[HOUSE] Air Defence Fighter Development Bill

[Huojin]

• What are the needs of the modern MSA Air Force, regarding fighters, that are not currently met?
• General Scalia: The Air Force requires greater ability to counter enemy aircraft head-on, more than anything else.
• General Paisley: I concur with General Scalia, and would like to add that specialization would be preferable to an all-round approach.
• General Busch: The Air Force desperately needs the ability to counter threats from the air, be they other air craft or ground-based targets.

• Could these needs be met with updates to the design of our current fighters, or is an entirely new design necessary?
• General Scalia: The Air Force and DOD have long maintained plans to make use of military platforms for as long as is feasible. It may be possible to gain further use from our present fighters, although undoubtedly our capability will increase with new hardware.
• General Paisley: We've been operating this aircraft for more than 20 years. We should not maintain this platform as the basis for our air defense strategy - it can form a part, but should operate in cooperation as part of a wider plan.
• General Busch: Undoubtedly we need a new design. Several.

• Could these needs be met by refitting fighters currently available for purchase from the USA and/or PSA?
• General Scalia: Yes, some of these needs could be met by refitting fighters purchased from alternative sources.
• General Paisley: If there were some complimenting of forces to achieve greater specialization, perhaps.
• General Busch: No, the USA and PSA are seriously limited in what they are offering us.

• Logistically, what problems might be posed by the purchase and use of military planes from the USA and/or PSA?
• General Scalia: Refitting aircraft would undoubtedly be cheaper in the short term, but may cost us more in the long term.
• General Paisley: It's an issue of practicability and national security. Part of our air defense planning involves defending against hypothetical US and PS attacks - how can we do so if they know the limitations of our aircraft inside and out?
• General Busch: I oppose sending American tax dollars to the fascists on principle - the military downsides only add strength to the argument.

• What problems would dependence on these planes pose in a defensive war?
• General Scalia: There would, of course, be strategic implications for potential adversaries being aware of our capabilities. However if purchases were complimentary, we may be able to play the lack of knowledge off against each attacking party.
• General Paisley: It would seriously undermine our defenses, in my opinion. However, General Scalia is technically correct that there may be some ways to minimize these issues.
• General Busch: This would be like buying a house where the previous tenant has kept a copy of the keys - before you know it, they'll have wandered back in and taken everything not nailed down.

• [to Scalia] How extensively have you been consulted by the Secretary of Defense on the current needs of the MSAAF as regards fighters?
  --On the feasibility of the ADF proposal?
  --On the feasibility of purchasing and refitting USA/PSA fighters?
  --What, if any, where the suggestions made to the Secretary of Defense by you on adopting these plans or any alternatives?
  --Do you feel the statements of the Secretary of Defense, and the Neoconservative members of this chamber (made available for your review) properly reflect the suggestions made by you?
• General Scalia: As Air Force Chief of Staff, my office has prepared some reports for the Pentagon on the military situation, and we have been consulted as part of wider plans, particularly with regard to alternative air defense methods - the details of which align closely with those stated by the Secretary elsewhere. The Secretary and I have not personally discussed these issues, however, so if the Administration's policies differ slightly from those the Air Force would prefer, that is not a surprise.

• Have you ever felt that Secretary Cabrini's judgement was unsound in making this decision?
• General Scalia: As Chief of Staff of the Air Force, I have been involved in separate discussions with the President and the Pentagon, and therefore feel that aside from making recommendations on fulfilling Air Force needs, I should not become involved in high-level policy making.

• [to all again] If you could put a percentage on how much of an air-defense plan would involve fighter design, strategic doctrine, and use, how much would you say it factors into Air Force and, to you knowledge, combined defense considerations?
• General Scalia: An air defense plan would involve at least 50% involvement from aircraft platforms, assuming we had full surface-based defensive capabilities. Air defense also features crucially in national defense.
• General Paisley: Given the limitations imposed societally and by the Treaty, I would anticipate no less than 70% dependency on aircraft, and is vital to safeguarding the nation.
• General Busch: The air is the high ground, without controlling it we cannot defend, be it solely defensive, or strategically attacking. A percentage is a meaningless consideration, an attempt to quantify the uncertainties of war.

• In your expert opinion, is there air defense equipment that should take priority over fighters, and where in a hierarchy of priority does an updated fighter rest if so?
• General Scalia: An equal role ought to be considered in the overall scheme, where there is widespread improvement across all bases.
• General Paisley: Equipment is vital, but not to the extent that it would take priority over fighter updates.
• General Busch: Not only fighter development as proposed in this bill, but overall development of aircraft platforms is needed.

• How much of the funding that would be allocated to this project with the current language of the bill would you suggest should actually be put towards our fighter needs?
• General Scalia: Despite my concerns over approach, IF a new fighter project were in development, the funds presently allocated would seem sufficient. Of course, more should be invested to develop our overall air defense plans.
• General Paisley: These funds are ideal as they stand - although more wouldn't hurt.
• General Busch: All of this funding and more is needed if we're truly going to maintain our best chances of national defense as well as provide assistance and support to our allies.

• As far as you are aware, are the needs of the MSAAF regarding fighters such that the contracting of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation is justified?
  --Would a smaller Aerospace firm be able to handle producing a solution to these needs with sufficient expediency?
  --What if the proposed plan of refitting foreign fighters were adopted instead?
• General Scalia: For the purpose of a whole new aircraft, McDonnell would likely win any major bidding process and contract out minor tasks to smaller companies. These companies could likely be relied upon if foreign fighters were adopted.
• General Paisley: The market and bidding process will resolve this issue, though it is likely McDonnell will secure these contracts.
• General Busch: We need to secure our defense - whoever can provide for that is who we should employ.

[[If I screwed anything up or something needs elaborating on, let me know. Some of this I wrote while slightly sleepy.]]

[Snacks]

Thank you for this testimony, Generals. If we could trouble you for some further questions, it would be appreciated.

Gen. Scalia, could you give us a more specific idea of how often Secretary Cabrini's office consults yours on air defense policy?

While my assumption given his reservations with getting involved is that Gen. Paisley has only been consulted by Representative Carpenter, for the sake of thoroughness I will address this question to all three of you. Have you ever been contacted or consulted by the congressmen whose names have been provided to you regarding air defense policy, participants in the Republican Neoconservative Caucus?

Have the sentiments expressed by these congressmen, the transcripts of which have been provide to you, been inimical to the advancement of the MSA's air defense?

Gen. Scalia: Would the claims made by congressmen on that list to the press, transcripts of which have been made available for you, that Representative Carpenter has not consulted the DoD on this matter be true or false?

And to all of you: is the additional claim, that relying on the purchase of older foreign fighters will not render the MSAAF obsolete, true or false?

Do you believe that a force of older fighters from the USA/PSA would be preferable to funding the creation of a new fighter due to the time required for development?

Do you have reason to believe the claim by Senator Lucille Rice that adoption of this bill "would leave our country defenseless for years", or that Secretary Cabrini would have any reason to express this to her, as she claims?

Would you say that Secretary Cabrini's claim that the fighter called for by this bill would take a decade to develop, or Senator Rice's claim that it would take more than a decade?

Would you say that the sentiment expressed by Senator Rice, that this bill goes against the interests of the military, is correct or incorrect?

Given your assertions of the importance of the proposed new fighter aircraft, is Secretary Cabrini correct in labeling the costs of the proposed development program unnecessary?

[Huojin]

Thank you for this testimony, Generals. If we could trouble you for some further questions, it would be appreciated.

Gen. Scalia, could you give us a more specific idea of how often Secretary Cabrini's office consults yours on air defense policy?

• General Scalia: Our offices routinely exchange information but in the short few months between the Secretary's confirmation, which was closely followed by the assassination of the President, and today, very few, if any, direct consultations have occurred.

While my assumption given his reservations with getting involved is that Gen. Paisley has only been consulted by Representative Carpenter, for the sake of thoroughness I will address this question to all three of you. Have you ever been contacted or consulted by the congressmen whose names have been provided to you regarding air defense policy, participants in the Republican Neoconservative Caucus?

• General Scalia: Not to my knowledge. I was first contacted by Congress as part of this procedure. Typically I would have expected to be consulted or asked to submit a report during committee, but regardless.
• General Paisley: As a former colleague of Congressman Mason, I was initially reached out to by him.
• General Busch: Likewise, I served alongside Congressman Mason and was first contact by him.

Have the sentiments expressed by these congressmen, the transcripts of which have been provide to you, been inimical to the advancement of the MSA's air defense?

• General Scalia: Not entirely, there are undoubtedly concerns addressed and solutions offered that ought to be considered, but as part of a wider air defense policy that needs greater addressing than offered by the aforementioned congressmen.
• General Paisley: I believe so, yes.
• General Busch: I firmly believe this to be so.

Gen. Scalia: Would the claims made by congressmen on that list to the press, transcripts of which have been made available for you, that Representative Carpenter has not consulted the DoD on this matter be true or false?

• General Scalia: I am not a member of the Department of Defense, so cannot comment to that effect. I am aware that as a former officer in the MSAAF, Congressman Carpenter has been in contact with some former and present members of the service, but cannot speak as to his contacts with the DOD.

And to all of you: is the additional claim, that relying on the purchase of older foreign fighters will not render the MSAAF obsolete, true or false?

• General Scalia: Obsolete as to technological aims, not necessarily - indeed, foreign aircraft are at this stage more advanced than our own. The danger lies in strategic aims.
• General Paisley: To elaborate on General Scalia's point, I personally believe the strategic detriment outweighs a technological gain.
• General Busch: I resolutely believe it will render the MSAAF obsolete.

Do you believe that a force of older fighters from the USA/PSA would be preferable to funding the creation of a new fighter due to the time required for development?

• General Scalia: Development time depends on a number of factors that, as none of us are members of the aviation industry, I believe we are not qualified to speak to.
• General Paisley: I would be inclined to agree with General Scalia.
• General Busch: I agree, though will say a little more - development time depends entirely on how much the government wishes to interfere or delay matters.

Do you have reason to believe the claim by Senator Lucille Rice that adoption of this bill "would leave our country defenseless for years", or that Secretary Cabrini would have any reason to express this to her, as she claims?

• General Scalia: The Senator's claim is not implausible, there would undoubtedly be a gap between now and the operation of new fighters - purchased or newly built. However I refute the suggestion we would be unable to offer any kind of defense. As for the Secretary's comments - that is for him to say.
• General Paisley: I likewise agree with General Scalia in this matter.
• General Busch: Our armed forces are fully capable of offering a defense - we are just entering a period where we are being increasingly outclassed, and are increasingly less likely to succeed in repelling an enemy force.

Would you say that Secretary Cabrini's claim that the fighter called for by this bill would take a decade to develop, or Senator Rice's claim that it would take more than a decade?

• General Scalia: This estimate is not totally unfathomable, but of course could vary wildly depending on the contractor.
• General Paisley: I am not a member of McDonnell or any other defense contractor, so cannot speak authoritatively to these expectations of the Secretary or Senator as to the timeline of aircraft development - I personally believe, however, it will take less time than this.
• General Busch: Given the urgency of this contract, it's completely possible the defense industry will be able to exceed the Secretary's gross underestimation of their abilities.

Would you say that the sentiment expressed by Senator Rice, that this bill goes against the interests of the military, is correct or incorrect?

• General Scalia: Developing new aircraft is not, in of itself, against our military interests. What matters, however, is how it meets our overall strategic aims.
• General Paisley: I believe that the Senator is poorly placed to be deciding on the interests of the military in this area, Coloradan or not.
• General Busch: I firmly believe the Senator's statements to be incorrect.

Given your assertions of the importance of the proposed new fighter aircraft, is Secretary Cabrini correct in labeling the costs of the proposed development program unnecessary?

• General Scalia: Spending of money will be required regardless, and how much the government is willing to invest will influence the utility of what they choose invest in.
• General Paisley: Funds will be spent either way - they must be. Better, perhaps, on our own industries and aircraft.
• General Busch: The Secretary is, in my opinion, absolutely incorrect in his assessment.

[[Just to say, at the end of the day I want you guys to be making policy, not drilling the hell out of three NPCs to make your minds up. Pick a course and convince the nation. And hey, you're politicians at the end of the day. Take into account political considerations or something ]]

[Snacks]

This testimony has been enlightening. While I wish I could say it has lead me to believe the judgment of my Neoconservative peers in fighting against development of a new fighter was sound, it has not. Quite the opposite, it has led only to strong suspicion that the Neoconservative caucus is highly misinformed and yet has the gall to accuse lawmakers on both sides of the aisle of being out of touch with the MSA's military needs.

Indeed, the only possible alternative to so many congressmen and, alarmingly, the Secretary of Defense being so ill-informed on our military needs is that there is a deeper agenda being pushed by the Neoconservative caucus, and that these Representatives and Senators have seemingly succeeded in co-opting the Secretary of Defense, an official who is supposed to hold himself to a far higher standard than partisan politics and has presented himself as doing so, in making unsound claims to obstruct legislation rather than trying to improve it.

While I and my colleagues on the Progressive Hard Left are dedicated to supporting the growth and change of our military to suit the needs of a changing world, it has been made clear to me that this will not be successful through pushing this bill while the obstructionism of Secretary Cabrini, who ought to be one of its staunchest defenders, is unresolved.

I remain dedicated to putting into motion development of a modern fighter, and I sincerely hope that Representative Carpenter will be willing to work with us to put together an ever better bill with what we know from the testimony, but I cannot in good conscience perpetuate the attempts by Secretary Cabrini and his Neoconservative friends to turn the democratic process into a farce, betraying not only their constituents but the whole American people with their untruths and attempts to slander the rest of Congress. As such I must state my abstention of this bill in protest.

11 Progressive Hard Left vote PRESENT[In Abstention]

[OYID]

10 Socialist Votes AGAINST.

[Gesar]

Representative Ortega summed up the thoughts of myself and if I may be so bold as to speak on their behalf, many others in the Progressive Party on this issue more than adequately. As Majority Leader, I'll take a pledge here and now to work on a more adequate air force system, but it's become too abundantly clear that the defense of our nation, at least in this matter and during this present moment, have become far too politicized for me to put my name to paper.

14 Progressive Liberals vote PRESENT[In Abstention]

[Huojin]

OFFICE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL CLERKS

The votes in favor: twenty-six (26).
The votes against: ten (10).
The votes abstaining: twenty-five (25).
The votes not present: twenty-nine (29).

The required number of votes in the House of Representatives to reach the two-thirds majority and override a Presidential veto is 60. If the remaining non-voting Congressmen all voted in favor of this bill, those in favor would only number 55. Therefore this measure is officially struck down in the House of Representatives, it being impossible to reach a two-thirds majority.