| Author |
Message |
|
maus92
|
 Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 12:47 AM
|
 
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: May 21, 2010 - 06:50 PM
Posts: 1187
Location: Annapolis, MD
Status: Offline
|
"WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Monday confirmed plans to postpone production of 179 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, but it said the risk was "manageable."
The U.S. defense budget for fiscal 2013 funds 13 fewer airplanes than initially planned, saving $1.6 billion on the multinational, radar-evading fighter plane, the Pentagon's biggest weapons program.
This is the third restructuring in recent years of the F-35 program. The Pentagon expects to spend $382 billion over the next two decades to develop and buy 2,443 of the new warplanes."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... TO20120213 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 23, 2013 - 2:01 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
marksengineer
|
|
Posted: Feb 23, 2012 - 09:21 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Jul 18, 2011 - 10:01 PM
Posts: 192
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
|
| Since the program is being restructured and near-term deliveries to US and other countries decreased will we see a change in the bed-down of the aircraft? Certainly with less aircraft coming into service fewer aircraft will be needed at Eglin near term. Will this lead to maintaining the OT&E as before or will it shift to the right as well? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
neptune
|
|
Posted: Feb 23, 2012 - 11:56 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Oct 24, 2008 - 01:03 AM
Posts: 1143
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
|
|
marksengineer wrote:
Since the program is being restructured and near-term deliveries to US and other countries decreased will we see a change in the bed-down of the aircraft? Certainly with less aircraft coming into service fewer aircraft will be needed at Eglin near term. Will this lead to maintaining the OT&E as before or will it shift to the right as well?
It would be interesting to see the OT&E schedule maintained. All current sites have the facility too support an increase in both a/c and manpower. This could easily facilitate the existing OT&E schedule. Having all located at Edwards, PAX and Eglin could well bring a "shot in the arm" to this malingering program. Maybe even a light at the end of the tunnel, not being a train!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
popcorn
|
|
Posted: Feb 24, 2012 - 01:35 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 24, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Posts: 2037
Status: Offline
|
|
maus92 wrote:
"WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Monday confirmed plans to postpone production of 179 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, but it said the risk was "manageable."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... TO20120213
That's $84.3M per jet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maus92
|
|
Posted: Feb 24, 2012 - 01:58 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: May 21, 2010 - 06:50 PM
Posts: 1187
Location: Annapolis, MD
Status: Offline
|
|
popcorn wrote:
maus92 wrote:
"WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Monday confirmed plans to postpone production of 179 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, but it said the risk was "manageable."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... TO20120213
That's $84.3M per jet.
Apparently they can't read their own budgets. How and how much they save would be an interesting calculation to see - my guess it would be convoluted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
popcorn
|
|
Posted: Feb 24, 2012 - 04:25 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 24, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Posts: 2037
Status: Offline
|
| They are being pressured to come up with short/medium-term savings. If they wanted to pad the projected savings, why not conveniently use some of the higher figures being floated around? Insteas, we see them going with a lower, more conservative figure. Obviously the $84.3M average savings per jet is what the DoD thinks is realistic and can be defended if their figures are challenged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maus92
|
|
Posted: Feb 24, 2012 - 07:18 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: May 21, 2010 - 06:50 PM
Posts: 1187
Location: Annapolis, MD
Status: Offline
|
|
popcorn wrote:
They are being pressured to come up with short/medium-term savings. If they wanted to pad the projected savings, why not conveniently use some of the higher figures being floated around? Insteas, we see them going with a lower, more conservative figure. Obviously the $84.3M average savings per jet is what the DoD thinks is realistic and can be defended if their figures are challenged.
Or the $84.3M is the net savings on a per jet basis after factoring in other costs incurred to delay the purchase. It certainly isn't an official number, unlike what is contained in the President's Budget presented to Congress. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
popcorn
|
|
Posted: Feb 24, 2012 - 07:37 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 24, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Posts: 2037
Status: Offline
|
| Wouldn't the budgeted cost only pertain to the coming fiscal year based on costlier LRIP rates whereas the $83M figure be the average for the next 5 years worth of production and reflecting the savings realized from greater volumes and increased production efficiencies? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpudmanWP
|
|
Posted: Feb 24, 2012 - 06:34 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4273
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
| The $84 mil figure is two part. The savings of the canceled F-35 PLUS the increased cost of the remaining F-35s due to a lower build rate. |
_________________
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
