FY2020 DoD Budget

The data based on AFTOC/VAMOSC requests, which can be made by public, should generally be accurate (even the GAO relies on that data). Agree that there are formula differences in calculating operating costs.

You know what's ironic?

Japan, Israel, Australia etc are all seeking MORE F-35's than they originally bought. Not the US though, we want to build old/new F-15X's. The country that created it wants to buy... older jets. What does that say to potential export customers!?

Forbes piece was about as well reasoned as I've seen. I hope Congress sees the light..

You know what's ironic?

Japan, Israel, Australia etc are all seeking MORE F-35's than they originally bought. Not the US though, we want to build old/new F-15X's. The country that created it wants to buy... older jets. What does that say to potential export customers!?

Forbes piece was about as well reasoned as I've seen. I hope Congress sees the light..

It's not the USAF that wants to buy 4th generation aircraft. How many different times does that need to be pointed out?

You know what's ironic?

Japan, Israel, Australia etc are all seeking MORE F-35's than they originally bought. Not the US though, we want to build old/new F-15X's. The country that created it wants to buy... older jets. What does that say to potential export customers!?

Forbes piece was about as well reasoned as I've seen. I hope Congress sees the light..

There is one thing they don't have: a former Boeing executive at the top of their defense department.

Delays to procurement rate of 60 As has been reflected in the explanatory statements in past defense appropriation bills. Nothing to do with F-15EX. The addition to FY 2019 per the joint explanatory statement is 8 A, 4 C (USN), 2 C (USMC) and 2 B.

Joint explanatory statements are non-binding and therefore irrelevant.

You know what's ironic?

Japan, Israel, Australia etc are all seeking MORE F-35's than they originally bought. Not the US though, we want to build old/new F-15X's. The country that created it wants to buy... older jets. What does that say to potential export customers!?

Forbes piece was about as well reasoned as I've seen. I hope Congress sees the light..

It's not the USAF that wants to buy 4th generation aircraft. How many different times does that need to be pointed out?

This is far from a done deal and odds are still in favor of it being overturned.

As most in Congress don't like Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, he is still under investigation by the IG, and the Democrats are in control of the HOUSE Armed Services Committee. Which, would like nothing more to oppose Trumps "man".....

This COST article originally posted here on 27 Feb 2019: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55018&p=412516&hilit=Kerr#p412516

Avalon 2019: Lockheed Martin aims for reduction in cost of F-35 flying hours, lower sustainment costs
26 Feb 2019 Julian Kerr

"Lockheed Martin hopes to reduce the cost per flying hour of the F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter from USD35,000 to USD25,000 by 2025, according to Greg Ulmer, vice-president and general manager of the company’s F-35 programme.

Speaking at the Avalon Airshow near Melbourne on 26 February, Ulmer said a further Lockheed Martin objective was reducing F-35A annual costs “per tail” to about USD4.1 million by the late 2030s.

Over the past three years the sustainment costs of an F-35A have been reduced by about 15%, and significant further savings are anticipated. “Think about big data analytics. All the components have electronic files associated with them; we understand their reliability."

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/86857/ava ... ment-costs

THEN a somewhat confusing 'quotes' article from deREUTERS:

Lockheed expects F-35 flying costs will take time to come down: executive
27 Mar 2019 Jamie Freed

"AVALON, Australia (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp expects it will take around 15 to 20 years to bring the cost per flight hour of the F-35 below fourth-generation fighter jets such as the F-16, the head of the F-35 program said on Wednesday....

...Lockheed Martin Vice President and General Manager F-35 Program Greg Ulmer said there was an effort to lower the cost per flight hour to $25,000 by 2025 but further savings would take longer. “Today it is different customer by customer but I think $35,000 per flying hour is a good number,” he told Reuters in an interview at the Australian International Airshow.

“If we project that out based on the initiatives we have in place, we believe as we move out to the 2035-2040 timeframe we can get that cost down to under what a fourth gen is today,” in the range of $20,000-25,000 per flight hour. Initiatives involved in lowering the cost to $25,000 an hour include reducing the number of mechanics needed to support each plane, Ulmer said.... [USAF have a special F-35 expeditionary maintenance team called BOLT] viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55072&p=412936&hilit=BOLT#p412936

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aust ... SKCN1QG0D5

Delays to procurement rate of 60 As has been reflected in the explanatory statements in past defense appropriation bills. Nothing to do with F-15EX. The addition to FY 2019 per the joint explanatory statement is 8 A, 4 C (USN), 2 C (USMC) and 2 B.

Joint explanatory statements are non-binding and therefore irrelevant.

Explanatory statements attached to acts are part of interpretations law. Its a fundamental aspect of law that evolved from the British (and that includes the US). In layman's terms, that means it reflects the intent of the act.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On a separate note, I was wondering if the USAF secretary's resignation had anything to do with the F-15EX. Her latest statement of support has cleared that up.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... acity-gaps

Delays to procurement rate of 60 As has been reflected in the explanatory statements in past defense appropriation bills. Nothing to do with F-15EX. The addition to FY 2019 per the joint explanatory statement is 8 A, 4 C (USN), 2 C (USMC) and 2 B.

Joint explanatory statements are non-binding and therefore irrelevant.

Explanatory statements attached to acts are part of interpretations law. Its a fundamental aspect of law that evolved from the British (and that includes the US). In layman's terms, that means it reflects the intent of the act.

No they aren't. They are non-binding and of zero importance for appropriations since
they are typically just two managers' spin on why there had to be reconciliation.

On a separate note, I was wondering if the USAF secretary's resignation had anything to do with the F-15EX. Her latest statement of support has cleared that ups

A completely unfounded assertion.

I'm not saying that an "explanatory statement" guides decisions. I have merely highlighted it reflects intent. Interpretation law is exactly what it is.

See pg 46/47, if anyone is really interested.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

On Heather Wilson, there is no assertion, just a thought that has been cleared up.

I'm not saying that an "explanatory statement" guides decisions. I have merely highlighted it reflects intent. Interpretation law is exactly what it is.

This is completely untrue. It reflects the managers' view of why there had to be reconciliation. Nothing more.
It's not voted on and there's no amending process unlike the language in the bill which is binding and overrides
anything in the statement.

On Heather Wilson, there is no assertion, just a thought that has been cleared up.

Here statement of support consists of "We" as in "we were told what to do" because the explanation
she gives about national defense strategy driving this decision makes no sense since the NDS
was promulgated before the FY19 budget and the Air Force already had its interpretation in place.

That's why you see the F-15C/D Wing SLEP in FY19. It's zero'ed out in FY20.

This is completely untrue. It reflects the managers' view of why there had to be reconciliation. Nothing more.
It's not voted on and there's no amending process unlike the language in the bill which is binding and overrides
anything in the statement.

What you have stated is incorrect. The explanatory statement is part of the legislation that is voted upon (and in the defense appropriation's bill's case, passed). "Attached" means attached no matter how one tries to spin it. This is part of legislation hence governed and defined by house rules and senate rules.

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/f47fcf1f ... b4557b.pdf

In legal terms, what you are trying to claim is the equivalent of saying the sun is actually the moon.

Here statement of support consists of "We" as in "we were told what to do" because the explanation
she gives about national defense strategy driving this decision makes no sense since the NDS
was promulgated before the FY19 budget and the Air Force already had its interpretation in place.

That's why you see the F-15C/D Wing SLEP in FY19. It's zero'ed out in FY20.

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.

What you have stated is incorrect

It's 100% correct; joint explanatory statements are not voted on. They are not amendable.
Different government agencies give them different weight since they only exist if
the houses disagree: by your bizarre logic agencies wouldn't know how to interpret
the bill if the houses agree!

And of course this is for appropriations where the bottom line is the bottom line. Unlike
say farm regulations....

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.

https://soundcloud.com/heritageevents/a-budget-conversation-with-the-secretary-of-the-air-force

It's 100% correct; joint explanatory statements are not voted on. They are not amendable.
Different government agencies give them different weight since they only exist if
the houses disagree: by your bizarre logic agencies wouldn't know how to interpret
the bill if the houses agree!

Nope what you have stated is absolute rubbish. Legal 101. An Act stipulates action. It doesn't reflect intent. Reflecting intent is the purpose of an explanatory statement.

Will address the 2nd point separately.

It's 100% correct; joint explanatory statements are not voted on. They are not amendable.
Different government agencies give them different weight since they only exist if
the houses disagree: by your bizarre logic agencies wouldn't know how to interpret
the bill if the houses agree!

Nope what you have stated is absolute rubbish. Legal 101. An Act stipulates action. It doesn't reflect intent. Reflecting intent is the purpose of an explanatory statement.

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.

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.