4 ms·

Sorta makes sense -- it was subject to a lot of bad publicity for a long time, because all anybody knew of it was that it cost a lot, and didn't work well. Tha

by Kadin 8y ago

Sorta makes sense -- it was subject to a lot of bad publicity for a long time, because all anybody knew of it was that it cost a lot, and didn't work well. That's kinda true of any product when it's in its final stage of development: there's a lot of money sunk into it at that point, and if you brought a user (or investor) in, they might question what the hell is going on if they don't have the right level of expectations set in advance (which by and large the public doesn't). Now that the thing is actually flying, and we're starting to hear from pilots and people have gotten to see it at airshows, etc., naturally it's getting better press. This is the payoff, it's what the thing is designed to do. So it better damn well fly well and look good doing it. There's still an open question and a debate to be had about whether the aircraft is WORTH the insane cost, and WHY the damn thing cost so much to begin with, though. I suspect it's like most things American at the moment -- we pay far too much, and get far too little for our money, compared to literally anyone else on the planet who might choose to build the same thing. (See also: healthcare, education, public transportation, physical infrastructure... we pay more and get less. Military equipment is no exception.) But yeah, I'd expect to see better press now than when the thing was all but vaporware and a big bill.

adventured 8y ago
> There's still an open question and a debate to be had about whether the aircraft is WORTH the insane cost, and WHY the damn thing cost so much to begin with There's no question about why it costs so much. The cost is including ~3,000 planes and covers up to 2070 in maintenance costs. That's a ridiculous number of planes to be maintained for decades. We'll never come close to building 3,000 however, the program will end long before that. Russia's new Su-57 planes are at least $50 million each. Their GDP per capita is 1/6th that of the US. Imagine paying for that if you're them. Equivalent to $300 million in the US economy, except Russia is a very poor nation and can't rationally afford anything close to spending even $50m per plane. Let's go with Russia's $50m number however. 3,000 planes at $50m = $150 billion just to get them built. Russia would probably spend another $600 billion maintaining those planes over four decades. The F35 unit cost is around $80 to $110 million depending on the version. The US is getting a stellar deal in scope to its economy compared to what the Russians are spending on their latest planes. The MiG-35 will cost at least double what the last MiG-29 variation did, or around $40 million. $240 million when adjusted to US per capita output figures. For Russia it's even worse if we look at the absolute scale of their economy (from which the cost of those planes must come out of), a mere $1.6 trillion, or nearly 1/13th the size of the US economy. If you adjust the cost on that basis, it's like the US spending $650 million per F35. Nobody would think that's a deal. Russia isn't even remotely close to matching the US in adjusted terms on its new jet costs, their wild spending is on another planet entirely. The Chengdu J-20 looks to cost $50 million per unit or more. That's in China, where they should be able to do everything radically cheaper than the US, and where they also have a GDP per capita 1/6th that of the US. $50 million is an astronomical sum for them to be spending per plane based on their economy. Or if we adjust based on the absolute size of their economy (the US economy is roughly 47-50% larger), it still pushes that unit cost up near the cheapest F35 variant. The Eurofighter Typhoon, an older plane, costs as much per unit as the F35. I'm not seeing any evidence that the F35 is expensive compared to other jets in the latest generation when you adjust for the US economic output level.

by Kadin 8y ago

adventured 8y ago

> There's still an open question and a debate to be had about whether the aircraft is WORTH the insane cost, and WHY the damn thing cost so much to begin with There's no question about why it costs so much. The cost is including ~3,000 planes and covers up to 2070 in maintenance costs. That's a ridiculous number of planes to be maintained for decades. We'll never come close to building 3,000 however, the program will end long before that. Russia's new Su-57 planes are at least $50 million each. Their GDP per capita is 1/6th that of the US. Imagine paying for that if you're them. Equivalent to $300 million in the US economy, except Russia is a very poor nation and can't rationally afford anything close to spending even $50m per plane. Let's go with Russia's $50m number however. 3,000 planes at $50m = $150 billion just to get them built. Russia would probably spend another $600 billion maintaining those planes over four decades. The F35 unit cost is around $80 to $110 million depending on the version. The US is getting a stellar deal in scope to its economy compared to what the Russians are spending on their latest planes. The MiG-35 will cost at least double what the last MiG-29 variation did, or around $40 million. $240 million when adjusted to US per capita output figures. For Russia it's even worse if we look at the absolute scale of their economy (from which the cost of those planes must come out of), a mere $1.6 trillion, or nearly 1/13th the size of the US economy. If you adjust the cost on that basis, it's like the US spending $650 million per F35. Nobody would think that's a deal. Russia isn't even remotely close to matching the US in adjusted terms on its new jet costs, their wild spending is on another planet entirely. The Chengdu J-20 looks to cost $50 million per unit or more. That's in China, where they should be able to do everything radically cheaper than the US, and where they also have a GDP per capita 1/6th that of the US. $50 million is an astronomical sum for them to be spending per plane based on their economy. Or if we adjust based on the absolute size of their economy (the US economy is roughly 47-50% larger), it still pushes that unit cost up near the cheapest F35 variant. The Eurofighter Typhoon, an older plane, costs as much per unit as the F35. I'm not seeing any evidence that the F35 is expensive compared to other jets in the latest generation when you adjust for the US economic output level.