3 ms·

Who eats the loss under such circumstances? Government or Lockheed Martin or are these 200 million dollar jets insured ?

gdbsjjdn 1y ago
Don't worry, the US military will recoup the loss by extorting some more natural resources from Ukraine and building some sea-side condos in Gaza.
nelox 1y ago
Self-insured. The government absorbs losses itself instead of purchasing commercial insurance.
zrail 1y ago
Ultimately the US taxpayers will eat the loss in either case. If the government tried to charge it back to Lockheed Martin they'd just raise the price on subsequent programs to compensate. The government does insure weapons of war. Who would write the policy?
- zrail 1y ago
  late edit: "does _not_ insure weapons of war"
- bedane 1y ago
  is insurance for military equipment a thing? I had no idea. If you have very deep pockets like a nation has, why not simply replace the lost hardware and never insure/pay premiums(which would be calculated to net a profit to the insurer)?
  - zrail 1y ago
    ugh I meant "does _not_" that's what I get for posting while eating breakfast.
- varispeed 1y ago
  Usually wars, vis major are exceptions in insurance policies.
  - analog31 1y ago
    ... as is farce majeur.
the_real_cher 1y ago
The government issues bonds to pay for this and the federal reserve prints money to buy the bonds. Its FREE money!!!
- harshreality 1y ago
  The view that GP seems to subscribe to is that, when you insure something and need to make a claim on that policy, the insurance money is free. That's not any more true.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    During the BLM riots many participants in justifying their actions of property destruction would claim that the costs of replacing the property would come from insurance. Many people don’t have insurance, or self insure, and those that do could see a rise in premiums that make their business unviable. Additionally for some business it doesn’t make sense to rebuild as the circumstances that lead to their creation has changed, for these it’ll make more sense to take the insurance money and not rebuild resulting in a loss to the community. Personally I don’t make a big distinction between crimes against property and crimes against people. I live for my life’s work, if someone destroyed that they might as well have killed me. Additionally many people are dying due to lack of resources, so if someone could be saved for $1M then the destruction of $1M of wealth might has well have killed them. As such I would treat theft and other white collar crime on part with mass murder.
    - sitkack 1y ago
      You need to leave!
meindnoch 1y ago
Where did they get this 200million figure from? Sounds bogus.
- dgacmu 1y ago
  The per plane cost varies a lot depending on what you want to wrap in it: how much of the development costs you amortize, the modernization program, etc. but $200m is in the range. ("Total acquisition costs" vs the marginal cost of the next plane can result in a more than 2x difference in how much you think the plane costs) The flyaway cost of buying one more plane is probably a bit under $100m though.
  - josefresco 1y ago
    > The flyaway cost of buying one more plane is probably a bit under $100m though. $82.5 million https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45039618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45039618
- ux266478 1y ago
  F-14D unit cost was ~$74 million in 1988. Adjusting for inflation that's ~$202 million in 2025. It's not that unreasonable for an American fighter jet, honestly.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    The F-14 is twin engine, 40% more plane and can fly faster. Also the F-14 was considered expensive. My main disappointment with the F35 is that it could have been a lot cheaper with modern design technology and manufacturing. That and the software is needlessly buggy. I had a friend working on F35 at a time I was working on software quality research, when I discussed the possibility of applying the research to F35 he let me know that bugs were seen as a cash cow and he would be working on bugs on the F35 until he retires. He was right. And now we have stuff like this happening.

gdbsjjdn 1y ago

Don't worry, the US military will recoup the loss by extorting some more natural resources from Ukraine and building some sea-side condos in Gaza.

nelox 1y ago

Self-insured. The government absorbs losses itself instead of purchasing commercial insurance.

zrail 1y ago

Ultimately the US taxpayers will eat the loss in either case. If the government tried to charge it back to Lockheed Martin they'd just raise the price on subsequent programs to compensate. The government does insure weapons of war. Who would write the policy?

zrail 1y ago
late edit: "does _not_ insure weapons of war"
bedane 1y ago
is insurance for military equipment a thing? I had no idea. If you have very deep pockets like a nation has, why not simply replace the lost hardware and never insure/pay premiums(which would be calculated to net a profit to the insurer)?
- zrail 1y ago
  ugh I meant "does _not_" that's what I get for posting while eating breakfast.
varispeed 1y ago
Usually wars, vis major are exceptions in insurance policies.
- analog31 1y ago
  ... as is farce majeur.

the_real_cher 1y ago

The government issues bonds to pay for this and the federal reserve prints money to buy the bonds. Its FREE money!!!

harshreality 1y ago
The view that GP seems to subscribe to is that, when you insure something and need to make a claim on that policy, the insurance money is free. That's not any more true.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  During the BLM riots many participants in justifying their actions of property destruction would claim that the costs of replacing the property would come from insurance. Many people don’t have insurance, or self insure, and those that do could see a rise in premiums that make their business unviable. Additionally for some business it doesn’t make sense to rebuild as the circumstances that lead to their creation has changed, for these it’ll make more sense to take the insurance money and not rebuild resulting in a loss to the community. Personally I don’t make a big distinction between crimes against property and crimes against people. I live for my life’s work, if someone destroyed that they might as well have killed me. Additionally many people are dying due to lack of resources, so if someone could be saved for $1M then the destruction of $1M of wealth might has well have killed them. As such I would treat theft and other white collar crime on part with mass murder.
  - sitkack 1y ago
    You need to leave!

meindnoch 1y ago

Where did they get this 200million figure from? Sounds bogus.

dgacmu 1y ago
The per plane cost varies a lot depending on what you want to wrap in it: how much of the development costs you amortize, the modernization program, etc. but $200m is in the range. ("Total acquisition costs" vs the marginal cost of the next plane can result in a more than 2x difference in how much you think the plane costs) The flyaway cost of buying one more plane is probably a bit under $100m though.
- josefresco 1y ago
  > The flyaway cost of buying one more plane is probably a bit under $100m though. $82.5 million https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45039618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45039618
ux266478 1y ago
F-14D unit cost was ~$74 million in 1988. Adjusting for inflation that's ~$202 million in 2025. It's not that unreasonable for an American fighter jet, honestly.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  The F-14 is twin engine, 40% more plane and can fly faster. Also the F-14 was considered expensive. My main disappointment with the F35 is that it could have been a lot cheaper with modern design technology and manufacturing. That and the software is needlessly buggy. I had a friend working on F35 at a time I was working on software quality research, when I discussed the possibility of applying the research to F35 he let me know that bugs were seen as a cash cow and he would be working on bugs on the F35 until he retires. He was right. And now we have stuff like this happening.