Direction, page-4

I agree with the positive sentiment in the articles presented by @andy_verce .

However, we are kidding ourselves if we put all our eggs in the one F-35 basket. I'm reading murmurs the last couple of days that we can expect some changes on this front. And they may not all be positive unfortunately:

- Heritage Foundation proposing a cut to F-35A order numbers
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...osal-calls-cuts-air-forces-f-35-acquisitions/

- Terma (another composites supplier) has won contracts with Northrop Grumman for LRIP 11 onwards
http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/201...n-sign-MOU-for-F-35-components/5811490798126/

and more about Terma:
https://www.terma.com/press/news-2016/robots-will-build-aerostructures-at-terma/

- Chris Brogdon (F35 program chief announces retirement), he's being replaced with the program 2IC nominated by Trump, so read what you will whether he was pushed out:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-programme-officer-executive-retires-435649/


There's a lot of politics riding on the F-35. Our current business case and banked future revenues rides on F35.

I'd like to see that diversification so that we've hedged our bets. C130 is good for that. So are all the new technology developments once they get off the ground.

I'm hopeful still but lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. The flip side of a technology advantage is that there's a target on your back and incentive for someone to come along who is quicker, more agile or better positioned.