Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
I think you're missing De Briganti's point. Italy has invested a billion euros in a facility that, if the UMSC's claims are correct, will be less efficient than USMC military personnel at maintaining F-35s. Other F-35 users would, in that case, also be advised to bypass private contractors for maintenance. Little use remains for the Italian FACO facility in that case. What the USMC would implicitly would want us to believe, is that Italy has squandered a billion euros on their FACO facility. Investing that kind of money is usually preceded by some deliberation.This is De Briganti's point: the USMC claim flies in the face of over a decade of protestations that employing private contractors will lower F-35 maintenance costs - farming out maintenance was, until now apparently, part of the F-35 business case.The notion was that a when a maintenance contractor doesn't perform, it can be replaced by another that performs cheaper/better. This notion was primarily driven by cost considerations. Now the USMC says maintenance is best done in house - because that way, it will cost less. I would say that claim deserves thorough verification, after being told for years that farming out was the best option.Competition between contractors will be removed as a factor in keeping maintenance costs down, lower maintenance costs will result anyway - right.
I think you're missing De Briganti's point. Italy has invested a billion euros in a facility that, if the UMSC's claims are correct, will be less efficient than USMC military personnel at maintaining F-35s. Other F-35 users would, in that case, also be advised to bypass private contractors for maintenance. Little use remains for the Italian FACO facility in that case. What the USMC would implicitly would want us to believe, is that Italy has squandered a billion euros on their FACO facility. Investing that kind of money is usually preceded by some deliberation.
This is De Briganti's point: the USMC claim flies in the face of over a decade of protestations that employing private contractors will lower F-35 maintenance costs - farming out maintenance was, until now apparently, part of the F-35 business case.
The notion was that a when a maintenance contractor doesn't perform, it can be replaced by another that performs cheaper/better. This notion was primarily driven by cost considerations. Now the USMC says maintenance is best done in house - because that way, it will cost less. I would say that claim deserves thorough verification, after being told for years that farming out was the best option.
Competition between contractors will be removed as a factor in keeping maintenance costs down, lower maintenance costs will result anyway - right.
