Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Posted on 05/10/2008 11:29:06 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
A House subcommittee on Wednesday endorsed continued production of Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor but dealt a blow to another North Texas defense project by recommending a $166 million cut in Bell Helicopter's armed reconnaissance helicopter program.The subcommittee seemingly gave a boost to Air Force leaders in their efforts to continue the F-22, which is scheduled to go out of production in 2011. The Pentagon leadership wants to cap the F-22 fleet at 183 fighters, but the Air Force is pushing for at least 381 F-22s, saying it needs at least that many to maintain U.S. air superiority.
Subcommittee members approved $3 billion for 20 F-22s, the final block in a previously approved multiyear contract, and called for an additional $523 million to purchase material for 20 more Raptors in fiscal 2010.
I’m sure Obama agrees 100%.
Previously, the SASC marked the GWOT Sup with the comment that the $523M may be used for advanced procurement of long-lead items or for end-of-run tail-up costs, whatever the president decides (the next president). It did not direct funds to be used solely for production.
The HASC marked more favorably, as reported.
But, we still have the HAC-D and the SAC-D (appropriators) to mark and we shall see where they stand. There are the real power-players in the budget game.
Great jet, nothing comes close to it—even in the near future. Simply the best.
Lockheed is pleased, no doubt, and so is Boeing. Please know, there is a near parity Lockheed/Boeing split on the contract, the rest of the build is split between the engines (Pratt) and other suppliers.
The Air Force is holding firm on their 381 total force of F-22s, but OSD, the Sec Def specifically, is not supportive.
With the F-15 mishap on 2 Nov in Missouri, and the determination the F-15s are flown well past their sell-by date, along with some jets being retired now and not as planned, the Air Force is facing a force structure problem, a “fighter bathtub” that needs filling.
Solutions are there. For example, with JSF, there are extensive delays and cost over-runs (and a looming Nunn-McCurdy breach), a second source for production might be the ticket to, a) cut cost as this would introduce an element of competition, and b) speed up deliveries because we would have twice as many built than by using a single production line.
Of course, a second line (Boeing) would ensure future competition, as we would still have two fighter manufacturers, not one.
What is your source for looming N-M breech for JSF?
As well as talk on the Hill.
Will have to see what is out there and get back to you.
The widely held assumption is that they will rebaseline the program, report it to Congress and avoid the N-M headache. Unlike Commanche etc, they are not going to kill the program.
ping
Problem is the jet is way behind and the costs are widely rising. That is sad, as we need something to replace the jets we do have, and replace them with 5th generation.
No way the program will be cancelled, agreed with that. We have way too much invested already, as well as international partners that would be stuck for all their investment (much smaller I agree, when compared to US investment).
There are solutions out there and I think second source is a good way to approach it, though many on OSD do not agree.
Your thoughts on how to fix delays and funding?
Seriously, would like to hear.
Thanks.
Second sourcing has never worked for complex items. If its much more than a bomb kit, boots, or other commodity item its not been shown to be effective. As I recall, the DAU case studies are pretty clear on that. The issue of data rights pretty well kills 2nd sourcing as well
The rebaseline process meets the intent of N-M. The service has to fess up to the issues, provide an updated way forward and get congressional approval to continue. The acquisition official takes a beating for it, but its open and above board.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
When C-130 AMP program went N-M, a second source did solve the problem.
With JSF, regardless of performance and delivery problems (which you must admit, are substantial), in an effort to avoid the fighter bathtub, increased production is key to getting more jets on line faster.
Build-to-print is an excellent course of action to increase numbers in a short time, and if contracted right, deals with data rights quite effectively.
For example, F-22 production is nearly equally split between Boeing in Seattle and Lockheed in Martin Marietta, and that requires data sharing.
Fighter force structure is at a critical juncture and alternatives must be found to ensure we are on the path to maintaining our tactical advantage in enough numbers to make a difference, rather than on a path where we are willing to limit our industrial base so that we can't respond quickly enough.
China won't wait for our JSF, as they are responding accordingly. We shouldn't wait, either.
“Good news we need continued air dominance.”
Right now, in the war we’re in, helicopters ARE air dominance. I’m sorry, it doesn’t make much sense to build more F-22’s while shorting the Marines of needed heloes.
Except when we have to face the chicoms or russians in the near future..
I understand your anger and I share some of it. My father is retired from the Marine Corps(served in Vietnam).I think the DOD point of veiw is a larger strategic one.Instead of focued air dominance with helos(which we already have BTW) against the jihadi’s,we need supreme air dominance over any aggressor. With true air dominance we will be able to assert our will below. If air dominance is in doubt in some future war then our ground pounders could be in for rough times. You also have to keep programs like the F-22 and F-35 ramped up or the production lines shuts down. These things take awhile to build and upgrade. We need continued air and sea dominance over any foe to assert our will in the air, on the ground, and control the seas to protect our interests. I love the corps but we have to stay vigilant elsewhere as well.
Why? The Marines have had a lot of practice at waging war on $1.38, I'd hate to mess with a winning strategy.I really don't know if I should put a /sarc here. Shorting the Corps budget has seemed to work so far. Please don't spread it around, but I do have a lot of respect for Marines, but I have a reputation to maintain.
It’s a matter of balance. Secretary Gates just went on record telling us to keep our eye on the ball, meaning the current combat going on right now. The trouble is, with a two-plus lead time for material (aircraft) and a two-year lead for funding (minimum) from Congress, the uniformed leadership realizes that things could change drastically in that four-year window. No more can we produce fighters in the blink of an eye, even under emergency conditions.
It must stay balanced.
TC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.