3 ms·

Much more readable analysis here. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf It's hard to say how much we'

by jfoutz 11y ago

Much more readable analysis here. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf It's hard to say how much we'll ultimately spend on the F-35 for complicated reasons. For example, it's hard to guess what jet fuel will cost in, say, 2030. Might be cheap, might be crazy expensive. I am not fond of the program for many reasons, however, it's important to clarify what's going on with that number. I think your number of $100 billion is right. We have not yet spent $1000 billion on the program. One key point about the cost is, they projected using the fighter for 50 years rather than the traditional 30. IMHO, it's the last wooden warship. I'd rather spend the money on unmanned specialized drones. But, i can grind that axe elsewhere. Thanks for the links, it did clarify some of my thinking about the F-35.

engi_nerd 11y ago
The "traditional 30" is only with 4th generation fighters -- as in, we've only had one generation with that lifespan. Previous generations of jet fighters could be designed, tested, fielded, and retired within as little as 10 years as the speed of technology development increased ever faster. The reasons why 4th generation aircraft have been able to last so long are numerous. I'll take a quick stab at it. 1) There haven't been any radical innovations in jet propulsion. Sure, the latest engines from GE or P&W are more efficient than the engines of the 80s, but not dramatically so. 2) The 4th generation fighters were well designed with an eye for systems growth, precisely because the government grew tired of continually developing new fighters. Insert here whatever impact you wish to give to the "fighter mafia". These aircraft were able to take advantage of digital data buses and fly by wire technologies, which were new and allowed for years and years of expansion and growth. Point-to-point wired aircraft just get really difficult to improve past a certain point. 3) Improvements in materials and manufacturing techniques incorporated into the 4th generation gave them longer service lives. I could keep going. But you get the idea. The 4th generation was wildly successful. And thank you for that fas.org link, it appears to be a good gathering of facts upon my initial perusal.

by jfoutz 11y ago

engi_nerd 11y ago

The "traditional 30" is only with 4th generation fighters -- as in, we've only had one generation with that lifespan. Previous generations of jet fighters could be designed, tested, fielded, and retired within as little as 10 years as the speed of technology development increased ever faster. The reasons why 4th generation aircraft have been able to last so long are numerous. I'll take a quick stab at it. 1) There haven't been any radical innovations in jet propulsion. Sure, the latest engines from GE or P&W are more efficient than the engines of the 80s, but not dramatically so. 2) The 4th generation fighters were well designed with an eye for systems growth, precisely because the government grew tired of continually developing new fighters. Insert here whatever impact you wish to give to the "fighter mafia". These aircraft were able to take advantage of digital data buses and fly by wire technologies, which were new and allowed for years and years of expansion and growth. Point-to-point wired aircraft just get really difficult to improve past a certain point. 3) Improvements in materials and manufacturing techniques incorporated into the 4th generation gave them longer service lives. I could keep going. But you get the idea. The 4th generation was wildly successful. And thank you for that fas.org link, it appears to be a good gathering of facts upon my initial perusal.