Trump Trainwreck - Ongoing diary of betrayal and evil

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-25-2016, 05:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-25-2016, 09:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: As an example, a few days back Trump announced a desire to cancel the F 35 program and build more 1980s era F 18s.  I posted that continuing to use very dated technology would present problems trying to maintain the air superiority that we're accustomed to having.  It's tempting to accent such an opinion on military equipment with a judgment on Trump's knowledge and temperament.  The day after Trump's tweet, though, came a promise from Lockheed to cut the price on the F 35.  I'm not sure I trust Lockheed's promises any more than I do Trump's, but that's the style of government we're going to be seeing, apparently.

Government by tweet?  Does it only work if the victim thinks the Tweeter in Chief really will follow through on his threats?  Is there more going on than an off the wall threat drawing an empty promise?

What you describe may be how the mainstream media paints the situation, and the optics on that are certainly great for Trump:  he tweets about the F-35's excessive costs, and suddenly Lockheed surrenders on price.  And Lockheed comes across as being reasonable too;  it's a win win as far as Trump and Lockheed are concerned.

But yet, there is more to it, and most likely Trump or his advisors were aware of a few levels more detail before the first tweet went out.

First off, the F 18 in question is not the original Hornet, but the Super Hornet, which is late 1990s technology before upgrades.  It's less than two decades into its life cycle; it may not be bleeding edge like the F-35 is, but it's definitely not dated.

Second, the F-35 is generally acknowledged to be inferior to the F22 as an air superiority fighter, despite the F22 also being 1990s technology.  The F-35 is a compromise design for multiple roles, and those compromises make it less capable than its level of technology might indicate.

Third, there have already been rumblings from the Navy about preferring an F-18 with new active stealth technology over the F-35, which while it has forward quarter passive stealth capability, is also way more expensive and has inferior dogfighting performance.

So the F-18 as an alternative was not something that popped out of the hat because of Trump's tweet; it was something that was already being pushed for in some quarters of the military.  Trump was simply doing good due diligence by insisting on looking at it and not just going with the F-35 by default.

But there's more to it than that as well.  The astronomical development costs for the F-35 - over $300 billion, more than half of the total annual military budget for all four services - have already been spent.  Lockheed already has that money, so they aren't at risk for a lot even if the program gets cancelled.  And since they've basically completed development, they're in a good position to squeeze down on costs; third party estimates are that they could cut unit costs by about 7% by the next order.  All they have to do is deliver those savings, which are likely easily achievable, and they come out smelling like a rose - and are in a better position to make more export sales to boot.

Trump  is no doubt doing the taxpayer a favor by preventing Lockheed from robbing us blind, for example keeping that 7% cost savings for themselves.  However, there isn't the level of magic here that the news reports suggest.  It's just a matter of ensuring that the government doesn't get overcharged by making sure the government follows good business practices and pays attention to where its money is going.

The F-18 E and F models are at best two decades obsolete, and are still just upgrades on the early F-18 models.  Two decades off state of the art, very conservatively.

Even if upgrading the F 18 was an option for the Navy, the F 18 is designed for big carriers, built heavy to take the shock of carrier landings.  The Air Force won't want it.  It won't replace the Marine's VTOL Harriers.  Cancelling the F 35 for the F 18 is so much bull.

Currently, the carriers are flying a mix of the original Hornet and the improved E and F models.  The current plan is to retire the originals and replace them with F 35s.  As the original hornets (and I believe the Harriers) are approaching the end of their airframe life, big changes to the current plans will be at best awkward.  As the Navy's (and everybody's) F 35s are arriving late, a few dozen more Super Hornets are being built to keep current carrier air wings up to full strength until the F 35s arrive, but what are your sources for the 'cancel the F 35' alternative?  Sounds like a Boing wet dream. 

Mind you, I'm still not thrilled by the 'one plane that does all jobs' approach.  If I had a do-over, I might want separate replacement developments for the Harrier, A 10, plus land and carrier based air superiority planes.  As you say, though, we have a big sunk cost and starting another development cycle would delay things enough to leave us flying stressed airframes.  We're stuck with what we've got, give or take a 7% discount.

But military questions aside, a lot of blue folk aren't going to begin to take government by tweet seriously.  Trump has used the approach to harass reporters who ask tough questions, abuse Miss Universe candidates whose changing room privacy was violated, and disparage Gold Star parents.  There is a vision of a stressed out insomniac passing time by pecking on his cell phone.  Red extreme partisans might be willing to assume more thought has gone into a midnight tweet than there is evidence of, but neither blue partisans nor the hypothetical independent reality based thinker is apt to.