F35 costs soar as Trump lobbies for a better deal.

a reply to: Aazadan

He's been in office since January. That's going on seven months, and this isn't the only thing on his plate. The Pentagon has, on average, taken 8 months to a year and a half to settle the price of less than 100 aircraft at a time, and because Trump hasn't renegotiated the cost of the entire program, that's been running 15+ years, and is looking at running a total of 60 from this point, in seven months he's a failure?

Tell me you're kidding. Please.

originally posted by: TheScale
do u not see the disconnect in your thinking? if it takes a long time to negotiate these things and your aware of that then how is it a broken promise that he hasent followed through on considering he hasent even been in office a year

Because he took credit for fixing it months ago. When in reality he did nothing, as this latest cost increase proves.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not a failure for a single issue, but this is another indication that he's a showman and not someone who can actually get things done. He took credit for fixing this weeks or months ago. This suggests otherwise.

a reply to: Aazadan

No, he took credit for one LRIP buy cost coming down. He never claimed to have fixed the program, and LRIP 10 was the lowest buy of the program to date.

a reply to: Aazadan

He never took credit for fixing the program. Even Lockheed said his participation in the LRIP 10 negotiations finished them weeks earlier than previous contracts.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Individual airframe cost is continuing to drop with every buy. The cost per A model, if the block buy goes through as it appears to be going, will drop to the $80M range. That puts it cheaper than most 4th generation fighters.

How in the hell do you figure that? No generation 4 fighter has ever cost $80 million each, that's a big pile of b.s.

F-16 (1998) $18 million
F-15 (1998) $29.9 million
F-18 (2006) $29 million

Beyond the technology leaps, there is no reason this jet has to cost $100 million per unit. It's just too much money. Granted the F-35 is an amazing fighter in what it is capable of, but all of this could have been done for even $50 million each. Why is it so much money? Do you know that F/A-18E/F models are now $98 million each too? That's a solid generation 4 fighter, no way is even remotely 4.5 so why does it cost so much? It seems to me somewhere in the late 2000s the defense contractors got greedy and are now gouging the American taxpayer.

If I can get an F-16 for $20 million which is one of the best fighters EVER built and will be for years to come, then why does the F-18E or F-35 need to cost $100 million? The answer is we are being cajoled and robbed while ironically at the same getting a good product. There has to be a way to build these jets for cheaper than what we are buying them for.

a reply to: av8r007

Do you even read what you post? Let me highlight a few points here.

How in the hell do you figure that? No generation 4 fighter has ever cost $80 million each, that's a big pile of b.s.

Do you know that F/A-18E/F models are now $98 million each too? That's a solid generation 4 fighter, no way is even remotely 4.5 so why does it cost so much?

So no 4th Gen has ever cost over $80M, but the F-18E/F is a solid 4th Gen and $98M. Which is it?

Those costs you listed were for 98 and 2000 dollars. There's this thing called inflation that's going on that brings costs up. They also radically reduced the number of F-18s they're buying. Boeing is currently producing 2 a month. That increases the cost quite a bit too.

a reply to: Aazadan

How do you know what he's done? How do you know things would not be even worse?

If costs would have raised 9% and they raise 7% instead is that not a success? You are using something incredibly silly to bash Trump, because you are clearly looking for any reason to bash Trump even when there isn't one.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

How do you know what he's done? How do you know things would not be even worse?

If costs would have raised 9% and they raise 7% instead is that not a success? You are using something incredibly silly to bash Trump, because you are clearly looking for any reason to bash Trump even when there isn't one.

Because it went from 7% to 9%. Trump didn't say he would slow the rate of increase, he said he would bring down program costs. It looks to me like program costs are continuing to increase.

If going from a hypothetical 9% increase in program costs to 7% counts as bringing costs down, then one would also have to admit that the ACA brought health costs down by slowing the rate of increase on premiums. Of course one of those is hypothetical and the other was reality. Even LM said they would get the costs down, and they were on track to do that. After Trumps meddling they're up.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Aazadan

He never took credit for fixing the program. Even Lockheed said his participation in the LRIP 10 negotiations finished them weeks earlier than previous contracts.

Finishing earlier and successfully bringing costs down are not the same thing.

a reply to: Aazadan

ACA is a different topic try to stay on topic, I know it's hard when you make a hate thread. You have literally zero evidence to support your position.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes they are, and no matter what you think, or how you're trying to bash him, no one fixes a 15+ year old program in seven months. It's that simple.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes they are, and no matter what you think, or how you're trying to bash him, no one fixes a 15+ year old program in seven months. It's that simple.

I don't think he fixed it. He claimed he did though. I fully realize what the reality of the situation is, but I hold people to their word. He lied.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

ACA is a different topic try to stay on topic, I know it's hard when you make a hate thread. You have literally zero evidence to support your position.

It was an analogy. It's not a hate thread either.

a reply to: Aazadan

He wasn't taking credit for fixing the program, he was taking credit for reducing costs on the latest buy (LRIP 10). And he was right, prices did drop $728M. For that LRIP. But they were going to drop anyway. His presence got the negotiations done faster, but that's about it.

People, apparently you included (no that isn't an insult) don't realize how these programs go. He claimed he reduced costs, which is what happened. Each purchase, right now, is a buy of a specific number of aircraft, called an LRIP. The more LRIP buys the lower the cost goes. Then they get into the full rate production, or block buy, which is what's being negotiated now, along with LRIP 11.

If you reduce the number of aircraft you buy, the price goes up to compensate for materials cost. None of what has been negotiated so far has anything to do with reducing the overall program cost. That will be done separately, and quietly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So it's the same result whether he participated or not. The negotiations concluded a little bit faster, but the result was the same.

a reply to: Aazadan

They probably got a little more of a price cut than they would have, but costs have consistently come down every LRIP until this one.

According to Lockheed, the cost increase is not set. The Air Force has indicated that they want to reduce their buy to 60 aircraft, but LRIP 11 is still being negotiated and the final number is not set in stone.

www.flightglobal.com...