Posted on 05/20/2010 11:20:18 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The US Congress has opened debate on the fiscal year 2011 defence budget by sending a clear and unprecedented warning to the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme.
For the first time, a major legislative committee approved a bill that would slash F-35 funding if the programme fails to achieve a reduced set of cost and schedule goals this year.
HR 5136, a bill to authorise defence spending, threatens to reduce the F-35's development budget by 25% and slash overall FY2011 procurement from 43 to 31 aircraft, if Lockheed fails to achieve certain goals, such as completing 394 test flights in FY2010. Production in FY2011 has already been trimmed from 48 to 43 aircraft.
Lockheed had completed 60 flight tests as of 1 May, two more than scheduled. Over the next five months, Lockheed must average nearly 42 flights a month as the test fleet expands from seven to 13 aircraft by the end of the year.
"They have to meet the milestones in terms of testing and delivering aircraft to make sure that they stay on that timeline," says Adam Smith, chairman of the House AirLand subcommittee.
The language, however, must survive several more steps in the legislative process before it becomes law. Following its passage by the House Armed Services Committee this month, the authorisation bill now goes before the full House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Services Committee will start work on its version of the FY2011 defence authorisation bill in the week beginning the 23 May. Appropriations committees in both house of Congress also have yet to debate the F-35 issue.
But the new clause changes the tone of the F-35 debate in Congress
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
Bump
So what I’m hearing them say is...no F-22 or F-35.
There was nothing mentioned about the F-22
You are correct.
Sadly, the bulk of our Air Force and Navy tactical aircraft will likely be based on 1970’s designs for many more years to come. That’s sure not my idea of of hope and change.
Gates has threatened to fight any changes to the F-35 program.
I agree.
What a bunch of posturing.
None of the bean counters from any of the involved parties, gov’t, LM, DoD, etc., can agree to use the same measures and standards by which to estimate the cost of the program.
All of the parties are all over the place with their estimates.
ping
“If you don’t get the costs down we’re going to buy
less.” In effect driving costs UP.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
“Sadly, the bulk of our Air Force and Navy tactical aircraft will likely be based on 1970’s designs for many more years to come. That’s sure not my idea of of hope and change.”
Which still puts them equal to or better than anything else in the world. The new Russian PAK-FA will never go into production (unless in miniscule, B-2 bomber-like numbers), and the latest engine and radar upgrades will bring the American teen fighters up to or above the Eurofighter standard.
The way JSF costs are spiraling out of control, we’re well on our way to a situation where you can buy 3 F-16’s or Super Hornets for the price of one F-35. That is simply unsustainable.
I recall hearing one F-22 could defeat 10 F-16s, or their equivalent.
You’re saying the F-35, with similar capabilities, is not three times as valuable as an aging aircraft?
That's why we should have bought substantially more F-22's and gone the lower tech route for the attack mission.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.