5 ms·

Now that you mention it, isn't it crazy that manufacturing a single F-35 costs more than an entire satellite launch including support services?

bane 10y ago
At this point, I'm pretty sure the Stargate must be real and the crazy cost per unit for the F-35 is to hide R&D, construction and launch of a space defense fleet.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  I'm thinking space arks for the select few. Otherwise, yes.
- SEJeff 10y ago
  Prometheus!
- ihsw 10y ago
  I'm going to believe this instead of rampant corruption and appalling incompetence.
Gibbon1 10y ago
I seem to remember that in the 1950's the US tried to design unitary multi-role fighter and it failed.
- bediger4000 10y ago
  Not in the 1950s - that would have been the F-4 Phantom, and it was actually quite successful, in production from 1959 to 1979, and probably still flying (albeit totally hotrodded) by lots of air forces. You might be thinking of the F-111, which was supposed to be all things to all services. That was the 1960s. Or maybe the failed A-12, which was supposed to be an attack plane for all services. But you're correct, unitary, multi-role fighters have a bad history.
  - ecnal 10y ago
    Multiroles like the F-18, F-16 (excluding the original worthless LWF proposal), Su-30, Su-35, (today's, though not the original) MiG-29 and Su-27 variants, Typhoon, Tornado, Mirage, Rafale, and nearly every fixed-wing fighter employed by every air force today definitely do not have bad histories--some less stellar than others, but none bad. Multirole capability is primarily a function of the weapons an aircraft can employ. This wasn't true in the 70s when targeting pods were binoculars and effective employment of aircraft in strike roles required decent performance in low-and-slow flight regimes, but we've been living with pods and PGMs coming out of our ears for 25 years now. Design tradeoffs for multiroles today are primarily those of cost and maintainability. You can pay out the ears and get larger twin-engine multiroles that strain logistics and wallets, opt for a single-engine F-16alike multirole that'll do everything nearly as well except for flying really high and really fast, or inexplicably go Eurocanard to pay F-22 prices for sub F-35 capabilities. Anyway, the point is that it's next to impossible not to make a multirole these days even if you're trying; if you can employ weapons with your jet, you're multirole.
    - neurotech1 10y ago
      Its about budgets, both on development and on procurement and operational costs. The Su-27 series and the F-15 are relatively expensive jets to procure and operate, and the F-16C (or F-16A MLU) are a good middle ground budget wise. The F-5E/F Tiger [0] was one of the most under appreciated fighters on the market in the 70s and early 80s. The was limited in A/A victories in real combat because of lack of opportunities, although successfully used at TOPGUN and FWS at a low operating cost. Although marketed as a LWF, The F-5 was actually a multi-role aircraft, and used in combat as a strike aircraft. IMO the F/A-50 [1] is the most under-appreciated advanced 4th gen fighter on market. At around $30m its half the cost of a new F-16, although a refurbished F-16 is viable for budget constrained Air Forces. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle
    - jacobush 10y ago
      Or the very effective Gripen, which is explicitly Fighter Attack Recon.
hackuser 10y ago
> isn't it crazy that manufacturing a single F-35 costs more than an entire satellite launch including support services? Not IMHO: The launch is a single, controlled, predictable task; they can choose their exact launch time and location for optimal performance; have extensive quality control checks and engineering, a room full of support engineers, etc; the exact route and timing of the launch is carefully planned ahead of time, etc. The plane has to handle every contingency of war: Take off from wherever and whenever needed, fly anywhere, refuel in mid-air, dodge enemies trying to kill it (can SpaceX or ULA do that?), destroy enemies trying to avoid it, return safely home, etc.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  > The plane has to handle every contingency of war And all of those problems are (supposedly) solved by the time the plane is being manufactured. Your argument regards R&D costs, not manufacturing costs.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Every bit of complexity you add makes it more difficult and expensive to manufacture.
- pricechild 10y ago
  > dodge enemies trying to kill it I thought dogfighting was nolonger required in this day and age?
  - Ftuuky 10y ago
    Not dogfighting but you still have to evade missiles and whatnot.

bane 10y ago

At this point, I'm pretty sure the Stargate must be real and the crazy cost per unit for the F-35 is to hide R&D, construction and launch of a space defense fleet.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
I'm thinking space arks for the select few. Otherwise, yes.
SEJeff 10y ago
Prometheus!
ihsw 10y ago
I'm going to believe this instead of rampant corruption and appalling incompetence.

Gibbon1 10y ago

I seem to remember that in the 1950's the US tried to design unitary multi-role fighter and it failed.

bediger4000 10y ago
Not in the 1950s - that would have been the F-4 Phantom, and it was actually quite successful, in production from 1959 to 1979, and probably still flying (albeit totally hotrodded) by lots of air forces. You might be thinking of the F-111, which was supposed to be all things to all services. That was the 1960s. Or maybe the failed A-12, which was supposed to be an attack plane for all services. But you're correct, unitary, multi-role fighters have a bad history.
- ecnal 10y ago
  Multiroles like the F-18, F-16 (excluding the original worthless LWF proposal), Su-30, Su-35, (today's, though not the original) MiG-29 and Su-27 variants, Typhoon, Tornado, Mirage, Rafale, and nearly every fixed-wing fighter employed by every air force today definitely do not have bad histories--some less stellar than others, but none bad. Multirole capability is primarily a function of the weapons an aircraft can employ. This wasn't true in the 70s when targeting pods were binoculars and effective employment of aircraft in strike roles required decent performance in low-and-slow flight regimes, but we've been living with pods and PGMs coming out of our ears for 25 years now. Design tradeoffs for multiroles today are primarily those of cost and maintainability. You can pay out the ears and get larger twin-engine multiroles that strain logistics and wallets, opt for a single-engine F-16alike multirole that'll do everything nearly as well except for flying really high and really fast, or inexplicably go Eurocanard to pay F-22 prices for sub F-35 capabilities. Anyway, the point is that it's next to impossible not to make a multirole these days even if you're trying; if you can employ weapons with your jet, you're multirole.
  - neurotech1 10y ago
    Its about budgets, both on development and on procurement and operational costs. The Su-27 series and the F-15 are relatively expensive jets to procure and operate, and the F-16C (or F-16A MLU) are a good middle ground budget wise. The F-5E/F Tiger [0] was one of the most under appreciated fighters on the market in the 70s and early 80s. The was limited in A/A victories in real combat because of lack of opportunities, although successfully used at TOPGUN and FWS at a low operating cost. Although marketed as a LWF, The F-5 was actually a multi-role aircraft, and used in combat as a strike aircraft. IMO the F/A-50 [1] is the most under-appreciated advanced 4th gen fighter on market. At around $30m its half the cost of a new F-16, although a refurbished F-16 is viable for budget constrained Air Forces. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle
  - jacobush 10y ago
    Or the very effective Gripen, which is explicitly Fighter Attack Recon.

hackuser 10y ago

> isn't it crazy that manufacturing a single F-35 costs more than an entire satellite launch including support services? Not IMHO: The launch is a single, controlled, predictable task; they can choose their exact launch time and location for optimal performance; have extensive quality control checks and engineering, a room full of support engineers, etc; the exact route and timing of the launch is carefully planned ahead of time, etc. The plane has to handle every contingency of war: Take off from wherever and whenever needed, fly anywhere, refuel in mid-air, dodge enemies trying to kill it (can SpaceX or ULA do that?), destroy enemies trying to avoid it, return safely home, etc.

scrollaway 10y ago
> The plane has to handle every contingency of war And all of those problems are (supposedly) solved by the time the plane is being manufactured. Your argument regards R&D costs, not manufacturing costs.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Every bit of complexity you add makes it more difficult and expensive to manufacture.
pricechild 10y ago
> dodge enemies trying to kill it I thought dogfighting was nolonger required in this day and age?
- Ftuuky 10y ago
  Not dogfighting but you still have to evade missiles and whatnot.