Trump Pushes Lockheed to Cut F-35 Costs by Asking Boeing to Develop a Comparable Jet

Newswire ^ | January 16, 2017 | Boris Djuric

[2ndDivisionVet]

After meeting with the president-elect Donald Trump, Lockheed Martin CEO, Marillyn Hewson, promises to lower the costs of F-35 program as well as to create 1,800 new jobs.

This brings out the question how come cheaper F-35 program and thousands of new jobs weren’t suggested earlier? Also, a frequently asked question is whether developing the fifth generation F-35 “super jet”, which proved to be not that “super” after all, justified spending $trillions of taxpayer’s money?

According to Trump, this expense is unacceptable. The President-elect already promised a modernization of U.S. military, however, under certain conditions.

“The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th”, Trump promised in his tweet on December 12th.

On December 22nd, Trump tweeted that he asked Boeing, Lockheed Martin’s major competitor, to develop a F-18 Super Hornet which is comparable to F35.

In January, Lockheed Martin promised not only to reduce the costs of F-35 jets, but also to help “America be Great Again” by generating jobs for thousands of Americans.

“I certainly share his [Trump’s] views that we need to get the best capability to our men and women in uniform, and we have to get it at the lowest possible price,” Hewson told the reporters in the Trump Tower, after the meeting took place on Friday.

According to Lockheed Martin’s CEO, the company also plans to create 1,800 jobs at its plant in Fort Worth, Texas, where the F-35s are built.

The offer may appeal to the president-elect, however, Lockheed Martin needs to justify its $1.5 trillion spending on a jet that reportedly has some serious issues which are yet to be resolved until the mass production starts.

On December 19th, Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Frank Kendall, informed Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), that development of the F-35’s software was being delayed for seven months, resulting in an escalated cost of “at least $500 million more than previously budgeted”.

Boeing may enter the ‘super-jet race’ and build a matching warplane, however, according to experts, this is highly unlikely, because there is no way the F-18 Hornet can be modified to counterpart the F-35. Accordingly, Boeing would have to create a whole new concept.

Nonetheless, Trump once again proved he knows how to negotiate a better deal, which may be just what America needs.

[Tallguy]

“New Generation” = “fantastically expensive”

[Tallguy]

The F-15 Silent Eagle is based off the F-15E. The loaded weight of a Mud Hen is 50% heavier than that of the air-superiority version (F-15C). This places somewhat of a performance penalty on the ‘E’ version as it has a lower Power-Weight ration depending on weapons payload & fuel state.

The F-15SE & the F-35A are BVR shooters when it comes to air engagements. The reason that the F-15SE is cheaper is that 1) it’s lower tech and 2) it has only front-aspect stealth (which I admit might be a suitable trade-off)

[taildragger]

Again let me propose my Junk Yard Dog. Except the engine retrofit, all of this has been done, aka prototyped and test flown on a F-16.

* F-16XL Delta Wing variant.
* Diverterless Supersonic Inlet
* And the one that hasn't been done add the F-119 engine and Vectored Thrust off a F-22.

The last one I think is do-able. With the XL being longer and the F-119 a longer engine, I say why not. Especially since it would take you up too 35,000 lbs of thrust and give you supercruise potentially.

I read the XL was a heavy hauler and gave a F-15 variant a run for it's money in a fly off and lost because of politics. Yes at best this junk yard dog might be Gen 3+, but with the maneuverability, heavy hauling and range how could this not be a versatile addition to the fleet. While it doesn't have robust landing gear and a huge gun, how would it not be a compliment to the A10?

This picture below is close to what it would be, add the F-22 Turkey Feathers to it and you get the picture.

[BTCM]

Davis Bacon must go.

[billyboy15]

The per unit cost of the Raptor is significantly higher, as much as double the cost of the F35. Since the cost of the F35 depends on unit costs which are affected by the number of aircraft built and sold, the very high cost of the Raptor would most likely inhibit sales (or we may just not too sell this A/C to others)

[mcshot]

The Raptors competitor (YF23 Black Widow) may be able to be updated but not equipped with kitchen sink nonsense for multiple roles like the few bullet F35.

[mcshot]

I like the “American Grippen” I just read about.

[Neidermeyer]

The F-35 is asked to be a ballerina , a defensive tackle , a sprinter , a high jumper and many more things and is expected to excel at all... never gonna happen ,, never could happen. It’s the modern F-111.

[az_gila]

“Trump Pushes Lockheed to Cut F-35 Costs by Asking Boeing to Develop a Comparable Jet”

Like the Boeing X-32?

---

The Boeing X-32 lost the design contest because it was ugly...:^)

X-32 on the left and the F-35 on the right -

[PLMerite]

Imagine how intimidating that gaping maw will be with shark’s teeth painted around it!

[CurlyDave]

The easiest way to save cost is to build something the right the first time and not change the design and/or requirements every year or two....

Have you ever worked on a DoD development contract?

Costs always increase, often dramatically, and the reason is requirements creep, which is usually a government issue, not a contractor issue. This is normal. It is a development contract. New things are discovered as work is done, and are incorporated into the design.

Another problem is that the length of the contract is such that procurement personnel in both the government and the contract sides turn over and are replaced during the process, which leads to a loss of institutional memory and extreme rigidity on some requirements. Just as a hypothetical, suppose there is a range specification for the aircraft. Say 1000 miles. We get six years into a contract and suddenly the engine is found to be slightly less efficient than was believed when the program started. This means the range falls to 990 miles. Well, it turns out that you can't just add a couple of gallons to the size of the fuel tank on an aircraft, and keeping the original range requirement is going to mean a major redesign and an enormous cost overrun. Sometimes the government will say that there is no practical difference between 990 miles and 1000 miles, and sometimes they will insist on meeting the original spec.

Not quite so easy to determine fault there is it?

[CurlyDave]

The X-32 was nicknamed "Monica".

You can see why.

[Kickass Conservative]

Boeing did and it sucked. The F-35 beat it in a the Fly Off.

It looked like the Flying Sub on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

[Tallguy]

Delta wings inhibit roll-rate sacrificing maneuverability in a fight. OTOH, the provide extra volume for fuel (range) and area for extra hard points (more weaponry). In order to give a Delta maneuverability you might need canard in addition to your vector-thrust. Just buy a Rafael or a Typhoon.

[maddog55]

Been working DoD acquisition for 30+ years. Requirements creep is the result of not doing it right the first time. That’s is usually the fault of the government and I agree with the constant turnover which is about every 2 - 3 years many times sooner is a major issue.. everyone wants “their” name on it somewhere so they make changes and leave.

I understand everything you’re saying and agree with 99% but doing it right the first time and you get the product you want and you get it in a reasonable time frame not 10 - 15 years or more. As new capabilities come on line you do block upgrades for those capabilities. You don’t halt everything or start over.

When an aircraft can’t meet a requirement the requirement is often changed or waived so you can meet your DT/OT or LRIP schedule, schedule drives cost and production, it’s better to meet schedule so you get funded so you can build a product that can’t meet it’s requirement and then you try to fix it... this seldom if ever works but is used over and over to get funding.

Yeah.. been there done that but retirement is just around the corner!!

[taildragger]

Private reply coming....