2014年五角大楼国防预算审查文件说：厌倦了F-35无休止的 ...

取消35美帝到没什么至少还有22，不过小兄弟们就惨了。

女王号难道要裸奔

The F-35 program is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon system. A fleet of 2,443 aircraft has an estimated price tag of $391.2 billion, which is up 68 percent from the projected costs measured in 2001. Earlier this year, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manager, condemned the manufacturer for “trying to squeeze every nickel” out of the Department of Defense.


美国空军的F-35项目经理谴责LM竭尽全力榨干美国国防部的每一分钱。

说说而已，F35项目属于too big to fail一类，多贵多亏都会一路走下去

龙牙骑士 发表于 2013-8-3 17:07
说说而已，F35项目属于too big to fail一类，多贵多亏都会一路走下去
是滴，影响太大了不会取消说说而已。

都快过百架骗谁啊

这是放风为下一批F35订单砍价做准备么？

取消了怎么对抗外星人啊，你想让地球灭亡啊

取消了空自就玩大发了

@韩五记

也要允许人家发个恼骚啥的，都挣了那么多钱钱了

鸡肋早该扔掉了。

怨妇发两句牢骚而已，谁信谁SB

龙牙骑士 发表于 2013-8-3 17:07
说说而已，F35项目属于too big to fail一类，多贵多亏都会一路走下去
可以少买，就像当年F22一样，首批只买500架得了，10-15年成熟了后再买第二批1000架，然后停产永不重开生产线。

烦不烦啊，隔三差五的整这种消息，用来自H么？
之前有过很多次了吧，有美国某将军的，GAO的，动不动取消这个取消那个，  而现实是F35计划有哪里受到影响了？  ABC三个型号不都按部就班的一只在测试、生产，生产线不是一直在有条不紊的在建设？

用来砍价的。
估计洛马都听免疫了。

真无聊……{:soso_e141:}  一个方案研究而已，能表现出什么意义……美国肯定还有全面进攻中国的预案呢，能据此断定美国现在就要打中国？

这和当年那个F-35 B、C要被砍其一的新闻如出一辙，结果呢？谁被砍了？


“The Pentagon moved to protect the F-35 from sequestration’s initial impact this year, locking in several contracts before the cuts took effect. Frank Kendall, the Defense Department’s chief weapons buyer, has said he would do his best to protect the plane built by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed in the future.

Based on that track record, “the implication is that any ‘option’ to kill the program is an academic exercise rather than a serious possibility,” according to Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the nonprofit Arlington, Virginia-based Lexington Institute. Thompson wasn’t briefed on the charts. ”

http://www.businessweek.com/news ... n-pentagon-s-review

国防部采购负责人大话都放出来了，要“尽自己全力”保护F-35的采购……

_____________________________

《Pentagon downplays prospects of cancelling F-35, bomber》

Defense officials later stressed there were no plans to kill either program, noting that dismantling the F-35 program in particular would have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military services and 10 foreign countries involved in the program, which is already in production.

"We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modelling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future," Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides.

"Any suggestion that we're now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday's discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect," he said.

Analysts said Hagel and other Pentagon officials appeared to be leaning toward the option that would emphasize high-end weapons programs over force size.

Mackenzie Eaglen, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said suggestions that the F-35 program "was being targeted was either an oversight or a scare tactic, but it wasn't a serious proposition that the entire program would be cancelled under any circumstances."

She said failure by Congress to reverse deep budget cuts could result in the F-35 program being slowed or scaled back, but outright cancellation was unlikely given the huge investment already made in the new warplane, which is designed to replace over a dozen planes in use around the world.

One defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the budget document had sketched out a worst-case scenario that was highly unlikely to occur.

"Cancelling the program would be detrimental to our national defense," said the official, noting that the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps needed to replace aging fleets of fighter planes that were increasingly expensive to maintain.

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, cited estimates that it would cost four times the amount needed to buy new F-35s to keep the current force flying. And cutting the planned bomber would generate very little savings since the program - which could eventually cost around $30 billion - is in the early stages at this point, he said.

"You have to view these options as analytical excursions rather than serious proposals because they're not consistent with what the administration has said it wants to do," he said.

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall and top U.S. military officials have repeatedly underscored their commitment to the F-35 program in recent months.

On Thursday, Admiral James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Armed Services Committee that early work to develop a new long-range bomber was on track, and the new bomber would be a vital part of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and potential future warfare concepts.

But he said deepening budget cuts under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 could threaten the ambitious schedule for the new bomber, which Air Force officials want to field by 2025 -- and potentially the whole program.

"It could impact that program in terms of timing," Winnefeld told lawmakers. "It also would depend a little bit on whether you emphasized capacity or capability in terms of how many you might buy or - or whether you would do the program."

Details are classified, but industry officials and analysts said Lockheed, Northrop Grumman Corp, and Boeing Co have been awarded small-scale study contracts to start working on possible bomber designs, with a formal acquisition process to begin in coming years.

The Air Force requested $400 million in its fiscal 2014 budget request for what it is trying to keep an affordable program. It plans to spend up to $550 million each to buy 80 to 100 new bombers in coming years, with an eye to fielding them in the mid-2020s, said spokesman Ed Gulick.

Jim Thomas, vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the two options of a smaller military or sharp cutback in weapons programs represented a false dichotomy.

"This is almost one reasonably attractive option and a straw man that looks pretty unattractive," he said. "I don't think we're going to end up at either of these corners on the map. I think that you're going to get a hybrid solution."

_____________________________

这样的新闻一点营养都没有

真无聊……{:soso_e141:}  一个方案研究而已，能表现出什么意义……美国肯定还有全面进攻中国的预案呢，能据此断定美国现在就要打中国？

这和当年那个F-35 B、C要被砍其一的新闻如出一辙，结果呢？谁被砍了？


“The Pentagon moved to protect the F-35 from sequestration’s initial impact this year, locking in several contracts before the cuts took effect. Frank Kendall, the Defense Department’s chief weapons buyer, has said he would do his best to protect the plane built by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed in the future.

Based on that track record, “the implication is that any ‘option’ to kill the program is an academic exercise rather than a serious possibility,” according to Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the nonprofit Arlington, Virginia-based Lexington Institute. Thompson wasn’t briefed on the charts. ”

http://www.businessweek.com/news ... n-pentagon-s-review

国防部采购负责人大话都放出来了，要“尽自己全力”保护F-35的采购……

_____________________________

《Pentagon downplays prospects of cancelling F-35, bomber》

Defense officials later stressed there were no plans to kill either program, noting that dismantling the F-35 program in particular would have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military services and 10 foreign countries involved in the program, which is already in production.

"We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modelling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future," Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides.

"Any suggestion that we're now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday's discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect," he said.

Analysts said Hagel and other Pentagon officials appeared to be leaning toward the option that would emphasize high-end weapons programs over force size.

Mackenzie Eaglen, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said suggestions that the F-35 program "was being targeted was either an oversight or a scare tactic, but it wasn't a serious proposition that the entire program would be cancelled under any circumstances."

She said failure by Congress to reverse deep budget cuts could result in the F-35 program being slowed or scaled back, but outright cancellation was unlikely given the huge investment already made in the new warplane, which is designed to replace over a dozen planes in use around the world.

One defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the budget document had sketched out a worst-case scenario that was highly unlikely to occur.

"Cancelling the program would be detrimental to our national defense," said the official, noting that the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps needed to replace aging fleets of fighter planes that were increasingly expensive to maintain.

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, cited estimates that it would cost four times the amount needed to buy new F-35s to keep the current force flying. And cutting the planned bomber would generate very little savings since the program - which could eventually cost around $30 billion - is in the early stages at this point, he said.

"You have to view these options as analytical excursions rather than serious proposals because they're not consistent with what the administration has said it wants to do," he said.

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall and top U.S. military officials have repeatedly underscored their commitment to the F-35 program in recent months.

On Thursday, Admiral James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Armed Services Committee that early work to develop a new long-range bomber was on track, and the new bomber would be a vital part of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and potential future warfare concepts.

But he said deepening budget cuts under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 could threaten the ambitious schedule for the new bomber, which Air Force officials want to field by 2025 -- and potentially the whole program.

"It could impact that program in terms of timing," Winnefeld told lawmakers. "It also would depend a little bit on whether you emphasized capacity or capability in terms of how many you might buy or - or whether you would do the program."

Details are classified, but industry officials and analysts said Lockheed, Northrop Grumman Corp, and Boeing Co have been awarded small-scale study contracts to start working on possible bomber designs, with a formal acquisition process to begin in coming years.

The Air Force requested $400 million in its fiscal 2014 budget request for what it is trying to keep an affordable program. It plans to spend up to $550 million each to buy 80 to 100 new bombers in coming years, with an eye to fielding them in the mid-2020s, said spokesman Ed Gulick.

Jim Thomas, vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the two options of a smaller military or sharp cutback in weapons programs represented a false dichotomy.

"This is almost one reasonably attractive option and a straw man that looks pretty unattractive," he said. "I don't think we're going to end up at either of these corners on the map. I think that you're going to get a hybrid solution."

_____________________________

这样的新闻一点营养都没有

有F-35的地方就一定有韩五记

魂淡呐不是你娃at的我么！

这种没营养没技术的帖子我才懒得回呢

蛤蟆的临时小号 发表于 2013-8-3 18:22
有F-35的地方就一定有韩五记

魂淡呐不是你娃at的我么！

这种没营养没技术的帖子我才懒得回呢

魂淡呐不是你娃at的我么！   这种没营养没技术的帖子我才懒得回呢
就是叫了你才加了营养

“偶然泄露的内部文件”是典型的砍价策略。

Forum-S萨博5代 发表于 2013-8-3 17:05
The F-35 program is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon system. A fleet of 2,443 aircraft has an e ...
很好很尽职

本来就是骗盟国放弃自研的项目 怎么会取消。。。。。。。。。对于盟国的控制

月经帖，日经贴。。

球电一直从失败走向失败

取消了用啥

2014已板上钉钉，看2015吧。

哪怕F35最终被证明很失败，也不可能取消了。这是一个大到不能失败的项目。

果然是没有营养的无聊贴

我觉得要是没那个垂直起降型号，f35项目会顺利好多。

脚盆，南棒，牛牛，公鸡！皮包！袋鼠！枫叶？对，说的就是尼们，看清楚了，都给我精神着点，哦不对，都赶紧给老子出钱，不然元老院就取消项目了，到时候尼们啥都等不到！

韩五记 发表于 2013-8-3 18:16
真无聊……  一个方案研究而已，能表现出什么意义……美国肯定还有全面进攻中国的预案呢，能 ...
你自己贴的链接。


看If之后的内容。  LM的买的议员是足够多的， 没有国会的支持， 这个项目砍是砍不掉的。

当然总统要求缩减开支，那么砍掉这个项目就是一个选项。 当然，国会里面的LM收买议员不支持，也砍不了。

Although the Pentagon has expressed its frustration with the costly F-35 fighter jets, there is little the agency can do without congressional support.[/quote]


国防部很多时候，想干也干不了。  

真不明白你引用这些是想说明什么……

F-35当然也是一个选项，这简直就是一句废话；关键在于F-35被砍的可能性有多大？国防部支持吧？支持啊，都“竭尽所能”保护了；国会支持吧？相当支持啊，上次某陆军退役直升机飞行员出身的议员建议 “暂时性” 冻结F-35项目，被众议院军事委员会以51:10的悬殊比例否决了……

总之F-35被砍的可能性微乎其微，你还想表达什么的呢……？

Forum-S萨博5代 发表于 2013-8-3 21:45
你自己贴的链接。

真不明白你引用这些是想说明什么……

F-35当然也是一个选项，这简直就是一句废话；关键在于F-35被砍的可能性有多大？国防部支持吧？支持啊，都“竭尽所能”保护了；国会支持吧？相当支持啊，上次某陆军退役直升机飞行员出身的议员建议 “暂时性” 冻结F-35项目，被众议院军事委员会以51:10的悬殊比例否决了……

总之F-35被砍的可能性微乎其微，你还想表达什么的呢……？

韩五记 发表于 2013-8-3 22:07
真不明白你引用这些是想说明什么……

F-35当然也是一个选项，这简直就是一句废话；关键在于F-35被砍 ...
怎么叫做没意思。 砍是有条件的。

如果继续强行减少军事预算。 根据文中的这个意思，美国国防部砍的可能性就很大了。

怎么叫做没意思。 砍是有条件的。

如果继续强行减少军事预算。 根据文中的这个意思，美国国防部砍的 ...
任何评估报告都会列举所有项目，然后给出各种选项和后果。这个是评估报告的职责。

并不等于意愿。

别YY了，肥电0%的可能性被腰斩。本来也许有削尖的可能性，黑丝出了这个可能性也是微乎其微。

……

这个canceling是among options，是这个list上的一个选项；这是肯定的啊，预案上肯定要把最坏的情况也做出来啊。但是DoD得被forced到什么程度，才会选择去砍F-35？这个list上在F-35前面，多得是各种项目，DoD忍痛砍几个就能省下来很多钱；这条新闻哪里说DoD被forced了就一定会砍F-35了？除非美国政府要破产了，否则以DoD对F-35的特别态度，根本不会走到完全砍掉F-35项目的地步。

Forum-S萨博5代 发表于 2013-8-3 23:21
怎么叫做没意思。 砍是有条件的。

如果继续强行减少军事预算。 根据文中的这个意思，美国国防部砍的 ...

……

这个canceling是among options，是这个list上的一个选项；这是肯定的啊，预案上肯定要把最坏的情况也做出来啊。但是DoD得被forced到什么程度，才会选择去砍F-35？这个list上在F-35前面，多得是各种项目，DoD忍痛砍几个就能省下来很多钱；这条新闻哪里说DoD被forced了就一定会砍F-35了？除非美国政府要破产了，否则以DoD对F-35的特别态度，根本不会走到完全砍掉F-35项目的地步。

曾经设想低价位高性能，后来成了高价位不达标了……

虽然总是要买各种衣服，各种化妆品，还天天唠叨，但日子还是得过，这世道离了就很难再找到了

韩五记 发表于 2013-8-3 23:33
……

这个canceling是among options，是这个list上的一个选项；这是肯定的啊，预案上肯定要把最坏的 ...
没有人说一定会被砍。 只是不同条件下的可能性。

另外， DoD作为消费者， 对于LM的无休止的涨价和拖延， 还有啥特殊态度？

不满意和厌倦是正常的，但是也别无选择，被拖到这个地步了。