Skip to comments.F-35 restructuring saves $6.9 bln over 5 years
Posted on 01/26/2011 8:47:09 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The Pentagon's decision to delay buying 124 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighters until after fiscal year 2016 saved $6.9 billion over the coming five years, a Defense Department spokesman said on Tuesday.
On Jan. 6, Defense Secretary Robert Gates overhauled the Pentagon's largest weapons program for the second time in a year, slowing a planned ramp-up in production and adding $4.6 billion to the program's development phase.
At the time, Gates said the move would result in net savings of about $4 billion over the next five years -- after subtracting the money needed to buy 41 additional Boeing Co F/A-18 warplanes to offset slower F-35 production.
The Pentagon's biggest arms program, the new fighter is being developed with eight international partner countries at a total cost of $382 billion, but the program has run into schedule delays and massive cost overruns in recent years.
Joe DellaVedova, the Pentagon's F-35 spokesman, provided additional details, including the $6.9 billion savings figure on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Not buying them at all would save a lot more.
They will never buy these aircraft.
The deal seems to be done on the Pentagon side if they are pouring resources into the project.They are fully committed to the project. However, Congress has oversight and must approve the sale.
Biggest anvil with wings ever.
By the time the bureaucrats finish with the F35 it wil be better suited as a submarine.
Still do not have an aircraft ready for production? How many years late and how much over budget? But the deployed F22 is canceled? WTF! Think the Chicom are going to cancel their J20?
<<< Have they ever make a decision on the new Air Force Tanker - Boeing or EADS/Northrup? It's gotta be due soon if it hasn't happened yet.
Private analysts say the whole F-35 program is becoming a money pit. “The incredibly unfortunate phrase ‘too big to fail’ applies to this aircraft more than any other defense program”,
Is this thing any good? What does this do that the F22 does not do? Do we need both?
The F-35 A and C are fine, but its the F-35B that is hanging everything up. I say go into production with the F and C models and leave the B model behind. I think that we should have the F-35 and F-22 in the USAF inventory.
The Russian T-50 is more worrisome.
Fine by me, but then we need to restart the F-22 line and design a carrier version of it to boot.
The F35 is a bean counters dream, one aircraft for all 3 service branches performing all roles (badly).
T-50 had to google that, nice aircraft. Maybe the Russians will sell us some?
>>Is this thing any good?
Not as being considered.
>>What does this do that the F22 does not do?
Nothing. The F22 could do the F35 mission and then shoot the F35 down. All while the F22 pilot is still in the shower.
>>Do we need both?
Not really. As usual, since the 70s when we created the fantastic F16, F14, F18 and the still ruling F15 (not to mention the SR71), military aircraft are not only subject to physics but the petty infighting of Congress.
I do not understand these procurements. For one thing, the number of units always seems ridiculously low. We own what, 20 F-22s? WTF good is that going to do for us in a real war? It's obvious that the brunt of combat duties for the next 10 years will still fall upon upgraded F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, which thank God we have in large numbers.
E.G., we own 19 B-2 Bombers. With 19 bombers we're going to take out Iran? I doan theenk so.
Actually there are 187 F-22s in the USAF inventory. You are underestimating the B-2 capability.The bomber has a crew of two and can drop up to 80 JDAM GPS-guided bombs, or 16 B83 nuclear bombs in a single pass through extremely dense anti-aircraft defenses. The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry large air to surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration
Correction:There are 168 F-22 planes as of October 2010.The projected plan is 187 planes.
We’re down to 184 Raptors now. Three have been destroyed in accidents since December, 2004.
I thought they had already reached the end of production. If not, I wonder if they’ll replace the three losses we have suffered.
They look at lot more formidable than the J-20.
Thanks for the reassuring info. I am not so reassured about the B-2 numbers.
I am old enough to always recall that thousands of crude T-34 tanks overwhelmed hundreds of super-high quality, high-performance, high firepower NAZI tanks. So I always fear an aerial version of same when going up against the CHICOM, or Russkis.
As far as close support aircraft are concerned, do we want 1 F-35 an hour away, or 25 A-10s on instant call ... or 50 helicopters?
If you have at least three B-52s”cells” and filled to the brim with nuclear ALCM missiles you can wreak a lot of damage. That many B-2s can turn the entire nations of Russia and Iran into dust. The nuclear AGMs the B-2 carries over 300 kilotons per cruise missile
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.