Trigger Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Modernization is fine, but not at the cost of combat power. The Air Force (with a lot of prompting) wisely decided to retain combat power due to ongoing war and emerging threats. Emerging threats require modernization, Thats the catch-22. You might have to actually pick at some point. You can't keep sacrificing the future for the present, because the future will arrive. but much of the Army budget goes into personnel costs not back into the hands of defense contractors. Now that is funny! you should do stand up. LOL Thanks for making my day!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Bogdan Predicts F-35s For Less Than $80M, Engines Included!ARLINGTON, VA: Three years ago, Lockheed Martin made the bold boast that F-35s would cost less than $85 million a copy by 2019, less than any existing fourth-generation fighter. Skeptics howled. Boeing scoffed (eager to sell their ostensibly cheaper F-18 and keep its production line open). Most of us were impressed at then-Lockheed Martin program manager Lorraine Marin’s audacity. Now, Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the most common model of the plane, the F-35A, will hit $80 million to $85 million by 2019 and he expects the price will go lower, especially when it hits multi-year procurement in a few years. That price is in then-year dollars — that is, it factors in inflation — and with an engine.. He estimated the next two lots, LRIPs 9 and 10, will come in at just about and then below $100 million a plane. The deal, which had been expected months ago, had hit what Bogdan admitted was an “impasse.” The problem? “I’m not rushing into a bad deal, ” he said, adding that he wasn’t “going to let time pressure me into doing a bad deal for taxpayers.” Total value of the two lots should be around $15 billion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nspreitler Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Emerging threats require modernization, Thats the catch-22. You might have to actually pick at some point. You can't keep sacrificing the future for the present, because the future will arrive. Now that is funny! you should do stand up. LOL Thanks for making my day!! You can laugh, but it's true. The Army is the largest service, but with a budget far less than the Air Force. The Army has to spend a lot of money on personnel and salaries, BAS, BAH, and money spent on healthcare don't go into Lockheed or Boeings pockets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nspreitler Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Now, Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the most common model of the plane, the F-35A, will hit $80 million to $85 million by 2019 and he expects the price will go lower, especially when it hits multi-year procurement in a few years. That price is in then-year dollars — that is, it factors in inflation — and with an engine.. That's good news, only $80-85 million. I guess that's not too bad for a plane that was originally projected to be $50 million. It's really generous of Lockheed to include an engine, I know when I am shopping for a new vehicle I prefer one that has an engine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) You can laugh, but it's true. The Army is the largest service, but with a budget far less than the Air Force. 2010 Budget request Army - $244.9 billion (31.8%) Marine Corps - $40.6 billion (4% - Total Budget taken allotted from Department of Navy) Navy - $149.9 billion (23.4% - Excluding Marine Corps) Air Force $170.6 billion (22%_ Defense Intelligence - $80.1 billion (3.3% - Because of classified nature, budget is an estimate and may not be the actual figure) Defense Wide Joint Activities - $118.7 billion (15.5%) US Army Budget Breakdown (2014) Operations and Maintenance - $43.8B Personnel - $56.2B Research, Development & Acquisition - $21.4B And from the US Army's FY15 Budget Overview: "Our Guiding Principle Must Be Keeping Balance Among Readiness, End Strength, and Modernization" "Far less than the Air Force" The Army has to spend a lot of money on personnel and salaries, BAS, BAH, and money spent on healthcare don't go into Lockheed or Boeings pockets. The soldiers sew their uniforms, bring their POVs to the war, AR-15s from home, Helicopters donated by citizens, and MREs baked at home? Eager to know where the army is giving those billions every year if not to defense contractors. Learning a lot. And LOL if you think that BAS, BAH and healthcare doesn't end up in contractor pockets. I guess its ok though since they are not evil LM or Boeing. That's good news, only $80-85 million. I guess that's not too bad for a plane that was originally projected to be $50 million. Its called inflation. Look it up. It's really generous of Lockheed to include an engine, I know when I am shopping for a new vehicle I prefer one that has an engine. Engine is made by Pratt and Whitney not Lockheed, and the US Government has been purchasing the two separately on all aircraft/engines for decades, which is why their is a specific mention there. probably a big difference between government purchases of warplanes than you shopping for your own car. Been in the military how long and you don't know this? "Far less than the Air Force" Again dude, let me know when you hit the open mic, laughing like crazy here Edited February 12, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Emerging threats require modernization, Thats the catch-22. You might have to actually pick at some point. You can't keep sacrificing the future for the present, because the future will arrive. You counter emerging threats with capability. Strategy determines overall modernization and if possible you nest the two with capabilities that meet long term requirements. The line between baseline and war-related dod requirements is fuzzy and there has been plenty of bleed over with items that should be in the baseline instead of a supplemental. Just a thought, what if you can't afford the future? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nspreitler Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 2010 Budget request Army - $244.9 billion (31.8%) Marine Corps - $40.6 billion (4% - Total Budget taken allotted from Department of Navy) Navy - $149.9 billion (23.4% - Excluding Marine Corps) Air Force $170.6 billion (22%_ Defense Intelligence - $80.1 billion (3.3% - Because of classified nature, budget is an estimate and may not be the actual figure) Defense Wide Joint Activities - $118.7 billion (15.5%) US Army Budget Breakdown (2014) Operations and Maintenance - $43.8B Personnel - $56.2B Research, Development & Acquisition - $21.4B And from the US Army's FY15 Budget Overview: "Our Guiding Principle Must Be Keeping Balance Among Readiness, End Strength, and Modernization" The soldiers sew their uniforms, bring their POVs to the war, AR-15s from home, Helicopters donated by citizens, and MREs baked at home? Eager to know where the army is giving those billions every year if not to defense contractors. Learning a lot. Its called inflation. Look it up. Engine is made by Pratt and Whitney not Lockheed, and the US Government has been purchasing the two separately on all aircraft/engine for decades, which is why their is a specific mention there. probably a big difference between government purchases of warplanes than you shopping for your own car. Been in the military how long and you don't know this? I have been in for 20 years. $50 million in 2002 dollars adjusted for inflation is $66 million. So that only puts the F-35 somewhere between $14 and $19 million over the original estimate, and this is supposed to be something to be happy about. The Army's personnel cost is a much larger part of the Army budget than the other services, you know this. Why pick the 2010 budget? How about the 2015 budget Army $146 Billion Air Force $161 Billion Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nspreitler Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) Double post Edited February 12, 2016 by nspreitler Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) $50 million in 2002 dollars adjusted for inflation is $66 million. So that only puts the F-35 somewhere between $14 and $19 million over the original estimate, and this is supposed to be something to be happy about. Is that in 2019 dollars? and yes I would say that it is, since that is competitive with the cost of other aircraft but the F-35 is vastly more advanced. The Army's personnel cost is a much larger part of the Army budget than the other services, you know this. I do know this. I also know it costs money to train and equip those personnel, and that money goes to defense contractors that provide goods and services to those personnel in the army, (Like LM and Boeing Army Helicopters) so you are basically splitting hairs. Moreover, Other services (lets say the USAF) use their money to provide for the army for example C-17s, C-130s and of course A-10s that directly support the US Army. So as long as the contractors get Air Force money and not Army money right? Personnel costs are always very high, but your logic is that's cool so long as the tax dollars go to certain people, and not others. Why pick the 2010 budget? How about the 2015 budget Because A. Only very recently has the Army actually gotten less "Far less" than the Air Force, as evidence by the 2010 budget. B. We are not counting OCO funding (23 billion this year), which the Army is using which inflates the number to once again, higher. Army $146 Billion + $23 billion OCOAir Force $161 Billion 15 billion dollar difference? (not counting OCO) is "Far less than the Air Force" ? And only very recently at that? for the whole DOD budget not counting OCO, its just above a 3 percent difference between the USAF and US Army. maybe you should read through the whole thread and you would learn things like the F-35 engine is made by Pratt and Whitney and not lockheed, and you can take the interservice griping and bashing into another thread? Edited February 12, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 2010 Budget request Army - $244.9 billion (31.8%) I think your off, just a bit..... http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/Budget/BudgetMaterials/FY10/overview.pdf Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nspreitler Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Is that in 2019 dollars? and yes I would say that it is, since that is competitive with the cost of other aircraft but the F-35 is vastly more advanced. I do know this. I also know it costs money to train and equip those personnel, and that money goes to defense contractors that provides goods and services to those personell in the army, so you are basically splitting hairs. Moreover, Other services (lets say the USAF) use their money to provide for the army for example C-17s, C-130s and of course A-10s. Because A. Only very recently has the Army actually gotten "Far less than the Air Force" B. We are not counting OCO funding, which the Army is using which inflates the number higher 15 billion dollar difference? (not counting OCO) is "Far less than the Air Force" ? And only very recently at that? maybe you should read through the whole thread and you would learn things like the F-35 engine is made by Pratt and Whitney and not lockheed, and you can take the interservice griping and bashing into another thread? God knows there are plenty of army follies to bring up. My numbers include OCO funding, which is $23 Billion of the Army's budget. I see why you picked the 2010 budget since that is the one on Wikipedia. I have read through much of the thread, and my comments aren't interservice griping at all, just questioning priorities. I actually served in the Air Force for the first 11 years of my career, and I am aware the F-35 isn't just an Air Force program. As far as the engine I was aware it wasn't made by Lockheed, I wasn't aware that not including the engine in the price was a thing so that is informative, and disturbing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nspreitler Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I think your off, just a bit..... http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/Budget/BudgetMaterials/FY10/overview.pdf He has to be right is says so right here on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Audit_of_implementation_of_budget_for_2010 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 He has to be right is says so right here on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Audit_of_implementation_of_budget_for_2010 It used Death and Taxes from a website called wallstats.com as the reference for the FY10 budget, wow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 My numbers include OCO funding, which is $23 Billion of the Army's budget. My mistake I wasn't aware that not including the engine in the price was a thing so that is informative, and disturbing. They are made by different companies, Engines are GFE, along with other things too. Just like how the USAF has Personnel costs as well but why get into that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22571&t=1 The 2016 SAR Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 My numbers include OCO funding, which is $23 Billion of the Army's budget. I see why you picked the 2010 budget since that is the one on Wikipedia. Now, does that include pensions, tricare ect. Because if you add those in I suspect that that puts the Army over the top. I have read through much of the thread, and my comments aren't interservice griping at all, just questioning priorities. I actually served in the Air Force for the first 11 years of my career, and I am aware the F-35 isn't just an Air Force program. As far as the engine I was aware it wasn't made by Lockheed, I wasn't aware that not including the engine in the price was a thing so that is informative, and disturbing. The separation for the engine is an vestige of when there were two competing engine designs for the JSF. Thus DoD would have separate columns in the SAR for the F136 and the F135 (but it was cancelled before that happened). That's why the Super Hornet's SARs have the engines included. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Now, does that include pensions, tricare ect. Because if you add those in I suspect that that puts the Army over the top. Yes, it's apart of the baseline. The pension has never been an issue as it's a known cost. Healthcare? That screwed us and is roughly 10% of the entire baseline. However both combined are simply too attractive which is why they're changing the retirement system, fee hikes for tricare will at least double and in some cases quadruple, and the GI bill will lose some perks although I don't know what color of money pays for that. The VA is a completely different pot of money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/18/f-35-jet-back-on-ottawas-radar-screen.html OTTAWA—It’s controversial, costly and apparently back on Ottawa’s radar as a possible pick for Canada’s air force.After ruling out the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet last fall as a possible replacement for the aging CF-18s, the Liberals now appear to be leaving the door open after all. Speaking at a defence conference in Ottawa Thursday, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was asked pointblank whether the F-35 would be considered in the competition to replace the current fleet of fighters. Sajjan pointedly did not rule out the possibility, saying the selection process will be “open.” “The real issue here is we want to make sure that we replace the F-18 and have a suitable aircraft that meets the needs of Canada. That’s what we’re committed to do,” Sajjan said. He said the Liberals are committed to a “thorough process” to make sure that Canada gets the “right” jet to replace the CF-18s, which were purchased starting in 1982. “We’ll build the right requirements for Canada and then we’ll see how that plays out in terms of which companies want to come forward,” he said. The previous Conservative government had originally announced its intention to buy F-35s in 2010 but then put that decision on hold in late 2012 after the auditor general flagged concerns about the potential price tag. But during last October’s election campaign, the Liberals declared the F-35 would not be a contender for the Canadian air force. “We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber,” stated the party’s platform. Justin Trudeau said during the campaign that scrapping any purchase of the F-35 would free up “tens of billions of dollars” in savings that could instead be spent on revitalizing the Royal Canadian Navy. Sajjan also spoke about the promised defence review, which will examine the required capabilities and potential roles for the Canadian military. Sajjan said some priorities will remain unchanged — the defence of Canada and North America and contributions to international peace operations. “We have to focus on capabilities, that perfect mix of personnel, training and equipment,” Sajjan said. “We want the Canadian Armed Forces to be flexible, appropriately resourced and able to respond quickly.” The minister said the Liberals will continue with the increased funding for the defence department acfirst pledged by the Conservatives “but we may want to allocate that money differently.” He also ruled out any reductions in the number of personnel in uniform. “In fact, the conversations I’m having right now (are) about where do we need to increase some of the personnel,” Sajjan said. Sajjan said the review would be done by the end of the year. Canada is not going to rule out the F-35, continues to pay to remain in the JSF program, but will have an "open process" LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 If Canada were to decide to FINALLY and FULLY commit to buying X number of F-35's, how soon (as in best estimate) could they start taking delivery? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/18/f-35-jet-back-on-ottawas-radar-screen.html Canada is not going to rule out the F-35, continues to pay to remain in the JSF program, but will have an "open process" LOL Maybe they should just fire up the F-20 line again... Either way, the U.S. defends Canada. You're welcome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 If Canada were to decide to FINALLY and FULLY commit to buying X number of F-35's, how soon (as in best estimate) could they start taking delivery? Well, a guess would have the old Hornets being at LEAST 40 before replaced. Not as bad as the Sea Kings (getting near 60 before all replaced) but old. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 If Canada were to decide to FINALLY and FULLY commit to buying X number of F-35's, how soon (as in best estimate) could they start taking delivery? Unless they traded spots with somebody about 2 years from order to delivery. The plan is to replace the CF-18 starting in earnest at around 2020 I believe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gordon Shumway Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Maybe they should just fire up the F-20 line again... Either way, the U.S. defends Canada. You're welcome. Last I checked, I did not see Americans wearing Canadian Army uniforms, flying RCAF aircraft, or sailing RC Navy ships. Canadians defend Canada. The US has shared mutual defense obligations of North America with Canada. #2 in command at NORAD is a Canadian General. The US chooses to defend its interests in Canada, mostly on the surface benign in its interests. Canada has not asked the US to defend Canada as if we were some defenseless underling. It's offensive to Canadians especially Canadians serving our country and along side our allies in uniform to read or hear that the US defends Canada. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 "Well, that'll about cover the "Slam Canada" flybys." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.