GAO: Tactical Aircraft: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22 Business Case"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are
actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in
hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan.

Congress is leaning on the Air Force to get their (our) butts in gear.
Congress
is pushing this not to shorten the projected BUFF lifespan (projected to
2038,
beyond the B-1B), but simply to get the Air Force moving. Between 2018 and
2038
we will retire 97% of our existing bombers, I think congress is concerned
that
the Air Force will be forced into "crisis acquisition" if they (us) don't
get
moving *now*.

OK. Sounds like the folks on the Hill are doing something smart for a change
(though in all likelihood for all the wrong reasons--Representative
Shmedlap, having a chunk of Big Aerospace, Inc. in his district, wants to
ensure some long range development money flows into his district, etc.).
It'll be interesting to see which way such a program ends up going, with so
many disparate optional approaches to putting munitions on-target/on-time
being in the "possible" box. Given the typical development timelines for
modern combat aircraft (witness the F/A-22, Typhoon, etc.), an early start
would seem to be smart.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"