FY2020 DoD Budget

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1727
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 04:28

marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:How you read it and what she said appears to be completely different.

The quote being: “We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,” Wilson said in regards to the Air Force asking to purchasing the aircraft.

Literally, "we" means she and the air force.


Uh..no. Please listen below. More to the point, if it had been the right thing to do it would have been in
the original submission since the NDS was promulgated before FY19 and led to something very different.


Firstly, thanks for the link which was informative. Whilst it would be more efficient to point out exactly where the contention lies instead of making everyone sit thru 50 mins, nevertheless I think its useful.

I didn't hear the secretary mention that the F-15EX buy was driven by NDS. Instead, from the 2nd min explanations, it is clear that the NDS couldn't take into account the "air force we need" considerations which was only completed in the fall of 2018. The number of times "Air force we need" was mentioned by the secretary is very revealing.

The key portions was 28-32 mins and the key word was "capacity" as the driver.

The other portions that may interest other themes was:
12min - the talk about how program management works would be relevant for Shanahan's independence issue
40min - operating cost calculation bet F-15EX & F-35 - weasel's note: very clearly a primary factor, in my opinion, is airframe life.
43min - AF no longer looks at platform vs platform.
The budget argument relating to Tyndall vs border wall was a bit awkward but I'm not going to push the issue. Was a sharp qn though.

In conclusion, for avoidance of doubt, there is zero ambiguity about the secretary's support on the F-15EX program.
Last edited by weasel1962 on 28 Mar 2019, 04:44, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1727
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 04:37

marauder2048 wrote:Complete nonsense: Defense Spending 101. The NDAA reflects the *intent* to appropriate which
subsequently happens in the actual defense appropriation bills. As a courtesy, DOD will typically
respond to congressional *requests* laid out in joint explanatory statements.


Incorrect. Courtesy is completely irrelevant in law.

marauder2048 wrote:Joint explanatory statements are weak on intent because they only reflect the majority view on the *conferees*
appointed which is a very tiny subset of the defense committees. You can have cases where only like three
representatives are appointed.

And unlike say, conference reports, they can't contain any minority or additional views which relative
to the actual committees might in fact be majority views.


For a bill to be passed does not require 100% approval. The minority vote and view is generally irrelevant because it does not normally reveal the intent of the passing which is by majority.

What is factual is that an explanatory statement is not compulsory. The claim of whether an explanatory statement weak or not is irrevelant because its purpose is to explain the intent. It doesn't mean that an act that has no explanatory note has no intent. However, if an explanatory statement is provided, then what it means is the courts cannot interpret the act differently and must interpret the act with the statement's intent. That legal 101 for interpretation law.

As a suggestion, you should talk to a lawyer before you continue spouting what is clearly BS and something that you have demonstrated no knowledge on.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 05:26

The minority vote and view is generally irrelevant because it does not normally reveal the intent of the passing which is by majority.


Which is why it appears in conference reports? Please display some basic familiarity with the US defense spending process.

Joint explanation statements explain reconciliations. Nothing more. Inferring intent is something that you are doing
and something that agencies do at their discretion.

The bill language overrides any explanatory statement because in the US system, that's the only thing
that gets voted on. And for appropriations, the intent is in the funding authorized which is why no NDAA
has ever had the appropriations portion tested in court battles.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23304
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 05:29

Wilson: F-15EX Buy Takes Advantage of Existing Infrastructure, Production Line
27 Mar 2019 Brian Everstine

"...Wilson [Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson], speaking Wednesday at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., offered a defense of the plan that weeks ago she said was not the Air Force’s wish. Analysis showed that within the next eight to 10 years, the Air Force’s aging F-15C fleet “is not going to make it,” so the Pentagon needed to find a way to keep the service’s capacity high “for the 2030s and beyond, for all the missions we have to cover.”

“That was the nature of the analysis and the decision, as we went through the budget development with the money we have available,” she said, adding the discussion focused on, “How do we keep our capacity and expand our capability?”...

...While the Air Force is still focused on the F-35, Lockheed’s inability to reduce sustainment costs was a key factor in the F-15 decision, Dunford [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford] said. “If you could buy all the F-35s, you might do that. This, again, was looking out, over time, at the resources that would be available. And there’s not much different in the procurement cost,” he said. “But, there’s about a 50 percent difference in the operations and sustainment cost between the F-15 and the F-35. And the F-15 also has a pretty significant shelf life available as well.”"

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... -Line.aspx
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 05:39

weasel1962 wrote:Firstly, thanks for the link which was informative. Whilst it would be more efficient to point out exactly where the contention lies instead of making everyone sit thru 50 mins, nevertheless I think its useful.

I didn't hear the secretary mention that the F-15EX buy was driven by NDS.



Because your listening comprehension is as bad as your reading comprehension.
She states it explicitly beginning at 29:12 and everything from then on is premised on the NDS.

I knew you would miss it and cherry pick what you wanted.

weasel1962 wrote:In conclusion, for avoidance of doubt, there is zero ambiguity about the secretary's support on the F-15EX program.


Please explain why the F-15EX was not in the FY19 and not in the initial FY20 submission?
The NDS was the same then as now. If she strongly supported it she wouldn't be resigning when
she is and would be hanging around until the defense committees finish their markups.

The Air Force *lost* their battle with OSD and she lost her battle with Shanahan. So she's going.
That's how it works in Washington.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 06:45

marauder2048 wrote:
Please explain why the F-15EX was not in the FY19 and not in the initial FY20 submission?
The NDS was the same then as now. If she strongly supported it she wouldn't be resigning when
she is and would be hanging around until the defense committees finish their markups.

The Air Force *lost* their battle with OSD and she lost her battle with Shanahan. So she's going.
That's how it works in Washington.


It would be clear to even a blind man. That Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson didn't support the acquisition of the F-15X/EX or any other 4th Generation Fighter.

Yet, she did work for Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. So, she had little choice but to concede to his wishes. Now if she left because of that. We don't really know at this stage. Yet, likely it had some part to play in her decision.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1727
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 06:51

Transcript 28:43 to 31:43.

Let’s talk a little bit about tactical aircraft. First of all, the airforce is all in on the F-35. It is a complete game changing aircraft and it is not just an aircraft, its an information fusion engine. It is kind of a quarterback of any fight.

We are going to have a mixture of 4th and 5th generation aircraft, well thru the 2030s and beyond potentially. When we looked at what is the National Defense strategy tasked us to do, it’s a variety of missions at the same time. And as you well know, if there is a crisis in the pacific, the first commander we are going to hear from is the commander of pacific command and he is going to…he has a complete operations plan of everything that he needs and we know what that plans entail but as soon as you hang up the phone there, the next person who’s going to call is General O’Shaunessy from northern command says look we’re seeing increase, we’re starting to flow forces to the pacific. I need to increase our homeland defence posture and this is what I need and tankers and fighters and so forth. And then you hang up that phone and this phone is going to ring. And its going to be General John Hyten at Stratcom. Who says we going to heightened level of readiness and there’s a crisis in the pacific. We need to increase our readiness posture in strategic command. And we need to put more bombers on alert and tankers on alert.

And so when you look at the fully burdened global campaigns plans. One of our constraints is capacity. We’re seeing a decline in the number of fighters available, the increase in the average age of those fighters and if we look at the whole system and the whole capacity over the next 10 to 20 years. One of the airframe that’s not going to make it is the F-15C. It probably doesn’t last thru the mid-2020s. And so when people look at what are the alternatives, one of them was to say alright if the F-15C is not going to make it, is there a way to keep our capacity fairly high and benefit from honestly the investments of some of our allies and the fact there is an F-15 line, aircraft line still open. So without any military construction, without any really much down time at all, local check out, no changes in maintainers, minimal change in ground equipment, and so forth, can you replace these F-15C that are not going to make it with F-15EXs so you keep your capacity fairly high thru the 2030s and beyond for all of the missions we have to cover. So that was the nature of the analysis and the decision as we went thru the budget development, with the money that we have available. How do we keep capacity and increase our capability.


Not going to bother to respond to the rest of the rubbish spouted.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 07:49

weasel1962 wrote:Not going to bother to respond to the rest of the rubbish spouted.


And as stated, it all stems from the NDS. That was established before the FY19 budget and
the Air Force plan supported it through the F-15 C/D Wing SLEP.

The same NDS informs the FY20 budget. The same Air Force secretary was in place for both.

But now there's no F-15 C/D Wing SLEP and a new buy of F-15EXs that the Air Force did not request.

We knew the cost analysis for the SLEP; in fact Boeing was defending it as affordable and saying we shouldn't throw
away the investment in the F-15Cs!

We know the new buy estimate. There's no way to justify the latter on cost in the face of the former particularly
with the timelines for inducting the new builds. And the industrial base would be supported with either option.

SLEPs and upgrades have been the Air Force approach up until Dec 2018 and in conformance with the
NDS. The facts have not changed.

And now the Air Force Secretary is resigning before Congress will have time to do the appropriations
that are so crucial to the radically new (as of Dec 2018) and important NDS interpretation.

Please provide us your explanation as to why these facts support your claim that the Air Force secretary
supports this decision.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 07:51

The simple fact is the F-15EX is never going to be as cheap or capable as the F-35A. Nor, is there a capacity issue. Which, would support the need for additional production from the Boeing Plant in St Louis, MO. In order to reach the "72" new fighters per year. That the USAF says it needs going forward.


In short there is no compelling case to acquire the F-15EX and countless experts can and have made that clear.


Those are simple and irreversible facts.....


It's not wanted not needed and you can make a compelling case for it. "PERIOD" :roll:
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1727
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 07:58

marauder2048 wrote:Please provide us your explanation as to why these facts support your claim that the Air Force secretary
supports this decision.


Not sure what I need to repeat. Because she said so. Transcript 31:17.

We think that it would be the right thing to do
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 08:17

Which you've now taken out of context because it was:

“We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,”

followed by

"What do we think we can do given the funding available"


The first is premised on the NDS or rather the new interpretation which she doesn't control. As shown
by the transcript.

The other is OSD which she doesn't control.

How is that support?

Hell..it's even unclear if you listen as she hesitates, pauses and gives a rather scripted reply as to
what *it* is.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1727
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 09:07

You're trying to spin it. Most of us read it the same way as below.

Title of the article I posted: JUST IN: Sec. Wilson: F-15EX Needed to Fill Capacity Gaps

Quote from that same article:
“We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,” Wilson said in regards to the Air Force asking to purchasing the aircraft.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 09:19

weasel1962 wrote:You're trying to spin it. Most of us read it the same way as below.

Title of the article I posted: JUST IN: Sec. Wilson: F-15EX Needed to Fill Capacity Gaps

Quote from that same article:
“We think it was the right thing to do to keep that capacity high,” Wilson said in regards to the Air Force asking to purchasing the aircraft.




Yet, after this.........


In an exclusive Sept. 5 interview, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said she believes the service needs to expend its precious financial resources on stealthy, fifth-generation platforms — specifically the F-35 — and thus buying even an advanced fourth generation fighter like the so-called F-15X is not in the cards.


"We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth generation aircraft,” she said. "In any of the fights that we have been asked to plan for, more fifth gen aircraft make a huge difference, and we think that getting to 50-50 means not buying new fourth gen aircraft, it means continuing to increase the fifth generation.”


It's also curious that you overlooked the fact. That Secretary Wilson only had a change of "heart" after her boss (OSD) pushed the F-15EX.
Last edited by Corsair1963 on 28 Mar 2019, 09:33, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 09:29

It's without question that the OSD lead by Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. Which, was a 31 year Veteran of Boeing and a Top Executive within the Company. Has pushed the F-15EX on the USAF. After senior Leadership including of the Secretary of the Air Force. Clearly, stated they didn't want or need the aircraft.



It is also true Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan is under investigation by the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General because of allegations he improperly advocated on behalf of his former employer. (i.e. Boeing)



Old saying that often rings true..........Where there's smoke, there's fire. :shock:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23304
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 16:21

USAF Plans To Fly New F-15 With Empty Back Seat
27 May 2019 Steve Trimble

"Boeing’s two-seat F-15EX aircraft will be flown with an empty back seat by squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs, the U.S. Air Force confirms to Aerospace DAILY. Although derived from an international version of the two-seat F-15E,...

...Boeing designed the F-15EX to operate in both the air superiority role of the single-seat F-15C and the fighter-bomber role of the F-15E. The latter includes a back-seat station for a weapon systems officer to manage the munitions and sensors for land attack while the pilot in the front seat concentrates on flying and air-to-air engagements.

The F-15EX comes with two functional cockpits, but the pilot can manage air-to-air and air-to-ground missions alone in the front seat, the Air Force says. F-15EX aircraft delivered to squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs will not be staffed with an expanded cadre of weapon system officers, which would leave the back seat of the two-seater empty. “Fighter squadrons that receive the F-15EX are projected to retain their current mission and crew composition,” an Air Force spokeswoman says in response to questions by Aerospace DAILY.

Although the role of former F-15C pilots flying F-15EXs would expand under the current plan, the Air Force does not expect an increase in training costs during or after the transition. “There should be no need to expand aircrew training requirements,” the spokeswoman says.

Boeing offered the Air Force a single-seat version of the F-15X for the F-15C replacement, which was designated as the F-15CX concept. The Air Force decided to buy only the two-seat F-15EX, which minimizes nonrecurring engineering costs...."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-p ... -back-seat
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: viper12 and 3 guests