6 ms·
Can someone explain to be like a I'm a five year old why these planes cost much more than say a commercial airliner and the differences apart from the obvious s
by amriksohata 8y ago
Can someone explain to be like a I'm a five year old why these planes cost much more than say a commercial airliner and the differences apart from the obvious speed, agility and missiles?
- kazinator 8y agoDefense contract gravy train.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- amriksohata 8y agoTo be honest this is what I thought and had suscipions of most, I get the rnd costs but there aren't many defense contractors so they can charge what they like
- wil421 8y agoThe comparison you are trying to make is like saying why can’t a city bus perform like an F1 car. I mean it’s just 4 wheels right?
- Gravityloss 8y agoThe systems and especially the software are nowadays the limiting and expensive part.
- AtlasBarfed 8y agoWhy bother with a new airframe then? Just work out the systems in a current, effective airframe like the F-16 or -22. But as stated elsewhere, that isn't porky enough.
- Accipitriform 8y agoIt doesn't necessarily follow from "the airframe isn't the most expensive part" that you still wouldn't want an improved airframe. The F-16 isn't stealthy (terrible in fact), and the F-22 isn't well suited as a strike bomber - its weapon bays are too small. In fact, the F-35's single engine design works well in providing enough space for weapon bays, while still keeping the aircraft fairly compact.
- engi_nerd 8y agoThe airframe dictates the missions. The F-16's airframe is fine, but not stealthy. Stealth is crucial when it comes to taking out the tracking radars of most "strategic level" SAM systems (like the S-300 and S-400). The F-16, with its inability to carry stores internally, shines like a beacon to these SAM systems and can't get close enough to take them out without huge amounts of support. Thus, the F-35.
- Gravityloss 8y agoThere are some airframe advances, but they indeed are producing F-15 and F-16 still. I don't know why I was downvoted with no good counterarguments.
- icegreentea2 8y agoWell among other things, these planes don't really cost much more than say a commercial liner. Wikipedia says that 787s have a production cost of around $100 million per unit, and that the unit cost of purchasing one is somewhere between 200 and 300 million, and that Boeing expected breakeven at around 1000 units sold. The unit cost of a F-35 is currently in the 100-150 million dollar range. The 1.5 trillion dollar cost quoted is for the total program life - that's the cost purchasing, operating, maintaining, and upgrading a fleet of over 2000 aircraft over nearly 50 years. Of that, 1 trillion is in operating and sustainment costs. Total R&D and Test/Evaluation costs are estimated to finish up somewhere around 60 billion dollars, which compares favorably to the estimated 32 billion that Boeing spent before the first 787 order was completed.
- greedo 8y agoThey don't cost much more than a commercial airliner. The Boeing 777 costs around $300M. The most expensive F-35 (the STOVL B model) costs around $125M depending on how much accounting voodoo is performed.
- robdachshund 8y agoR&D, maintenance, and upgrading systems that airlines dont have, like combat radar, missiles, cannons, etc. It's like comparing the cost of a bus vs a tank.