F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Israeli Adir touch down in Israel
In better news , the first Adir(s) have arrived in Israel today,
cheers
The Israeli Air Force : The ?Adir? Has Landed
(photos courtesy of IAF)
cheers
The Israeli Air Force : The ?Adir? Has Landed
(photos courtesy of IAF)
"The people that are making these deals for the government, they should never be allowed to go to work for these companies," Trump said on Fox. "You know, they make a deal like that and two or three years later, you see them working for these big companies that made the deal... they should have a lifetime restriction."
However you need to be careful - people in procurement and similar high level Pentagon work need to be treated differently than the people out in the field. It used to be pretty common for people to retire after 20+ years in the military and come to work as engineers and low level managers for companies such as Boeing and LockMart - for the most part the ones I knew were top notch and their real world experience as to how the stuff gets used was priceless.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The president does not have a line veto on bills presented for signature, and he won't veto a defence bill approved by the GOP majority in both Houses.
Great sound bites, but take them for what they are, political shots across the bow of the establishment, using a starting pistol......
Great sound bites, but take them for what they are, political shots across the bow of the establishment, using a starting pistol......
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely ORAC.
To me this is political grandstanding in advance. He's alpha-maling the establishment early. No nonsense - and it's a good strategy to pre-empt his tenure.
However, the last time to cut the F-35 probably passed a few years ago. To do so now would be insane. Then again.......
To me this is political grandstanding in advance. He's alpha-maling the establishment early. No nonsense - and it's a good strategy to pre-empt his tenure.
However, the last time to cut the F-35 probably passed a few years ago. To do so now would be insane. Then again.......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
However, the last time to cut the F-35 probably passed a few years ago. To do so now would be insane. Then again.......
Congressional Budget Office recommended option.....
Cancel Plans to Purchase Additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and Instead Purchase F-16s and F/A-18s
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is the military’s largest aircraft development program. The F-35 is a stealthy aircraft—one that is difficult for adversaries to detect by radar and other air defense sensors. The objective of the program is to produce three versions of that aircraft: the conventional takeoff F-35A for the Air Force, the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B for the Marine Corps, and the carrier-based F-35C for the Navy. Through 2016, 285 F-35s had been purchased for the U.S. military: 178 F-35As, 71 F-35Bs, and 36 F‑35Cs. Current plans call for purchasing 2,158 more F‑35s through 2038. The Department of Defense (DoD) has estimated that the remaining cost of those purchases, including the cost to complete development, will amount to $265 billion (in nominal dollars). The Marine Corps and the Air Force declared their versions of the F-35 operational in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The Navy expects to declare its version operational by 2019.
Under this option, DoD would halt further production of the F-35 and instead purchase the most advanced versions of older, nonstealthy fighter aircraft that are still in production: the F-16 Fighting Falcon for the Air Force and the F/A-18 Super Hornet for the Navy and Marine Corps. The services would operate the F-35s that have already been purchased. By the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, the option would reduce the need for discretionary budget authority by $29 billion from 2018 through 2026 if the F-16s and F/A-18s were purchased on the same schedule as that currently in place for the F-35s. Outlays would decrease by $23 billion over that period. Additional savings would accrue from 2027 through 2038 if F-16s and F/A-18s were purchased instead of the F-35s that are scheduled to be purchased in those later years. However, the Navy and Air Force are both planning to develop entirely new aircraft with fighter-like capabilities to be fielded in the 2030s and might choose to replace some planned F-35s with those aircraft instead.........
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Trump's talk about the F-35 program and for that matter, Boeing is window dressing. The F-35 program and its future will be decided in Congress, not by Trump. The program represents jobs in nearly every state as designed by Congress. Trump would get thrown under the bus for job losses instead of jobs for America as he touted during his campaign. He's boxed in but doesn't know it, yet. So he can blabber on all he wants, it will change nothing.
Defence experts warn of 'disaster' for Britain after Donald Trump suggests undoing 'out of control' F-35 fighter jet project
May be just sensational reporting but here's how some experts have responded. Personally, I think wed have to buy the bullet and what we should have done in the first place. Convert to angle deck carriers and buy F-18Es and Fs, for both the RN and the RAF.
FB
May be just sensational reporting but here's how some experts have responded. Personally, I think wed have to buy the bullet and what we should have done in the first place. Convert to angle deck carriers and buy F-18Es and Fs, for both the RN and the RAF.
FB
Perhaps Mr Trump's game is not entirely obvious. His statements are largely untrue, reflecting little understanding of the program status. It's simply an attack on the F-35 program, but with little valid truth. Are the costs really out of control? No. Are any program's costs ever entirely under control? No. Frankly we would never be happy about paying so much for a weapon system, even if the cost was half or third of what it seems to be today. And Mr Trump's hip shot statements can hardly address the complexities of program cost control. He could hardly care less. He is causing some chaos in the community and that's probably exactly what he wants. Create chaos, change the game rules, and step into the vacuum of the uncertainty. What a guy, what a great president he's going to make. His behavior is not unlike what we have seen historically from a former major power half way around the world. Hopefully his VP and cabinet choices will act with more thoughtfulness, competence and serious intent.
I do think that these are shots across the bow, and perhaps about time. The US has a long history of overinflated requirements, artificially (arguably criminally) low bids, underperforming contractors that guess what? They ask for more money to be bailed out of a hole they partially dug. All the while they are netting all time high profits. About time they get held to task and be scared. The old good ole' boy system of congress forking money into the contractors troughs needed a shake up. If a Senator or some watchdog says something, no one blinks an eye, but the President elect tweets something and they panic.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Trump is spot on here.
This jet is way too expensive and anyone with eyes that work properly can see it.
It's become a real gravy train for L-M and the contractors already, but it's just getting into its stride.....
If the warning shots are ignored, expect a broadside.
This program is long on all the worst aspects of defence procurement.
1. Too dear!
2. Not capable.
3. Better grounded politically than it is technically.
4. Technically flawed.
5. Designed to do too many things, thus not very good at any.
This jet is way too expensive and anyone with eyes that work properly can see it.
It's become a real gravy train for L-M and the contractors already, but it's just getting into its stride.....
If the warning shots are ignored, expect a broadside.
This program is long on all the worst aspects of defence procurement.
1. Too dear!
2. Not capable.
3. Better grounded politically than it is technically.
4. Technically flawed.
5. Designed to do too many things, thus not very good at any.
Atom, that's been known but the decision was made nearly a decade ago to put all eggs in one basket, in Washington. By Congress. They hold the purse strings.
[QUOTEI think Trump is spot on here.
This jet is way too expensive and anyone with eyes that work properly can see it.
It's become a real gravy train for L-M and the contractors already, but it's just getting into its stride.....
If the warning shots are ignored, expect a broadside.
This program is long on all the worst aspects of defence procurement.
1. Too dear!
2. Not capable.
3. Better grounded politically than it is technically.
4. Technically flawed.
5. Designed to do too many things, thus not very good at any. ][/QUOTE
Agreed,
But its what we have and its too late to consider an alternative.
FB
This jet is way too expensive and anyone with eyes that work properly can see it.
It's become a real gravy train for L-M and the contractors already, but it's just getting into its stride.....
If the warning shots are ignored, expect a broadside.
This program is long on all the worst aspects of defence procurement.
1. Too dear!
2. Not capable.
3. Better grounded politically than it is technically.
4. Technically flawed.
5. Designed to do too many things, thus not very good at any. ][/QUOTE
Agreed,
But its what we have and its too late to consider an alternative.
FB
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy
But its what we have and its too late to consider an alternative.
Still think that continuing with just the A-model and canning the B & C would be the sensible option.
Would leave us in the smelly stuff, but hey, won't be the first time....or the last.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same could have been said for the MRA4.........still got canned at the 11th hour.
Still think that continuing with just the A-model and canning the B & C would be the sensible option.
Would leave us in the smelly stuff, but hey, won't be the first time....or the last.
Still think that continuing with just the A-model and canning the B & C would be the sensible option.
Would leave us in the smelly stuff, but hey, won't be the first time....or the last.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy
But its what we have and its too late to consider an alternative.
FB
FB
-RP
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
UhOh - the shark alarm has sounded - clear the water - clear the beach - OH NOessss...
Falklands Harrier hero raises fears over navy?s new aircraft carriers - The News
"...Hitting back, the Ministry of Defence denied Cdr Ward’s claims, saying they were untrue...."
Originally Posted by Rhino power
Not even remotely comparable, the MRA.4 programme was for a handful of old airframes bodged into new airframes for one customer, the F-35 on the other hand is a clean sheet design (not matter how flawed it is perceived/proven to be) for several thousand airframes for many customers, not least of which is the US, to try and compare the two is ridiculous beyond belief!
I was comparing the 11th hour cancellation by a senior politician of a massively expensive military project - despite there being 'no other option on the table'.