Forum: F-35 Lightning II

http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_stor ... 9759.shtml

"Reuters is reporting that sources close to the program believe production of 120 more planes will be postponed to save 15-billion dollars over the next few years, and allow more time for development."

F-16.net Sponsor

Same story from REUTERS on page 2 this thread - scroll down:

Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

U.S. to delay Lockheed F-35 planes again: sources

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 4020120105

maus92 wrote:

...120 more planes will be postponed to save 15-billion dollars over the next few years, and allow more time for ..."

LRIP 5 (30 a/c) is "in the bag" for LM but the 118 plane order for 2012 LRIP 6 is looking shaky Smile

That planned order was for 82 US A/B/Cs and 39 A/Bs for UK, Aus,, Italy, Neth, and Turkey. I'm aware that the UK and the Netherlands have "antied-up to play" for their "onees, twoses" but by this time Aus. was to have 12 As, Italy was to have 4 Bs and 2 As and Turkey was to have 10 As. Have these foreign orders been confirmed for 2012 and LRIP 6? Question

The 2013 LRIP 7 added a total US order of 88 a/c; 42 foreign. If these are culled back to the "thirties" that vAdm. Venlet hinted at, that would get us into the ballpark for the 120? number being speculated.

spazsinbad wrote:

Same story from REUTERS on page 2 this thread - scroll down:

Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

U.S. to delay Lockheed F-35 planes again: sources

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 4020120105

I saw that after the post, but the subject deserves its own topic thread.

Are you a moderator? Threads are called 'threads' for a reason IMHO.

spazsinbad wrote:

Are you a moderator? Threads are called 'threads' for a reason IMHO.

No, but it's logical.

Logical?

spazsinbad wrote:

Logical?

Yep. F-35 reprogramming is for technical reasons, not for strategic / budgetary reasons - although money *might* be saved. Being the third restructure in as many years in news in itself.

maus92 wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

Logical?

Yep. F-35 reprogramming is for technical reasons, not for strategic / budgetary reasons - although money *might* be saved. Being the third restructure in as many years in news in itself.

I don't think you can separate it at all. Certainly there is a strong push for budgetary savings right now and this is a convenient target. Really if it was a technical reason then the last LRIP lot would not necessarily be cut too, but 120 suggests it will be too. Pushing Full rate production back a year or so decreases the near term stress on the budget and that's something DoD needs right now.

Cutting concurrency aircraft isn't necessarily a "restructure." To me that means a major change in the development and production schedule and scale; two of those three seems to be remaining the same. These cuts have been occurring over the past four years. We'll have to see, but if they keep the current development schedule, then its not really a major change to the program.

Shirley as nite follows dai this thread "Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget" had point.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16669.html

I'll wait for people to read threads eh.

maus92 wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

Logical?

Yep. F-35 reprogramming is for technical reasons, not for strategic / budgetary reasons - although money *might* be saved. Being the third restructure in as many years in news in itself.

By what leap of logic did you come to the conclusion that a 200 aircraft reduction 'might' save money? Bar napkin math makes that a ~20B savings within the FYDP.

quicksilver wrote:

maus92 wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

Logical?

Yep. F-35 reprogramming is for technical reasons, not for strategic / budgetary reasons - although money *might* be saved. Being the third restructure in as many years in news in itself.

By what leap of logic did you come to the conclusion that a 200 aircraft reduction 'might' save money? Bar napkin math makes that a ~20B savings within the FYDP.

What 200 aircraft reduction? The total buy has not been changed as of today.

maus92 wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

maus92 wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

Logical?

Yep. F-35 reprogramming is for technical reasons, not for strategic / budgetary reasons - although money *might* be saved. Being the third restructure in as many years in news in itself.

By what leap of logic did you come to the conclusion that a 200 aircraft reduction 'might' save money? Bar napkin math makes that a ~20B savings within the FYDP.

What 200 aircraft reduction? The total buy has not been changed as of today.

As Quicksilver noted in his final words, its the savings "within the FYDP." Panetta really only concerned with the next ten years as he needs to meet the sequestration cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act until 2021, and that requires year by year cuts between 2013 to 2021. $20 billion in savings is not much, but its something.

hb_pencil wrote:

maus92 wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

maus92 wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

Logical?

Yep. F-35 reprogramming is for technical reasons, not for strategic / budgetary reasons - although money *might* be saved. Being the third restructure in as many years in news in itself.

By what leap of logic did you come to the conclusion that a 200 aircraft reduction 'might' save money? Bar napkin math makes that a ~20B savings within the FYDP.

What 200 aircraft reduction? The total buy has not been changed as of today.

As Quicksilver noted in his final words, its the savings "within the FYDP." Panetta really only concerned with the next ten years as he needs to meet the sequestration cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act until 2021, and that requires year by year cuts between 2013 to 2021. $20 billion in savings is not much, but its something.

OK, they are delaying the expenditure of funds by not purchasing aircraft that will need significant modification in the future. But the fundamental reason for the reduction in funding is technical, and not to reduce the rate of growth of the defense budget. That effect is coincidental. No plan has been expressed to reduce the eventual buy of aircraft, although if costs cannot be contained, that is a possibility.

maus92 wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

maus92 wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

maus92 wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

Logical?

Yep. F-35 reprogramming is for technical reasons, not for strategic / budgetary reasons - although money *might* be saved. Being the third restructure in as many years in news in itself.

By what leap of logic did you come to the conclusion that a 200 aircraft reduction 'might' save money? Bar napkin math makes that a ~20B savings within the FYDP.

What 200 aircraft reduction? The total buy has not been changed as of today.

As Quicksilver noted in his final words, its the savings "within the FYDP." Panetta really only concerned with the next ten years as he needs to meet the sequestration cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act until 2021, and that requires year by year cuts between 2013 to 2021. $20 billion in savings is not much, but its something.

OK, they are delaying the expenditure of funds by not purchasing aircraft that will need significant modification in the future. But the fundamental reason for the reduction in funding is technical, and not to reduce the rate of growth of the defense budget. That effect is coincidental. No plan has been expressed to reduce the eventual buy of aircraft, although if costs cannot be contained, that is a possibility.

I think you're ascribing alot of motives when its impossible to do so. Its not coincidental either. In my years of work, I've very rarely seen a policy decision be made due to only one factor like you're suggesting. This one is no different, particularly when Defense has been mandated to cut 600 billion over the next decade. Cutting concurrency planes will slow the rate at which the military can field the fighter... which is a critical consideration too. It will however decrease costs in the years where DoD is hardest hit by the sequestration cuts.

IF this was purely technical, then they would not have cut back over 120 aircraft. 60~90 or so probably would have been enough, depending on future progress and QLRs. Its going to delay the introduction into operational service by one, if not two years.

I wrote an extensive post going into this here. I know I wrote it before the cuts were announced, but it explains their importance to the budgetary mandate.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Third F-35 restructure on the way