F-35 to be delayed again, more cost hikes.

[weasel1962]

Re:

They are not going to cut the military procurement budget like they did in the 90s, there is not a chance in hell of that happening. And the USMC is not going to face the burden of the cuts ether, or any one branch for that matter.

As for the F35 ending up like the F-22, thats exactly what Robert Gates is trying to avoid so that does not happen.

Unfortunately yes and no in respect to not cutting defense budget. CBO/Whitehouse was projecting the following:

CBO (Oct 2010 projection) / Whitehouse (2010 budget)
$659b (2009 actual) $637b
$694b (2010) $692b
$723b (2011) $721b
$719b (2012) $653b
$743b (2013) $634b
$752b (2014) $643b
$769b (2015) $657b

Its a $66b to $112b difference between the 2. Think about what kind of programs will have to be chopped to achieve the whitehouse projection.

I suppose the Fed can print $600b a year if push comes to shove....*snort*

 

[TaranisAttack]

The point about the govt themselves is simply a side comment I guess. My main point is regarding the companies like LM that have an amazing ability to under estimate things so consistently and yet not adjust their methods. I'm coming from the point of view of when I've worked on projects (yes, many many times smaller), do a legit estimate of the work required, and then throw a 200% buffer on top. If I kept going over that (time and/or money) then I'd adjust the buffer upwards, not just shrug my shoulders and go "oh my customers are used to it, no drama".

But if Lockheed gives a huge price and another doesn't it, then looks very bad for Lockheed. Whilst in detail it may be a better price, the politicians will have to justify choosing a contract with a price that is 200% more than the others, and the papers and news stories on it won't go into that detail. How many of your customers are completely uninformed and base all of their decisions on 30 second sound bytes like much of the electorate?

Lockheed F-35 fighter in US deficit panel's sights | Reuters

Now it looks like they want to cancel outright the Marine Corps F-35B and cut the planned purchase of the F-35A and F-35C in half and substitute them with new F-16s and more F/A-18 Super Hornets.

And they want to cancel the MV-22 Osprey.

By cutting 15% of the Pentagons weapons procurement budget.

I don't think any F16 will be ordered, but its fair to say the Bravo F35 is the most at risk version. Now the Brits have jumped ship on the Bravo, there's only the Italians and Spanish left to upset.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I don't think any F16 will be ordered, but its fair to say the Bravo F35 is the most at risk version. Now the Brits have jumped ship on the Bravo, there's only the Italians and Spanish left to upset.

I doubt the US Congress ever gave much of a hoot for the wishes of HM Govt. over F-35B. The USMC however carries some weight on Capitol Hill.

 

[Aussie Digger]

But if the F-35B gets canned, there's already 31 LRIP -B versions ordered, funded that won't be converted to other versions.

Very true. The Marines only need 187 or so F-35B aircraft to fill out the 7x operational Marine squadrons (plus supporting/training) units that currently have Harriers anyway.

Such a small number would force individual F-35B prices up, but would lower overall expenditure (which is the aim here, I think...)

Beyond that, they COULD make do with the F-35C variant as they do now with F/A-18A/B/C/D, or even the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet if necessary...

They wouldn't be very happy about it, but tough. 7x operational squadrons would give them the STOVL capability they say they need, plus the LO capability F-35B provides.

Super Hornets or F-35C's would round out their fighter numbers and (probably) lower overall procurement costs, especially if Super Hornet were thrust upon them, despite their protests...

No service wants to lower their capabilities, but something is going to have to give, if this defence budget is cut as suggested...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Very true. The Marines only need 187 or so F-35B aircraft to fill out the 7x operational Marine squadrons (plus supporting/training) units that currently have Harriers anyway.

Such a small number would force individual F-35B prices up, but would lower overall expenditure (which is the aim here, I think...)

Beyond that, they COULD make do with the F-35C variant as they do now with F/A-18A/B/C/D, or even the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet if necessary...

They wouldn't be very happy about it, but tough. 7x operational squadrons would give them the STOVL capability they say they need, plus the LO capability F-35B provides.

Super Hornets or F-35C's would round out their fighter numbers and (probably) lower overall procurement costs, especially if Super Hornet were thrust upon them, despite their protests...

No service wants to lower their capabilities, but something is going to have to give, if this defence budget is cut as suggested...

187 would be a lot lower than the 398 suggested by flight.
US Marine Corps finally divulges F-35B order count - The DEW Line

Consider that the Rafale only attracted ~180 unit orders... 187 isn't that few and ultimately, there is still commonality between the differing models.

I think the USAF will bear the brunt of F-35 cuts, if push comes to shove.

My concern or rather US citizens should be concerned that the DoD doesn't do a slapdash cut decision like the UK. There are already a number of plans that use the anticipated F-35 numbers as a working basis for decisions which can include tanker numbers, basing decisions etc. Whilst the impact from the UK decision is fairly minimal considering the lower numbers, a large cut from the US order would have a significant impact on production decisions all through the supply chain besides the operational changes. Its liable to end up with even more inefficiencies than solving a budget constraint.

I think there is a fair risk of ending up on with a F-22 plus procurement disaster.

 

[Aussie Digger]

187 would be a lot lower than the 398 suggested by flight.

Consider that the Rafale only attracted ~180 unit orders... 187 isn't that few and ultimately, there is still commonality between the differing models.

That's because the Corps still considers the F-35B to be the replacement aicraft for their F/A-18 Hornet fleet AND their Harrier fleet.

My suggestion as a possible compromise, if cost cutting makes this idea untenable is for the F-35B to replace the Harrier fleet only and for the F-35C or Super Hornet to replace the existing Corps' Hornet fleet.

The Super Hornet is currently far cheaper and those USMC Hornets are wearing out quickly. They are obviously carrier capable and far more capable than the legacy USMC Hornets, plus there would be plenty of US Senators happy to see Boeing receive increased orders for Supers. Compatability with USN is obvious and would have no problem slotting in to USMC Carrier tours.

The F-35C likewise is most probably going to work out significantly cheaper than the F-35B and it's development is likely to be far smoother, meaning the Corps could get an LO 5th Gen fighter capability sooner and cheaper.

Not saying it's going to happen and the USMC would howl in protest, but it's a possible option...

 

[swerve]

Consider that the Rafale only attracted ~180 unit orders... 187 isn't that few and ultimately, there is still commonality between the differing models..

Rafale is in production & competing for orders, & France still has a requirement (officially) for 290 or so. We don't know yet how many will be built, except that it will be at least 180.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Rafale is in production & competing for orders, & France still has a requirement (officially) for 290 or so. We don't know yet how many will be built, except that it will be at least 180.

Slight change and still applicable.

F-35B is in production & competing for orders, & USMC still has a requirement for 390 or so. We don't know yet how many will be built, except that it will be at least 32.

The point is that F-35B probably has better chance of export deals with Spain/Italy and other potential STOVL operators than rafale. More importantly, USMC will require more F-35Bs in numbers greater than French requirements.

 

[swerve]

I'm afraid you've made the mistake of projecting your own thoughts onto my words. I was correcting a minor error, not trying to start a discussion about the comparative sales prospects for F-35B & Rafale.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Gates slaps the deficit commision in the face.

Gates Criticizes Deficit Panel’s Proposed Cuts in U.S. Defense - Bloomberg

Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized proposed military cuts outlined by a deficit- reduction commission as “math, not strategy,” defending his plan to reinvest savings in high-priority areas.
“If you cut the defense budget by 10 percent, which would be catastrophic in terms of force structure, that’s $55 billion on a $1.4 trillion deficit,” Gates said. “We are not the problem.”
Deficit panel co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson called on Nov. 10 for $100 billion of defense cuts in 2015, with steps such as canceling a version of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F- 35 jet. The 2015 defense budget is now projected to be about $666 billion.
The target list also includes ending production of the Textron Inc.-Boeing Co. tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey and a General Dynamics Corp. Marine Corps combat vehicle.
“In terms of the specifics they came up with, that’s essentially math, not strategy,” Gates told a Wall Street Journal CEO Council meeting in Washington today.
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform would use its $100 billion in proposed defense cuts to lower the deficit. The panel needs agreement from 14 of its 18 members before a plan can be sent for an up-or-down vote in Congress.
Gates, anticipating a drive to reduce the growth in defense spending, is pressing the military services for cuts totaling $100 billion. The savings from overhead would be spent on more critical priorities.
“That means going in with a scalpel instead of a meat ax and figuring out how we change the way we do business,” Gates said today.
The defense chief, who met with Simpson and Bowles before they issued their recommendations, said he has had “incredible cooperation” from the military services. His goal is to save enough in other areas to maintain 3 percent growth after inflation in spending for the forces and weapons modernization.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I'm afraid you've made the mistake of projecting your own thoughts onto my words. I was correcting a minor error, not trying to start a discussion about the comparative sales prospects for F-35B & Rafale.

No, your error is assuming there was an error when there was none.

Your assumption of a 290 requirement for the rafale is not comparable to actual orders. I may be using your words but it highlights the fallacy of taking a requirement assumption when the F-35B has a theoretically larger requirement.

 

[swerve]

No, your error is assuming there was an error when there was none.

Your assumption of a 290 requirement for the rafale is not comparable to actual orders. I may be using your words but it highlights the fallacy of taking a requirement assumption when the F-35B has a theoretically larger requirement.

You're still comparing with the F-35B, which has no relevance to the original point.

I remember when Rafale had about 60 orders, & Typhoon 144. Would it have been correct to say that only 60 Rafales & 144 Typhoons would be bought?

It has always been planned that Rafale - like F-22, like F-35 - would be ordered in batches, & there is the possibility of exports. The number ordered to date can therefore not be assumed to be total number which will be built, which is what you did.

If you'd qualified it, or used a different tense, I'd have let it stand, but you didn't.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

You're still comparing with the F-35B, which has no relevance to the original point.

I remember when Rafale had about 60 orders, & Typhoon 144. Would it have been correct to say that only 60 Rafales & 144 Typhoons would be bought?

It has always been planned that Rafale - like F-22, like F-35 - would be ordered in batches, & there is the possibility of exports. The number ordered to date can therefore not be assumed to be total number which will be built, which is what you did.

If you'd qualified it, or used a different tense, I'd have let it stand, but you didn't.

That's just your misreading what I said. I didn't say the Rafale will end up with just 180 orders, I said that Rafale only has 180 orders which is factually correct and I find no need to qualify.

You're crystal balling with what Rafale orders will eventually end up. I have no interest in doing crystal balling the Rafale numbers.

Ultimately, the point I'm making is that F-35B, even without the UK order, will be built in more numbers than Rafale based on current plans. Of course if there is a change in plans eg a termination of the F-35B, then that changes but that qualification is merely stating the obvious which is a waste of bandwidth.

 

[swerve]

That's just your misreading what I said. I didn't say the Rafale will end up with just 180 orders, I said that Rafale only has 180 orders which is factually correct and I find no need to qualify..

Perhaps it's just a grammatical mistake on your part. You didn't write that Rafale has 180 orders (& if you had, I wouldn't have disagreed), you wrote that Rafale attracted 180 orders. Note the different tense. You were saying that it was over, that it was finished, that it is not continuing, that's all the Rafale orders there will ever be. That's why I said that I'd not have challenged it if you'd used a different tense.

I didn't misread it: you miswrote it.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Perhaps it's just a grammatical mistake on your part. You didn't write that Rafale has 180 orders (& if you had, I wouldn't have disagreed), you wrote that Rafale attracted 180 orders. Note the different tense. You were saying that it was over, that it was finished, that it is not continuing, that's all the Rafale orders there will ever be. That's why I said that I'd not have challenged it if you'd used a different tense.

I didn't misread it: you miswrote it.

That's actually very poor english on your part.

Today, the rafale has only attracted 180 orders. It doesn't mean that the rafale will not attract more orders tomorrow. Your assumption is that it doesn't but I'm not making that assumption but you are misreading it to be that way.

Its a grammatically correct statement and your lack of understanding or poor english can't change that.

 

[ASFC]

That's actually very poor english on your part.

Today, the rafale has only attracted 180 orders. It doesn't mean that the rafale will not attract more orders tomorrow. Your assumption is that it doesn't but I'm not making that assumption but you are misreading it to be that way.

Its a grammatically correct statement and your lack of understanding or poor english can't change that.

If you had said "Today, the rafale has only attracted 180 orders...", then I would agree with you.

However, you said:

Consider that the Rafale only attracted ~180 unit orders...

Which sounds wrong, even if you know what you meant, I am reading it that only 180 will be built..

And back to your point, 187 F-35 B would not be enough. Rafale is costing the French dearly, because they haven't got export orders to ramp up production and spread costs. Even with the US budget being quite large, it would be an obvious target. This Presidential commission might lack the authority to push through its findings, but defense needs to watch out. Cuts are being talked about across the board. As a large budget, it is bound to attract some cuts. Programs like F-35 will come under fire

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

If you had said "Today, the rafale has only attracted 180 orders...", then I would agree with you.

However, you said:



Which sounds wrong, even if you know what you meant, I am reading it that only 180 will be built..

And back to your point, 187 F-35 B would not be enough. Rafale is costing the French dearly, because they haven't got export orders to ramp up production and spread costs. Even with the US budget being quite large, it would be an obvious target. This Presidential commission might lack the authority to push through its findings, but defense needs to watch out. Cuts are being talked about across the board. As a large budget, it is bound to attract some cuts. Programs like F-35 will come under fire

Absolute bullocks again.

"Consider that the Rafale has only attracted 180 orders" is factually and gramatically correct.

Are you claiming that the rafale has not attracted 180 orders?

Or are you incapable of understanding english?

You can only assume that 180 will be built if you assume that orders remain at 180 but the above statement does not assume that.

I think you guys need to go for english classes. But I would suppose you will read this differently.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And "irrelevant" applies to your "enough" word as well.

Consider that the F-22 has only attracted 180+ orders...

We know how relevant the word "enough" is in respect of that program.

 

[gf0012-aust]

English lessons are over folks.

any further derailments will result in an immediate post deletion.

get back on topic.​

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And back to your point, 187 F-35 B would not be enough. Rafale is costing the French dearly, because they haven't got export orders to ramp up production and spread costs.

But the F-35B is not the entire Rafale program. Its only a variant of the wider F-35 family. Sure it has a lot of unique features but most of the really expensive stuff: mission systems, is common with the wider family. Besides the USMC's requirement is over 300 aircraft and they want their all F-35B fleet and the USN has a lot of sunk investment in LHD/LHAs for them to fly from.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

More idiots want to weaken America's defense's!

Domenici-Rivlin Panel: Freeze Spending; Kill F-35, V-22, EFV - Defense News

Another group wants to kill the F-35 entirely as well as the V-22, EFV and reduce the US Military to 1.2 million by cutting I think 275,000 troops.

IMHO another dumb idea that will just weaken and put more strain on the military.

What are they supposed to use for fighters? 30 year old F-15s because they want to cancel the F-35?

Stupid stupid stupid idea!!! Even after Gates has already said defense is not the problem.