Print 49 comment(s) - last by Bad-Karma.. on Jun 22 at 1:01 PM

Senate wants assurance that F-35 will cost no more than stated  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
any cost overruns would be paid by contractor

The cost of the F-35 JSF continues to soar and delays continue to mount though the aircraft is now finally in production in some variants. As the aircraft stat to roll of the production assembly line, the Senate is taking steps to control the price of the fighter as the next low-rate initial procurement (LRIP) is set to enter negotiations.

The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee has passed a bill on June 16 that required the LRIP-5 purchase set for 2012 to be at a fixed price. That means that any cost overruns in the development or production of the F-35 purchase will be absorbed totally by suppliers.

An emailed statement from the committee said, "The bill contains a unique requirement that the low-rate initial procurement contract for the FY11 lot of the Joint Strike Fighter (LRIP-5) program must be a fixed-price contract and the contract must require the contractor to absorb 100 percent of costs above the target cost." 

The previous LRIP-4 purchase uses a cost-plus award fee plan.

If the full Senate passes the bill, it will be legally binding. Defense News reports that the bill fully supports the Pentagon budget request for the F-35. The budget allots $3.2 billion to purchase Navy versions of the F-35 and $3.7 billion for the USAF version of the fighter. In total, the Pentagon wants 32 F-35 fighters in 2012 with 19 going to the USAF, seven for the Navy and six for the Marine Corps.

Defense News adds that a Defense Acquisition Board review to establish a new cost baseline for the F-35 has been postponed until this fall. The review has been rescheduled for late May before being reset to mid-June and the rescheduled again.

The effort to control the price of the F-35 program comes in part from the estimate that the F-35 program could cost as much as $1 trillion in operating costs.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Bad-Karma on 6/22/2011 4:41:35 AM , Rating: 2
"The Air Force was very eager to get the bird even though the funding was fully available."

damn, meant to say ----WASN'T

By Mudhen6 on 6/22/2011 9:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
Not saying you're wrong, but the idea of a second seat is preposterous in an F-22, given the costs in weight and fuel of a second seat/pilot. Part (or much, hopefully) of the problem associated with information overload should be alleviated with the F-22's "Sensor Fusion" design philosophy; it might be a bunch of marketing BS, but I don't think anyone can deny that the designers and engineers behind the Raptor realize the problem and have done their best to minimize it.

Or not present irrelevant information it at all. An F-22 pilot doing air-to-air doesn't need to know about all the ground-based SIGINT that his jet is detecting, just the threat rings of SAM sites, I would assume.

By Bad-Karma on 6/22/2011 1:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a proponent of a two seater in today's modern fighters. No-Way,No-How. But there is a lot of data moving about the battlefields that a fighter has no time to really analyze and interpret.

I'd love to really discuss this one with you but we are getting a bit too deep into the subject matter, we'd best drop this one.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki