4 ms·

The F-22 program was $11.6 billion, F-35 $1.7 trillion, Boeing recently got a contract to manufacture 100 more AH-64E attack helicopters at $3.4 billion. We sp

The F-22 program was $11.6 billion, F-35 $1.7 trillion, Boeing recently got a contract to manufacture 100 more AH-64E attack helicopters at $3.4 billion. We spend a lot on the military, including air force 1, and spend very little on science like JWT.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hericium 4y ago
> We spend a lot on the military, including air force 1, and spend very little on science like JWT. Silly humans. Don't even have anyone to fight but themselves.
- jborichevskiy 4y ago
  Maybe if our telescopes were better we could find more civilizations to fight!
rjzzleep 4y ago
The joke is that F-35 is a considered a failed fighter jet project. But as a money laundering machine with no end in sight, the F-35 is a HUGELY successful endeavour. The USA had a strong hand in blocking domestic aviation projects in countries that lost WWII. I'm happy to see that a lot of countries are now slowly reaching viability of more diverse more or less modern jetliners. I wonder what disruption this will bring to the aviation market. It's clear that the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus is not a feasible approach to affordable aviation. It will be even more important given that the EU wants to block more and more Russian imports. Which means that a block on titanium would further increase Airbus pricing.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > The USA had a strong hand in blocking domestic aviation projects in countries that lost WWII And in those who were on the winning side too.. Likely in large part due to pressure from America, Canada killed the Avro Arrow and bought American Voodoos instead.
- mhh__ 4y ago
  As far as I can see the F-35 has actually ended up as a pretty good plane, most people massively against it (but in favour of having fighters) are either stuck in 2014 or living in a parallel universe where the (say) gripen is actually competitive. It's an expensive aircraft but everything is expensive now, even a new F-16 is as near as makes no difference the same cost (not including maintenance...)
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Ukraine has raised the question of what the right tradeoff is between numbers of fighters at $100m each vs small drone munitions such as the Switchblade 300 (~$5000, but single use). There has been remarkably little use of air power in that war compared to anti-tank weapons, artillery, and drones.
    - rjzzleep 4y ago
      Ukraine just called their Bayraktars useless, and all the stingers, switchblades, Javelins, NLAWs have not delivered on their promises. I have sent my friends and families videos of Javelins and Switchblade videos marvelling at how amazing these pieces of tech are. But given the numbers that have supposedly been pouring into Ukraine and what is realistically happening it seems more like an unrealistic sales video than actual performance. So you might want to rethink that. By all measures the war in Ukraine is fought with Artillery + reconnaissance drones right now. And the one with the better recon and artillery seems to be winning. To your cost tradeoff. It actually seems more like the real tradeoff is cheap armour that your factory can churn out at a realistic pace, while being an uncomfortable powderkeg vs. really expensive equipment that you're too worried to use, because for every one that you use the other side can build 6.
  - fransje26 4y ago
    A plane that: - is outmaneuvered by any legacy fighter in the sky - carries less useful load than any legacy fighter in the sky - is underpowered - has a useless, unfixable gun - cannot fly high and fast because it starts peeling off its precious radar-absorbent coating - cannot be refueled by a truck that has been sitting in the sun, due to cooling issues - cannot be reliably be operated in hot & dusty environments due to risks of premature engine damage - cannot be flown by pilots below a certain weight (70+ kg, a problem for women) due to the risk of terminal, neck-snapping damage when ejecting - relies on an unwieldy, buggy maintenance prediction software that has already be re-written from scratch once, and, by the looks of it, will have to be re-written again - that has a service life of about 1/4 of the original requirement - has an operational availability of less than 60% - [..] (the list goes on an on..) cannot, objectively, be called a pretty good plane. No. At best, it can be considered a pretty good cash cow for Lockheed and its shareholders. A bottomless pit being endlessly re-filled with dollars in exchange of empty promises. Where it did succeed, however, is in being an excellent Trojan Horse. With all the unattainable promises it made, it lured in a few European countries, that, once it was clear the costs would sky-rocket, where in too deep to pull out. And all the cash that was wasted in the process was not used to fund/develop a competitor. Oh. And Lockheed got lots of valuable, free knowhow in the process, in exchange of construction promises that never materialized, because, you know, top-secret developments, leak risks of sensitive technologies, etc.. So win-win for them again.
daemoens 4y ago
The 1.7 trillion figure is for the projected cost of the program till at least 2070. Less than half that has been spent so far.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hericium 4y ago

> We spend a lot on the military, including air force 1, and spend very little on science like JWT. Silly humans. Don't even have anyone to fight but themselves.

jborichevskiy 4y ago
Maybe if our telescopes were better we could find more civilizations to fight!

rjzzleep 4y ago

The joke is that F-35 is a considered a failed fighter jet project. But as a money laundering machine with no end in sight, the F-35 is a HUGELY successful endeavour. The USA had a strong hand in blocking domestic aviation projects in countries that lost WWII. I'm happy to see that a lot of countries are now slowly reaching viability of more diverse more or less modern jetliners. I wonder what disruption this will bring to the aviation market. It's clear that the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus is not a feasible approach to affordable aviation. It will be even more important given that the EU wants to block more and more Russian imports. Which means that a block on titanium would further increase Airbus pricing.

robonerd 4y ago
> The USA had a strong hand in blocking domestic aviation projects in countries that lost WWII And in those who were on the winning side too.. Likely in large part due to pressure from America, Canada killed the Avro Arrow and bought American Voodoos instead.
mhh__ 4y ago
As far as I can see the F-35 has actually ended up as a pretty good plane, most people massively against it (but in favour of having fighters) are either stuck in 2014 or living in a parallel universe where the (say) gripen is actually competitive. It's an expensive aircraft but everything is expensive now, even a new F-16 is as near as makes no difference the same cost (not including maintenance...)
- pjc50 4y ago
  Ukraine has raised the question of what the right tradeoff is between numbers of fighters at $100m each vs small drone munitions such as the Switchblade 300 (~$5000, but single use). There has been remarkably little use of air power in that war compared to anti-tank weapons, artillery, and drones.
  - rjzzleep 4y ago
    Ukraine just called their Bayraktars useless, and all the stingers, switchblades, Javelins, NLAWs have not delivered on their promises. I have sent my friends and families videos of Javelins and Switchblade videos marvelling at how amazing these pieces of tech are. But given the numbers that have supposedly been pouring into Ukraine and what is realistically happening it seems more like an unrealistic sales video than actual performance. So you might want to rethink that. By all measures the war in Ukraine is fought with Artillery + reconnaissance drones right now. And the one with the better recon and artillery seems to be winning. To your cost tradeoff. It actually seems more like the real tradeoff is cheap armour that your factory can churn out at a realistic pace, while being an uncomfortable powderkeg vs. really expensive equipment that you're too worried to use, because for every one that you use the other side can build 6.
- fransje26 4y ago
  A plane that: - is outmaneuvered by any legacy fighter in the sky - carries less useful load than any legacy fighter in the sky - is underpowered - has a useless, unfixable gun - cannot fly high and fast because it starts peeling off its precious radar-absorbent coating - cannot be refueled by a truck that has been sitting in the sun, due to cooling issues - cannot be reliably be operated in hot & dusty environments due to risks of premature engine damage - cannot be flown by pilots below a certain weight (70+ kg, a problem for women) due to the risk of terminal, neck-snapping damage when ejecting - relies on an unwieldy, buggy maintenance prediction software that has already be re-written from scratch once, and, by the looks of it, will have to be re-written again - that has a service life of about 1/4 of the original requirement - has an operational availability of less than 60% - [..] (the list goes on an on..) cannot, objectively, be called a pretty good plane. No. At best, it can be considered a pretty good cash cow for Lockheed and its shareholders. A bottomless pit being endlessly re-filled with dollars in exchange of empty promises. Where it did succeed, however, is in being an excellent Trojan Horse. With all the unattainable promises it made, it lured in a few European countries, that, once it was clear the costs would sky-rocket, where in too deep to pull out. And all the cash that was wasted in the process was not used to fund/develop a competitor. Oh. And Lockheed got lots of valuable, free knowhow in the process, in exchange of construction promises that never materialized, because, you know, top-secret developments, leak risks of sensitive technologies, etc.. So win-win for them again.

daemoens 4y ago

The 1.7 trillion figure is for the projected cost of the program till at least 2070. Less than half that has been spent so far.