The F-35 Will Cost About What An F-16 Costs

Lexington Institute ^ | 4/13/2010 | Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

[ModelBreaker]

It gets to the point where it’s hard to know the truth. There are some defense systems that are lemons—the York gun system and the Crusader artillery system. OTOH, every effective defense system is attacked by liberals. Remember the Bradley? You would think it was the worst death trap ever designed. And it has turned out to be a cornerstone piece of equipment for our service men.

My presumption is that any attack on a defense system during a democrat administration is probably just a phonied up way to justify cutting the system to free up some money to spend on labor unions or other pork.

[freedumb2003]

“Oh sure” ping

[Jet Jaguar]

F-16 ping.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I agree. But, the F-35 has been successful so far in its tests.

[freedumb2003]

By “F-16” (the most cost-effective MRF ever) I assume they mean the cost will be the same as the “F-22.”

Math error. It happens.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The explanation was inside the article: Based on what the prime contractor has actually charged the government to date for three successive lots of fighters, the unit recurring flyaway cost for the most common version of the F-35 will be about $60 million in today's dollars. That's roughly what the latest variants of the F-16 and F/A-18 fighters cost, and less than half what an F-22 costs

[freedumb2003]

>>I agree. But, the F-35 has been successful so far in its tests. <<

It has been weighed down by extra armor, positioned for non-MRF roles, expected to do F-22 like activities and provide the mission profiles of the F-18 (S/H).

I find it impossible to believe they have lowered the costs of the F-35 White Elephant to the level of the F-18 much less the F-16.

[null and void]

cowtowney sez:

What happens if you have a nuke?
a) you have to guard it
b) you have to maintain it
c) if you don’t use it, you have to remove it from your inventory and remove the nuclear material and do something with it

All of these steps cost money. Lots of it. The military is an inefficient enterprise in general.

Our country is broke. We can no longer do things without thinking about the costs. We never could. We just thought we could.

</cowtowney>

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I guess we will have to see it in simulated combat conditions

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

If its so bad, why are countries like Israel and Britain waiting to snap it up and add it to their arsenal?

[JasonC]

The military is cheap and effective.

Give aways to the middle class that does not need them to buy votes with their own money, are hugely expensive and utterly pointless.

Economy is not parsimony. It is putting resources where the do the most good, and avoiding throwing them away on useless crap.

[freedumb2003]

>>I guess we will have to see it in simulated combat conditions<<

If the REAL prices are as stated and the F-35 can slip into the MRF roles of the F-16 and F-18 I will be the first to happily embrace it.

But to date every report (prior to this one) says that:
* The F-35 is no longer an MRF, but rather a slightly cheaper F-22. It has been clad with armor and firing ability beyond the MRF role.
* The F-35 has been messed with so much that is resembles a government camel: a mouse built to government specifications
* The F-35 is about $4:1 to F-16 (and ~ $2:1 to F/A 18). Other than the assertion here I see nothing that says that will change.

[pallis]

2012 can’t get here soon enough, so we can have an American president and Congress to assist the military in doing their job.

[null and void]

Yep. It is arguably THE most cost effective branch of the government.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I agree with you on you all points but it still does not explain the appetite of the Royal Air Force and Israeli Air Force wanting this plane in their respected armed forces. They see something in the plane we are both missing

[freedumb2003]

>>If its so bad, why are countries like Israel and Britain waiting to snap it up and add it to their arsenal?<<

Because they HAVE TO. The JSF is supposed to be across the NATO spectrum. Sort of the SWA model.

But the reality has been much less than that.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I agree

[thedilg]

Based on what the prime contractor has actually charged the government to date for three successive lots of fighters, the unit recurring flyaway cost for the most common version of the F-35 will be about $60 million in today’s dollars. That’s roughly what the latest variants of the F-16 and F/A-18 fighters cost, and less than half what an F-22 costs
***********************************************************
You have very interesting cost numbers. The F-22 program cost is at least $350 million a copy. To consider the F-22 at about $120 million a copy would take a mighty creative accountant.

The 2010 buy for 43 F-35s was about $10.7 billion or over $250 million a copy. Thats a long way above $60 million a copy. Past AF history has been a constant cost growth from such a benchmark. Of course all my quoted costs are program costs. The sevices has so mucked up the fly away cost to the point that they are totally useless.

Godspeed

[cowtowney]

What is your point of dragging my comment on one thread to another thread? Can’t you just make your argument logically?

My point was that there is a cost and a benifit of having 5,000 nukes and the US can no longer ignore the cost side of that equation.

What’s your argument for ignoring costs?