Originally posted by Nilsen
Well ive seen on several occations that a shipyard for example has said that more subs needs to get ordered, or more has to be made a year to keep critical people on staff. That is just one example. Are they not then in reality deciding when and how many subs your government orderes?
I seem to also remember the same thing beeing said about a transport recently (c-17?).
There are many more.
Yup. I'll use the C-17 program to illustrate.
The Pentagon planners have released several airlift requirements studies that show we need another 100 or so C-17s. But the way these things work is that the Pentagon can not "require" more than the budget allows, per spending caps specified by both the executive branch and congress. So even though they counted their beans, studied the warplans, and came up with a high number of required planes, they were forced to ask for many fewer planes because there are other higher priority items that also need funding.
Congress of course sees this happening, and they make a few decisions. They fund more C-17s for 2 reasons - They don't want the C-17 production line to close down when it is obvious we haven't bought enough to cover our true requirements, and of course the congressmen who's districts benefit from C-17 production weigh in to ensure the production line doesn't shut down and put people out of work in his district.
What Boeing or any other company thinks about all this is irrelevant. It costs $XX milion to keep the line open whether it's actually making planes or not, and no pubicly traded company can be expected to throw money away. So the line will close if planes are not purchased, end of story. The F-15 line was kept open the same way - Congress or the pentagon would fund a couple new-build F-15Es every year, just enough to keep the line open. Then Korea and Singapore bought a bunch. But after that, the line will probably close because it is stated USAF policy to buy no more combat (bomb dropping) aircraft that are not stealthy.
It's all in the policy maker's hands, not industry. The pentagon will never get enough money to meet all it's requirements, so they cut based on priorities. The C-17 cuts have been a bit of a game of chicken... Everyone knows we will have an airlift shortfall, but nobody wants to pay the bill on their watch. So congress has been adding in a handful of C-17s (and C-130s) just to keep the line open in case we determine we need it. In the case of the C-130, it's a good thing we kept that line open because we've worn out a lot of those things in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of the C-17, the C-5 re-engining and longevity programs are about 30% over budget so I bet we'll be glad the C-17 line is open in a few years.
The F-22 is another similar situation. The USAF knows it needs a few hundred, but they also know they won't get enough money for even half of what we need. So we'll have a capability shortfall unless congress coughs up enough coin for enough extra to keep the production line going. If the F-22, F-15, and F-16 lines close, we will have no fighter production capability in the US until the JSF matures, but of course that program has already slipped quite a bit and costs per aircraft have nearly doubled already.
