Seeing a piece of news, a group of retired "big shots" from the U.S. military wrote a joint letter to question the U.S. House of Representatives' proposal to cut the number of F-35A procurement in fiscal year 2026 and cancel the E-7 airborne early warning aircraft development plan. The source of the news is the U.S. "Air & Space Power Magazine" and "Air Force Magazine."
Why are they called a group of retired "big shots" from the U.S. military? Just look at the list to know. The signatories include six former Air Force Chiefs of Staff, including General Merrill A. McPeak, the 14th Air Force Chief of Staff; General Ronald R. Fogleman, the 15th Air Force Chief of Staff; General Michael E. Ryan, the 16th Air Force Chief of Staff; General John P. Jumper, the 17th Air Force Chief of Staff; General T. Michael Moseley, the 18th Air Force Chief of Staff; and General Mark A. Welsh III, the 20th Air Force Chief of Staff.
In addition to these six former Air Force Chiefs of Staff, there are also General Joseph W. Ralston, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Supreme Allied Commander Europe; General John M. Loh, former Deputy Chief of Staff for the Air Force and Commander of the Air Combat Command; General Ralph E. Eberhart, the first Commander of the Northern Command; General Lori J. Robinson, former Commander of the Northern Command; General John D. W. Corley, former Deputy Chief of Staff for the Air Force and Commander of the Air Combat Command; General Herbert J. Carlisle, former Commander of the Air Combat Command; and General Robin L. Rand, former Commander of the Global Strike Command. Thirteen retired generals, can they be considered a group of "big shots"?
Of course, it's not just these 13 people. The signatories also include Brigadier General Bernie Scock, the chairman of the Joint Air and Space Forces Association, Major General Bert Field, and Brigadier General David Deptula, the director of the Mitchell Institute, which is part of the association.
So who did this group of "big shots" write the letter to? It seems that this letter was sent out to many people, and the recipients included House Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Thune, Democratic Leader Schumer, and Jeffries.
The main content of the letter criticized the Pentagon's attempt to purchase only 24 F-35A aircraft in fiscal year 2026 and cancel the E-7 program. In the letter, they urged Congress to approve the full procurement of up to 75 F-35A aircraft and restore full funding support for the E-7 program. When explaining their reasons, they said that the U.S. Air Force needs to continue procuring the initially planned 1,763 F-35A aircraft to meet national defense strategy. Of course, the letter also cited the recent Israeli air strike on Iran as an example, illustrating that the F-35A is competent and needed, while emphasizing the progress made in the TR-3 upgrade of the F-35, claiming that through software and hardware upgrades, greater improvements can be made to the F-35.
As for the E-7 project, these people strongly questioned the temporary solution of replacing it with the E-2D. This point specifically mentioned China, saying that the E-7 can perform tasks different from traditional airborne early warning aircraft, making it crucial for dealing with emergencies related to China. Regarding the U.S. Air Force's claim that future reliance on space-based solutions is possible, these retired "big shots" stated that although they have great confidence in space-based systems, the engineering challenges remain daunting, leading to an unclear deployment schedule, and therefore, it is necessary to deploy a sufficient number of E-7s to ensure victory in the next conflict.
It seems that the budget cuts made in fiscal year 2026 for the U.S. military have hurt many military branches, units, and "big shots" within the U.S. military. Now, those coming forward to voice complaints are mainly the "big shots" from the Air Force, targeting the cancellation of the E-7 and the drastic reduction in F-35A procurement.
Regarding this letter of complaint, netizens have various reactions. Some believe that this is the military-industrial complex "big players" exerting pressure, questioning whether these former "big shots" are receiving money from arms manufacturers or have shares in military companies. Others believe that cutting F-35 and canceling E-7 would indeed have a significant impact on the future operations of the U.S. military. In fact, both factors may exist, but I am not interested in whether they are taking money. What interests me more is how much loss these project cuts actually cause to the U.S. military.
It can be clearly stated that significantly reducing the procurement of F-35A and cutting the E-7 development project will likely have a considerable impact on the overall combat capability of the U.S. military within 10 years, especially when facing what they consider their most powerful opponent and the most unfavorable battlefield space. This 10-year period coincides with the time window they predict potential conflicts in the Western Pacific, so people are so urgent, showing a sense of patriotism.
However, the problem is, if we increase the procurement of F-35A and resume the E-7 development, will it solve the problem? Probably, there were certain considerations behind the initial decision to cut these projects, that is, maintaining these projects costs money but has limited effects, so it's better to save money and redirect it elsewhere. So, which idea is correct? Let them argue in the United States.
In my personal opinion, the fundamental problem lies in the fact that the United States is currently facing a situation where it has ten pots and only eight lids, meaning that limited resources and capabilities must handle numerous global issues, which is indeed beyond its capacity. If it's impossible to do, then you have to take the risk, hoping for some luck, hoping to avoid some problems. Actually, it's easy to reduce some problems by reaching certain compromises with other major powers.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7526064309311373851/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinion by clicking on the [Top/Down] button below.