{"id":40611,"date":"2018-02-08T23:44:30","date_gmt":"2018-02-08T23:44:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2018\/02\/08\/fate-of-jstars-recap-program-not-a-make-or-break-moment-for-lockheed\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T23:09:15","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T23:09:15","slug":"fate-of-jstars-recap-program-not-a-make-or-break-moment-for-lockheed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/digital-show-dailies\/singapore-airshow\/2018\/02\/08\/fate-of-jstars-recap-program-not-a-make-or-break-moment-for-lockheed\/","title":{"rendered":"Is JSTARS the right way forward? Even Lockheed says it\u2019s a question worth asking."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

SINGAPORE \u2014 Next week, the U.S. Air Force is expected to announce its decision<\/a> on whether to continue the JSTARS recap program, but a top Lockheed Martin executive contends that an alternative to JSTARS<\/a> might actually be the best approach, even as a win could mean a $6.9 billion contract for the next phase of the program. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf ultimately the Air Force decides to not go forward with that program, clearly we will respect that decision. And frankly, we understand,\u201d said Orlando Carvalho, vice president of Lockheed\u2019s aeronautics business area, during an exclusive interview with Defense News Tuesday at the Singapore Airshow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In September, the Air Force acknowledged that it was considering canceling JSTARS recap in favor of a distributed model that would tie together its current intelligence assets and perhaps introduce new nodes could help fill the ground surveillance role. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concern, according to Air Force leaders like its civilian head Heather Wilson, was that a buy of 17 mission-equipped aircraft would neither provide enough coverage to meet requirements nor be survivable enough to penetrate into non-contested environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Click here for more from Singapore Airshow 2018!<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carvalho acknowledged that those concerns may be valid, and that an alternative approach would bring some benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHaving insight into some of the operations that have been going on in the Middle East, things like that, we can appreciate the tradeoff that the Air Force is trying to make, especially as they think ahead into the future and look at a more distributed model for command and control, also taking into account permissible versus non-permissible airspace,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is a very legitimate, very reasonable discussion you can have, debate you can have about, is JSTARS the way you want to provide this kind of capability in the future?\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\t