Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Joint Strike Fighter cost may top 100 million dollars
AFP ^ | 03/11/2010 | AFP

Posted on 03/11/2010 7:31:20 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld

The Joint Strike Fighter next generation warplane for US and allied forces may end up costing more than 100 million dollars per plane, a Pentagon official told Congress Thursday.

This would mean the final cost would be double the initial estimate when the contract was awarded in 2001 for the JSF, the costliest weapons program to date for the Pentagon.

Christine Fox, director of the Defense Department's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the current program estimate based on jet two numbers will be somewhere between 80 and 95 million dollars in constant year (2002) baseline dollars. We are refining that estimate now."

That would mean between 95 million and 113 million dollars per unit in current dollars, irritated lawmakers pointed out.

"The taxpayers are a little tired of this, and I can't say I blame them," Senator John McCain told the hearing.

US officials now estimate Washington's bill for the program will be more than 300 billion dollars. Washington expects to buy more than 2,400 of the new aircraft to update the fleet of warplanes for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

The plane also known as the F-35 to be manufactured by Lockheed Martin is expected to be ready in 2016, well behind the original schedule of first deliveries in 2012.

The fighter's development was funded by an international consortium led by the United States.

Britain, Australia, Canada, Italy, Denmark, Turkey, Norway and the Netherlands have signed on for the next phase of production and follow-on development of the fighter.

(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; f35; jsf; navair; pentagon; warplane
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 03/11/2010 7:31:21 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

It’s nice of McStain to think of the taxpayers, but he’s no friend of anyone’s wallet if he wants to bring herbal supplements under the purview of the FDA and require medical prescriptions for buying them... what he might save the taxpayer on the JSF - $1 per taxpayer per plane, he will cost them many times more if you have to pay a doctor a $20 copay or a $200 visit PER SUPPLEMENT that you want to try.


2 posted on 03/11/2010 7:34:45 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
This would mean the final cost would be double the initial estimate

A government program costing way more than the original estimate. C'mon, someone is pulling our legs/sarc.
3 posted on 03/11/2010 7:39:39 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

abolish the entire thing. Seriously! If you keep allowing these companies to lie about how much it cost, so they can win the contract without consequence, this will keep happening


4 posted on 03/11/2010 7:41:04 PM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Agree.


5 posted on 03/11/2010 7:43:48 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...Call 'em What you Will, They ALL have Fairies Living In Their Trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

The JSF screams “junk” to me. It just looks junky. I’d say we should build more F-22 and F-15SE’s (F-15 Silent Eagles).


6 posted on 03/11/2010 7:46:24 PM PST by Nowhere Man (General James Mattoon Scott, where are you when we need you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane
My guess is the Government changes their minds about specific requirements so it's already built into the contract stating that if the Gov. doesn't lock down on requirements, the contractor can adjust according to the Gov's needs.Eh, more or less.

All you DoD contracting types, am I close?
7 posted on 03/11/2010 8:00:44 PM PST by tenger (If we don't stay on 'em, they'll get it wrong -Soucheray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

I posted a link to a Business Week article detailing a 50% cost increase on the F-35 in addition to other troubles.

Shut down the F-35 program, open the Raptor line back up and work with our allies on exporting it. Enough of this.....


8 posted on 03/11/2010 8:12:08 PM PST by ATLDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

F-22’s are ready now....a better plane....can make a lot in 6 years...all ready to keep making more...

(holding up hands in frustration)


9 posted on 03/11/2010 8:16:08 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Not a very smooth segue. ;-)
10 posted on 03/11/2010 8:18:12 PM PST by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Since there is no F22 carrier version, how many more years can we get from the F18?
11 posted on 03/11/2010 8:22:23 PM PST by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: verity

They just retro’d the F-15 to a more stealthier version with new AESA radar and the latest electronics - the F-15-S, I think they can update the F-18.


12 posted on 03/11/2010 8:26:31 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: verity

Besides the F-18 has two engines on it. Two is better than one. You can limp home on one if you lose one or have to shut one down.


13 posted on 03/11/2010 8:27:39 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
The super Hornet seems to be a very capable multi-role aircraft for existing needs. Let's hope it does not develop air frame problems.
14 posted on 03/11/2010 8:37:03 PM PST by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: verity

Agreed. I would look forward to a 4th+ F-18 Stealth version.


15 posted on 03/11/2010 8:43:43 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: verity

Believe it or not, I’m not trying to turn the discussion into health care, but merely comparing McStain’s treatment of taxpayers vs. herbal consumers - who are very often the very same people. For the price of one doctor’s copay ($20-30) per taxpayer (numbering ~100 million) we could have 20 or 30 extra JSFs. Seems like a good value to me.


16 posted on 03/11/2010 9:03:30 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Bring back the F-22. Do a high low replacing some F-35s with F-22s and others with F-16 Block 60s. The marines and navy still need the F-35.


17 posted on 03/11/2010 9:06:52 PM PST by rmlew (The left has elected a new nation with the help of neoconservatives and libertarians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Agreed. I would look forward to a 4th+ F-18 Stealth version.

It not going to be stealthy with bombs and missiles hanging off it.

18 posted on 03/11/2010 9:10:29 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

ping


19 posted on 03/11/2010 9:54:50 PM PST by Vroomfondel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
The marines and navy still need the F-35.

And therein lies the cost problem. The reason, the ONLY reason why the F-35's costs are increasing, is because of rising development costs spread over fewer early production airframes.

The Air Force are currently scheduled to purchase over 1,700 F-35As and the Navy and Marine Corps a combined 680 -Bs and -Cs.

Drop the Air Force purchase, and the costs per aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps shoots through the roof.

This is how we ended up with an effective cost of $350 million for each of the 187 F-22s.

20 posted on 03/12/2010 4:37:27 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson