UK Will Not Decide F-35 Numbers Before 2015

#2
There are a lot of UK jobs riding on JSF.

If it comes into service before 2020 I will be very very surprised.
 
#3
Does no one at MOD know the story of the Emperors New suit of clothes?
 
#4
Britain should improve their fighter aircraft such Eurofighter and Harrier instead of buying it from other country. Let keep the jobs in UK.
I agree, let's improve the Harrier. I look forward to seeing more of them on HMS Ark Royal soon.
 
#6
I agree, let's improve the Harrier. I look forward to seeing more of them on HMS Ark Royal soon.
I second that but with a better suggestion.

We should upgrade and improve FA.2 SHAR and put them on the 4 commando carriers (Albion, Bulwark, Centaur and Hermes) for both point defence and in the GA role in support of the embarked Booties.

With the savings in cash from not buying the horribly expensive F-35/JSF, we should equip the 2 strike carriers (Ark Royal and Eagle) with upgraded and improved S.2s and FG.1s or, if the USMC will let us borrow some of their machines, the F-18.

That'll make the Argies shit themselves.....
 
#8
I second that but with a better suggestion.

We should upgrade and improve FA.2 SHAR and put them on the 4 commando carriers (Albion, Bulwark, Centaur and Hermes) for both point defence and in the GA role in support of the embarked Booties.

With the savings in cash from not buying the horribly expensive F-35/JSF, we should equip the 2 strike carriers (Ark Royal and Eagle) with upgraded and improved S.2s and FG.1s or, if the USMC will let us borrow some of their machines, the F-18.

That'll make the Argies shit themselves.....


Sense a wah coming avoids the bite
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#9
Hmmmm

SOURCE Financial Times 20 Feb 2012

The Pentagon, under pressure to slash spending, plans to slow down purchases of fighter jets, submarines and other expensive projects in order to trim billions of dollars from its budget.

But military officials and defence industry executives warn that these moves, while saving cash in the near-term, could end up costing more over time.

As part of the 2013 fiscal year budget request released last week, the US defence department proposed to delay many expensive procurement programmes and postpone some construction projects.

This should produce about $38bn in savings for the Pentagon over the next five years – or about 15 per cent of the $259bn in budget cuts that it has pledged to make through to the end of the 2017 fiscal year as part of broader efforts to reduce the federal deficit.

But the Pentagon still plans to purchase much of the delayed equipment, pushing the costs out into the future and ultimately saving far less than advertised, if anything at all.

These tactics could end up creating new headaches. Under the Budget Control Act, the Pentagon must cut almost $500bn over the next 10 years, so deferring expenses for five years may require bigger cuts later on.

The Pentagon’s budget travails are likely to worsen. After a decade-long boom in defence spending, which swelled as the US fought simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the defence department has found itself squarely in the line of fire as Washington wrestles over ways to reduce the national debt.

The Pentagon is faced with having to cut an extra $600bn following last summer’s failure by a Congressional “super committee” to agree a debt *reduction deal. Leon Panetta, the defence secretary, has described a reduction of that size as potentially catastrophic
.

The FT article goes on to state:


In the latest US reprogramming, the Pentagon plans to save $15.1bn up to September 2017 by deferring the purchase of 179 F-35 fighter jets, $4.3bn from delaying development of nuclear submarines and billions more from postponed building projects.

The cost of the F-35s will rise as a result of the deferrals, according to Tom Burbage, director of the programme for Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor. The programme is already years behind schedule and over budget.

The delay “will raise the overall average cost of the total procurement of all the airplanes bought”, Mr Burbage said. “It just changes the dynamics of the cost equation.”

Robert Hale, comptroller for the defence department, acknowledged last week that “some of the stretch-outs will result in some higher unit costs”.

“If we had our way, we probably wouldn’t have done it,” he said. “But I’d start from the initial premise: Congress passed the Budget Control Act, we have to be consistent with ... that act. So we had to make these changes.”

Budget ruses are a time-honoured tradition for departments under pressure. In the current round of cuts perhaps the most striking scheme is the broad practice of counting reductions from notional planned spending increases as real savings.

Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defence Information, likens the Pentagon’s logic to arguing “last year I planned to win the lottery. I didn’t, ergo, my flat salary this year means a gigantic pay cut.”

If the Pentagon’s fuzzy math is ignored the effect is dramatic. For example, the department claims it will cut base spending by $45bn in fiscal year 2013 compared to its 2012 plans but measured against its approved 2012 budget it will lose only $5bn.
 
#11
#12
Looking at Goatman's post and the quote from the FT, I can't help thinking if US Military chiefs want/need examples of how spinning out procurement costs more, all they need to do is point at CVA, T45, Astute...

Remind me: how much is a human being worth when rendered down into organs and constituent chemicals? Someone put a Gordon Brown-sized pot on, please. Every little helps...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top