Centraal JSF perikelentopic 2: De PvdA wacht er nog even mee

quote:

Op donderdag 23 april 2009 12:44 schreef Stroekie het volgende:

[..]

Zeg ik iets geks als ik voorspel dat die Amerikanen door de kredietcrisis zelf nog wel eens de stekker uit het hele JSF project gaan trekken?

of geef ik meneer Obama dan te veel ruggegraat ten opzichte van de wapenlobby ?

quote:

Op donderdag 23 april 2009 14:57 schreef Lemmeb het volgende:

[..]

Heel de wereld watertandt van dat toestel. Ik snap niet hoe dat een dikke middelvinger naar de Nederlandse luchtmacht kan zijn.

quote:

Op donderdag 23 april 2009 14:55 schreef Sloggi het volgende:

[..]

Misschien moeten we voorlopig gewoon niks kopen en wachten op een beter alternatief. De F16 schijnt nog lang niet aan zijn max te zitten wat betreft vlieguren.

quote:

The Pentagon’s procurement system has so run amok that 70 percent of the weapons were over budget last year by a total $296 billion.

quote:

April 14, 2009
Air Force Officials Agree on an Obama Cutback
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
Top Air Force officials said Monday that they supported the Obama administration’s decision to buy only four more of the advanced F-22 fighter jets, making it less likely that Congress will insist on extending its production.

The Air Force had previously said it needed 60 more of the planes, a position that had built expectations for a fierce battle in Congress over the program’s future.

Legislators from Georgia, Connecticut and other states with major suppliers are still likely to push for more planes. But it will be much harder for them to succeed if the Air Force is not quietly supporting their efforts, military analysts said.

Several industry officials and former Air Force officers said they would not be surprised to see Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the plane, pull back from a lobbying campaign emphasizing how many jobs would be lost if production was halted.

Under the administration’s plan, the Pentagon would speed up the testing of another Lockheed Martin fighter, the F-35, which it plans to buy in much greater quantities. Industry officials said the company might not want to risk angering the new administration as it already had many other lucrative defense contracts.

“This is the first time in the entire history of the F-22 program that Lockheed could not count on its Air Force customer wanting more F-22s,” said Loren Thompson, a consultant who advises Lockheed Martin and other military contractors. “And the company clearly cannot be pushing as hard with Congress as it did in the past because it won’t have the customer on its side,” he said.

Douglas A. Birkey, the director of government relations for the Air Force Association, a group that often lobbies for the service, said he also expected to see Lockheed Martin shift its focus from the F-22 to the F-35, which is also called the Joint Strike Fighter.

The F-22 was designed for aerial combat while the F-35 would focus more on ground targets and is meant to be cheaper.

Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest defense contractor, has said it is reviewing the changes proposed last week by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Shortly after the announcement by Mr. Gates, Lockheed’s chief executive, Robert J. Stevens, said in a memorandum to employees that while some of the recommendations were disappointing, “I embrace Secretary Gates’s call to put the interests of the United States first — above the interests of agencies, services and contractors — and I will support him in every way.”

The shift in thinking about the F-22 was detailed in an op-ed article on Monday in The Washington Post by Michael Donley, the Air Force secretary, and Gen. Norton Schwartz, the service’s chief of staff.

Before the announcement by Mr. Gates, both had fought hard for the F-22, saying the Air Force needed it as a hedge against Russia and China and even a possible war with Iran. They had advocated buying 60 more of the planes, which would have brought the Air Force’s fleet to 243. But in their essay, Mr. Donley and General Schwartz wrote that “the time has come to move on.”

The two said that as defense spending becomes constrained, and Mr. Gates shifts money to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, budgeting “has increasingly become a zero-sum game.”

They said it would cost $13 billion for 60 more F-22’s. Yet, they added: “Much rides on the F-35’s success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production.”

Mr. Gates had said last week that he supported plans to build more than 2,400 F-35s. Industry officials said the essay laid to rest any doubts about where Mr. Donley and General Schwartz stood.

Mr. Gates and his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, had tried to halt production of the F-22 during the Bush administration, only to find that previous Air Force leaders continued to support it.

In fact, the former Air Force secretary, Michael Wynne, who was fired by Mr. Gates in June 2008 amid battles over Air Force programs, said Monday that he still believed that Mr. Gates was taking too many risks in canceling the F-22 and other high-tech weapons programs. He said it would make sense to buy more F-22s in case the F-35 is delayed.

Still, he said, if the current service leaders say they no longer want the plane, it will be harder than before for supporters in Congress to “overcome that military judgment.”

quote:

UPDATE 1-Pentagon eyes multiyear buys of F-35s from 2015
Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:44pm BST
(Adds details on F-35 program, more Young comments, byline)

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, April 17 (Reuters) - The Pentagon hopes to pursue a multiyear purchase agreement with Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) for its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters around 2015, chief arms buyer John Young said on Friday.

Young, defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said he was keen to sign such agreements, which can help save costs, once production of a new weapon had stabilized and any production issues had been worked out.

Defense contractors like multiyear agreements because they give them stable orders over a longer period, and allow them to sign longer-term contracts with their suppliers.

Young said no "urgent, compelling" multiyear agreements for other weapons systems presented themselves during the fiscal 2010 budget process, but the Pentagon would revisit the issue again when preparing the fiscal 2011 budget.

He said the 2010 budget did include some shifts aimed at accelerating funding and production for certain weapons programs, which would allow more economic order quantities.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled sweeping changes to major weapons programs last week, including a recommendation to halt production of Lockheed's F-22 fighter jet at 187, while increasing funding to speed up F-35 orders.

Young said he has no plans to stay on at the Pentagon once the Senate approves the nomination of Harvard professor Ashton Carter to replace him. Two senators have put a hold on the nomination, but Gates told reporters this week that he expects some movement soon on the nomination by the Senate.

Lockheed had hoped to secure a multiyear agreement with the Air Force for its C-130J transport planes in fiscal 2010 that begins Oct. 1.

Young said there was nothing preventing the department from pursuing any multiyear agreements in 2010, leaving the door open to a possible C-130J deal, but he said none had been included thus far.

He also said it was tough to win congressional approval for multiyear agreements, given that the Pentagon must show that the deals generate "substantial" savings of around 10 percent.

Under the current rules, the department cannot justify a multiyear agreement even if it is able to show "significant" savings, he said.

Lawmakers are sometimes wary of long-term weapons deals because it reduces their ability to make changes from year to year, if economic conditions or military requirements change.

Young said Lockheed would deliver nine F-35 fighters this year, which would enter into flight testing.

He took issue with recommendations from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which has repeatedly criticized the Pentagon for doing testing and production of the F-35 at the same time.

If the Pentagon followed the GAO's guidelines, Young said, then Lockheed would have to halt production of the F-35 until testing was completed, which would make it extremely costly to resume production later on.

He said there was clearly some risk involved in building airplanes while testing was still underway, but he did not expect any major changes in the fighter's hardware.

He said there was a high probability that some software changes would be required, but those would result in "affordable and reasonable costs." (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)