Lockheed in $424 Million F-35 Pentagon Contract

[+Fates]

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp is getting a $424 million U.S. contract modification for advance purchases tied to the next batch of F-35 fighter jets, the Pentagon said on Thursday, even as a much bigger deal for the aircraft themselves remains under negotiation.

 

The radar-evading warplane is the U.S. military's biggest acquisition program, projected to cost up to $382 billion for 2,457 aircraft through 2036.

 

The add-on combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($62 million; 15 percent), U.S. Air Force ($135.7 million; 31 percent), U.S. Marine Corps ($194.5 million; 46 percent), and international partners ($32.2 million; 8 percent), the Pentagon's daily contract digest said.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11658393

[AgapheM]

Hmm, what a Megaproject....

Edited September 17, 2010 by Agaphe

[+JediMaster]

Yup, they wanted One Plane To Fly Them All (types of missions) hence the projection for 2500 planes. It's just bizarre that everyone today talks of when "production ends" as if that's some big cost-saving measure.

 

I bet if you looked at how money was spent on the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 programs since they started it's easily many times the original esitmate...since we kept building them! The question isn't just "what does it cost" but "what would the alternative cost in comparison"? You could just scrap the entire fighter fleet, that would be real cheap. No need for training pilots, maintainers, spare parts, fuel, weapon development, that would save MEGAbillions! Or we could just keep building the planes we have now, the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, and in 20 years when advanced ground defenses swat them from the sky because they're just too old to be effective over enemy-held territory, we can just keep churning out more to replace them! Take all those illegal immigrants and give them yet another job no one will want...US fighter pilot! We can save money by not training them in how to land! They'll never live that long anyway...

 

 

[Abhi]

Man why they r not buying more f-22.

[+JediMaster]

LOL, because they felt the F-35 was the wave of the future. If they did cancel the F-35, as improbable as that would seem (since we'd have to pay back literally billions of dollars to all the countries that paid us), maybe they'd reopen the line. Only 20 F-22s to go.

[Abhi]

Crap,wave of future,The f-35 cant ever do wat a F-22 can,they could modify into a strike variant.also the f-35 was gud for marines and USN but the AF is best with raptors.

 

i think every one agrees raptor is the best,i knw its costly but the lightning aint cheap too.

Edited September 17, 2010 by satish

[+JediMaster]

Well, the F-22 was designed to replace the F-15 and the F-35 the F-16, so they're not built to the same specs. Sure an F-22 could do the F-35s job, just like an F-15 can do an F-16's job, but would you want to spend that much to do it?

I remember the original JSF plan was for something like $25m/A model, $30m/C model, $35m/B model. Boy did they screw THAT specification up.

[Abhi]

yep ur right but now the JSF's cost has increased too much,and its even not inducted.

 

The raptor has been inducted and IMHO the USAF needs at least 300 of them if they want to maintain their edge.

[+MigBuster]

Attrition would be a concern for the F-22 - apparently 455 x F-16s have been written off since 1979 according to the fleet status on http://www.f-16.net/

 

Cant see the F-22 seeing anywhere near as many combat sorties - but you never know.

[+JediMaster]

Well, the issue isn't combat losses, it's just accidents. We've already lost 5% of our B-2 force to a single accident!

Things happen, from ground fires to a hangar collapse to a mid-air refuelling accident, and you can't stop them all. We managed to keep most of the F-117 fleet in service till its retirement by virtue of retiring it early! If we can the F-22 in 2022 or so I'm sure we'll still have most of them as well. Keep them for the decades they claim to intend to, however, and you have to deal with other things like wing cracks (see our F-15Cs).

[+MigBuster]

What I meant was that taking into account the amount of wars the F-16 has been in (quite a few!) this has placed a lot more airframe hours, airframe stress and potential for accidents on top of combat losses.

[+JediMaster]

True, but something tells me once the ground attack stuff is finally going well the F-22 will get subjected to similar stresses. After all, that IS why the F-117s were retired so early, because it was decided between the F-22 and UCAVs we didn't need them.