Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 11/21/2014 8:34:48 PM EDT
Because I'm 'tarded and didn't use Google.




Contracts for November 21, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------

No. CR-224-14

FOR RELEASE AT
5 p.m. ET November 21, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------

CONTRACTS

NAVY

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $4,123,746,486 modification to a previously-awarded fixed-price-incentive firm-target contract (N00019-13-C-0008) for the production of 43 Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot VIII F-35 Lightning II aircraft. This includes manufacture and delivery of 29 F-35A aircraft for the U. S. Air Force (19), government of Italy (two), government of Norway (two), government of Japan (four) and government of Israel (two). In addition, this modification provides for 10 F-35B aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps (six) and government of the United Kingdom (four);  and four F-35C aircraft for the U.S. Navy (three) and U.S. Marine Corps (one).  This modification also provides for LRIP Lot VIII production requirements, including diminishing manufacturing sources redesign and management, ancillary mission equipment, including pilot flight equipment, and concurrency changes to LRIP Lot VIII aircraft. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (55 percent); El Segundo, California (15 percent); Warton, United Kingdom (10 percent); Orlando, Florida (5 percent); Nashua, New Hampshire (5 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (5 percent); and Cameri, Italy (5 percent) and is expected to be completed in May 2017. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement funds (Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy), international partner funds, and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $4,120,352,986 will be obligated at the time of this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($1,701,415,744; 41 percent); Marine Corps ($583,570,317; 14 percent); Navy ($491,755,261; 12 percent); international partners ($786,460,233; 19 percent); and foreign military sales ($557,151,431; 14 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting authority.

BAE Systems Information and Electronics Systems Integration, Inc., Nashua, New Hampshire, is being awarded a $19,862,638 firm-fixed-price contract to procure 283 AN/ALE-55 fiber optic towed decoys for the Integrated Defense Electronic Countermeasures Radio Frequency Countermeasure program. Work will be performed in Nashua, New Hampshire, and is expected to be completed in November 2016. Fiscal 2015 procurement of ammunition (Navy and Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $19,862,638 will be obligated at the time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland is the contracting activity (N00019-15-C-0018).

AIR FORCE

Raytheon Co., Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded a $32,221,204 modification (P00010) to previously-awarded contract FA8681-13-C-0196 for Enhanced Paveway II guided bomb unit kits and a 10-year warranty for each kit. Contractor will provide 500 Enhanced Paveway II guided bomb units 49 and 50 kits (each kit includes an enhanced computer control group and an air foil group) and a 10-year warranty for each kit to be supplied to the Royal Saudi Air Force. Work will be performed at Tucson, Arizona, and is expected to be completed by July 1, 2016. This contract involves foreign military sales. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity (FA8681-13-C-0196).

Sierra Nevada Corp., Sparks, Nevada, has been awarded a not-to-exceed $15,800,000 undefinitized contract modification (P0007) to exercise an option to previously-awarded undefinitized contract FA8620-14-C-3027. Contractor will provide Afghan National Army Special Operations Forces contractor logistics support for fixed-wing aircraft (PC-12) sustainment necessary to perform the maintenance operations and keep the aircraft operational. Work will be performed at Kabul International Airport, Afghanistan, and Kandahar, Afghanistan, and is expected to be completed by March 16, 2015. This contract involves foreign military sales. The 645th Aeronautical Systems Group, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8620-14-C-3027).

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)


Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:36:06 PM EDT
[#1]
T&E?
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:37:00 PM EDT
[#2]
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:39:00 PM EDT
[#3]
To fly off carriers?  Marines do that, and the C model will outperform the B.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:39:35 PM EDT
[#4]
We were always getting both B and C models. No point in going all B when they will be the ones that will get used the least most likely.
Marine Aviators also fly off carriers and there are several land based squadrons.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:40:46 PM EDT
[#5]
Proof of concept before they buy the $251 million a copy Skyraider replacement.

Marines Oorah!
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:41:25 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
We were always getting both B and C models. No point in going all B when they will be the ones that will get used the least most likely.
Marine Aviators also fly off carriers and there are several land based squadrons.
View Quote


I thought they were only getting the B models
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:41:29 PM EDT
[#7]
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...





Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:42:26 PM EDT
[#8]
I suspect it is to replace USMC hornets which are supplementing the current CVW's. They disbanded a lot of Navy Attack squadrons and the VMFA's fell into fill the slots. It would be more of a job to start up new squadrons than just upgrade existing squadrons.
Marines gotta pull their weight on CVW's to keep from being disbanded.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:42:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You're the expert. Tell us.
View Quote


No expert on this one, I can only speculate.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:48:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Never been done before

" />
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:50:52 PM EDT
[#11]
Same reason we got the Harrier. Some politician promised to buy them, and nobody else would take them.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:53:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I thought they were only getting the B models
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
We were always getting both B and C models. No point in going all B when they will be the ones that will get used the least most likely.
Marine Aviators also fly off carriers and there are several land based squadrons.


I thought they were only getting the B models


Nope, we are replacing not only our aging Harriers but also our aging F/A-18A,B,C,Ds
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:54:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I suspect it is to replace USMC hornets which are supplementing the current CVW's.
View Quote


You're right.
http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20110314/NEWS/103140319/More-Marines-fly-carrier-variant-JSFs

Right now I don't think there's any Marine F-18 squadron's on carriers, I know that a few years back the Marines pulled their F-18's off the boat since they did not directly support the Marine mission.

Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:55:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...


Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?
View Quote


I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:56:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You're right.
http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20110314/NEWS/103140319/More-Marines-fly-carrier-variant-JSFs

Right now I don't think there's any Marine F-18 squadron's on carriers, I know that a few years back the Marines pulled their F-18's off the boat since they did not directly support the Marine mission.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I suspect it is to replace USMC hornets which are supplementing the current CVW's.


You're right.
http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20110314/NEWS/103140319/More-Marines-fly-carrier-variant-JSFs

Right now I don't think there's any Marine F-18 squadron's on carriers, I know that a few years back the Marines pulled their F-18's off the boat since they did not directly support the Marine mission.



VMFA-323, 251, and 312 are currently boat squadrons, although that changes around a bit with the shell games the USMC plays with its airplanes
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:56:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


Not saying it wasn't.

I was on board the USS Stennis for OEF. I know what squadrons were there.

You win a perfect for that post.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:57:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


VMFA-323, 251, and 312 are currently boat squadrons, although that changes around a bit with the shell games the USMC plays with its airplanes
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I suspect it is to replace USMC hornets which are supplementing the current CVW's.


You're right.
http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20110314/NEWS/103140319/More-Marines-fly-carrier-variant-JSFs

Right now I don't think there's any Marine F-18 squadron's on carriers, I know that a few years back the Marines pulled their F-18's off the boat since they did not directly support the Marine mission.



VMFA-323, 251, and 312 are currently boat squadrons, although that changes around a bit with the shell games the USMC plays with its airplanes


I looked at the Navy CVW web pages and there were no USMC F-18 squadron in the airwings.
Google says there are.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:59:04 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Not saying it wasn't.

I was on board the USS Stennis for OEF. I know what squadrons were there.

You win a perfect for that post.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Not saying it wasn't.

I was on board the USS Stennis for OEF. I know what squadrons were there.

You win a perfect for that post.



Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:59:09 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Nope, we are replacing not only our aging Harriers but also our aging F/A-18A,B,C,Ds
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We were always getting both B and C models. No point in going all B when they will be the ones that will get used the least most likely.
Marine Aviators also fly off carriers and there are several land based squadrons.


I thought they were only getting the B models


Nope, we are replacing not only our aging Harriers but also our aging F/A-18A,B,C,Ds



But the USMC is extending the life of their baby Hornets.

U.S. Marines to Retire Harrier Fleet Earlier Than Planned, Extend Life of Hornets
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1683502_U_S__Marines_to_Retire_Harrier_Fleet_Earlier_Than_Planned__Extend_Life_of_Hornets.html
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 8:59:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...


Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?


I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.


No they seem to want to jump straight to F-35s. Which is strange I thought for sure the Navy would just give us their old Super Hornets, and not allow us to have new toys.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:00:23 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...
Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?

I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.


The Marines had the chance to buy into the Superhornet program and they passed on it for more EA-6B's and the F-35B.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:05:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The Marines had the chance to buy into the Superhornet program and they passed on it for more EA-6B's and the F-35B.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...
Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?

I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.


The Marines had the chance to buy into the Superhornet program and they passed on it for more EA-6B's and the F-35B.


Hopefully the F-35 is ok. You just, you know, hear things that make you nervous
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:05:17 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



But the USMC is extending the life of their baby Hornets.

U.S. Marines to Retire Harrier Fleet Earlier Than Planned, Extend Life of Hornets
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1683502_U_S__Marines_to_Retire_Harrier_Fleet_Earlier_Than_Planned__Extend_Life_of_Hornets.html
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We were always getting both B and C models. No point in going all B when they will be the ones that will get used the least most likely.
Marine Aviators also fly off carriers and there are several land based squadrons.


I thought they were only getting the B models


Nope, we are replacing not only our aging Harriers but also our aging F/A-18A,B,C,Ds



But the USMC is extending the life of their baby Hornets.

U.S. Marines to Retire Harrier Fleet Earlier Than Planned, Extend Life of Hornets
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1683502_U_S__Marines_to_Retire_Harrier_Fleet_Earlier_Than_Planned__Extend_Life_of_Hornets.html


The Marines will use something until it can no longer carry on. The airframe condition of my home squadron always worried me when ever they taxied in and I ran out to refuel them. I was stationed in Japan and 242 hasn't deployed since 2005 so they might not have been getting the best equipment and replacement stuff. I know it was a bitch for my unit to get new gear.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:07:02 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


No they seem to want to jump straight to F-35s. Which is strange I thought for sure the Navy would just give us their old Super Hornets, and not allow us to have new toys.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...


Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?


I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.


No they seem to want to jump straight to F-35s. Which is strange I thought for sure the Navy would just give us their old Super Hornets, and not allow us to have new toys.

Navy will never let the USMC get Super Bugs. Navy jumped thru hoops to get them and it is probably in their interest to keep them no matter that the F35 is coming. Marines were denied the Tomcat even though it could have been a bomb dropper, but the Navy wanted them all to themselves. He'll, the Navy didn't even want to let the Marines get the legacy bugs back in the 80's. They wanted to replace all the A-7s and F-4s before the Marines upgraded.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:07:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


No they seem to want to jump straight to F-35s. Which is strange I thought for sure the Navy would just give us their old Super Hornets, and not allow us to have new toys.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...


Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?


I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.


No they seem to want to jump straight to F-35s. Which is strange I thought for sure the Navy would just give us their old Super Hornets, and not allow us to have new toys.


Have you looked at Marine Air for the past few years?
The only junk they received from the Navy were the EA-6B's.

C-130J's for C-30F's / R's and T's.

The UH-1Y and the AH-1Z for the UH-1N and the AH-1W.

The MV-22 for the CH-47 CH-46. (CH-47, I'm tarded)

The CH-53K for the CH-53E.

The F-35B for the AV-8 and F-18.

The Marines have been getting some of the new shit for a while.  
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:07:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

The Marines will use something until it can no longer carry on. The airframe condition of my home squadron always worried me when ever they taxied in and I ran out to refuel them. I was stationed in Japan and 242 hasn't deployed since 2005 so they might not have been getting the best equipment and replacement stuff. I know it was a bitch for my unit to get new gear.
View Quote


Army flew Ospreys for 20 years before the marines ever saw them.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:08:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Army flew Ospreys for 20 years before the marines ever saw them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

The Marines will use something until it can no longer carry on. The airframe condition of my home squadron always worried me when ever they taxied in and I ran out to refuel them. I was stationed in Japan and 242 hasn't deployed since 2005 so they might not have been getting the best equipment and replacement stuff. I know it was a bitch for my unit to get new gear.


Army flew Ospreys for 20 years before the marines ever saw them.


Will you at least us think we get new cool things sometimes?
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:08:48 PM EDT
[#28]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Same reason we got the Harrier. Some politician promised to buy them, and nobody else would take them.
View Quote
Who made that promise?



 
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:09:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Army flew Ospreys for 20 years before the marines ever saw them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

The Marines will use something until it can no longer carry on. The airframe condition of my home squadron always worried me when ever they taxied in and I ran out to refuel them. I was stationed in Japan and 242 hasn't deployed since 2005 so they might not have been getting the best equipment and replacement stuff. I know it was a bitch for my unit to get new gear.


Army flew Ospreys for 20 years before the marines ever saw them.



Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:11:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The Marines had the chance to buy into the Superhornet program and they passed on it for more EA-6B's and the F-35B.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...
Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?

I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.


The Marines had the chance to buy into the Superhornet program and they passed on it for more EA-6B's and the F-35B.


This is correct. It has nothing to do with the Navy not letting the USMC have them.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:11:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Navy will never let the USMC get Super Bugs. Navy jumped thru hoops to get them and it is probably in their interest to keep them no matter that the F35 is coming. Marines were denied the Tomcat even though it could have been a bomb dropper, but the Navy wanted them all to themselves. He'll, the Navy didn't even want to let the Marines get the legacy bugs back in the 80's. They wanted to replace all the A-7s and F-4s before the Marines upgraded.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...


Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?


I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.


No they seem to want to jump straight to F-35s. Which is strange I thought for sure the Navy would just give us their old Super Hornets, and not allow us to have new toys.

Navy will never let the USMC get Super Bugs. Navy jumped thru hoops to get them and it is probably in their interest to keep them no matter that the F35 is coming. Marines were denied the Tomcat even though it could have been a bomb dropper, but the Navy wanted them all to themselves. He'll, the Navy didn't even want to let the Marines get the legacy bugs back in the 80's. They wanted to replace all the A-7s and F-4s before the Marines upgraded.


Bullshit.

The Navy WANTED the Marines to buy into the Superhornet program (including the Growler).
The Marines didn't want anything to do with it.
They wanted that money for the F-35B program.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:12:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
T&E?
View Quote


That's the only thing I could think of that made any sort of sense.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:13:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Will you at least us think we get new cool things sometimes?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The Marines will use something until it can no longer carry on. The airframe condition of my home squadron always worried me when ever they taxied in and I ran out to refuel them. I was stationed in Japan and 242 hasn't deployed since 2005 so they might not have been getting the best equipment and replacement stuff. I know it was a bitch for my unit to get new gear.


Army flew Ospreys for 20 years before the marines ever saw them.


Will you at least us think we get new cool things sometimes?

My Dad said the Army gave their wore out shit to the Marines. Naturally I joined the Corps.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:15:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Army flew Ospreys for 20 years before the marines ever saw them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

The Marines will use something until it can no longer carry on. The airframe condition of my home squadron always worried me when ever they taxied in and I ran out to refuel them. I was stationed in Japan and 242 hasn't deployed since 2005 so they might not have been getting the best equipment and replacement stuff. I know it was a bitch for my unit to get new gear.


Army flew Ospreys for 20 years before the marines ever saw them.


That was just wrong
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:16:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Contracts for November 21, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------

No. CR-224-14

FOR RELEASE AT
5 p.m. ET November 21, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------

CONTRACTS

NAVY

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $4,123,746,486 modification to a previously-awarded fixed-price-incentive firm-target contract (N00019-13-C-0008) for the production of 43 Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot VIII F-35 Lightning II aircraft. This includes manufacture and delivery of 29 F-35A aircraft for the U. S. Air Force (19), government of Italy (two), government of Norway (two), government of Japan (four) and government of Israel (two). In addition, this modification provides for 10 F-35B aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps (six) and government of the United Kingdom (four);  and four F-35C aircraft for the U.S. Navy (three) and U.S. Marine Corps (one).  This modification also provides for LRIP Lot VIII production requirements, including diminishing manufacturing sources redesign and management, ancillary mission equipment, including pilot flight equipment, and concurrency changes to LRIP Lot VIII aircraft. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (55 percent); El Segundo, California (15 percent); Warton, United Kingdom (10 percent); Orlando, Florida (5 percent); Nashua, New Hampshire (5 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (5 percent); and Cameri, Italy (5 percent) and is expected to be completed in May 2017. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement funds (Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy), international partner funds, and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $4,120,352,986 will be obligated at the time of this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($1,701,415,744; 41 percent); Marine Corps ($583,570,317; 14 percent); Navy ($491,755,261; 12 percent); international partners ($786,460,233; 19 percent); and foreign military sales ($557,151,431; 14 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting authority.

BAE Systems Information and Electronics Systems Integration, Inc., Nashua, New Hampshire, is being awarded a $19,862,638 firm-fixed-price contract to procure 283 AN/ALE-55 fiber optic towed decoys for the Integrated Defense Electronic Countermeasures Radio Frequency Countermeasure program. Work will be performed in Nashua, New Hampshire, and is expected to be completed in November 2016. Fiscal 2015 procurement of ammunition (Navy and Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $19,862,638 will be obligated at the time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland is the contracting activity (N00019-15-C-0018).

AIR FORCE

Raytheon Co., Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded a $32,221,204 modification (P00010) to previously-awarded contract FA8681-13-C-0196 for Enhanced Paveway II guided bomb unit kits and a 10-year warranty for each kit. Contractor will provide 500 Enhanced Paveway II guided bomb units 49 and 50 kits (each kit includes an enhanced computer control group and an air foil group) and a 10-year warranty for each kit to be supplied to the Royal Saudi Air Force. Work will be performed at Tucson, Arizona, and is expected to be completed by July 1, 2016. This contract involves foreign military sales. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity (FA8681-13-C-0196).

Sierra Nevada Corp., Sparks, Nevada, has been awarded a not-to-exceed $15,800,000 undefinitized contract modification (P0007) to exercise an option to previously-awarded undefinitized contract FA8620-14-C-3027. Contractor will provide Afghan National Army Special Operations Forces contractor logistics support for fixed-wing aircraft (PC-12) sustainment necessary to perform the maintenance operations and keep the aircraft operational. Work will be performed at Kabul International Airport, Afghanistan, and Kandahar, Afghanistan, and is expected to be completed by March 16, 2015. This contract involves foreign military sales. The 645th Aeronautical Systems Group, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8620-14-C-3027).

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)


View Quote



1. they want them

2. the VTO version is to be sold abroad to the UK  and maybe others but until the US puts in a big order they will be oto costly.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:17:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

My Dad said the Army gave their wore out shit to the Marines. Naturally I joined the Corps.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The Marines will use something until it can no longer carry on. The airframe condition of my home squadron always worried me when ever they taxied in and I ran out to refuel them. I was stationed in Japan and 242 hasn't deployed since 2005 so they might not have been getting the best equipment and replacement stuff. I know it was a bitch for my unit to get new gear.


Army flew Ospreys for 20 years before the marines ever saw them.


Will you at least us think we get new cool things sometimes?

My Dad said the Army gave their wore out shit to the Marines. Naturally I joined the Corps.


We were still using gear from the Vietnam War in 2010, it made me kinda sad.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:20:42 PM EDT
[#37]
The real question is why is the USMC buying a disproportionate amount of  less capable, more expensive F-35Bs to Cs than its amphib commitment would lead you to believe it needs.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:23:34 PM EDT
[#38]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Not saying it wasn't.



I was on board the USS Stennis for OEF. I know what squadrons were there.



You win a perfect for that post.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:







Not saying it wasn't.



I was on board the USS Stennis for OEF. I know what squadrons were there.



You win a perfect for that post.

oooooohhhhhhhhhooohhhohhohh you told him!    



 
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:26:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Bullshit.

The Navy WANTED the Marines to buy into the Superhornet program (including the Growler).
The Marines didn't want anything to do with it.
They wanted that money for the F-35B program.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...


Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?


I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.


No they seem to want to jump straight to F-35s. Which is strange I thought for sure the Navy would just give us their old Super Hornets, and not allow us to have new toys.

Navy will never let the USMC get Super Bugs. Navy jumped thru hoops to get them and it is probably in their interest to keep them no matter that the F35 is coming. Marines were denied the Tomcat even though it could have been a bomb dropper, but the Navy wanted them all to themselves. He'll, the Navy didn't even want to let the Marines get the legacy bugs back in the 80's. They wanted to replace all the A-7s and F-4s before the Marines upgraded.


Bullshit.

The Navy WANTED the Marines to buy into the Superhornet program (including the Growler).
The Marines didn't want anything to do with it.
They wanted that money for the F-35B program.

True cause the Marines knew they would be straddled with the older Hornets while the Navy got the newer planes.that is why I say the Marines would not and never will get the Superbugs because the USMC didn't want to give up its funding. You are right that the Harrier needed priority, but the Navy wanted Superbugs.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:34:36 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The real question is why is the USMC buying a disproportionate amount of  less capable, more expensive F-35Bs to Cs than its amphib commitment would lead you to believe it needs.
View Quote


the marines were originally going to buy zero Cs

RON can explain the politics behind this.  and it is politics.  marines are buying so few cs, I have no idea what they are going for.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:45:57 PM EDT
[#41]
Congress requires the Marines occasionally deploy squadrons aboard CVNs. Its been that way for decades. That is why USMC will get F-35Cs.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:46:04 PM EDT
[#42]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
the marines were originally going to buy zero Cs



RON can explain the politics behind this.  and it is politics.  marines are buying so few cs, I have no idea what they are going for.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

The real question is why is the USMC buying a disproportionate amount of  less capable, more expensive F-35Bs to Cs than its amphib commitment would lead you to believe it needs.




the marines were originally going to buy zero Cs



RON can explain the politics behind this.  and it is politics.  marines are buying so few cs, I have no idea what they are going for.
Access to hanger space where other F-35c's are parked so they can take gear adrift...



 
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:47:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Have you looked at Marine Air for the past few years?
The only junk they received from the Navy were the EA-6B's.

C-130J's for C-30F's / R's and T's.

The UH-1Y and the AH-1Z for the UH-1N and the AH-1W.

The MV-22 for the CH-47.

The CH-53K for the CH-53E.

The F-35B for the AV-8 and F-18.

The Marines have been getting some of the new shit for a while.  
View Quote


We got awesome stuff. Now all our blue money is going to be gone for the next 30+ years.
Link Posted: 11/21/2014 9:48:10 PM EDT
[#44]
... we'd mostly likely lose a real war if we had to fight one now

Fuck
Link Posted: 11/22/2014 1:21:07 AM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


the marines were originally going to buy zero Cs

RON can explain the politics behind this.  and it is politics.  marines are buying so few cs, I have no idea what they are going for.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real question is why is the USMC buying a disproportionate amount of  less capable, more expensive F-35Bs to Cs than its amphib commitment would lead you to believe it needs.


the marines were originally going to buy zero Cs

RON can explain the politics behind this.  and it is politics.  marines are buying so few cs, I have no idea what they are going for.


It's for TACAIR commitment.  From a pilots perspective - and the most lethal option - the best game plan would be to buy as little F-35Bs as you actually need to fulfill the commitment to manning amphibs and then buy F-35Cs or As (I could see reasons for both) even if they will never go to the boat.  Unfortunately the extra lethality of having more A/Cs is outweighed by the fact that we are borderline incompetent at managing our aircraft and need to get better at advocating for the resources that we need to properly train and equip our units, and buying majority F-35Bs makes managing the fleet easier.  I can't even imagine how many times the laws of physics have been willfully broken and the amount of "expeditionary" koolaid that has been consumed in order to justify buying all these Bs.
Link Posted: 11/22/2014 8:27:24 AM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


It's for TACAIR commitment.  From a pilots perspective - and the most lethal option - the best game plan would be to buy as little F-35Bs as you actually need to fulfill the commitment to manning amphibs and then buy F-35Cs or As (I could see reasons for both) even if they will never go to the boat.  Unfortunately the extra lethality of having more A/Cs is outweighed by the fact that we are borderline incompetent at managing our aircraft and need to get better at advocating for the resources that we need to properly train and equip our units, and buying majority F-35Bs makes managing the fleet easier.  I can't even imagine how many times the laws of physics have been willfully broken and the amount of "expeditionary" koolaid that has been consumed in order to justify buying all these Bs.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real question is why is the USMC buying a disproportionate amount of  less capable, more expensive F-35Bs to Cs than its amphib commitment would lead you to believe it needs.


the marines were originally going to buy zero Cs

RON can explain the politics behind this.  and it is politics.  marines are buying so few cs, I have no idea what they are going for.


It's for TACAIR commitment.  From a pilots perspective - and the most lethal option - the best game plan would be to buy as little F-35Bs as you actually need to fulfill the commitment to manning amphibs and then buy F-35Cs or As (I could see reasons for both) even if they will never go to the boat.  Unfortunately the extra lethality of having more A/Cs is outweighed by the fact that we are borderline incompetent at managing our aircraft and need to get better at advocating for the resources that we need to properly train and equip our units, and buying majority F-35Bs makes managing the fleet easier.  I can't even imagine how many times the laws of physics have been willfully broken and the amount of "expeditionary" koolaid that has been consumed in order to justify buying all these Bs.


agreed on what SHOULD have been done.  Buying zero 35Bs.  If you need a 35, 4 of them aren't going to get it done.  You need a CSG.  

The irony that this is called a "joint" strike fighter is laughable to the point of tears.

three services buying the same aircraft because none want to work together.
Link Posted: 11/22/2014 10:27:39 AM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


It's for TACAIR commitment.  From a pilots perspective - and the most lethal option - the best game plan would be to buy as little F-35Bs as you actually need to fulfill the commitment to manning amphibs and then buy F-35Cs or As (I could see reasons for both) even if they will never go to the boat.  Unfortunately the extra lethality of having more A/Cs is outweighed by the fact that we are borderline incompetent at managing our aircraft and need to get better at advocating for the resources that we need to properly train and equip our units, and buying majority F-35Bs makes managing the fleet easier.  I can't even imagine how many times the laws of physics have been willfully broken and the amount of "expeditionary" koolaid that has been consumed in order to justify buying all these Bs.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real question is why is the USMC buying a disproportionate amount of  less capable, more expensive F-35Bs to Cs than its amphib commitment would lead you to believe it needs.


the marines were originally going to buy zero Cs

RON can explain the politics behind this.  and it is politics.  marines are buying so few cs, I have no idea what they are going for.


It's for TACAIR commitment.  From a pilots perspective - and the most lethal option - the best game plan would be to buy as little F-35Bs as you actually need to fulfill the commitment to manning amphibs and then buy F-35Cs or As (I could see reasons for both) even if they will never go to the boat.  Unfortunately the extra lethality of having more A/Cs is outweighed by the fact that we are borderline incompetent at managing our aircraft and need to get better at advocating for the resources that we need to properly train and equip our units, and buying majority F-35Bs makes managing the fleet easier.  I can't even imagine how many times the laws of physics have been willfully broken and the amount of "expeditionary" koolaid that has been consumed in order to justify buying all these Bs.


Yep, Navy manning for carriers is contingent on Marine participation in TACAIR integration.  

Additionally the navy from 10-13 was trying to back out of the F35 and buy more Super Hornets; by committing to buy Cs we kept them in the program.
Link Posted: 11/22/2014 10:34:42 AM EDT
[#48]
Pappy Boyington just did a flat spin in his grave over this thread.
Link Posted: 11/22/2014 10:36:51 AM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Navy will never let the USMC get Super Bugs. Navy jumped thru hoops to get them and it is probably in their interest to keep them no matter that the F35 is coming. Marines were denied the Tomcat even though it could have been a bomb dropper, but the Navy wanted them all to themselves. He'll, the Navy didn't even want to let the Marines get the legacy bugs back in the 80's. They wanted to replace all the A-7s and F-4s before the Marines upgraded.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL....  For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably...


Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers?


I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets.


No they seem to want to jump straight to F-35s. Which is strange I thought for sure the Navy would just give us their old Super Hornets, and not allow us to have new toys.

Navy will never let the USMC get Super Bugs. Navy jumped thru hoops to get them and it is probably in their interest to keep them no matter that the F35 is coming. Marines were denied the Tomcat even though it could have been a bomb dropper, but the Navy wanted them all to themselves. He'll, the Navy didn't even want to let the Marines get the legacy bugs back in the 80's. They wanted to replace all the A-7s and F-4s before the Marines upgraded.



The Navy tried to get the Marine Corps to adopt the super hornet as its replacement for the hornet, but doing everything including cutting all the up keep money.
Link Posted: 11/22/2014 10:58:33 AM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yep, Navy manning for carriers is contingent on Marine participation in TACAIR integration.  

Additionally the navy from 10-13 was trying to back out of the F35 and buy more Super Hornets; by committing to buy Cs we kept them in the program.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real question is why is the USMC buying a disproportionate amount of  less capable, more expensive F-35Bs to Cs than its amphib commitment would lead you to believe it needs.


the marines were originally going to buy zero Cs

RON can explain the politics behind this.  and it is politics.  marines are buying so few cs, I have no idea what they are going for.


It's for TACAIR commitment.  From a pilots perspective - and the most lethal option - the best game plan would be to buy as little F-35Bs as you actually need to fulfill the commitment to manning amphibs and then buy F-35Cs or As (I could see reasons for both) even if they will never go to the boat.  Unfortunately the extra lethality of having more A/Cs is outweighed by the fact that we are borderline incompetent at managing our aircraft and need to get better at advocating for the resources that we need to properly train and equip our units, and buying majority F-35Bs makes managing the fleet easier.  I can't even imagine how many times the laws of physics have been willfully broken and the amount of "expeditionary" koolaid that has been consumed in order to justify buying all these Bs.


Yep, Navy manning for carriers is contingent on Marine participation in TACAIR integration.  

Additionally the navy from 10-13 was trying to back out of the F35 and buy more Super Hornets; by committing to buy Cs we kept them in the program.


Thanks for that reminder.  But its such a small number.  That is going to be the bastard community in marine aviation.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top