The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - September 5, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-35 Program under threat : 1 $Trillion (?!)
Bluewings12    4/8/2008 7:09:49 AM
Reported in the news March the 14th :

""«Bond Claims F-35 Nunn-McCurdy: Sen. Christopher ?Kit? Bond (R-Mo.) thinks the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter program faces an imminent breach of Nunn-McCurdy cost-monitoring thresholds. Bond, in whose state rival Boeing builds F-15s, made the comments during the March 12 hearing of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee with the Air Force?s top leadership. Citing a just-released Government Accountability Office report indicating that the F-35 program now has a total estimated lifetime price tag approaching one trillion dollars and will experience more delays, he said he was told that ?there will most likely? be a breach?meaning program costs have risen sharply. ?But somehow,? he said, ?the Defense Acquisition Board is claiming scheduling delays, which delays the announcement of what I believe is inevitably a Nunn-McCurdy breach and possibly delays our taking action in this committee.? Bond also laid into the Air Force leaders for what he characterized as the service?s ?unrealistic? fighter modernization efforts. ?I remain extremely troubled and concerned about Air Force management ? and its unwillingness to consider alternative courses of action to meet current and future threats,? he told Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Gen. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff. The current strategy of building the F-35 as well as Lockheed Martin?s F-22 fails to address the impact on the fighter aircraft industrial base, he said. (Such as giving Boeing more fighter work with additional buys of F-15s.) Sole sourcing the F-35 to Lockheed Martin was a ?stupendously bad decision,? he claimed. And with cost overruns and the number of F-22s capped, there will never be enough F-22s to supply the Air National Guard, making it impossible to fill gaps when older fighters are retired, he said. The Air Force needs to come up with a ?Plan B,? such as pursuing a mix of F-22s, and modernized F-15s and F-16s, he said.»""

Nunn-McCurdy Amendment :
h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn-McCurdy_Amendment

Well , what is going to happen ?

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Herald12345    Nothing.    4/8/2008 7:17:01 AM
We need an air force.  We will buy said air force. Put your glad rag away.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/8/2008 7:25:42 AM
I am sure that you will get the Air Force you want , but at what price ??!
Are the Sen. Kit Bond 's concerns valid and what can be the outcome ?

""Put your glad rag away""
I don 't have any , I 'm just interesred by the F-35 .

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/8/2008 7:40:33 AM
I said :
""I am sure that you will get the Air Force you want""

I retract that statement . You will NOT get the Air Force you want , you will get the Air Force you can afford .
I 've got some more infos who tend to go this way .
Boeing has already jumped onboard and is proposing a F/A 18 E/F Block3 to replace the possible 200 F-35s missing for budget cost ...

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       4/8/2008 7:45:00 AM
Boeing has already jumped onboard and is proposing a F/A 18 E/F Block3 to replace the possible 200 F-35s missing for budget cost ...

Oh I do hope so that that puppy gets legs.
Will be watching this programme closely.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/8/2008 7:49:58 AM
Lol DropBear , I hear you loud and clear ;-)

The Blk3 will have an improve frontal RCS , more fuel and newer avionics (as far as I know) .

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Whatever we by Poseur 2.....   4/8/2008 7:52:12 AM
will be something about which you can only dream.

Don't believe the marketing hype and try to spread it as fact. I've heard that Block III crap now for three years. ot doesn't give us what we need and it is still paper and rumor.

But then why should anyone believe anything you say aeronautical?

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       4/8/2008 7:59:56 AM
Funny how the comments come form the guy whos' state relies heavily on Boeing isn't it? The F-35 will become a reality, the USAF is planning on replacing half a dozen types with it, a dozen other nations are signed up to it, it's too far advanced to cancel it without huge losses. The USAF would never allow itself to get in the position of buying 172 F-22s and no F-35s to preplace the ageing F-15/F-16 fleet.
 
The F-18 block 3, anyway you look at it, would be a major come down in terms of technology and effectiveness and wouldn't offer much more than a eurofighter Typhoon, whereas the two new US planes offer a hell of a lot more.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/8/2008 8:06:32 AM
There is no need to go on a BW hunt/bash . I don 't give a monkey about Mine is bigger than yours things .
Herald , everyone should at least check what I say when I speak aeronautical .
The F-35 's problems have nothing to do with me btw ...

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/8/2008 8:41:36 AM
When you know what the USAF say :

"" «The Air Force is beginning to be more vocal in articulating its need for a big shot in the arm to modernize its already ?geriatric? aircraft fleet. More and more senior service officials are coming out on the record and citing the need for an extra $20 billion on average annually for the next 20 years, saying that, without such infusions, the air dominance that the US has enjoyed for decades will erode if not disappear altogether.»""

Then :
"" «The Air Force has established that, to carry out the national military strategy and protect the homeland, its needs 86 fully modern combat wings, which it refers to collectively as the Required Force. Since existing and projected budget toplines will not get it to that level of fighters, bombers, tankers, rescue helicopters, manned and unmanned intelligence platforms, and satellites, the $20 billion increase is necessary, the senior officials are saying. We expect to hear this consistent message at this week?s AFA Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, during the Congressional hearings on the service?s Fiscal 2009 request, and throughout the course of the year as the Fiscal 2010 program objective memorandum takes shape and USAF, like the other services, prepares for a new Administration.»""

The deal is rather clear : or the USAF gets $20 billion more per year for its needs ~without any guaranties than that money will be enough~ or the USAF will have to cut drastically its operations , especially abroad .

Now , add to this the sharp increase in price of the F-35 and you probably begin to see the size of the problem .
So , my original question : what is going to happen ?

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Nothing.   4/8/2008 8:51:04 AM
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/8/2008 9:03:39 AM
Herald said :
"" Nothing""

Well , that 's it ?
Ok .

Denmark and Norway leaving the F-35 program ?
""?We must assess the costs at tached to all of the candidate aircraft. Our budget for the fighter re placement program has been set, and I do not think that it can be in­creased significantly. The cost over runs for the JSF appear to be high, and of course this worries us,? Soren Gade, Denmark?s defense minister, told the Folketinget (the national parliament) March 19""

Then :
""?The U.S. Congress? Government Accountability Office?s (GAO?s) cost review of the JSF program will draw attention in Denmark and Norway, said Mikkel Vedby Ras mussen, director of Dansk institut for Militaere Studier (Danish Institute for Military Studies).

»?The new price tag should open the eyes of politicians who have been undecided about whether to support any official decision by defense agencies to go with the JSF,? Rasmussen said. ?It would be wise to wait before making any decision on the project, because the armed forces still does not know what aircraft type it really needs or what the planes will cost to purchase. The JSF is certainly not the low-cost fighter that both Denmark and Norway, not to mention Lockheed Mar tin, said it would be.? New GAO estimates revised not only the JSF?s per-unit cost but also the probable delivery date, which could now be 12 to 27 months behind the previously declared schedule, said Espen Barth Eide, the secretary of state at Norway?s MoD.""

""?Prime Minister Anders Fogh Ras mussen?s Liberal Conservative government made no secret that it would like to consolidate its very close support of the U.S. by acquiring the JSF,? the MoD insider said. ?This might have been possible when unit costs for the JSF were under $50 million, but unit costs are now around $122 million and rising all the time. It could be political suicide for Rasmussen to agree to deal at this price.? Gade refused to say if the JSF?s spiraling costs have put the aircraft outside Denmark?s economic reach.»""

Fortunatly , Herald said that nothing will happen ...

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/8/2008 9:09:14 AM
Lockeed Martin 's answer to Denmark and Norway :

""?From where we sit, the JSF is still very much in the running for the Danish and the Norwegian fighter replacement contracts,? said a Lockheed Martin spokesman. ?The final unit price may be higher than originally quoted, but one must weigh that against other overheads, such as operational and maintenance costs, and these will be much lower for the JSF compared to the F-16s that Denmark and Norway in tend to replace. We have every reason to remain confident.?""

That response did not bring any smile on Danish and Norwegian faces , far from it ...

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       4/8/2008 10:11:32 AM
The F-18 block 3, anyway you look at it, would be a major come down in terms of technology and effectiveness and wouldn't offer much more than a eurofighter Typhoon, whereas the two new US planes offer a hell of a lot more.
 
Come down or an actual improvement? Depends on your point of view. I think the USN and RAAF would very much like to see Block3 go ahead.
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       4/8/2008 10:46:33 AM

The F-18 block 3, anyway you look at it, would be a major come down in terms of technology and effectiveness and wouldn't offer much more than a eurofighter Typhoon, whereas the two new US planes offer a hell of a lot more.
 

Come down or an actual improvement? Depends on your point of view. I think the USN and RAAF would very much like to see Block3 go ahead.




Yes, there is that perspective, However, having plugged so much money into the F-35, only to see the programme cancelled and replaced by a souped up F-18, in terms of whart you could have won - as the cliche goes - it's a come down. It would be interesting to see how various customers would adapt to that decision, while the USN may be happy to get a newer version of the same machine they've been running for 20 years, the USAF - who never have flown the F-18 might not be so thrilled, the USMC, RN and RAF would be livid, they need the VSTOL version of the Lightning and those services would fight hard to keep the program going (for all it's contribution is dwarfed the UK is still a tier one contributer).
 
I just think there is too much money invested now, and too much development to cancel the F-35. Boeing are sabre ratlling after getting no share of either of the USAFs big fighter programs and losing the tanker program toEADS. Boeing may yet find a buyer for the block 3 Hornet in some export countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, even the Australians might re-open a tender for them (and in all three cases you can bet that BAE will throw in the tranche 3 typhoon and Dassualt with the Rafale). However, of the principle buyers you can bet that the USAF, RAF and RN will all want the sparky no mater the fiscal cost.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/8/2008 12:30:51 PM
Prometheus :
""However, of the principle buyers you can bet that the USAF, RAF and RN will all want the sparky no mater the fiscal cost.""

Bloody Hell ,  what a stinky way to update an Air Force ! Some heads are gonna roll ...
So , the aircraft (?) is going to be 2 more years late (2015 ?) and with a price tag near $150 million (or more) for the 3 main buyers ? That 's the way to run a program baby ! lol !

From a known Pdf . , the 6 aircrafts ordered for the fiscal year 2008-2009 will cost $200 million each !
h*tp://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070212-004.pdf

The F-35 dabate reach new level in Australia :

""Retired RAAF air vice-marshal Peter Criss has put aside usual conventions to openly question the wisdom of Canberra spending about $16 billion for the F-35 Lightning, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. The Government committed an initial $300 million to become an early partner in the JSF program, with a final decision to be made by 2008. But Mr Criss says the RAAF should, in fact, consider buying the F-22 Raptor??
?Today, and especially by the expected delivery time for the JSF in 2012 (or perhaps later), there appears to be very little if any difference in price between the two contenders and yet there is no comparison in capability, with the F-22 demonstrating proven performance well beyond anything the JSF is likely to deliver when it eventually comes off paper and into production.?

?What concerns me is that if the Minister is now saying that the JSF may not be the aircraft for Australia, and I think he is right, and if the Minister is dismissing the F-22 out of hand without disclosing the basis for this decision, then the only other possible contender that could remotely fit the Australian requirement would be the Boeing Super Hornet, a slightly more advanced version of the aircraft currently in service with the RAAF, employing technology far inferior to any potential adversary in our region and incorporating technology far inferior to anything the JSF or F-22 has to offer.""

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy