JPS is independent from DoD
Wolf 10 – Ranking Member of Committee on Appropriations (Frank R. Wolf, Department of Commerce, “Opening Statement – Ranking Member Wolf,” http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS126092) mihe
Welcome back to the Committee Mr. Secretary. Opening Statement — Ranking Member Wolf As you know, for many years I have been raising concerns with our country's unsustainable deficit. On the surface your fiscal year 2011 budget request looks as if it makes good progress in reducing government spending by proposing a $5 billion reduction. However, the reduction is the result of $6 billion in non-recurring costs from fiscal year 2010 associated with the decennial census. Nearly every other Commerce account is requesting program increases, some very large There are especially large increases in NOAA, primarily for the costs of pursuing a new polar orbiting satellite program independent from the Department of Defense. I hope to work with the Chairman to prioritize the Department's needs within what should rightly be a very austere environment for new spending. I appreciate that the Administration is proposing a new initiative to double the amount of US exports, which is a laudable goal. However, when we look for new markets overseas we must also do a better job: • protecting American intellectual property, particularly for dual-use technologies, • protecting our government and industry information technology networks from cyber attacks initiated overseas; and • ensuring that our trading partners respect the basic rights of their workers. I look forward to discussing these and other issues with you today, and again, I am pleased to welcome you and I look forward to your testimony.
***DOD TRADEOFF DA***
1NC Shell
Budget cuts coming – it is only a question of what programs will get cut. New spending would cause DoD to re-prioritize – cutting the F-35’s
Ewing 11 - (Philip Ewing-Author at Defense and Acquisition journal. “Panetta’s challenge: Not just cut, but cut quickly” http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/06/panettas-challenge-not-just-cut-but-cut-quickly/) MO
For what it’s worth, Kaplan sees the F-35 as a potential target, too — although as you’ll see, he got its name wrong: Cutting Air Force or Navy personnel would mean getting rid of airplanes or ships, a move that would sire a separate set of controversies. (Then again, it’s likely that Panetta will cancel or cut back some planes and ships, if just to spread the pain; the Air Force and Navy’s troubled Joint Strategic Fighter, aka the F-35 stealth aircraft, is a likely candidate. But there will be limits here, as his predecessor, Robert Gates, already cut a few dozen systems, and further cuts would spark political fights, especially given the already-high unemployment rate.) By contrast, cutting Army and, to some extent, Marine personnel would mean erasing brigades or divisions from the roster and warehousing their weapons—which could then be transferred to other units as training or replacement gear, for more savings still. None of this is necessarily to say that the Army or Marines should be slashed—only that they almost certainly will be, given the traditional end-of-wars syndrome, the enormous pressures on the federal budget, and (a new factor) an emerging coalition of anti-war Democrats and anti-spending, isolationist Republicans.
Reducing F-35 funding would destroy the program
Reed 10 (John Reed- West point and army ranger graduate, platoon leader of the 82 airborne - Proposed F-35 Cuts Could Put Program at Risk. November 11th, 2010, http://defensetech.org/2010/11/11/proposed-f-35-cuts-could-put-program-at-risk/) MO
Late yesterday afternoon, news broke that a presidentially-mandated panel is recommending the military slash numerous big-ticket weapons programs, including the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, as part of an overall proposal aimed at dramatically reining-in government costs. The panel calls for the Air Force and Navy to half their planned F-35A and C-model buys through 2015 and for the Marines to completely lose their short takeoff and vertical landing F-35B. The greatly reduced numbers of JSFs would be supplemented by purchase of “new” F-16s for the Air Force and F/A-18EF Super Hornet buys for the Navy. These recommendations fly in the face of all the planning done by the Air Force officials in recent years who have put all their eggs in the F-35 basket and refused to consider buying new versions of F-16s or F-15s. Navy officials seem to have hedged their bets a little by recently buying an mix of 124 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers to offset a looming fighter gap. Obviously, the Marines would be in the toughest spot if the recommendations become reality with their aging fleet of F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harriers and EA-6B Prowlers that are all supposed to be replaced by the F-35B. All of this begs the question; if (and it’s a big, big if) these cuts are approved by decision-makers will they throw the F-35 into the death spiral that program-watchers have warned about for years? Reduced buys mean cost hikes which in-turn lead to more reduced buys from international partners, etc. Teal Group Aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia sees all of this as a “seriously worst-case scenario, but it’s a dire prospect.” If this nightmare scenario for the F-35 does come to fruition, the fate of the program could indeed hang on the international partners’ resolve to stick with it, according to the analyst. “If it went ahead (I doubt it, but you can’t write off the possibility) then much would come down to the international partners,” Aboulafia said. “If they kept the faith, the program could keep costs from skyrocketing, and avoid a death spiral. If they don’t, the program would definitely be at risk.
F-35’s key to US air power
Claffey, ‘10 (Jason, Fosters Daily Democrat. http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100529/GJNEWS_01/705299929/-1/fosnews1416) MO
"The F-35 is critical to our national security and defense," said Shea-Porter spokeswoman Jamie Radice. "We will rely on the F-35 for 90% of our tactical air forces, and having only one engine is an unacceptable risk to our nation and to our pilots." The more than $300 billion F-35 program is regarded as the largest weapons program in history. It will replace nearly every American fighter jet now in operation. The U.S. partnered with several countries to buy more than 3,000 F-35s combined.
Air dominance key to heg
Melinger 03 (Phillip, US Air Force Col. Ph.D in military history, “The air and space nation is in peril,” http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/vorspr03.html) MO
This is a good news, bad news story. The United States is the world’s first and only air and space nation. That fact is evidenced in our dominance of air and space technology and infrastructure, as well as in the future visions shared by our political, economic, military, and cultural leaders. This domination has important implications for our national security. Unfortunately, many Americans have come to view air and space dominance as their birthright. It is not, and troubles are brewing, so we must take steps now to ensure our dominance in the future. Americans have always looked to technology to ease their problems, so they took naturally and quickly to air and space power- the epitome of advanced technology. America was the birthplace of aviation, and it is now difficult to imagine life without our television satellites, cell phones, Internet, and air travel. Indeed, US airline-passenger traffic has tripled over the past 25 years (fig. 1). Speed is the engine of commerce and economic growth. Rapid means of transportation have been essential for nations seeking economic dominance. The rise of Britain in the eighteenth century was based on global trade carried by its large merchant fleet, which in turn was protected by the Royal Navy, the world’s largest and most powerful. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States was also a maritime power, possessing a sizeable merchant fleet and navy. As the twentieth century progressed, however, speed became synonymous with aircraft, and expanding American aviation began to push out the ship. Over the past 40 years, the growth of the US airline industry has been dramatic, in contrast to the decline of our shipping industry. Since 1960 the number of airliners has quadrupled (and aircraft have more than doubled in size), while the size of the US merchant fleet has dropped 84 percent, a mere 2 percent of the world’s total (fig. 2). In addition, airport expansion is under way at many airports because airline-passenger travel is expected to double over the next decade. As for cargo, 95 percent of the world’s air-cargo capacity resides in Boeing airframes, and the value of goods shipped is telling. In 1997 the average pound of cargo traveling by boat was worth seven cents; by rail it was 10 cents, but by air it was $25.59. When Americans have something important and valuable to ship and it needs to get there quickly, they send it by air. Air and space trade has significantly increased over the past several decades. In 1999 America’s air and space industry contributed $259 billion to the nation’s economy. The black ink in the air and space balance of trade rose to over $32 billion in 2000, making it the largest net exporter in the US economy (fig. 3). At the same time, the overall US trade balance has been negative for 27 of the past 30 years, and the deficit now exceeds $250 billion annually. Given these statistics, it is apparent that the United States has now become an air and space nation- indeed, the air and space nation.
Lack of leadership leads to nuclear exchanges.
Khalilzad ‘95 (Zalmay, RAND Corporation, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995)
On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
Share with your friends: |
