Just how much did Trump shave off the cost of the F-35 JSF?

[usmbguest5318]

Part of prob in knowing is cutting thru all bs
How much the F-35 Really Cost? | Defense Update:
Those figs are wildly different than yours and I could post more of the same. Every plane we are building will need to be immediately modified with new major software upgrade next yr, After cutting cost of AF1 IN half I dont doubt we will be saving on this but again it may be hard to quantify

The figures aren't wildly different at all. The article I cited states in their text:

"Pentagon budget documents show F-35Bs ordered in 2011 cost $172.9 million apiece ($190 million in today’s dollars). The ones ordered last year cost $131.6 million."​

The article you cite notes a sum of ~$180M in 2014:

"...in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft. To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy"​

Those numbers, given that I'm not going to look at the Pentagon documentation, are similar/close enough for me and for the purposes of giving readers of my OP sufficient context for thinking about the price of the plane then, now and going forward and with regard to what Trump says he saved.

Dude, you need to do your own due diligence, not just toss out a competing figure without reading at the article I cited. I don't have a problem with your contradicting me, but I do have a problem with your doing it "sans portfolio." There's a reason I provided the source link in my OP: so readers who were aware of what they perceive as differing information could review my and their information and reconcile the two, at least in an "order of magnitude" way.

You obviously did not do that; thus you've demonstrated no discursive/intellectual integrity. That behavior is immature, irresponsible and disrespectful to both me an yourself. I know that one who has little or no self-respect certainly has no respect for me, and I don't interact with people of that sort. So I bid you adieu.[/QUOTEr

Dude I have several hundred posts here on F-35....My numbers don't match or are similar to yours at all...Lowest current price I have seen is 125 not including all updates after mfg and the Naval fixes are still being worked out so there is no firm number on those costs

Lowest current price I have seen is 125 not including all updates after mfg and the Naval fixes are still being worked out so there is no firm number on those costs

Okay...TY for that. The question I've asked remains contextually the same -- I'm still asking how much has Trump actually saved us. Given the figure you've indicated above, my question can be seen as being, "How much below the current and currently estimated price will the planes cost as a result of Trump's efforts?"

I have several hundred posts here on F-35....My numbers don't match or are similar to yours at all

• The quantity of posts you have on the topic is irrelevant to the savings Trump has made or whether any subsequent cost reductions are attributable to him.
• When were planes ordered in 2011 delivered? Might it be that the $172M cited in my article is the same $172M your article notes for the cost of planes received in 2014?
  
  If you're of a mind to compare the accounting the two articles present, you need to think about the temporal context in which each article presented the information. I don't know the time span from placing an order to taking delivery of a plane, but I suspect that 2.5-3 years isn't unreasonable. I do know that huge and long timeline projects like that tend to call for payment upon milestones (dates, degree of completion, etc.) or up-front and in full (rare for government projects of this nature), or in-full upon delivery (also rare for gov't projects of this nature)

You're the one challenging the accuracy of the figures in the article I referenced. By all means, please share with us your reconciliation that shows the nature, timing and extent of the variance in the figures the two articles share along with what makes you think one is more/less accurate than the other. (You'll note both articles draw from the same source documents.)

I realize the $85M figure cited in my post/article is a projection, and it's the projection Lockheed/the Pentagon were operating on before Trump's involvement. Thus, if Trump's in fact saving us money, there should now be a revised projection that's lower. What is it? I don't right now care much who shares the projection -- your preferred sources, mine or someone else's -- I just want to know what it is. After all, when someone, in this case Trump, says "I saved you money," asking "how much" isn't unreasonable, and the answer should be provided as a number, not vaguely as "lots" or "millions" or some other very imprecise format.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Short answer...I have no idea and Trump, as usual, isn't saying.

What I do know is that the cost of the thing has been decreasing years.



The first JSFs (ca. 2007) cost about $280M each in today's money. Now, they are about $100M each. Even before Trump's "pow wow" with Lockheed, projections were the planes would price around $85 each.

The Navy and Marine variants have features that make them more expensive than the "standard" Air Force version.

Of his meeting with Trump, Lockheed's CEO said they discussed how the Pentagon's buying the planes in bulk (ordering planes for multiple years instead of X-many this year and deciding how many more to buy next year when the time comes) would let Lockheed cut the price even more. That idea was proposed to Pentagon officials prior to Trump's being elected and they liked it; however, members of Congress, notably Senator McCain, didn't care for it, so no go. The CEO didn't indicate how much below $85M a bulk buy would lower the price.

Trump can no more make Congress approve the appropriation for a bulk buy than could Obama. Maybe, however, since Trump is a Republican, Congress'll go with it to make him look good? Who knows?

Source

Trump is going to spend his whole presidency telling us how great he is, even if it wasn't him. But then, this is what politicians do, and some people can see through it like glass, and other people see through it like stone.

Its not the Obama administration were there was an abundance of cheerleaders no matter what the situation. Good or bad. You always had a gaggle ra ra raing it for all they were worth. The press loathes Trump and no matter the good things he has done, or will do, he will never get one single accolade from the press, Liberals or establishment republicans.

What a surprise. You go attack people, then demand that they be nice to people. Er... what? Being a politician is trying to get people on your side. Trump's not doing that so he'll have to suffer the consequences. Boohoo Trump. I mean, the guy attacks everyone and anyone and then his supporters demand that everyone just conveniently ignore this.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The press loathes Trump and no matter the good things he has done, or will do, he will never get one single accolade from the press, Liberals or establishment republicans.

I loathe Trump, but I will give him credit for things he does well. I don't see much that he's done well, but that's not to say he's done nothing well.

How I view the matter may have to do with how I define/describe "doing well." For instance in my firm, our performance evaluations have three grades: exceeds expectations, meets expectations, fails to meet expectations. Only one of those is what I and my colleagues consider as "doing well." And as one might imagine, it's the rating staff must preponderantly receive to get promoted and/or receive good pay increases. (The firm is "up or out," so if one doesn't get promoted "on schedule," one won't be around for long.) Much of the corporate world -- at the upper middle and lower senior management levels -- is the same.

I assess Trump's performance in accordance with the standards I'm accustomed to seeing in the corporate world, having been a corporate executive. Frankly, I see little that's made publicly known that leads me to think Trump "does well" at a lot of things. I think it's a good thing he owns his own company because I think were he to work at a public company in the same industry, it'd be out of business or he'd not reach the C-level. As far as I'm concerned, the Presidency is the C-level, so that's the quality of performance, expression and thought I expect to see from him.

The less I see demonstrable evidence of high performance, the less good I have to say. Even so, the little good I see, sure, I'll give him his due for it. All the same, consistency matters. What did Janet say? "What have you done for me lately?" High performance and high quality output needs to be all the time. That's part of the CEO standard.