Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(111,300 posts)
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:17 PM Jan 2017

Trump says Lockheed Martin has cut $600 million from F-35 program

Source: Washington Post

President Trump said Monday that Lockheed Martin has cut $600 million from its next lot of 90 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter planes, capping weeks of private meetings with Lockheed Martin chief executive Marillyn Hewson and public criticisms of the program’s cost.

He specified that the cost-savings would apply to the company’s next group of 90 planes but offered few details on how the program or contract would change as a result.

“What’s happening with Lockheed, number one we’re cutting the price of their planes by a lot but they’re also expanding and that’s going to be a good thing. Ultimately they’re going to be better off,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

The president’s public back-and-forth with Lockheed began in late December when he took to Twitter to criticize the program for cost overruns. At the time, he asked aerospace company Boeing to “price out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet,” suggesting he would substitute Boeing’s cheaper plane for Lockheed’s.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/30/trump-says-lockheed-martin-has-cut-600-million-from-f-35-program/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_cp-lockheed-1118am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6d7668c7337e

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump says Lockheed Martin has cut $600 million from F-35 program (Original Post) TexasTowelie Jan 2017 OP
I dont think he had any intention of ever canceling that disaster. cstanleytech Jan 2017 #1
/ Matthew28 Jan 2017 #2
It depends on the mission role. About the only edge I can see the 35 having over the 22 is cstanleytech Jan 2017 #4
F-22 is not designed for CAS* VMA131Marine Jan 2017 #12
I thought that 35 had a lower by pound carry capacity than the 22? cstanleytech Jan 2017 #15
And neither is the F-35 lol NWCorona Jan 2017 #23
The USAF has been trying to convince us that the F-35 can replace the A-10 :D VMA131Marine Jan 2017 #26
It definitely should do better. NWCorona Jan 2017 #33
F22 Can Perform Strike Missions.. ozone82 Jan 2017 #25
The F-22 Assembly Line Is Long Gone.... ozone82 Jan 2017 #24
The F-22 has a totally different mission profile to the F-35 VMA131Marine Jan 2017 #7
I've read up on it and it actually impresses me. joshcryer Jan 2017 #20
So they knocked off 1/2 B benld74 Jan 2017 #3
Aren't those planes about 300 million each? yellowcanine Jan 2017 #5
If you include R&D costs, I believe that's about right. VMA131Marine Jan 2017 #11
From an article back in 2014 its $337 for the navy version but it drops alot for the air force cstanleytech Jan 2017 #13
Like his income tax returns, I'll believe it when I see it. NT mahatmakanejeeves Jan 2017 #6
Exactly! DemoTex Jan 2017 #10
F-35 is a $400 billion program. VMA131Marine Jan 2017 #8
It going to take a LOT more nickel and dime -ing to make any real different in the FailureToCommunicate Jan 2017 #9
I wonder what kind of tax breaks he gave them TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #14
In a $400 billion dollar program, $600 mill can be hidden easily by creative accounting bhikkhu Jan 2017 #16
+1, this is a rounding error. joshcryer Jan 2017 #22
That's not even enough to cover reggaehead Jan 2017 #17
Zowie Trump. Oh hey,good thing TAXPAYERS bailed out Lockheed in what 1969/70?? Bengus81 Jan 2017 #18
This will mean jobs lost. Quite a few in more than one State. Tikki Jan 2017 #19
Yep. Hundreds. MAybe more. elehhhhna Jan 2017 #27
Hell, it's only cost us $1.5 TRILLION. tenorly Jan 2017 #21
Nothing To Do With Trump erpowers Jan 2017 #28
Exactly. The cost overruns have been a hot issue for years and costs always drop after initial. yellowcanine Jan 2017 #29
Damn, I thought it was his superior negotiating skills. TexasTowelie Jan 2017 #30
Yes, he's taking credit for cost reductions already in work. tammywammy Jan 2017 #32
So that's what, 0.0015 % of the program? nt EarthFirst Jan 2017 #31

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
1. I dont think he had any intention of ever canceling that disaster.
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:19 PM
Jan 2017

Granted the plane on paper looks good but its still not nearly ready for prime time imo.

Matthew28

(1,796 posts)
2. /
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:21 PM
Jan 2017

Would cancelling the f-35 and building more f-22's make more sense? It seems to me that the f-22 is ready for prime time.

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
4. It depends on the mission role. About the only edge I can see the 35 having over the 22 is
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:29 PM
Jan 2017

VTOL but otherwise I dont understand why they dont order more 22s either unless there is something wrong with the 22 that the military is hiding.

VMA131Marine

(4,124 posts)
12. F-22 is not designed for CAS*
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:40 PM
Jan 2017

Close Air Support*

F-22 is an air superiority fighter not a bomb truck that can also defend itself.

VMA131Marine

(4,124 posts)
26. The USAF has been trying to convince us that the F-35 can replace the A-10 :D
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 08:46 PM
Jan 2017

Not likely, but it will do better than the F/A-18 and F-16 in their roles.

ozone82

(91 posts)
25. F22 Can Perform Strike Missions..
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 08:41 PM
Jan 2017

F35 can carry up to 18,000 pounds of bombs, and the F22 can carry up to 22,000 pounds, but for both that means using external hard points, which on an enemies radar is like saying, I'M HERE!!!! SHOOT AT ME!!!!

ozone82

(91 posts)
24. The F-22 Assembly Line Is Long Gone....
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 08:23 PM
Jan 2017

The Air Force would want them, but they may not be able to be modified for carrier operations for the Navy and Marines, so those two branches would have to make due with the non-stealth FA/18 which is far less capable than the Raptor.

From April 2016: ][link:http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/19/house-legislation-orders-f-22-restart-study/83248788/|

VMA131Marine

(4,124 posts)
7. The F-22 has a totally different mission profile to the F-35
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:34 PM
Jan 2017

You could not replace the F-35 with the F-22. Not to mention that the F-22 is not carrier capable and the US Marine Corps as well as the Royal Navy are counting on the VSTOL capability of the F-35B.

Restarting F-22 production would be hugely expensive. Many of the electronic components are now functionally obsolete because of the advance of technology and would have to be redesigned.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
20. I've read up on it and it actually impresses me.
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 07:13 PM
Jan 2017

Amazing technological achievement. Really can outclass anything else in the air. But. It's like the Space Shuttle was in that regard. Brilliant tech, but wrong approach.

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
5. Aren't those planes about 300 million each?
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:30 PM
Jan 2017

So he got 90 planes for the cost of 88 planes. Whoop dee doo, what a negotiator.

VMA131Marine

(4,124 posts)
11. If you include R&D costs, I believe that's about right.
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:38 PM
Jan 2017

The actual cost to buy one F-35 is around $90 Million. Maybe a bit more.

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
13. From an article back in 2014 its $337 for the navy version but it drops alot for the air force
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:42 PM
Jan 2017

version down to $148 and the marine version around $251.
I assume the navy was going to get the VTOL version for its carriers which could explain the largest reason for the price difference.

FailureToCommunicate

(13,989 posts)
9. It going to take a LOT more nickel and dime -ing to make any real different in the
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:37 PM
Jan 2017

bloated Pentagon budget, Hair Furor Trump.

bhikkhu

(10,708 posts)
16. In a $400 billion dollar program, $600 mill can be hidden easily by creative accounting
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 05:53 PM
Jan 2017

Win-win...lockheed and trump get good press, nothing changes.

Bengus81

(6,907 posts)
18. Zowie Trump. Oh hey,good thing TAXPAYERS bailed out Lockheed in what 1969/70??
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 06:59 PM
Jan 2017

Otherwise they wouldn't be around making these overpriced Top Gun aircraft.

Tikki

(14,538 posts)
19. This will mean jobs lost. Quite a few in more than one State.
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 07:11 PM
Jan 2017

I thought earlier trump said the military would have no limits.

Tikki

tenorly

(2,037 posts)
21. Hell, it's only cost us $1.5 TRILLION.
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 07:14 PM
Jan 2017

I guess this was the least they could do (if it's even true at all).

erpowers

(9,350 posts)
28. Nothing To Do With Trump
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 09:13 PM
Jan 2017

This had absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump. Even someone from the American Enterprise Institute pointed out that Donald Trump was just being a politician by taking credit for this cost reduction.

"Lt. Gen Chris Bogdan, who heads the F-35 Joint Program Office at the Department of Defense, told reporters on Dec. 20 – before the presidents’ private meetings with defense companies – that the F-35’s cost per plane should fall “somewhere on the order of six to seven percent per airplane” for the next batch of planes."

snip

“The figure which Trump is taking credit for was already baked into the cake,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a military analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “This is what politicians do.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/30/trump-says-lockheed-martin-has-cut-600-million-from-f-35-program/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_cp-lockheed-1118am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.576f442b1926

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
29. Exactly. The cost overruns have been a hot issue for years and costs always drop after initial.
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 09:19 PM
Jan 2017

development.

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
32. Yes, he's taking credit for cost reductions already in work.
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 10:19 PM
Jan 2017

Just basic economies of scale will give a cost reduction which is part of what the F-35 is doing. Each lot is bigger so cost per aircraft are lower. LRIP 10 is cheaper than 9 and 11 cheaper than 10. Not only that, LM is boxing him into the block buy that the partner nations want to further reduce cost.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump says Lockheed Marti...