2024 Air, Space & Cyber: Transitioning to the F-35: Lessons and Approaches
September 17, 2024
The “Transitioning to the F-35: Lessons and Approaches” panel at AFA’s 2024 Air, Space & Cyber Conference featured Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt, PEO and director of the F-35 Lightning II Program; Maj. Gen. Regina Sabric, commander of the 10th Air Force; and Maj. Gen. David G. Shoemaker, director of operations at Air Combat Command. The panel, held on September 17, was moderated by John Tirpak, editorial director at AFA’s Air & Space Forces Magazine. Watch the video below:
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak, Editorial Director, AFA’s Air & Space Forces Magazine:
So the Air Force has about 430 F-35s at this point. That’s only about a quarter of the way towards the bi-objective of 1,763. But it’s still already one of the largest fleets in the Air Force and it’s going to be the backbone of the Air Force’s manned fighter fleet for at least 50 years. Today. We have everybody you want to hear from on the topic of the F-35, who can give us some solid context on its maturity and its integration into the Force. At the center here, we have Lieutenant General Michael Schmidt. He’s the purple suitor. He is the program executive officer of the F-35 Joint Program office. I call him the hardest working man in acquisition because he has to negotiate to buy them, to service them, maintain them. He manages the upgrades. He manages nine partners and I think it’s what, nine international users at this point? FMS customers? And he’s the guy who has to go explain it all to Congress up on Capitol Hill, so you know, he is a brave guy. Would you all please give a hand to Lieutenant General Michael Schmidt?
To my immediate left, Major General Dave Shoemaker is the director of operations for Air Combat Command. He’s responsible for all the operational planning and training, the C2 of some 1,900 aircraft that are provided to the regional commanders in the field. He’s a pilot with 20,000 hours and he’s flown every version of the F-16. Give it up.
And finally, to my far left here, Major General Regina Sabric is the commander of 10th Air Force. She supports ACC AFSOC, PACAF, Global Strike Command, AETC, and others with reserve capability in fighters, bombers, rescue, battle management, RPAs, space, and cyber. And she has flown a lot of airplanes. F-15, F-16, C-146, F-35, and to the degree you fly the MQ-9, the MQ-9. Let’s give it up. Thank you. So I want to start with you, General Schmidt. Let’s deal with the most recent issue. Deliveries of F-35s were on hold for about a year, but they’re moving again. Tell us why that had to happen and how you have managed that? And talk about how the airplanes were stored. I doubt that they were put into spray lat, but were the engines turned on? What was done with them and how long is it going to take to deliver the backlog?
Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt, PEO & Director, F-35 Lightning II Program:
Well, thank you. Thank you very much, John. So you start off with a tough question that I could spend a half an hour answering, but I won’t. I will say that TR-3, we had rather ambitious plans of introducing TR-3 into the Lot 15 aircraft. So our really delivery started in 2023. The hardware was not ready to go. The software was not ready to go. Our flight test infrastructure as well is aging a bit, but I honestly, relative to TR-3, focus more on the lack of mature hardware, the lack of mature software. And so we all got together and we said, “Based on the stability of the software at the time, we’re not going to accept these airplanes right now.” I’m very proud of the team that came together and worked through the acceptance criteria. Our warfighters industry, our engineers, and our international partners, we all sat together last spring and said what it would look like to accept these airplanes at that point in time? And what would be those acceptable criteria?
And so we did a number of other software iterations on that. And then finally in July we started accepting airplanes. Yes, those airplanes were backed up. Every one of them stored very, very safely. It’s quite a process to put an airplane into long-term parking. I am really proud of all of the team that did that and then now is safely unwinding them. I will also highlight that the order of the unwind, based on the priorities of every country around the world, every service, you could have quite a debate on how that order should look.
If you came to me, I would just say, “Well, just follow the contract.” That is not the most efficient and effective way to deliver those airplanes. There were also partners and US services that had very specific IOCs, FOCs, first jet, training requirements to meet. And I asked all of the national deputies plus the international deputies plus the Navy Air Force Marine Corps deputies to get together and they are the ones that produced the priority working with our team to align exactly how we should unwind this. And that started six or seven weeks ago. And today we’ve accepted, we’ve DD-250’ed 36 TR-3 jets and delivered or ferried 29 of them as of yesterday.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Awesome. I’m going to stick with you for just a second. If you could talk about the status of the TR-3. The aircraft are being delivered with what’s called a truncated software package. It’s not the full up one, which is still being tested. Talk to the degree that you can without getting into classified, obviously, what can these truncated airplanes do versus what the full up TR-3 is going to be able to do?
Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt:
It’s good question, John. So even back when we made the truncation criteria decision, we knew there were a couple of capabilities that would require longer to fully mature. And I’m not going to go into those specific capabilities. But it is a very robust training jet that we have out there. Again, it meets all the stability, maintainability, requirements laid out by the team that I described. And so that’s where we’re at today. Those capabilities will continue to mature. And next year, I’m hoping that our warfighters would declare a fully combat capable jet. But we got a little bit of work to do. I would also say that it wasn’t lost on me at all, that as a team, we need to hold industry accountable. And we have to change the future for the F-35 program. Part of the reason that we got into the situation that we got into is because we have not invested in our lab capacity, in our lab capabilities, into making the F-35 development enterprise all that it can be, state of the art, everything.
We worked, again, even early last spring, even before that, around February, we brought in a tremendous software independent review team. They, along with analyzing where we were at relative to each the capabilities, they also laid out what they considered to be a plan, very specific plan on specific capabilities that we should invest in to grow our software development capability and capacity. I asked industry, Lockheed specifically, to kickstart the investment in those things during the truncation negotiations. And they have invested a significant amount of money as part of the negotiated deal, if you will, to get these jets restarted. So it’s a long answer to your question, but I really wanted to make it clear to everybody that we need to change the way we do development in the F-35 program and get ourselves to a place where we can truly deliver on our promises relative to development.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Thank you. General Shoemaker, when the F-35 was new, the idea was we were going to port over a lot of maintainers and pilots from systems that were going to be divested. And of course, Congress has had its own ideas about what the Air Force is going to divest. So if you could talk about the delays in that process and how you’re managing through the manpower issue with the maintainers and the pilots.
Maj. Gen. David G. Shoemaker, Director of Operations, Air Combat Command:
Sure. So when you think about the bringing a new system on board, it should be obvious that, unless you’re going to get an in-strength adjustment, which we’re not, then you’re going to have to get that manpower from somewhere. So it makes sense that as we onboard a system, that it’s going to be directly connected to the off-boarding of other systems, divestment of other systems. So if you think about, even if everything went perfectly and our other programs divested on-time and on-plan, if only, if our onboarded systems came on-board according to plan and on time, if only, even then that would be a difficult problem. But then add in the uncertainty of the changing timelines on each of those and it becomes a pretty tough calculus issue. Added to that, it’s not just a direct, you’re an A-10 maintainer on Friday and you’re an F-35 maintainer on Monday, or pilot, clearly.
So there’s a training tax that comes in there, as well. So between our sustainment professionals led at ACC by Brigadier General Hammerstedt and our personnel in the A-1, it’s been a tough problem to figure out how to smooth flow, as best as possible, from the older and divested sunsetting systems with the newer systems. So with that, it’s really been a leadership challenge, but the system that’s in place that’s been working as well as it can, has been to set up a Hill Air Force Base as a feeder for our maintainers in particular, but also our pilots to get that experience.
And then from there, as we’re opening new locations in both the active and reserve component, being able to spread that experience out. And now that we have more locations between Eielson and Tyndall and Lakenheath, we have more places that we can grow that experience. So it is going to continue to, as we do have these sunsetting systems still online, and as we work through some of the fits-and-starts with the F-35 coming online, it’s going to continue to require really close attention from both the sustainment and personnel communities. But we’re staying after it. And so far it’s been as smooth as can be expected.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Great. General Sabric, traditionally the Guard and Reserve have gotten the Air Force’s hand-me-downs, but you’re getting the F-35s at the same time the active duty force. You’re learning with the vehicle moving, basically. It’s not an established fleet. It’s not a mature fleet yet. So talk about how that is going, how you are managing it, and how your F-35 units are being tasked if they’re any differently from the active duty.
Maj. Gen. Regina Sabric, Commander, 10th Air Force:
Yeah, appreciate that. Like was mentioned, I am a Reservist. I’ll do my best to cover the ARC to include the Guard as the Reserve component up here. So when we talk about getting airplanes, I think first I’d like to say, Hey, it’s important to understand the ARC has been in the F-35 from the beginning. Nellis, Luke, Eglin, Hill, we’ve been in this from the beginning. So while we might be getting new airplanes right now, we have been in this throughout, which has been great. As far as getting unit equipped, Iron, yes. To the Guard, got it first. Burlington, Madison, and Montgomery. And then just recently in Carswell, we’ve got the first three on the ramp as of last month. So super excited for the Reserve off of that one. As far as tasking, nothing’s really changed based off of moving to the F-35. The reserve component, just like the active duty is tasked within the average gen cycle.
We are at a different mob-to-dwell than the Air Force. The active duty is deployed-to-dwell. But the MDS tasking hasn’t changed how we’re tasked by any means. We still go rotationally on the GFMAP. Any popups are still there. The Hill Reservests, in the 419th, we’ve been deploying alongside the active duty counterparts since the beginning as the part of the classic association there. Whether it was rotational GFMAP or emergent, the Reserve was there as well. So as we plan this out, getting more F-35s into the ARC, not only is it a good thing for the entire Air Force, it brings more capacity. Within 72 hours, ARC units are out the door as well. So should the flag go up, you’ve got all these ARC units just side-by-side with the active duty, ready to go.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
And are there any special challenges or opportunities integrating the F-35 as a brand new airplane?
Maj. Gen. Regina Sabric:
Yeah, I think for the most part-
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
With the ARC?
Maj. Gen. Regina Sabric:
Is that to me?
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Yeah.
Maj. Gen. Regina Sabric:
Okay. For the most part, I think standing on the F-35, we share the same challenges as the active duty. Whether you want to talk MilCon, FSRM, facility, SIMs, equipment, part supply, that’s all same-same across the board depending on the location. The program integration offices have been great in SATAF and trying to get after all those. I think specifically when you talk about the ARC though, some of the very specific challenges we have though is, when you do a heel-to-toe investment divestment, if you’re divesting one aircraft going right into the F-35, we need to make sure that that flows smoothly. We don’t have the ability to PCS or PCA qualified people in, like the reg AF. So what we have to do is a lot, a little bit more planning with TX courses for the pilots, same with the maintainers.
So we’ve got to have to flow that out. So I think the challenges come if there’s any kind of delays, like we had just previously talked about, because that becomes a tax on the enterprise. So what we do is we will send our pilots through TX courses early to be able to catch the jets when they come into these locations. But it’s at the expense of other units having to keep them current and qualified. Same on the maintainers. So you’ve got ARC members flying across every unit right now with the active duty, as the feeder seed corn as we get these units right now. So it absolutely is an enterprise solution that comes to laying in, both on the active duty and the ARC side. I think on some of the opportunities, I think the opportunities with the ARC is the experience piece to it.
We’ll talk a little bit later, I think, but following the pilot absorption panel. Lot of talk about affiliation. And I think that’s where the big thing is. We want to affiliate the active duty pilots over to the ARC. We were talking, between an active duty pilot coming over and then having to grow a new one, it’s about $25 million. That’s a lot. What we want to do is be able to capture anybody coming off of active duty. You have that experience, sitting in the ARC, that sits there, is the continuity and the longevity that helps as we go through this, whether it’s absorbing new active duty pilots or just being ready for the fight. I think that’s some of the great opportunities that the ARC is going to bring to the F-35.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Terrific. General Schmidt, we talked a little bit about the TR-3. That is what underpins the Block 4 upgrade. You told Congress in the spring that the Block 4 is going to have to be reimagined. I wonder if you could tell us what does that mean in terms of the capabilities that are come maybe later than we expected originally?
Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt:
Yeah, it’s a great question, John. There’s a lot baked into that. So if you look at how this program was set up from a development perspective, we accepted every requirement that was pushed to this program. Understandably, these are requirements that are really important. This is the best fighter in the world, but we need to continue to keep it the best fighter in the world. And so there was a long list of capabilities, eighty-some capabilities that were, honestly, treated as we came up with this concept, this term called continuous capability development and delivery. And it was really based on the foundations of agile software development. But within those eighty-plus capabilities, there were some incredibly unique and challenging and Gucci, if you will, hardware aspects to it, things that had never been invented before. In the acquisition terms, multiple ACAT-I programs built into the list of 88.
Some of them were truly software intensive only capabilities, but others were, like I said, very, very hardware intensive with hardware that hadn’t been invented anywhere before. And so the Congress, because of the delays in some of those, and honestly, the way we were treating that program in terms of just pile the capabilities on and deliver them when they’re ready, we decided we needed to go through and look at the technical maturity levels of every single one of those capabilities, look at our capacity to deliver on those capabilities, and understand what the true costs of each of those capabilities are. As we started looking at this, more than half of those capabilities were pre-preliminary design review. And so the Congress directed us to create a subprogram for Block 4. Dr. LaPlante, the DAE directed us, obviously, to do the same thing. And so that is what we are working through right now.
I am, again, super proud of that team. We have done tech maturity assessments on every single one of those capabilities. I just met, our whole team met with all of our international partners at the Joint Executive Steering Board in Canada last week. We went through where we’re at in that program. We have our war fighters brought in there all along the way, doing operational assessments on those capabilities. What are those priorities by mission area? And while we’re not done, that’s where we’re at, along the road. We will come back to Dr. LaPlante, hopefully next spring is the plan to really slap the table on what Block 4 and executable Block 4 looks like based on the priorities of our warfighters within the cost and capacity constraints of the program.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
You think it ought to be a major defense program in its own right, Block 4?
Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt:
Well, in a sense, it is. When we created, when we put the bounds of a major sub-program on the Block 4 program, it would be treated just like that. Similarly, we have been directed to do the same thing with the engine modernization program. And so probably a year or so from now, we will be going back to create the same cost schedule performance bounds on the program with the same technical rigor that I described that we are now going through on the Block 4 program.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Terrific. General Shoemaker, the F-35 has tremendous connectivity, something that we’re going to exploit with our allies. Tell us how this is reshaping how the Air Force fights alongside its allies and its partners. And, if you can, give us some real world examples of how that’s worked out so far.
Maj. Gen. David G. Shoemaker:
Yeah, that’s a really interesting discussion because initially, on the surface, we look at bringing in the F-35 with partner nations and FMS. It’s easy to just use the template of other aircraft programs that we’ve sold. F-16, NATO had the F-16, lot of our partners and allies in the Pacific had the F-16 therefore we’re interoperable. And we use that template. With the F-35 it goes far beyond that because of other capabilities that the aircraft has far beyond just flying, fighting, and winning in the air domain. The other exquisite capabilities that the aircraft brings also brings more opportunities than when we start talking about working with allies and partners.
While unlike my compatriot at the other end here, I have not flown the F-35. But having been a part of the program early on when we were bringing it into Luke Air Force Base, as I was flying Vipers, but intimately familiar with bringing the program in. And I’ve got one of our wing commanders was a squadron commander right alongside helping with that initial partner integration and that was hard work. That was really difficult.
When you think about the info sharing requirements, the intel sharing requirements, the policy that we had to overcome just to figure out how to be able to work 5th generation with our allies, first of all, much less than other partners outside of alliances. That was really difficult work, but man has it paid off. When we look at now where we are and the payoff with our allies in Europe, the payoff with our partners out in the Pacific and our allies. That’s paid off in spades. So when you look at how we’ve brought in the F-35 and 5th generation, it really has added a whole new layer to that, well beyond just interoperability, but all of those other things that 5th gen brings also brings those opportunities with our allies and partners.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Great.
Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt:
Can I pile on to that a little bit, John?
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Please do.
Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt:
So it is my job to deal with all the challenges in the program and go after what we need to do to change our future on the development, production, sustainment side. At the same time, we forget, I feel like we forget maybe publicly that 10 years from now there’ll be 700 F-35s in Europe, and only 60 of those will be US airplanes stationed in Europe. From a taxpayer and a warfighting perspective that is unbelievable. As Baja was talking about the information sharing, there’s a lot of our own policy intel, all that stuff, that we need to tear down those roadblocks. We’ve torn a lot of them down. There are many more in front of us. But the international partner, the National Defense Strategy, there’s nothing like this program that brings that together and that puts those blockers at the forefront, on the front desk of all the people that can make those decisions.
They have been really hard decisions in the past. We have signed up all of these partners to be a part of this program. We’re breaking those barriers down. And one more thing because I hope we’ll get to it here today, I think we’d be remiss. So I do get the opportunity to brief a lot of high-ranking people about the challenges and all those kinds of things. At the same time, there’s nothing better than having an F-35 pilot in the room talking about, “Oh, by the way, you know how great this airplane is?” We’ve flown 900,000 hours. We’ve got over 1000 of them. We have some of the greatest, most advanced exercises going on in the world, literally, every single day. So if we don’t ask Torch what it’s like to fly an F-35, I think we’d be missing out here a little bit.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
I was just about to do that. Put us in the cockpit General, put us in the cockpit and tell us what it’s like and how it’s different.
Maj. Gen. Regina Sabric:
I have had the privilege to fly three different fighters. So I’ve flown the Strike Eagle, the 16, and the F-35. And I often get asked, what’s my favorite? I will tell you, it is hands down, without a doubt, the F-35 to take to combat. The technology, the sensors, the fusion, it’s unlike anything we’ve ever flown on the fourth gen side. So you couple it to a Baja, with saying in General Schmidt, when we talk about the interoperability with the joint and coalition forces, it is absolutely the airplane to take to war, particularly when we’re talking about the high-end fight. The capability in that jet is absolutely phenomenal. If I, hands down, would take that jet to combat in a second. I think what we need to understand, the capability of this 5th gen F-35 platform is such on a higher level right now.
You put it into the fight and it’s the quarterback of the entire fight. It’s going to talk to everybody. You have the situational awareness, you’ve got the technology, you’ve got the fusion, you’ve got the weapons. It is absolutely where we want to be. I know General Schmidt has to deal with all the bad stuff to fix all that, but I will tell you from a pilot perspective, I’d just like to say, thanks, sir, to you and the J-PO community and Lockheed and everybody else that has made this airplane what it is. It is absolutely where we want to be for the future in the fight right now.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Great. General Schmidt, Congress wants to move sustainment of the F-35 to the Services from the J-PO. Talk about how you are preparing to do that, what the timeline is for that. And as that happens, how you’re going to preserve the commonality, to the degree you can, of the variants.
Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt:
Well, I see General Richardson in the front row, so I won’t ask him to answer this question at all. But no, it’s a great question. So the Congress has directed us to transition sustainment to the Services. We are working through exactly what that is. The joint transition teams were just stood up in July to really put the details behind what does it make sense to transition and what does it not. And some of that is more, not necessarily from the J-PO to the Services because we are the Services. I think I’m the only joint officer in the program office. But it is what is the right role for industry and what is the right role for government from a supply chain management. Basically, the leadership for sustainment. Not necessarily talking about where this sustainment gets done, but we should own our own demand, planning, and forecasting.
We have built an IT system that is very much an F-35 IT system with Alice Odin and certainly integrated with the contractor’s ERP systems. And that was the vision 20 some years ago, 25 years ago, really when this program started. But certainly there’s a lot of value in having us, the government, own a lot of elements of sustainment that are caught in between the contractors and the government. I’m proud of a lot of great conversations going on.
The team is the J-PO. It is the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and OSD. And there’s no way that what right looks like can really be laid out without industry’s complete involvement. And so I’m looking forward to seeing those go. I can’t tell you exactly which elements. We’ll fall more on the, hey, we need to actually have the Services run that or not. That’s what the team is working through. And what are all the things that we need to do to make that look right? We’re going to have this airplane for a long time. It doesn’t necessarily make sense that a program office and a contractor, when we have these enormous capabilities within our own depots and sustainment enterprises within the Services, we need to make sure we’re fully utilizing them for our future.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Thank you. General Shoemaker, tell us what a mission generation force element is and how it’s going to work for the F-35 differently than it has for the other airplanes.
Maj. Gen. David G. Shoemaker:
Mission generation force element, really you can think of, it’s somewhat comparable to what we call the UTC now. So it’s going to be the basic element that we’ll present to the joint force as the force provider. And F-35 isn’t necessarily going to be different, but all of our force elements are going to be changing here in the near future. And this is all part of the re-optimization that we heard the chief talk about yesterday, Chief Almony, when he talked about looking for that organization that provides the predictability not only to the warfighter, but to the joint force and how we present those forces for not only the recurring, steady battle rhythm of deployments, but also presenting forces for combat and great power with great power competition goes to that next step. So the mission generation force element is a piece of that. So finding what that right size is for the unit to not only be able to deploy as we think about in the traditional sense, which now would be in the fighter community, a 12-ship UTC with all of the things that are required to go along with that.
But now with the new requirements of that higher-end fight and thinking about what we would do really in the Pacific or in Europe, being able to take that force element at the right size and be able to split it up to disperse it so you have the proper overhead and support and sustainment to be able to follow along, which would be, probably understandably, a little heavier than just taking a 12-ship to a single fixed base. So those are all the things that we’re thinking about. The work is still ongoing. A lot of people in this room probably have had a piece in that discussion. You’ve probably heard numbers thrown around. No decision have been made yet, but that’s what we’re going toward is the base element of this re-optimization that we’re working now for great power competition.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Great. General Schmidt, F-35 is unique in having all these partners, all these services. What are the biggest headaches and benefits of hurting all these cats? And as we go into new programs like the CCA and the NGAD, is there anything about the way the F-35 was structured that you’d say, “Yeah, let’s do that again.” Or would you pretty much say, “We did it once, that’s enough.”
Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt:
Oh, I’m a huge fan of the way this program is structured. There are definitely works that I would have some recommendations going, but there’s nothing better that I’ve ever seen, and actually nothing more I enjoy about this job, than the international partnership. And as I described what I think is the ultimate warfighting and international integration. I don’t mean international integration just from a military standpoint. Within our global sustainment strategy and moving all our parts around the world and in terms of breaking down policies and procedures within our government and other governments relative to the movement of parts around the world. This is game-changing. This program, because of what these countries have signed up to, requires them to work with their state departments, the departments of finance. For us to do the same thing to ensure the seamless flow of parts around the world to what we have created is probably at least the elements of the most robust agile sustainment network around the world.
We created the bones for all that. Now we just need to make it all it can be. Certainly some of the warts that I would like to change and I am trying to change is just, it is quite a huge effort for my team to work the financial side of all of this. Collecting money on every action from all of the various partners and countries. 19 countries now signed up to this program and growing. But those are things that I think we can work through.
Our governance process is pretty elaborate. There’s probably a few things that we could streamline in there. At the same time, it does culminate this program in two joint executive steering boards, amongst the original partners of the program, twice a year. And it is amazing to see that is where real decisions are made and real pressure, I think, is put even back into all the partners saying, “How can we be better? And what do you need to do within your own countries to make this program all it can be.” So if I had to weigh the pros and cons, the pros way outweigh the cons. And on the cons side, I think we can do something about how we change those things for the future in terms of how we set up agreements in the F-35 program or any future international program.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
All right, we’ve got just a minute and a half left. If everybody would just take a few seconds and talk, starting with General Shoemaker, play blind man with the elephant, as you touch the F-35, what’s important about it and what are you looking forward to?
Maj. Gen. David G. Shoemaker:
Well, I think there’s a lot to look forward to with the program as we’re unwinding and getting more capable jets into the field. But I’d really like to just finish up with a thank you to Torch for the partnership to serve to you for what the J-PO does. But there are a lot of people in this room. This has been a hard problem. And there are a lot of people in this room that are really the reasons that we are where we are right now. There are dozens of you that have been on the ground, working this. So, thanks to all of you two for getting us where we are and for where we’re going to be in the near future.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
General Sabric.
Maj. Gen. Regina Sabric:
Also thanks to General Schmidt and to Baja, enjoy being on the panel. Again, I’d like to say I think this is a great opportunity, the F-35, not only for the Air Force, for the active duty and the reserve, we will use each other’s strengths to make this the best program we’ve ever seen, without a doubt, with continuity, credibility, experience across the board as we grow the F-35 program. But it’s the absolute platform we need to take into the GPC fight. So I think, as we grow into this together, there’s going to be lessons learned as we get through it and we’re continually revising tactics and new weapons, new technology, all that kind of stuff. It’s an exciting place to be and I think it’s a great place for the Air Force to be right now.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Great. General Schmidt?
Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt:
Okay. Thank you. To quote Brigadier General Select Lyons in the front row, this is the Super Bowl of acquisition. And I am super proud to be on the team and a part of this program. The international aspect is absolutely incredible. We do need to change and we are changing in terms of our capacity and ability to deliver state-of-the-art new developed capabilities on a timeline that is relevant to our warfighting capabilities. And again, I’m just happy to be here sitting here with Baja and Torch. And John, thank you very much for letting us be here.
Panel Moderator: John Tirpak:
Thank you all. That’s our time. Thank you all, too.
This transcript was auto-generated, and may not be 100 percent accurate. The source audio and video can be accessed above.