Cost estimate for F-35 to soar, Pentagon says

[Zachstar]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04...5-to-soar.html

Based on figures in the document, the average cost of one F-35 -- $62 million when the program was launched in 2002 -- could rise to $115.5 million, not counting inflation, by the time all 2,457 planes that the U.S. plans to buy are built.
Including inflation, the government now expects each F-35 to cost an average of $133.6 million. But even that figure could swell to more than $150 million when revised estimates are completed in June.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04...#ixzz0kXlutmKi

Lovely just fraking lovely! Hell the only reason this will be accepted is because the F-35 IS the last manned fighter and replaced a boatload of other aircraft.

[XabbaRus]

You really think it will be the last manned fighter?

I know you love your robot stuff but still think you are wrong on this.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

You really think it will be the last manned fighter?

I know you love your robot stuff but still think you are wrong on this.

Nobody in their right mind will consider another manned fighter when the F-22 and F-35 replace most of the craft in service and are expected to last well until the 2030s (And by then likely just made unmanned)

The B-52 is still flying and there is talk about making it unmanned.

Now I do expect other aircraft will be manned for a bit but generally you don't want to have to refuel from an unmanned tanker and tankers will never go places where the crew is in serious risk. But these monstrous manned fighters are going the way of the dino.

[Platapus]

Do we really need a fleet of F-35s at upwards to 150,000,000 a pop?

A single weapon platform that costs over 1/10 of a Billion Dollars and does not float?

$150,000,000 and it can be shot down by a lucky hit from WWII vintage AAA or even a bird?

That's a lot for a single fighter/multimillion aircraft that can fall out of the sky.

That's five F-16Fs

I think there comes a point when cramming every type of capability on to one product starts to get too expensive and complex.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

You really think it will be the last manned fighter?

I know you love your robot stuff but still think you are wrong on this.

As long as there is an Air Force Academy, we will have manned fighters. How else are academy grads gonna get laid?

[Skybird]

1. Of course costs for this program go up and well beyond the estimations. Have you really expected anything different? the low numbers are only given as long as they want to sell the contract. Once they got it, they milk it.

2. And yes, I too think this is the last major manned fighter program. Maybe they experiment with variations and updates for existing fighters, cloning some models from them on the basis of already exiosting designs. But a new program from scratch?

I read THE AIR FORCE TODAY TRAINS MORE DRONE PILOTS THAN FIGHTER PILOTS.

Also, point 1.

[Freiwillige]

I think upgrading existing technology should keep us competitive in the global market while keeping relative costs down.

Take the F-15 for example..What would happen if we added the engines and radar of the F-22 and threw in the forward canards and thrust vectoring?

Competitive at the very least!

Sure build some F-22's just to keep that edge while maintaining and upgrading what we know already works for 90% of all situations.

[Bubblehead1980]

I have some former military pilots in my family, some Naval Aviators, Some Air Force.An uncle by marriage flew F-14's(a real fighter) and F/A-18's While he likes the F-35 he strongly disapproves of the single engine for them which due to the the NAVY's propensity to operate over water, makes since to have two engines, why most Navy jets like F-4, F-14, F/A-18 have had two engines, safety.As far as upgrading the F-15's etc, well their airframes are old and need to be retired so better to get a new fleet of planes.Defense is expensive but a justified expense and cutting corners only weakens our ability to defend ourselves and project power worldwide.We would have more money if we did not have so many damn entitlments already and it seems they are set on growing them more.I just don't want us to end up in the UK's situation.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

I think upgrading existing technology should keep us competitive in the global market while keeping relative costs down.

Take the F-15 for example..What would happen if we added the engines and radar of the F-22 and threw in the forward canards and thrust vectoring?

Competitive at the very least!

Sure build some F-22's just to keep that edge while maintaining and upgrading what we know already works for 90% of all situations.

That is very likely to happen in my opinion. For instance the need for laser platforms for large scale operations will likely see modifications of a good chunk of old craft. Hell maybe even the F-117 will come back out. Tho most will likely be made unmanned in the process.

BTW Bubblehead, cutting corners weakens us? Do you have ANY idea of how big our defense budget is compared with the rest of the world? A nice F-35 isn't going to be doing jack squat against a fleet of radar equipped missile drones. Its made to blast tanks and terrorists. The F-22 will fare far better but its cost will discourage its use to bust the drones. But the F-22 cant do jack crap about terrorists nor tanks. China lacks night fighters Russia is broke and Canada seems to be on good terms with us

That quip about entitlement programs isn't flying neither. Many people in tough financial situations usually disapprove of the absurd defense budget. That line is a nogo in politics. If a politician said "Less medicare more F-35s" he would be quickly voted out.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

As long as there is an Air Force Academy, we will have manned fighters. How else are academy grads gonna get laid?

If they can build a robot to fight they can build a robot to... do something else that begins with "f"...