“i admit lack of knowledge about military hardware, so without insults, please make me happy and tell me i’m wrong.”
You’re wrong. :-)
At more length, the F-35 should be a good plane once the various systems are fully functional. One of the main delays has been around various software components, which aren’t easy to develop and integrate.
The $400 billion for 2,457 planes figure is a bit deceptive. There are two different ways to calculate the cost of an aircraft. One is “unit cost”, where the entire cost of the program is divided by the total number of planes. By that metric, the F-35 is $162 million per plane (if the $400B number is accurate). However, all of the R&D/engineering costs are “sunk costs” once the work is done. In other words, the government’s not going to get its money back if the program is cancelled. The point being that if the plane is good, one might as well go ahead and produce them if the “flyaway cost” is reasonable.
The flyaway cost is the incremental cost to produce the next airplane (just the cost of manufacturing, no R&D costs figured in). Right now the F-35A flyaway cost is about $100 million per plane. It is dropping due to increased manufacturing efficiencies and is expected to hit $80-$85 million per plane by 2019. That is in the ballpark of the Super Hornet, one of the aircraft it’s intended to replace - one which doesn’t have stealth or many other high-tech features of the F-35.
I think ultimately the F-35 will be a competent dogfighter, but that isn’t its main role. It’s primarily an attack aircraft that can also handle air-to-air, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), electronic warfare and close air support (via smart weapons). In the air-to-air role, the main way it’ll be employed will be at longer ranges, preferably before the enemy knows its in the area. This is possible due to stealth.
Well, that was more of an essay than I set out to write...
Another reason the F-35 will probably still be a good investment is the “lifetime cost” of the fleet. That is the cost to maintain & operate. Here is where the A-B-C kicks in. Because of systems commonality, these planes will be much easier to maintain than 3 or 4 different aircraft. Now before anybody jumps-in and says “yeah, but the A-10 is a better...” I understand that argument and actually agree with it. The military won’t be sending A-10’s in the grass much longer with all the deadly MANPAD’s out there. So the utility of the GAU-8 cannon is going away, anyway. Heck, look at the Spectre Gunships. They are trying to find ways to out-range the MANPADS. So far they have a few ideas and weapon/sensor arrangements, but youre not likely to see those gunships much longer either.
How many Serbian refugees will it transport. A lot I would imagine since it is all children.
Total cost of the full production run is expected to be $1.4 trillion not $400 million. This is an Obama backed disaster of a procurement this country can ill afford. And where was McNuts in 2009 when Obama dropped the F-22 in favor of this pig.
To the best of my knowledge (and anyone who really knows please chime in), our pilots have never been given rules of engagement which allow them to shoot BVR (beyond visual range) in an actual conflict, although we have had the technology to do so for over forty years.
So we are spending vast sums of money for a capability which the politicians (and their overseers in the handwringing media) will not allow to be used.
+1. Good stuff.
wow. you know you’re stuff and you didn’t berate me and you made me feel better about this plane :)
a three for!
Well said.