FY2020 DoD Budget

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23089
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 21:17

More jargon and committees to digest for us non'mericans. Just the F-35 bits excerpted below.
House Armed Services Scrutinizes F-35 Costs, ABMS, Army Modernization
03 Jun 2019 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"CAPITOL HILL: A key congressional committee is demanding more information from the Pentagon on an array of weapons. The biggest ask: an independent cost estimate on the massive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program to compare against official figures from the Joint Program Office.

“It’s been a while since we’ve seen an independent cost estimate from the services” — the Air Force, Navy, and Marines all use F-35 variants — as well as the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation office (CAPE), a House Armed Services Committee staffer told reporters this afternoon. The committee’s draft of the annual National Defense Authorization Act also seeks details on how the Pentagon plans to control the long-term operations, maintenance, and sustainment costs of the stealth fighter, a timeline to both patch and rebuild the troubled ALIS maintenance system, and more information on the plane’s critical upgrade Block IV software upgrade. The HASC did reject suggestions to break out Block IV as a separate Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP), saying that wasn’t necessary to improve oversight.

That doesn’t mean the committee wants to cut the F-35 buy. Far from it: While today’s briefings and releases gave no monetary details — those will come out later in June — the draft bill does call for buying at least “an economic order quantity” of fighters to get efficiencies of scale. It also authorizes the program to “buy to budget,” meaning that if it negotiates for a lower price per plane than the budget figure was based on, the military can buy more F-35s rather than returning the savings to the Treasury...."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/06/hou ... rnization/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 23:35

marauder2048 wrote:By ring fencing procurement funds, labeling it a major subprogram and only permitting immediate
procurement for "prototype development" that path is effectively closed.


It also requires the program to jump through all the hoops just like say the C-130J. So they will be required to develop all the minimum requirements and then test them to show that they meet them. Pointless, kind of like a self-licking ice cream cone, but it keeps DOT&E in business,

I only mention the C-130J because the USAF developed the requirements from the actual C-130J after Congress had already bought them for DoD, and then were dinged by DOT&E because during testing the C-130J did not meet the requirements that the USAF had developed.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, I can see the F-15EX following the same route.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2151
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 00:08

usnvo wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:I only mention the C-130J because the USAF developed the requirements from the actual C-130J after Congress had already bought them for DoD, and then were dinged by DOT&E because during testing the C-130J did not meet the requirements that the USAF had developed.


So... they had incompetent requirements writers? Or they rounded requirements numbers the wrong way??? :doh:
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5571
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 02:05

Even if they do approve 2-8 F-15EX's in the next Defense Budget. They may never acquire anymore....As Trumps odds of winning in 2020 aren't looking to good. So, with the Democrats in control of the White House and the House of Representatives and maybe even the Senate. The F-15EX is pretty much dead....
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 04:24

steve2267 wrote:So... they had incompetent requirements writers? Or they rounded requirements numbers the wrong way??? :doh:


Probably a little of both. There was probably a little reading "or" as "and" or ignoring important caveats. Since Congress had already bought the planes, and as I recall several were already delivered, it was largely a paperwork drill so it was probably foisted off to some poor C-130 staff type who had never done that kind of work before. The funny thing is that it didn't matter. The USAF got dinged by DOT&E but they didn't change the planes, Congress kept buying the planes, and eventually the whole thing went away. A similar thing would be the APG-79 Operationally Suitability declaration. It doesn't matter, the Navy bought the APG-79 and regardless of it still not being considered "Operationally Suitable", they continue to buy it and use it. Besides keeping bureaucrats in business, continuing to play the paperwork game like it means something (as opposed to fixing the problems) serves no purpose.

But, I am sure the USAF would write performance requirements for the F-15EX even if it is an off the shelf purchase. DOT&E will report on it in all seriousness as if it means something, and without question there will be issues. All of which means exactly nothing and is a waste of both time and manpower.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5571
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 04:29

sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:As Trumps odds of winning in 2020 aren't looking to good.


What are you smoking?


Trump lost the "popular" vote during the last election. Then add the constants stories of corruption and controversy on a nearly daily basis. Oh, and the Republicans lost control of the US House of Representatives last year......

Nonetheless, not saying he couldn't be re-elected. Just pointing out his odds aren't so good. (easily supportable)
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2244
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 05:05

Trump lost the jerrymandered voting blocks, yes. But the democrats are focusing on generational voters to appeal to the lowest denominator. Not an effective way to win the presidential election.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8380
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 05:06

But now all of the Reps in Blue states will actually come out and swing the pop back in his favor...

The party in power almost always loses the house in off years, it's the norm.

Besides, it's not the pop that he needs to win.

Also, his chances get better the more the left fragments and bows at the feet of the fringe-left.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 06:13

Or it's just reduced to a trickle.

The Air Force light attack effort (OA-X, AT-X, LAS) will have six aircraft (two different types)
to show for it after three administrations one of which was in office for eight years.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5571
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 06:18

SpudmanWP wrote:But now all of the Reps in Blue states will actually come out and swing the pop back in his favor...

The party in power almost always loses the house in off years, it's the norm.

Besides, it's not the pop that he needs to win.

Also, his chances get better the more the left fragments and bows at the feet of the fringe-left.



To early to say many many factors. Including who the Democrats select to challenge Trump??? Yet, I still do like his odds....
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2244
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 12:06

Buttgigger will upset Biden. It's going to be Michael Dukakis 2.0 for the dems. Dumpy short sucker versus the reigning moderate champion. Biden support will unravel two weeks before the primary.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1636
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 02:40

Well all parties have now passed their versions of the NDAA with the F-15EX intact. The only question now is when the reconciliation of the versions will happen. F-15EX is now almost certain to be a reality.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... ith-house/
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1179
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 11:49

How much backbone support will F-15EX now have now that no-one has to impress Shanahan with it ? I can see an extensive SLEP making a comeback in the future and less overall F-15EX.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5340
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 12:30

marsavian wrote:How much backbone support will F-15EX now have now that no-one has to impress Shanahan with it ? I can see an extensive SLEP making a comeback in the future and less overall F-15EX.


With the former Boeing exec gone hopefully this turd will get flushed.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2614
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 15:05

“...with the F-15EX intact.”

In this context, what constitutes ‘intact’? (Serious question. I haven’t read any of the committee language).
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests