canada's F-35 order. It is worth examining whether fourth-generation alternatives could work, he told Newsweek, but said "there's no better military option" than the U.S. stealth jet. Sixth-Generation Fighters Several different sixth-generation programs are in the works, piecing together manned fighter jets designed to be even harder to detect than their predecessors. Expected to come into service from the mid-2030s, they are also more automated and kitted out with more advanced avionics and weapons. The U.K., Italy and Japan have banded together on a sixth-generation fighter program called the Global Combat Air Programme—an industrial partnership underwritten by government treaties. On July 17, British defense giant BAE Systems unveiled the demonstrator aircraft for GCAP, expected to be able to fly within the next three years, and testing technologies that will go into the jet, called Tempest. France, Germany and Spain are working on a Future Combat Air System project, or FCAS, although it is currently expected to produce a sixth generation jet up to 10 years after GCAP. And there was tension last month after France told Germany it wanted a workshare of 80 percent in the project. The U.S. has two main programs, one for the Air Force, one for the Navy. Trump unveiled the Air Force's F-47 at a March briefing. "We're confident that it massively overpowers the capabilities of any other nation," he said. The Pentagon hopes to prioritize F-47 development over the Navy's parallel program, F/A-XX. It believes pursuing two programs at once could slow down both, Bloomberg reported in June. But Trump, in the same briefing, said the version of the "most advanced, most capable, most lethal aircraft ever built" sold to allies would be "toned down" by 10 percent. It is widely accepted that the U.S. has blunted its cutting-edge technology before it is shipped abroad, experts and officials said. It was the overt acknowledgment of something that had for decades been expressed in private that threw allies and prospective buyers, said the central European official. "This is not a great selling point for the F-47," said Blondin. An F-35 is assembled at Lockheed Martin Fort Worth Texas. An F-35 is assembled at Lockheed Martin Fort Worth Texas. MSgt USMC ret Randy A. Crites/Lockheed Martin Corporation There is a "bigger incentive" now for European NATO members to be involved in European-led sixth-generation programs, the central European official previously told Newsweek. They said they expected more countries to want to have a look-in at the development of these aircraft, and particularly to have their domestic industry contribute to sixth-generation programs. There will certainly be more interest in the jets' development on the continent now than before Trump was reelected, said Gabrielius Landsbergis, who served as Lithuania's foreign minister until November 2024. "There will be an increased pressure on pan-European projects, that is for sure," Landsbergis told Newsweek.
The Herald Scotland
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
What the UK arms sales to Israel challenge actually decided
What was being argued? And what did the court actually decide? Here's everything you need to know. Why was the case brought? In September, the secretary of state for business and trade, Jonathan Reynolds, suspended export licences for items which could be used in Israeli military operations in Gaza. Read More: The decision was made due to concerns that Israel was not committed to complying with international law, and that weapons and technology could be used "to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law". However, licences for components for F-35 fighter jets were excluded, a decision which the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq challenged in court. Why were the fighter jet components excluded? The UK is part of the 'F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme' which makes the jets, along with the US, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and Norway. Israel is not a member of the programme but it is a customer, meaning it buys fighter jets from the programme. The UK government argued that it could not suspend licences for the F-35 components because doing so would undermine the programme as a whole. What was the legal challenge? Al-Haq, as well as interveners Amnesty International UK, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam argued that this 'carve out' meant that there is still a possibility that components made in the UK could be used in violations of international law. They called for a judicial review, based on six grounds. The first was that the carve out breached the UK's commitments under international law, including the Geneva Conventions, the Arms Trade Treaty and the Genocide Convention. The second argued that the government made an error in stating that the carve out was "consistent with the UK's domestic law obligations" because it "breached three rules of customary international law which either have been or should be received into the common law, namely the obligations to ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions, to prevent genocide and not to facilitate internationally wrongful acts". Campaigners at the High Court (Image: Ben Whitley/PA Wire) The third was that the secretary of state went beyond his legal powers by risking "facilitating serious crime" under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001. The fourth argued that the carve out was irrational, as it was based on a 'logical gap'. The fifth contention was that the secretary of state did not give enough consideration to the possibility of facilitating violations of international law. Finally, the claimants argued the export suspension was wrongly limited to items used in Gaza, rather than all arms potentially used by Israel elsewhere. What did the court find? The High Court rejected all six claims, though for differing reasons. On the first claim, the court noted that Israel is already facing an ongoing charge of genocide at the International Court of Justice. The court said it was not able to make a ruling on "a contentious question of international law"; that the treaties cited were not incorporated into English law; and that questions of international relations or national security were for the government to decide, not the courts. Essentially it said it had no jurisdiction on the matter. The judges said: "Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.' The rejection of the second claim was similar, concluding that international law (such as the Genocide Convention) is not a matter for the English courts and that it could not rule on Israel's intentions and actions in any case. On the third, the court ruled that the secretary of state did not exceed his legal powers because the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria (SELC) allow for exceptions and there was no evidence that the exports would definitely facilitate breaches of international law, nor that any crimes which took place would be for an English court to rule on. For the fourth claim, the court ruled that the secretary of state had not failed to weight up the situation sufficiently, saying that even had the UK stopped supplying components to the F-35 programme there was "no realistic possibility" of convincing the other nations not to sell fighter jets to Israel. Therefore, "he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue. The decision which he made was not irrational." On the fifth contention, the court found it was in the power of the secretary of state to use his discretion, particularly on matters of national security. The final claim was rejected on the basis that the Government acted within its remit by tailoring the suspension to where it found a clear legal risk (i.e Gaza), and a broader suspension was not required under the law. Did the court find that Israel was not breaching international law, such as the Genocide Convention? No, the High Court said it would not and could not make a finding on that. The judges acknowledged that there was serious concern, citing an Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) assessment which said "it is uncontentious that conduct which could, in principle, satisfy the physical component of genocide continues to take place in Gaza" but which further said that, although some Israeli statements were troubling, the available evidence did not meet the high threshold for determining that Israel had genocidal intent. The High Court could not rule on the issue, as it's a matter of international law and already before the International Court of Justice. The judges did not find that Israel is not committing genocide, nor that it is, and was never going to because it was never in their remit to do so.
The Advertiser
28-06-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
Hunter not a new contributor to national defence industry
Australia faces the most complex strategic circumstances since the end of World War II. That's why it is more important than ever before that we have the right military capabilities. It is essential for deterrence, and it's essential for our national security. The Albanese government has increased defence funding to record levels, and that includes record levels towards acquiring new capabilities for the ADF. This is the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia's history. In the lead up to the election, even the Greens recognised the importance of defence capability, when they announced a formally costed policy to fund new military programs to make weapons, including missiles, locally. Right here in Australia. We welcome the Greens' support for the government's plans to increase local defence manufacturing as part of creating a future made in Australia. It creates jobs, supports local economies and builds the skills we need to strengthen our sovereign defence industrial base. That's why we have funded the factory at Astra Aerolab in the region, which is expected to generate more than 500 jobs in the construction phase and almost $100 million in economic benefits for our local area. Construction of this factory represents a leap forward for Australia's defence industry that highlights the government's commitment to a future made in Australia. If the Greens stand by their defence policy, they should be getting behind this initiative and backing local manufacturing and the creation of highly skilled, well-paid local jobs. The Hunter has been a significant contributor to our sovereign defence industrial base for decades, and defence supports the jobs of more than 10,000 people in the region. The region is home to a number of dynamic small to medium enterprises that deliver critical components and services to the Australian Defence Force. It's connected to the nation through the east-coast transport corridor, and connected to the world by the Port of Newcastle. With a world-class university, a skilled workforce and an amazing lifestyle, the Hunter Valley's future is brighter than ever before, especially for those in the defence industry. The Hunter is home to an outstanding group of businesses ranging from the largest defence companies to the smallest local suppliers, which support crucial capabilities including the E-7 Wedgetail, the Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighter and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. While the Hunter region is rightly proud of the deep expertise of the local aerospace industry, it is far from the only defence industry to be found here. Cardiff company Nupress is already partnering with Kongsberg to make mechanical components for the Naval Strike Missile. In the Hunter, Van Munster Boats produces the Bluebottle uncrewed surface vessel. Bluebottles use solar, wind, and wave energy to ensure persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance above and below the water. They are already being used by the navy, the Australian Border Force, and Australian Maritime Parks. There have been defence businesses in the airport precinct for many years because it's well located, close to one of our most important air force bases (RAAF Williamtown), meaning it's secure and can be protected. The point is that the establishment of the Kongsberg factory near Newcastle airport is nothing new. It's also important to note that no explosive material will be stored or produced on site. The Greens know this. The missiles will be produced for Australian purposes. The Greens' claim that they will be exported to Israel is a flat-out lie. The Greens know this. Australia has not exported weapons to Israel since the Gaza conflict began, and for at least the past five years. We all want to raise our children in a stable, peaceful, and prosperous environment. If we believe in defending the country, we need to equip our defence force to do so. We welcome a sensible, level-headed conversation about defence industry, national security and local jobs, but we could do without the scare-mongering and fallacies offered by the opportunistic and misleading Greens party. Australia faces the most complex strategic circumstances since the end of World War II. That's why it is more important than ever before that we have the right military capabilities. It is essential for deterrence, and it's essential for our national security. The Albanese government has increased defence funding to record levels, and that includes record levels towards acquiring new capabilities for the ADF. This is the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia's history. In the lead up to the election, even the Greens recognised the importance of defence capability, when they announced a formally costed policy to fund new military programs to make weapons, including missiles, locally. Right here in Australia. We welcome the Greens' support for the government's plans to increase local defence manufacturing as part of creating a future made in Australia. It creates jobs, supports local economies and builds the skills we need to strengthen our sovereign defence industrial base. That's why we have funded the factory at Astra Aerolab in the region, which is expected to generate more than 500 jobs in the construction phase and almost $100 million in economic benefits for our local area. Construction of this factory represents a leap forward for Australia's defence industry that highlights the government's commitment to a future made in Australia. If the Greens stand by their defence policy, they should be getting behind this initiative and backing local manufacturing and the creation of highly skilled, well-paid local jobs. The Hunter has been a significant contributor to our sovereign defence industrial base for decades, and defence supports the jobs of more than 10,000 people in the region. The region is home to a number of dynamic small to medium enterprises that deliver critical components and services to the Australian Defence Force. It's connected to the nation through the east-coast transport corridor, and connected to the world by the Port of Newcastle. With a world-class university, a skilled workforce and an amazing lifestyle, the Hunter Valley's future is brighter than ever before, especially for those in the defence industry. The Hunter is home to an outstanding group of businesses ranging from the largest defence companies to the smallest local suppliers, which support crucial capabilities including the E-7 Wedgetail, the Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighter and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. While the Hunter region is rightly proud of the deep expertise of the local aerospace industry, it is far from the only defence industry to be found here. Cardiff company Nupress is already partnering with Kongsberg to make mechanical components for the Naval Strike Missile. In the Hunter, Van Munster Boats produces the Bluebottle uncrewed surface vessel. Bluebottles use solar, wind, and wave energy to ensure persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance above and below the water. They are already being used by the navy, the Australian Border Force, and Australian Maritime Parks. There have been defence businesses in the airport precinct for many years because it's well located, close to one of our most important air force bases (RAAF Williamtown), meaning it's secure and can be protected. The point is that the establishment of the Kongsberg factory near Newcastle airport is nothing new. It's also important to note that no explosive material will be stored or produced on site. The Greens know this. The missiles will be produced for Australian purposes. The Greens' claim that they will be exported to Israel is a flat-out lie. The Greens know this. Australia has not exported weapons to Israel since the Gaza conflict began, and for at least the past five years. We all want to raise our children in a stable, peaceful, and prosperous environment. If we believe in defending the country, we need to equip our defence force to do so. We welcome a sensible, level-headed conversation about defence industry, national security and local jobs, but we could do without the scare-mongering and fallacies offered by the opportunistic and misleading Greens party. Australia faces the most complex strategic circumstances since the end of World War II. That's why it is more important than ever before that we have the right military capabilities. It is essential for deterrence, and it's essential for our national security. The Albanese government has increased defence funding to record levels, and that includes record levels towards acquiring new capabilities for the ADF. This is the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia's history. In the lead up to the election, even the Greens recognised the importance of defence capability, when they announced a formally costed policy to fund new military programs to make weapons, including missiles, locally. Right here in Australia. We welcome the Greens' support for the government's plans to increase local defence manufacturing as part of creating a future made in Australia. It creates jobs, supports local economies and builds the skills we need to strengthen our sovereign defence industrial base. That's why we have funded the factory at Astra Aerolab in the region, which is expected to generate more than 500 jobs in the construction phase and almost $100 million in economic benefits for our local area. Construction of this factory represents a leap forward for Australia's defence industry that highlights the government's commitment to a future made in Australia. If the Greens stand by their defence policy, they should be getting behind this initiative and backing local manufacturing and the creation of highly skilled, well-paid local jobs. The Hunter has been a significant contributor to our sovereign defence industrial base for decades, and defence supports the jobs of more than 10,000 people in the region. The region is home to a number of dynamic small to medium enterprises that deliver critical components and services to the Australian Defence Force. It's connected to the nation through the east-coast transport corridor, and connected to the world by the Port of Newcastle. With a world-class university, a skilled workforce and an amazing lifestyle, the Hunter Valley's future is brighter than ever before, especially for those in the defence industry. The Hunter is home to an outstanding group of businesses ranging from the largest defence companies to the smallest local suppliers, which support crucial capabilities including the E-7 Wedgetail, the Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighter and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. While the Hunter region is rightly proud of the deep expertise of the local aerospace industry, it is far from the only defence industry to be found here. Cardiff company Nupress is already partnering with Kongsberg to make mechanical components for the Naval Strike Missile. In the Hunter, Van Munster Boats produces the Bluebottle uncrewed surface vessel. Bluebottles use solar, wind, and wave energy to ensure persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance above and below the water. They are already being used by the navy, the Australian Border Force, and Australian Maritime Parks. There have been defence businesses in the airport precinct for many years because it's well located, close to one of our most important air force bases (RAAF Williamtown), meaning it's secure and can be protected. The point is that the establishment of the Kongsberg factory near Newcastle airport is nothing new. It's also important to note that no explosive material will be stored or produced on site. The Greens know this. The missiles will be produced for Australian purposes. The Greens' claim that they will be exported to Israel is a flat-out lie. The Greens know this. Australia has not exported weapons to Israel since the Gaza conflict began, and for at least the past five years. We all want to raise our children in a stable, peaceful, and prosperous environment. If we believe in defending the country, we need to equip our defence force to do so. We welcome a sensible, level-headed conversation about defence industry, national security and local jobs, but we could do without the scare-mongering and fallacies offered by the opportunistic and misleading Greens party. Australia faces the most complex strategic circumstances since the end of World War II. That's why it is more important than ever before that we have the right military capabilities. It is essential for deterrence, and it's essential for our national security. The Albanese government has increased defence funding to record levels, and that includes record levels towards acquiring new capabilities for the ADF. This is the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia's history. In the lead up to the election, even the Greens recognised the importance of defence capability, when they announced a formally costed policy to fund new military programs to make weapons, including missiles, locally. Right here in Australia. We welcome the Greens' support for the government's plans to increase local defence manufacturing as part of creating a future made in Australia. It creates jobs, supports local economies and builds the skills we need to strengthen our sovereign defence industrial base. That's why we have funded the factory at Astra Aerolab in the region, which is expected to generate more than 500 jobs in the construction phase and almost $100 million in economic benefits for our local area. Construction of this factory represents a leap forward for Australia's defence industry that highlights the government's commitment to a future made in Australia. If the Greens stand by their defence policy, they should be getting behind this initiative and backing local manufacturing and the creation of highly skilled, well-paid local jobs. The Hunter has been a significant contributor to our sovereign defence industrial base for decades, and defence supports the jobs of more than 10,000 people in the region. The region is home to a number of dynamic small to medium enterprises that deliver critical components and services to the Australian Defence Force. It's connected to the nation through the east-coast transport corridor, and connected to the world by the Port of Newcastle. With a world-class university, a skilled workforce and an amazing lifestyle, the Hunter Valley's future is brighter than ever before, especially for those in the defence industry. The Hunter is home to an outstanding group of businesses ranging from the largest defence companies to the smallest local suppliers, which support crucial capabilities including the E-7 Wedgetail, the Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighter and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. While the Hunter region is rightly proud of the deep expertise of the local aerospace industry, it is far from the only defence industry to be found here. Cardiff company Nupress is already partnering with Kongsberg to make mechanical components for the Naval Strike Missile. In the Hunter, Van Munster Boats produces the Bluebottle uncrewed surface vessel. Bluebottles use solar, wind, and wave energy to ensure persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance above and below the water. They are already being used by the navy, the Australian Border Force, and Australian Maritime Parks. There have been defence businesses in the airport precinct for many years because it's well located, close to one of our most important air force bases (RAAF Williamtown), meaning it's secure and can be protected. The point is that the establishment of the Kongsberg factory near Newcastle airport is nothing new. It's also important to note that no explosive material will be stored or produced on site. The Greens know this. The missiles will be produced for Australian purposes. The Greens' claim that they will be exported to Israel is a flat-out lie. The Greens know this. Australia has not exported weapons to Israel since the Gaza conflict began, and for at least the past five years. We all want to raise our children in a stable, peaceful, and prosperous environment. If we believe in defending the country, we need to equip our defence force to do so. We welcome a sensible, level-headed conversation about defence industry, national security and local jobs, but we could do without the scare-mongering and fallacies offered by the opportunistic and misleading Greens party.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Behemoth Golden Dome may face lackluster scrutiny in Trump's Pentagon
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's decision this week to cut more than half of the Pentagon's test and evaluation office personnel was driven, in part, by concerns over the office's plans to provide testing oversight for the Trump administration's $175 billion Golden Dome missile defense project, multiple sources told Defense News. In a memo released Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced plans to restructure the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, known as DOT&E, and reduce its 94-person staff to 46 — a mix of civilians, military personnel and one senior executive. The memo also put an end to all contractor support to the office. The decision sparked concerns from some congressional Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed, D-RI, who called the move 'reckless and damaging.' 'With staffing reduced to a skeleton crew and limited contractor backing, DOT&E may be unable to provide adequate oversight for critical military programs, risking operational readiness and taxpayer dollars,' Reed said in a statement. 'This kind of politically motivated interference undermines independent oversight and leaves warfighters and the public more vulnerable to untested, potentially flawed systems.' Hegseth said the reorganization is tied to the Pentagon's 'America First' strategy and was backed by an internal review that identified 'redundant, non-statutory functions' within the office. The analysis, he said, found that reducing personnel could save more than $300 million per year. But multiple sources familiar with the decision and granted anonymity to speak freely told Defense News the circumstances are more complicated than the scenario the secretary described in his memo. They pointed to perennial tensions between the military services and the office, stoked in recent months by an atmosphere of touting quick, programmatic successes that is antithetical to the exacting mission of verifying performance claims over time and under varying conditions. The sources also cited senior leadership's frustration with DOT&E's recent decision to add Golden Dome to its 'oversight list' as being the final provocation. 'It's a perfect storm,' one source said. The DOT&E office was created by Congress to provide independent oversight of major defense acquisition programs. Its leaders are required by law to approve testing plans and report results for all Defense Department programs whose total research and development cost exceeds $525 million —in 2020 dollars — or whose procurement is expected to cost more than $3 billion. The list of efforts under DOT&E oversight currently features over 250 programs, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Army's Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon and the Navy's Aegis modernization program. The office's role as an overseer means its recommendations are sometimes unpopular with military service leaders and major defense contractors alike. But the aim of its rigorous, and often arduous, validation is to prevent the department from fielding faulty systems that could put service members in harm's way. Golden Dome's cost — estimated at $175 billion over the next three years — and its complexity make it a clear candidate for DOT&E oversight, the sources said. The process for initiating DOT&E oversight of a program is fairly straightforward, but when DOT&E's Acting Director Raymond O'Toole notified senior leaders in a recent memo that he planned to add Golden Dome to the list, the decision drew an unusual level of scrutiny. Officials worried the office's involvement would slow the program down and drive up its cost. They eventually elevated their concerns to the White House. That extra attention appears linked to President Donald Trump's interest in the program, one source said, noting the office was told the program 'needed to be successful for Mr. Trump.' Golden Dome became the president's signature defense project early in his second term. In a Jan. 27 memo, he directed the Pentagon to draft a plan for a layered network of ground-and space-based interceptors and sensors to detect, track and defeat a range of missile threats. Initially calling the project 'Iron Dome for America' after Israel's missile defense system of the same name, Trump rebranded it to 'Golden Dome' — a nod to his vision for a 'golden age in America' and perhaps his own penchant for the precious metal. In an Oval Office meeting last week, flanked by Hegseth and a top Space Force general — as well as multiple images depicting a map of the U.S. covered in gold — Trump said the Pentagon would deliver 'the best system ever built' before the end of his term. While there is wide agreement among defense officials and outside experts that the U.S. needs a more focused investment in its missile defense architecture, Trump's schedule and cost projections have raised eyebrows. With actual details on the project still slim, some have questioned whether Golden Dome's biggest technological lifts are feasible and worth the long-term cost. 'I don't think we should read much into the $175 billion figure because no details or caveats were provided,' said Todd Harrison, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. 'I want to see something on paper that shows what's included, what's not included, and the time frame of the estimate.' This week's DOT&E cuts likely mean the office will be under-resourced to oversee all of the Defense Department's major programs, let alone Golden Dome. One source familiar with the office speculated the 'drastically reduced' staff could allow the Pentagon to get away with slimming down the office's oversight list. Reduced testing oversight could allow Golden Dome to move faster, but sources said it would be concerning for a program with such high-stakes ambitions to escape scrutiny. 'It would be hundreds of warheads coming in with all kinds of countermeasures, cyber attacks,' another source said. 'That's usually beyond the scope of a program and a service test office to be able to orchestrate all that.'
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Maintenance costs will spike as militaries add advanced planes: Report
The costs of maintaining, repairing and overhauling military aircraft is likely to spike worldwide in years to come as advanced planes make up a growing portion of fleets, according to a new study from consulting firm Oliver Wyman. In the report, analysts Doug Berenson, Livia Hayes and Ian Ferguson said the global market for maintenance, repairs and overhauls of military aircraft — or MRO — totaled about $97 billion in 2025, and remained roughly flat over the preceding six years. That is likely to change over the next decade, as MRO costs grow and spending rises at about 1.4% per year. That means militaries could be spending more than $111 billion on MRO by 2035. The report, titled 'The Military's Mounting Cost for Cutting-Edge Technology: Why Global Air Forces Will Spend More on their Fleet MRO,' was provided to Defense News by Oliver Wyman. A key factor driving these higher MRO costs, the report said, is the growing number of advanced aircraft such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Such jets bring dramatically more sophisticated capabilities, such as stealth, than older jets. But their complex software, advanced propulsion systems, exotic materials and other technologies require more service hours to sustain and higher operating costs. Lockheed Martin says it has delivered more than 1,170 F-35s around the world. The U.S. Air Force now has about 471 F-35As and eventually plans to buy 1,763 of the jets. The report said that of the roughly 310 fighter jets bought each year by militaries worldwide, about half are F-35s. They make up 2.2% of the global fleet now, and over the next decade F-35s are projected to grow to 4.7% of the global fleet. 'By 2035, the F-35 alone will account for 9.5% of the global total MRO spending — more than twice the aircraft's share today,' the report said. But F-35s aren't the only advanced aircraft swelling militaries' fleets. The Air Force is also working on two sixth-generation aircraft, the B-21 Raider stealth bomber and the F-47 fighter, also known as Next Generation Air Dominance. The Air Force also wants a fleet of more than 1,000 semi-autonomous drone wingmen, known as collaborative combat aircraft, to fly alongside its piloted fighters, and is working with General Atomics and Anduril Industries on the first iteration of CCAs. The U.S. Navy, as well as European and Asian militaries, are also looking hard at their own sixth-generation fighters. The report said those nations' governments should take MRO costs' effect on budgets into account as those planes are designed. The report also cited European aircraft such as the Airbus A400M Atlas, an advanced heavy transport plane, and the NHIndustries NH90 helicopter as examples of complex aircraft headed for military fleets. Complex aircraft worldwide now make up about 11% of military fleets, the report said, but a decade from now that will be up to 17%. NATO fleets now spend about 16% of their MRO budgets on complex aircraft, the report added. By 2035 that share will have risen to 26%. The increasing importance of drones in warfare, particularly in Ukraine, is also causing MRO spending to grow. Over the last five years, major air forces around the world added 350 unmanned aerial vehicles to their fleets, bringing the total to more than 1,400. That is expected to more than double over the next decade, to 3,460 worldwide. 'MRO spending [on drones] has started to grow faster than the global fleet,' the report said. 'Besides the increased sophistication of newer platforms, the supercharged demand has been driven by aircraft needs related to the three-year-old conflict in Ukraine. For governments operating these aircraft, the coming period of higher growth will bring significant challenges and questions about how ready is ready enough.' Governments will need to strike the right balance between multiple priorities, the report noted, including determining how valuable high aircraft readiness is compared to the rising maintenance costs that would require. The report said air forces will need to expand their supply chains for spare parts, so they are not dependent on sources that are diminishing or even going out of business. That issue of parts sources drying up has, over time, become an acute problem for decades-old planes like the B-52 Stratofortress. Air forces also need to figure out whether they want to have the original manufacturer of planes or drones conduct the necessary MRO work, which may be simpler but come with a higher price tag. If air forces cannot adequately budget for growing MRO expenses, the report said, other aspects of those forces' airpower can suffer. The report pointed to the U.S. Air Force's decision in recent years to dial back the number of flying hours budgeted for its planes, and its inability to turn around declining mission-capable rates, as it focused instead on bringing on new technologies and aircraft it hopes will plug those gaps. 'As it prioritizes modernization, the Air Force is betting that it can manage these readiness risks,' the report stated.
