Starting a new thread for this if anyone wants to argue it, ask questions, or just get a half decent source on the topic (since they seem quite rare). Feel free to merge responses from Rushy's military spending thread into this one.
something something flying turkey
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3195.20
Yeah, I left that one when you finished your post with
the F-35 is already pretty cheap.
because this is the most over budget military project in history. It is a huge embarrassment to the Whitehouse and they have considered canning it and desperately want to, but are now in too deep. The unit cost was supposed to be under $100m. Cheaper than the $150m unit cost of the f22 which was decided was too expensive. And now the F35 has a unit cost of $223m and its still going up.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/141238/%2A%2Af_35-lot-5-unit-costs-exceed-%24223m.html
I provided many links to articles saying how this $trillion aircraft is an absolute disaster in terms of runaway costs ... and you come back with "its pretty cheap" with no evidence of that at all. So you aren't reading the source material I present, you aren't making a reasoned argument and you obviously don't know anything about this project. You are just saying the opposite of whatever I say. That makes for a dull thread ... so I left it.
I can't substantiate whether it's the most overbudget in history, as that would require weeding through a shit load of sources over the last 50 years (some of which would be extremely hard to get ahold of) and then comparing them all. Adjusted for inflation, I'm willing to bet the claim is wrong, but as I said I can't substantiate it. Another thing to remember is that every major military program goes over costs. It's extremely typical for the development companies to make promises they can't keep, especially when it comes to costs. This doesn't excuse the behaviour, and LM are very much guilty of it, but we're probably better equipped now to critique and repudiate this behaviour than ever before.
That said, the F-35 isn't expensive relative to current fighters (especially when you bring capability into the picture, but I won't get into that just yet). Your article is a few years old, and the data indicative of old LRIP figures. The F-35A currently costs
$94.8 million without an engine as of LRIP 8, with a full rate production cost of
$85 million in 2019. A quick comparison of this to other fighters (including the RAF's Typhoon, which is much more expensive):
Note also that some of these fighters require additions like sniper pods, CFT's and EFT's to be capable, things the F-35 has built in or doesn't have to worry about.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms of the JSF program and its mismanagement. But it should be remembered that it was and is an extremely ambitious program, easily the most of any fighter to date. People love bandying about the $1 trillion figure, but don't understand the figure itself. It's a cost representing
the entire life of the aircraft, from development costs to production costs to sustainment costs all the way through to 2050. No other fighter has been costed in such a way before, which is why the number is so large. Additionally, there have been claims that maintaining legacy platforms
will cost nearly 3x the amount (so $3-4 trillion) relative to the F-35, owing to the age and diversity of airframes and parts, in addition to fleet size.
Show Posts