4 ms·

“It’s getting older and more expensive to maintain, and that’s the problem,” (lol) Joint Strike Fighter cost per plane: $618 million [0] To paraphrase Bill L

“It’s getting older and more expensive to maintain, and that’s the problem,” (lol) Joint Strike Fighter cost per plane: $618 million [0] To paraphrase Bill Lind: what the pentagon says only makes sense when you realize that its purpose is graft, not war. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...

engi_nerd 12y ago
It's a tiny bit disingenuous to say that the per plane cost is $618 million. That figure is arrived at by dividing the total estimated lifecycle cost of the program by the number of planes currently planned for production. Your number is, in the strictest sense, true, but just saying "per plane" isn't telling the whole story.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  It provides a good way to compare platforms.
  - anovikov 12y ago
    Putting things the other way around, USAF is about 40% of U.S. military by value, so we can assume it takes about 300 billion a year to operate. A plane's life is about 30 years. It makes up 9 trillion. And there are about 6000 aircraft it in. So each consumes about 1.5 billion over its lifetime, all accounted. Why is the difference of 'per aircraft lifecycle cost' so important then? Only plane for which it is comparable (actually greater) than USAF total spent per airframe is B-2A, which is no doubt a unique aircraft worth keeping at all cost, and providing much above average 'value'. So if F-35 will be 600 million per airframe, okay. Low combat attrition and delivery of 8 SDBs per sortie (which probably does several times more damage than B-52 did in Vietnam War, against average target) will make it a good buy anyway.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      >Putting things the other way around, USAF is about 40% of U.S. military by value, so we can assume it takes about 300 billion a year to operate. A plane's life is about 30 years. It makes up 9 trillion. And there are about 6000 aircraft it in. So each consumes about 1.5 billion over its lifetime, all accounted. Now you're ready to compare our AF to someone else's. >Why is the difference of 'per aircraft lifecycle cost' so important then? Only plane for which it is comparable (actually greater) than USAF total spent per airframe is B-2A, Because you can compare each platform's "efficiency" at a given mission, as you state in the last part of your post. It relies on getting in lots of wars though to get enough data to make reliable comparisons, "fortunately" we've got that part covered. >will make it a good buy anyway. That remains to be seen / demonstrated. The way it shakes out so far is that there is a lot of doubt as to whether the AF will be able to keep enough of them in the air, or enough pilots trained for them to do anything other than make cameo appearances. The unit cost keeps rising, the performance keeps getting revised down. This thing is going to be like the Space Shuttle (IMO), too expensive for what it does and never able to to fulfill all of its intended roles. EDIT: removed annoying double-double-negative
      - hga 12y ago
        Actually, it's turning out to be this generation's TFX, which was supposed to do all the missions of the F-22 and F-35 except V/STOL. It was eventually reduced to one plane, the F-111: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark#Tactical_Fighter_Experimental_.28TFX.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvar... See The Strategy of Technology for many more details: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html
        fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        >Actually, it's turning out to be this generation's TFX, Yeah, that thing. Also, Robert McNamara.
        12y ago

engi_nerd 12y ago

It's a tiny bit disingenuous to say that the per plane cost is $618 million. That figure is arrived at by dividing the total estimated lifecycle cost of the program by the number of planes currently planned for production. Your number is, in the strictest sense, true, but just saying "per plane" isn't telling the whole story.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
It provides a good way to compare platforms.
- anovikov 12y ago
  Putting things the other way around, USAF is about 40% of U.S. military by value, so we can assume it takes about 300 billion a year to operate. A plane's life is about 30 years. It makes up 9 trillion. And there are about 6000 aircraft it in. So each consumes about 1.5 billion over its lifetime, all accounted. Why is the difference of 'per aircraft lifecycle cost' so important then? Only plane for which it is comparable (actually greater) than USAF total spent per airframe is B-2A, which is no doubt a unique aircraft worth keeping at all cost, and providing much above average 'value'. So if F-35 will be 600 million per airframe, okay. Low combat attrition and delivery of 8 SDBs per sortie (which probably does several times more damage than B-52 did in Vietnam War, against average target) will make it a good buy anyway.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >Putting things the other way around, USAF is about 40% of U.S. military by value, so we can assume it takes about 300 billion a year to operate. A plane's life is about 30 years. It makes up 9 trillion. And there are about 6000 aircraft it in. So each consumes about 1.5 billion over its lifetime, all accounted. Now you're ready to compare our AF to someone else's. >Why is the difference of 'per aircraft lifecycle cost' so important then? Only plane for which it is comparable (actually greater) than USAF total spent per airframe is B-2A, Because you can compare each platform's "efficiency" at a given mission, as you state in the last part of your post. It relies on getting in lots of wars though to get enough data to make reliable comparisons, "fortunately" we've got that part covered. >will make it a good buy anyway. That remains to be seen / demonstrated. The way it shakes out so far is that there is a lot of doubt as to whether the AF will be able to keep enough of them in the air, or enough pilots trained for them to do anything other than make cameo appearances. The unit cost keeps rising, the performance keeps getting revised down. This thing is going to be like the Space Shuttle (IMO), too expensive for what it does and never able to to fulfill all of its intended roles. EDIT: removed annoying double-double-negative
    - hga 12y ago
      Actually, it's turning out to be this generation's TFX, which was supposed to do all the missions of the F-22 and F-35 except V/STOL. It was eventually reduced to one plane, the F-111: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark#Tactical_Fighter_Experimental_.28TFX.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvar... See The Strategy of Technology for many more details: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        >Actually, it's turning out to be this generation's TFX, Yeah, that thing. Also, Robert McNamara.
        12y ago