FY2021 DoD Budget

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

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1389
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Jun 2020, 21:24

XanderCrews wrote:f
The idea is that competition drives down costs, but thats not exactly the case very often:

Imagine if we kept F136 going but it takes 10 billion to develop. But thats ok because we think over the life of the program we can save 5 billion dollars thanks to competition with F135

So we net lost 5 billion to "save" 5 billion.


100% agree. I tend to view competition as a means of providing the government choices with respect to ideas.

Too often there are institutional biases and inertia that prevent groups from advancing
new concepts; McAir thought the "whole stealth thing" was a phase that the Air Force was going through
and would grow out of.

Talented people with new ideas need to be able to jump ship to better environments so preserving
those competing companies as landing pads is worth it provided you actual see those companies
producing new designs/ideas that are of interest.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Jun 2020, 04:53

mixelflick wrote:More F-35's - yay

With the sole source engine thing gone, the F-15EX is (all of a sudden) looking iffy. It's a great time to buy LM shares, regardless of Democrat/Republican control. They're the world's biggest defense contractor, with a big (and growing) competitive edge in stealth, a production pipeline that's just hitting its stride, a good shot at winning PCA outright and more than a big toe in the hypersonic waters.

They're the Johnson and Johnson of defense contrators...



Honestly, I don't see the competitive bidding for an engine. As necessarily a good thing for the F-15EX. As any delay could spell doom for the program. Especially, as the US National Debt soars and Defense Budget Declines! (just saying)
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1389
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post18 Jun 2020, 05:10

Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, I don't see the competitive bidding for an engine. As necessarily a good thing for the F-15EX. As any delay could spell doom for the program. Especially, as the US National Debt soars and Defense Budget Declines! (just saying)


It's just one of those things that XanderCrews alluded to above.

Legally, the Air Force has to prove that the cost of competition would exceed the projected savings from
competition in order to justify a sole source selection. The Air Force can't prove that.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Jun 2020, 05:39

marauder2048 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, I don't see the competitive bidding for an engine. As necessarily a good thing for the F-15EX. As any delay could spell doom for the program. Especially, as the US National Debt soars and Defense Budget Declines! (just saying)


It's just one of those things that XanderCrews alluded to above.

Legally, the Air Force has to prove that the cost of competition would exceed the projected savings from
competition in order to justify a sole source selection. The Air Force can't prove that.


Personally, I support competition across the board. Just in this case (F-15EX) it could be detrimental...


Of course not breaking my heart. As everyone knows I am not a fan of the F-15EX in the first place! I would rather see the US Government provide additional funding for the T-7A Redhawk and/or MQ-25A Stringray. If, they feel the need to throw Boeing a "bone"....
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6443
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post19 Jun 2020, 18:36

marauder2048 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:f
The idea is that competition drives down costs, but thats not exactly the case very often:

Imagine if we kept F136 going but it takes 10 billion to develop. But thats ok because we think over the life of the program we can save 5 billion dollars thanks to competition with F135

So we net lost 5 billion to "save" 5 billion.


100% agree. I tend to view competition as a means of providing the government choices with respect to ideas.

Too often there are institutional biases and inertia that prevent groups from advancing
new concepts; McAir thought the "whole stealth thing" was a phase that the Air Force was going through
and would grow out of.

Talented people with new ideas need to be able to jump ship to better environments so preserving
those competing companies as landing pads is worth it provided you actual see those companies
producing new designs/ideas that are of interest.


I agree with that 100 percent, I just think the concept of selling it to the taxpayer as come kind of savings is an absolutely pants on fire hanging from a pinnochio nose level lie. LOL its not "saving" to have twice as many at twice the price.


if its to maintain brain power, redundancy, future proofing, etc. I'm fine with that, but its not for savings and a lot of the people fretting about their being no competition don't worry when its one tank plant in ohio producing all the US's MBTS. or that Northrop Grumman builds a vast majority of the US Navy. In some cases the simple fact is there is only 1 company that even has the capability or capacity to meet the governments need.

There was a Rafale fan years ago telling me the F-35 couldn't possibly replace 3 types of airplanes, and putting "all the eggs in one basket" was insane.-- nevermind that Rafale is putting all the eggs in one basket and replacing no less than SIX aircraft, and of course Dassault, like Saab, is a completely single company devoid of internal competition.

how "funny" that its not ok that the F-35 "put all the eggs into one basket" but its ok when Canada for example owns a single type of fighter, and europe has nearly no competition and constantly operates all the eggs from the same basket for generations.

Its like they want us to waste our money, while spending none of their own. The international "concern" for the A-10 was truly spellbinding for an airplane that was never exported. Europeans worry more about the USAF than their own Air arms.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24757
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Jun 2020, 04:46

SASC Trims Hypersonics & Robot Ships, Boosts Ships & F-35
24 Jun 2020 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...according to our analysis of 70 pages of detailed funding tables, more traditional weapons systems like manned ships and aircraft would get major increases. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program would get an additional $1.36 billion, scattered across multiple accounts: $977 million for more Air Force F-35As; $125 million for Marine Corps F-35Bs; $200 million for Navy F-35Cs; and $60 million for the extra spare parts these added aircraft will require. (Of course, only appropriators can actually approve new money.)..."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/sas ... hips-f-35/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24757
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Jun 2020, 22:04

HASC NDAA Cuts F-35, Sets Up Senate Clash
25 Jun 2020 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"UPDATED from HASC briefing WASHINGTON: The House and Senate Armed Services Committees are an impressive $2 billion apart on the F-35, with the HASC hoping to cut upgrades, depots and other support for the controversial Joint Strike Fighter while the SASC seeks to buy more jets.

UPDATE “The F-35 program is troubled enough as it is,” a House Armed Services Committee aide told reporters this afternoon. It’s premature to pile on more funding for more aircraft, they said, “until the vendor demonstrates they are able to produce F-35s on time.”...

...Fighting Over Fighters
This longstanding tradition of bipartisan and bicameral consensus on defense makes it all the more remarkable when the House and Senate committees disagree as sharply as they do on F-35. The Joint Strike Fighter has largely overcome its decades of schedule delays and cost overruns to become the mainstay of US airpower modernization. But considerable controversy still dogs the program.

So while SASC adds $1.36 billion to buy more Air Force F-35As, Marine F-35Bs, and Navy F-35Cs, plus spare parts, HASC keeps the total number of aircraft being bought the same and then docks at least a score of supporting line items by a total of $561 million. These cuts include:

◾ $150 million from the Air Force for “excess miscellaneous support costs”;
◾ $134.6 million (divided among the three variants) for anticipated savings from the upcoming Lot 15 contract;
◾ $92 million (over four line items) for various delays in the plane’s Block IV software upgrade;
◾ $38.6 million (over four line items) for various aspects of ALIS, the F-35’s notoriously buggy maintenance software;
◾ $33.5 million (divided among the three variants) for “excess” costs to stand up more maintenance depots.

Now, HASC isn’t cutting the same line items that the SASC is increasing. But it’s hard to increase the number of aircraft you’re buying, as SASC wants, at the same time you’re cutting the support infrastructure for those aircraft, as HASC wants.

If history is any guide, Senate Armed Services will likely win in the end. It has a powerful ally in the House: the House Appropriations Committee, whose senior Republican, Rep. Kay Granger, represents the Fort Worth district where the F-35 is built. Whatever the two Armed Services committees decide, the final funding figure is actually up to the appropriators....

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/has ... ate-clash/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2797
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post26 Jun 2020, 00:22

It's almost like we have insurgents in the HASC. Seriously, trying to trim $2 billion and add trillions elsewhere? These people need to go.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post26 Jun 2020, 03:13

Its only 1/3 of senators going into reelection. Its the entire house so more compete for defense dollars there. Political realities. Senators have a longer runway. Full house markups on Jul 1. Last chance to toot the horn going into the election. Also means more bipartisan support to get it done.
Offline

afjag

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017, 23:15

Unread post27 Jun 2020, 03:12

Do either the House or Senate markups contain any quantity of F-15EX being procured this FY or is it only long lead funding?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post27 Jun 2020, 04:44

The budget requests funding for 12 F-15EX in FY 2021. If the mark-ups do not remove or amend the funding, then the funding is approved. In FY 20, the markups inserted language to convert the program into an MDP before funding is released. It looks like that has been satisfied. Afaik there is no public data that suggests any changes to the budget request.

imho, the FY 21 budget already eliminated the F-18s. In last year budget, I argued getting rid of F-18s (rather than F-15s) was a better strategy considering that there were already significantly more newbuild navy super hornets (838 funded) i.e. lower average airframe life in the navy compared to the AF. It is also opportune to now buy more F-35Cs, which is happening.

What this means for the F-15EX program is no longer taking away USAF F-35 funds. What it has done is to transfer USN F-18s funds (for the remaining 3 years) to the USAF F-15EX program. That's 3 more years of cover. In exchange, the navy is getting slightly more F-35Cs. The Kuwait buy, the potential German order (and maybe India after that) should keep the Hornet buzzing awhile longer.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Jun 2020, 06:02

spazsinbad wrote:
HASC NDAA Cuts F-35, Sets Up Senate Clash
25 Jun 2020 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"UPDATED from HASC briefing WASHINGTON: The House and Senate Armed Services Committees are an impressive $2 billion apart on the F-35, with the HASC hoping to cut upgrades, depots and other support for the controversial Joint Strike Fighter while the SASC seeks to buy more jets.



This has far more to do with internal US Politics than anything else. Just like Cov-19 and the recent Riots. As the Democrats will do everything and anything. To sow the seeds of discontent before the US Presidential Elections in November.

Honestly, I think these games are going to backfire. Yet, only time will tell... :|
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Jun 2020, 06:59

madrat wrote:It's almost like we have insurgents in the HASC. Seriously, trying to trim $2 billion and add trillions elsewhere? These people need to go.



This is just a political play by the Democrats. In order to just stir the pot.......(disgusting actually) :?
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1389
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post29 Jun 2020, 20:16

weasel1962 wrote:
imho, the FY 21 budget already eliminated the F-18s. In last year budget, I argued getting rid of F-18s (rather than F-15s) was a better strategy considering that there were already significantly more newbuild navy super hornets (838 funded) i.e. lower average airframe life in the navy compared to the AF. It is also opportune to now buy more F-35Cs, which is happening.

What this means for the F-15EX program is no longer taking away USAF F-35 funds.


Except there was no uptick in outyear F-35C buys. In fact, there was a decrease relative to FY20.

My guess is that SLM/Block III upgrades are costing more than they initially predicted.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post30 Jun 2020, 00:53

marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
imho, the FY 21 budget already eliminated the F-18s. In last year budget, I argued getting rid of F-18s (rather than F-15s) was a better strategy considering that there were already significantly more newbuild navy super hornets (838 funded) i.e. lower average airframe life in the navy compared to the AF. It is also opportune to now buy more F-35Cs, which is happening.

What this means for the F-15EX program is no longer taking away USAF F-35 funds.


Except there was no uptick in outyear F-35C buys. In fact, there was a decrease relative to FY20.

My guess is that SLM/Block III upgrades are costing more than they initially predicted.


They increased the F-35C buy to 23 aircraft. Which, is enough to two squadrons...
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hythelday and 13 guests