backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by Bad-Karma.. on Jul 21 at 10:04 PM

Negotiations continue between Lockheed and the Pentagon

Negotiations between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin started last year to iron out all the details for the purchase of 32 F-35 fighters. The reason negotiations on pricing have dragged on for so long is due to the Pentagon's use of new pricing data according to Defense News. DOD officials are now using what's being called a "should-cost" estimate for the purchase of the F-35 fighters based on data from the previous four F-35 purchases.
 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics, Frank Kendall, says that the Pentagon's move to "should-cost" estimates were used to develop a "bottoms-up cost estimate based on that previous history."
 
“We started negotiations on the government side with a very well-documented set of costs, called the should-cost, and then we were able to compare that to the bid that we received, item-by-item, line-by-line,” Kendall said during a July 16 meeting with a small group of reporters in his Pentagon office. “Going through and trying to resolve the differences has been the process that has taken so long.”
 
Kendall also notes that once negotiations conclude, "We’ll be in a very good place to go ahead and negotiate for future lots."
 

A group of Lockheed F-35B Lightning II fighters [Source: Lockheed Martin]
 
The Pentagon has been working hard to put pricing pressure on Lockheed Martin for F-35 purchases despite reducing the number of aircraft required over the next five years by 179 units. Typically, every time purchase plans are reduced by any partner nation, pricing for the F-35 increases.
 
Kendall also believes that sequestration, or mandatory spending cuts that will go into effect in January, will not affect every F-35 acquisition contract. Sequestration only applies to funding that is not yet obligated according to Kendall.

The Pentagon is fighting for every penny it can save on the F-35 fighters as the overall lifetime cost of the F-35 program continues to soar.

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


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

By Manch on 7/18/2012 11:25:35 AM , Rating: 5
You hit the nail on the head.

F-35A: US$197 million (flyaway cost, 2012)[4]
F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)[5]
F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)[5]

US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009)[4]

What country has 623.1838 million thumbs and got f#cked over by their own government?

Top it off, since the F22 line is ended, we will not get more of them, and we dont have a lot of them to begin with. The orders on these have already been cut too.

This is a perfect example of the horrible nature of government business practices.


By TSS on 7/18/2012 3:21:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is a perfect example of the horrible nature of government business practices.


*Modern day* government business practices. It needs mentioning because as the poster above you noted, the previous generations of aircraft worked out fine and the government certainly wasn't less involved. It's this generation that's extremely bloated. I wonder why that is.

News from holland by the way, our labor party switched sides and is now against the purchase of the JSF, giving a chamber majority against the purchase instead of for. The current demissionary cabinet (the cabinet fell in may, new elections in september) still refuses to pull the plug, saying a demissionary cabinet does not have the authority to make such big decisions (which is BS, as long as there's a chamber majority it doesn't matter what the cabinet wants). It's nigh unconstitutional and i have to admire their balls.

But unless we get another 100% rightwing cabinet after september (because it's pretty obvious now they support the jobs for dutch companies the partner program brings no matter the cost to the tax payer), which has a low chance of happening, expect the plug to be pulled entirely.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2012 3:59:25 PM , Rating: 3
Yup. Our military and contractors build the greatest fighter aircraft ever made in the world in the F-22. And it was killed by idiots in Congress who know nothing about what they are doing.


By StormyKnight on 7/18/2012 5:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder how long it will take to start production back up when the Russians begin producing aircraft that could be considered a threat? The Chinese have a way to go before they can produce something we can't easily handle with what we currently have.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2012 5:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well some say the PAK FA is already in the F-22's league. Pretty sure in real life the F-22 would stomp mud up it's compressors, but still...


By Manch on 7/18/2012 5:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Even our 15s or hell 16s can handle them bc they have one advantage that the other guys dont. AWACS, is like a range extender for cramming missile up there arses.

There was an article a couple years ago about an Indian flagged Mig(I think it was them) that took out one of our F15s during a joint exercise. What few articles mentioned though was the Americans were not allowed to use the AWACS, and they were also handicapped in order to make it fair.

Our avionics are leagues above everyone else.


By Bad-Karma on 7/18/2012 10:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
So I guess you've never heard about the A-50 Mainstay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-50


By Manch on 7/19/2012 1:43:45 AM , Rating: 2
Didnt say they didnt have them, jus that what they have cant compare to ours.


By Manch on 7/18/2012 5:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
We have all of the tooling but supply of raw materials would take the longest. Starting wouldnt take long. building them would.


By catavalon21 on 7/18/2012 6:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt the suppliers could ever re-start production of their own pieces at anywhere near a reasonable price. At unit (x) of (x) (the last unit), the Gov decided we couldn't afford any more (agree or not with the decision). How would they ever afford more adding in the costs of re-starting production, requalifing suppliers (quite possible some have moved locations), etc.

I regret the decision to terminate F-22; however, I doubt it will ever be restarted.


By shplatt on 7/18/2012 9:40:57 PM , Rating: 3
All it takes is a war with a reasonably capable opponent. One can argue how far away country Y or Z are away from threatening the US's doctrine of overwhelming force. The bottom line is that those countries are accelerating their rate of development while the US is stagnant, at best. Those countries will inevitably come within striking distance *some day*. A war or "major conflict" with such a country may some day precipitate sufficient funding.


By Ringold on 7/18/2012 9:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
The days of WW2 are over, where carriers could take a kamikaze strike, spend a couple months at an island patching up, then go right back to the fight. I can't remember how many years the USS Cole was out of commission.

By the time a serious war starts, everything a modern country needs it already must have, because it'll long since be over (except maybe an occupation) by the time the military complex can respond.


By shplatt on 7/18/2012 11:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the days of WW2 are, thankfully, over. Wars will never be fought like that again... at least this side of a nuclear holocaust.

Military complex time tables in peacetime are much different than those in wartime. Your first paragraph is one such example. Granted, it would take considerably more resources to repair such an advanced ship in comparison to a WW2 vessel. However, in wartime, I wouldn't necessarily make the statement that it would take more time. Especially because survival is a necessity, many "impossible" things often happen in a short period of time when pressed. To be clear, I'm not saying the time frame would be similar or even scaled appropriately... I'm simply stating that it's not so cut-n-dry when you factor in man's capacity for doing difficult things when necessary.

I'll concede, at the end of the day, it's hard to tell either way. That's largely why I would never want the US to get to a point where it can no longer enjoy the application of its overwhelming force doctrine. It's also why I would never want it to lose its nuclear capability. But another day, another conversation, I guess.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki