Tired of winning yet?

(CNN) Defense giant Lockheed Martin has agreed to sell 90 new F-35 fighter jets to the US Defense Department for $8.5 billion -- a deal that amounts to more than $700 million in savings over the last batch of aircraft delivered.

Lockheed Martin credited President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price" of what is already the most expensive weapons program in history.

The cost of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program found itself in Trump's crosshairs on several occasions in recent weeks and Trump called for a review of whether a modified version of the older F/A-18 aircraft could replace the Navy's costly F-35 variant.
Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson gave then-President-elect Trump her "personal commitment" to cut the cost of the stealthy F-35 fighter jet after Trump posted a tweet criticizing the program and newly confirmed Defense Secretary James Mattis ordered the Pentagon to conduct a review of the $400 billion program last week.

Once official, the deal in principle would mark the first time that costs for any of the three versions of the fifth generation fighter jet will have dipped below $100 million per plane.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/polit...duction/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool

 

leftists are already pooh poohing the cost reduction saying 700 million is not that much.
Of course they also said 1000 new jobs was not much, then 5,000 new jobs was not that much.
leftists on unclear on the concept.

 

In a previous article, Lockheed Martin representatives said Trump's involvement was helpful in pushing to get this deal done quicker but the cost savings were always planned for this follow-on contract. Regardless, we should expect for succeeding production runs to get cheaper over time absent new significant feature upgrades.

 

If "pushing" you meant, "Holy $hit...he wants to cut it by how much? This guy ain't messing around."

Defense contractors are never in a hurry to save taxpayers money. Their job is to make as much money as possible.

And the politician's' job is to get reelected. A good way to do that is spend a whole bunch of money on a jet that has subcontractors in their states.

 

Here is the article I was referencing. My mistake, the quote was from a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

What's ironic about this deal is that these planes aren't all for us. 35 of the 90 planes will be resold to our Allies. I wonder if we are actually selling them or giving them to the allies and calling it "aid". Does anyone know? It would be great if we'd re-sell them at a slight profit. You know...a handling fee.

 

Husker, why don't you find the specific quote from the Lockheed PR guy from the past where he talks about "broad expectations" whatever the hell that means.

 

Too busy. You're more than welcome to do that research. Is the AEI now part of the Anti-Trump conspiracy?

 

Haha...you brought it up - some nebulous quote about "broad expectations."

STRONG!

I'm "more than welcome to do the research?". If you're claiming something, you should find it.

 

It was a quote in the article I posted. If you want to try to disprove the AEI military analyst who made the statement then feel free.

 

A quote IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED.

"Broad expectations" Strong!

And if you know anything about AEI, it's hardly a pro-Trump think tank.

https://www.aei.org/publication/donald-trumps-world/

 

OK. You got me. I posted it thus it must represent ME. I'm talking to Mackenzie Eaglen right now. Give me a moment so we can together cobble together a rebuttal.

In all seriousness, your point inferred that Donald Trump deserves credit for saving the US taxpayer money. I posted an article in which a purported expert countered that point. So, you have your "expert" opinion vs. Mackenzie Eaglen's.

For future arguments sake, what aren't you an "expert" in? That will help me avoid the brow beatings and simply acquiesce to your statements, regardless of supporting evidence.

 

No...what you posted was a quote referring to a conversation with a third party discussing "broad expectations." BROAD expectation does not quantify any kinds of savings.

Supporting evidence...LOL. I try to become knowledgeable on issues I comment on. Relying on the opinions of "experts" makes you a sheep. Do you agree with all of AEI's positions on foreign policy/economic policy?

 

You were expecting a specific number for savings? I'm unclear what you are expecting here. With that single quote, you have more information now than before you started this diatribe. You posted this with the explicit intention of saying "Trump saved us XXX". The article and quote I cited said "this saving was part of the plan". Choose to discount it or not, I don't care.

Knowledgeable as in you received a quote from someone following this story (yes, an "expert") that differs from your intended world view so rather than "become knowledgable" you attack the source. That's your prerogative but don't claim "become knowledgable" then proceed to drop trousers and display the opposite the moment an alternate perspective is thrown up. That's ignorance, not knowledge.

 

This is what I'm expecting:

From July 2016 on the Lockheed Website. This is the only mention from Lockheed about LRIP 10 cost reduction until after Trump's tweet:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ne...nces-phase-ii-cost-reduction-initiatives.html

The CNN article from yesterday I posted reported the savings for the latest batch at $7 million per aircraft - LRIP 10, and $728 million over the last contract LRIP 9

So what was announced yesterday is a 400% increase in savings per aircraft versus what Lockheed said they expected they could deliver back in July.

Husker, please explain the discrepancy. Or is 400% your definition of "broad expectations?"

Haha. I knew about Lockheed's announced much smaller LRIP 10 cost reduction back in August because I also follow and post on a naval aviation message board.

I know about the F-35 and naval aviation. My first job in the Navy was to become an expert on the F/A-18's flight envelope and avionics strength and weakness versus those of threat nations' aircraft and surface to air systems. I have nearly 100 hours of backseat time in F/A-18Bs and Ds and instructed Hornet pilots on air-to-air and surface-to-air tactics prescribed from the intelligence community on how to defeat those threat systems. And during my banking sabbatical post-Financial Crisis, I worked at a major defense contractor doing corporate finance and strategy and a very well known policy think tank in Washington, DC. I don't comment on issues I am not knowledgable on.

You posted a quote grossly paraphrasing the words of someone else with absolutely ZERO context. I never attacked Eaglen. I simply asked you to provide the context for the quote of someone else paraphrasing someone else. That is seeking knowledge. As John Dewey said, "Skepticism is the mark and pose of an educated mind." On the contrary, you just subscribed to what someone else said. And then when asked to validate the context and primary source of your argument, you lash out retreating to a straw man argument about expertise which is your habit.

 

@Seattle Husker So what's the discrepancy? Before Trump's tweet and meeting in December, Lockheed never talked about a $7 million per unit savings in LRIP 10.

 

The discrepancy is SH. Those who didn't go to settings and ignore his content right after HC lost have no clue the relief you're missing. Truth.

 

In all fairness to Seattle, I can't believe I'm doing this for him because I'm sick as a dog right now and have laryngitis, Lockheed has stated for about a year that their goal has been an "$85 million per unit" flyaway cost by 2019 - two years from now. However, that number is for a volume contract where fixed costs are diluted with a greater number of orders and cumulative production has doubled. That number may, actually almost certainly, only refer to the cost of the cheapest F-35A variant. $85 million per unit in 2019 does not mean the taxpayers are getting a good deal on the program and it certainly has no bearing on whether LRIP 10 is a good or bad value.

Lockheed was still fighting tooth and nail with the Pentagon on both the LRIP 9 contract, closed in November, and this LRIP 10 announced Monday. Both of those contracts should have been finished a year ago. Every analyst I've read estimated a $100MM/unit cost for LRIP 10...a modest decrease from LRIP 8 and 9 given the economies of scale of the order and the public information (such as the press release I linked). The $94MM/unit cost was a significant discount to analyst consensus. And again, Lockheed only indicated a potential $7MM cost reduction until after they met with Trump in December.

IMHO, what might be the most accurate summary of what happened, is that Trump was able to get Lockheed's reserve price on LRIP 10 - a still profitable price that Lockheed was willing to sell for in order to avoid risk to future orders. Trump threatened the F-35C Navy variant...the most expensive variant, the one with the least investment from the DoD (I think they're are less than 5 total F-35Cs built), the Navy's preference for twin-engine jets, and the most replaceable of the three given the Navy's other strike and anti-air systems (Tomahawks, Superhornets, and upcoming UCAVs). The loss of the C-variant, while pretty remote, was still a risk to big to take and Trump got Lockheed to "sharpen their pencils," something every CEO tortures vendors to do.

 

Here is an article in December that quotes Bogdan as saying that they were anticipating a 6-7% reduction in pricing for LRIP-10 for all models. I haven't done the match to see whether the final LRIP-10 pricing exceeds the 6-7% mark. If it does then DJT deserves credit. If it doesn't then he's taking credit for work that was already in process, a common characteristic of his tweets.

That article was posted on 12/20. Donald Trump tweeted on 12/22.

 

Trump tweeted on 12/12 Husker. They only announced the 6% - 7% expectation a week after Trump tweeted this. In all of the negotiation going on for LRIP 10, 6% - 7% was never mentioned until AFTER Trump's tweet.

LRIP-9 price per aircraft was $107 million ($6.1B/57). LRIP 10 was $94 million ($8.5B/90). That's a 12% reduction over the past batch.*

http://www.businessinsider.com/lrip-9-f35-jet-2016-12

* LRIP 9 was only a 3.7% reduction over LRIP 8

 

Sorry, typo. Thanks for the correction.

If the inference that Trump was responsible for the 6-7% figure then I'll submit this from the same article:

The Trump admin had not talked to Bogdan before he made those statements.

If anything, Trump may deserve credit for additional savings over and above the 6-7% Bogdan stated.

 

The mere specter of the forthcoming Trump presidency caused Bogdan to reduce prices by 6-7%.

 

That wasn't a typo. You tried to marginalize Trump's influence on cost reductions by saying 6% - 7% expectations were already announced before Trump tweeted. They weren't.

The F-35 is THE most controvertial weapons system in history. Maybe only Reagan's Star Wars comes close. Lockheed has been trying to secure this order for over a year. Lockheed's future depends on the F-35 program, and hence strong public opinion and goodwill. Look how hard it's been to kill the A-10 because of grassroots support. Yet, the only mention of savings from the company, which would be huge to their PR, was a very long press release pimping an expectation of $1.7MM/unit cost reduction in August - and then very coincidentally, this 6% - 7% expectation 8 days after Trump's tweet.

Why didn't Lockheed mention this, oh I don't know...over the past year when they were negotiating the contract? And BTW, Gen. Bogdan can only report what the Lockheed project managers give him. And Bogdan will most likely work for Lockheed when he retires.

And what exactly do Bogdan's "don't think the program cost wise is out of control" mean? To a businessman that's responsibe for a P&L that means NOTHING. Do you know how many times an owner's rep told me he "didn't think costs were out of control?"

 

Preach it, brotha!

 

Marginalize or over-amplify? I'm a little surprised you have such a pessimistic view of the complication of the defense industry procurement process yet believe that a simple tweet can move mountains.

That's the point, you don't KNOW what occurred up to that point and are assuming that Trump's tweet resulted in Bogdan's statement of which the Lt. General is saying directly he had no communication with the incoming administration up to that point.

Which defense contractor publicly announces negotiation progrees in midst of the negotiations process?

 

The tweet got them to sharpen their pencil. Trump also personally met with Lockheed after the tweet. Good to know you thought he moved a mountain.

Husker, what happened to you? Ever since Trump won you've become a joke.

You are attacking me for "assuming" facts and not having knowledge? The pot and kettle idiom doesn't even come close to capturing that stupidity.

Unless I qualify a comment, I only post on issues I have knowledge of. And when I debate on WM, I strive for rigourour arguments based on facts. You, on the other hand, like internet tough guys post superficial editorials from other people as your counterpoint while attacking my education and background.

I KNOW:

1) That the 6% - 7% expectation was only announced coincidentally 8 days after Trump's tweet.

2) That the LRIP 10 cost reduction per aircraft announced Monday was materially more than even the high 7% expecattion

3) The 12% reduction per aircraft in LRIP 10 is significantly more than 3.7% reduction in LRIP 9, which the DoD had to negotiate for over 14 months.

4) Trump actually threatened to replace the F-35C. Dramatically complaining about price and threatening to bring in another bidder is exactly how CEOs negotiate and get the lowest price. I know this because my clients do this all the time.

5) I have common sense. And when you put 1, 2, 3, and 4 together, anyone with common sense can deduce that Trump was able to get Lockheed to sharpen their pencil.

WTF are you talking about? They announced they could save the taxpayers an amazing $1.7 million per LRIP 10 aircraft in July.

 

Husker's F-35 greatest hits:

 

I attacked it only after you flaunted it to claim some intellectual high ground. Your attempt to plead humility now falls on deaf ears for anyone but the Trumpsters.

Correct. Your attempt to correlate that to a Trump tweet is where we disagree.

I've already given Trump credit for that so I'm not sure where your beef is other than to be declared "right" which I think is your ultimate goal. Why is self esteem such an issue with Trump supporters?

No argument.

The "other bidder" was never a real threat. You know there was no replacement for the F-35C. Either they buy it or they don't. The only threat here is that they don't buy it.

No, you have a bias to support Trump and for some reason feel compelled to give him credit even where it's not warranted.

It was a release by the PR department focused on talking about all the money LM was investing in their production lines to reduce costs across their projects, of which LRIP is one of them. Your logical leap is mistakenly taking it as some sort of formally negotiated savings that than the Public Relations spin it was. It wasn't even a reference to an existing contract!

Have you worked with a PR department before? Even the Under Sec of Defense' quote was playing up how much LM is investing in their infrastructure to save money. Both sides were focusing on "savings". It was an obvious appeal to the taxpayer that didn't really mean anything other than Lockheed was investing $170M in capital investments which should be the expectation of any company with the volume of LM's revenue.

 

Cite me an example please.

The only high-ground I have are facts.

 

Seriously? You haven't spoken often about your ivy league education? Wasn't it Yale? And done so to diminish the intellect of others, me specifically? Next you'll claim you haven't also spoken many times about your naval intelligence experience, which I respect immensely.

 

I have spoken about my experiences at Yale. They have always either been about:

1) How ******* liberal the place is
2) How patronizing the liberals there can be to minorities
3) The "Clarence Thomas" treatment I get from liberals who told me the only reason I got in to Yale was because of affirmative action
4) Providing guidance to posters who's kids are considering the Ivy League.

Again, the Ivy League and Yale specifically frequently come up as topics on West Mall (as do topics dealing with national security/intelligence and financial markets). I happen to bring a unique perspective to those discussions because I went there.

Here's a newsflash - @Mr. Deez and @NJlonghorn are lawyers and they bring their perspectives on the Law and the Constitution. @Hollandtx is a woman and brings her perspectives on feminism. And no one would have guessed you work in Tech...that's a joke - everyone knows that .

I am proud of my time there, just as much as my time at UT, and just as much as my time in the Navy and IC. You seem to want to marginalize and attack me for it. If Catholicism or horses were something here posters talked about, I'd chime in on those topics too.

There is a search box on the top right corner of the website Husker. Find me an example of whatever the hell you're talking about.