I did, and understand that you can't let it determine a decision since it's already in the past. But my point is that if you keep developing new fighters and then not purchasing them, you're throwing even MORE money down the drain. After all, using the example I already listed, and following what Flash said: "UAVs have several big vulnerabilities that would be very difficult to mitigate and almost impossible to completely solve"...without spending boatloads of money as well. And when they do, are you just going to cut those as well? Eventually you HAVE to follow through and can't keep using "sunk costs" to justify cuts. ANYTHING you develop for the future is going to be expensive, so this idea of "oh let's cut it, the next one will be cheaper" is ridiculous.
If the military decides to not develop any new technology (since we can't afford new aircraft), then what do you think will have to most of the R&D in the private sector?
We have incredible capabilities because we continue to invest and develop these technologies.
The fact that the F-22 buy was cut short has zero impact on the technology that was developed as part of the F-22 program. The F-35 benefits from the R&D that came from the F-22 program. So, regardless of how many aircraft we actually have on the ramp, the technology (which is the most expensive issue with procurement of new weapon systems) is bought and paid for.
Like the Space program, just because you are not going to the moon, doesn't mean you do not have benefits from funding scientific research to give you the capabilities to get you there. The science and technology all have multiple uses. As long as the gov't continues to invest in these new technologies, business will continue to push the envelope when it comes to developing new technology.
GEN Amos had a great comment in front of the HASC about the budget. He said the DOD has three ways to control spending. First is procurement. Second is manpower. Third is Ops and Maintenance. He described them as three knobs that you could adjust in any manner to control overall costs.
The biggest issue is that two of the dials (manpower and procurement) may be result in large savings but may not be felt in the short-term. Also, these two issues are not something you can bring back quickly.
(You can't produce an expirienced Officer or NCO immediately, you must grow them.)
The Ops and Maintenance you can dial up and down very quickly, but they have immediate impact on what you want to do today.
The CNO added to that comment that when the Brits decided to halt production of nuclear powered submarines, it took them 10 years to get the capability back to build a new one.
So, by your logic, it make zero sense to continue to invest in new technology if you do not intend to fully commit to a full-scale purchase of that system.
While I may agree with your ideas in principle, since contractors will always estimate low on costs during the acquisition process and there will always be delays and cost over runs, in the real world, every weapons program will have to be scaled back from the originally approved buy since fiscal contraints are always the number one consideration.
