F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now cheaper to produce! By $4.5 billion - Polidicks

[quote]The total projected price for the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program--the most expensive weapons development program in history--has dropped. Though its program history is riddled with cost and schedule overruns alongside unforeseen engineering and design issues, the total price tag for the JSF fell $4.5 billion in 2012, the first time in the program’s history that the projected cost has gone anywhere but up (and up and up).[/quote] [url]http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/worlds-most-expensive-weapon-just-got-little-cheaper[/url]

Now that's a bargain.

So is that $4.5 billion per unit? The whole JSF program is has cost $382 billion so far.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40770556]So is that $4.5 billion per unit? The whole JSF program is has cost $382 billion so far.[/QUOTE] It fell by $4.5, that's not the cost itself.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40770566]It fell by $4.5, that's not the cost itself.[/QUOTE] Oh I see, it's the estimated/projected cost. Only $377.5 billion now, phew :v:

Maybe they should try making the plane less dangerous to the pilots than the missiles shot at the plane.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;40770633]Maybe they should try making the plane less dangerous to the pilots than the missiles shot at the plane.[/QUOTE] does this have anything to do with the price of the plane or are you just making a snarky comment about F35's like in literally every thread that involves one of these jets regardless of what the thread is about

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40770665]does this have anything to do with the price of the plane or are you just making a snarky comment about F35's like in literally every thread that involves one of these jets regardless of what the thread is about[/QUOTE] It's a disaster of a project that sucks away your tax dollars by the billions. I think a constant stream of ridicule is warranted.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;40770633]Maybe they should try making the plane less dangerous to the pilots than the missiles shot at the plane.[/QUOTE] Designing new weapons isnt the most easist thing ever seeing how much new technology is being employed into the F-35. Its better these dangers are found with there prototypes then there productions models.

It's silly to expect new technology to come out perfect right on the spot on the first try. You know how many rockets we went through just trying to get into space, [I]nonetheless get off the ground without exploding?[/I]

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;40770633]Maybe they should try making the plane less dangerous to the pilots than the missiles shot at the plane.[/QUOTE] What issues has the F-35 had that make it significantly more dangerous than other aircraft, again? Armchair engineers keep making these snarky quips at the issues with the F-35, when in reality they're fairly benign compared to the issues some airframes have faced. Early F-16s, keep in mind, had a tendency for the flight computer to crash and the pilot to totally lose control of the plane. F-18s even today continue to have airflow issues during maneuvers that have led to the loss of multiple aircraft. F-15s have experienced structural flaws that cause them to disintegrate in flight. It's nowhere near as dangerous as something like a V-22.

The Osprey is a fine aircraft, it's done well. Most crashes occur due to pilot error during the transitional phase. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] The F-35 on the other hand just has a constant stream of problems that were solved years ago for other aircraft, problems that are costing far more to solve than the aircraft is able to give back in performance.

[QUOTE=Clavus;40770952]It's a disaster of a project that sucks away your tax dollars by the billions. I think a constant stream of ridicule is warranted.[/QUOTE] What's the disaster?

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;40771484]What's the disaster?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/F35-logo.jpg[/IMG] :v:

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40770556]So is that $4.5 billion per unit? The whole JSF program is has cost $382 billion so far.[/QUOTE] They're buying 2000 F35s, so they're not $4.5b/unit

While the f35 is one hell of a technological marvel, I can't help but think its a waste of money. Don't we have plenty of capable fighters?

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;40771708]While the f35 is one hell of a technological marvel, I can't help but think its a waste of money. Don't we have plenty of capable fighters?[/QUOTE] Well, the fear is the enemy (the Russian, Chinese, whatever) have better aircraft. Anyway, to me it just looks like a massive experiment by defence contractors to see how much they can blow out a budget before the government pulls the plug Hint: [sp]It's a lot[/sp]

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;40771708]While the f35 is one hell of a technological marvel, I can't help but think its a waste of money. Don't we have plenty of capable fighters?[/QUOTE] Yeah.. but we don't :( Not any you can throw off aircraft carriers anyway.

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;40771708]While the f35 is one hell of a technological marvel, I can't help but think its a waste of money. Don't we have plenty of capable fighters?[/QUOTE] Its to ensure we have one capable for the future by placing a lot more technology into it then previous models. F-35's are easy to maintain(everythings easy to remove and install) and a much cheaper stealth skin that needs less tending and less expensive compared to the F-22 raptor. Its generally meant to be a better craft overall.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40771431]The Osprey is a fine aircraft, it's done well. Most crashes occur due to pilot error during the transitional phase. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] The F-35 on the other hand just has a constant stream of problems that were solved years ago for other aircraft, problems that are costing far more to solve than the aircraft is able to give back in performance.[/QUOTE] You're kidding me, right? You're saying a craft that has crashed seven times, killing 36 people, is safer and better-engineered than a craft that has never crashed at all? Having room for pilot error is a design flaw. Problems with aircraft are not things you solve for one aircraft and then have working perfectly for everything else. The F-35 is a brand new fighter with brand new systems and it is unreasonable to expect it to function perfectly in all respects. [QUOTE=No Party Hats;40771708]While the f35 is one hell of a technological marvel, I can't help but think its a waste of money. Don't we have plenty of capable fighters?[/QUOTE] Not really, no. The F-16, F-15, and F/A-18 are all getting outdated. They're fine for general patrol and for dropping bombs on backwoods militia, but as frontline combatants their time is just about up. There are two other big things to consider with the F-35. The first is that it's flexible, which could lead to a cost savings down the road. Having STOVL/VTOL capability means it can take off from smaller, cheaper carriers, which could allow us to reduce the cost of our carrier fleet while still retaining the same level of force projection. The second is that the F-35 was designed for export, and this means that we stand to make some money on the project through exports as well. Sooner or later we're going to need to phase out the current workhorses, and with production halted on the F-22 it's up to the F-35 to fill the gaps.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40772110]You're saying a craft that has crashed seven times, killing 36 people... brand new fighter with brand new systems and it is unreasonable to expect it to function perfectly in all respects.[/QUOTE] Four of those crashes and 30 of those deaths were while the V-22 was still being developed, so you can't really count those, especially considering your next line. Also to address the rest of your post, the only STOVL capable F-35 is the USMC's B model, which is replacing the STOVL Harriers on the LHDs that we already have. Large carriers aren't going away; the C model is designed to operate on them. The cost of the carrier fleet should be going down though, but that's a result of design changes and new technology on the Ford class carriers, not anything to do with aircraft. All that said, I do hope the F-35 program manages to shape up, there's some pretty nice technology going into them.

[QUOTE=O'Neil;40770985]Designing new weapons isnt the most easist thing ever seeing how much new technology is being employed into the F-35. Its better these dangers are found with there prototypes then there productions models.[/QUOTE] Expect some of that technology developed for it to be stuck into commercial aviation in the future, too

[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;40771103]It's silly to expect new technology to come out perfect right on the spot on the first try. You know how many rockets we went through just trying to get into space, [I]nonetheless get off the ground without exploding?[/I][/QUOTE] It's fair to say that. However, they've been given unlimited fucking funding for over 15 fucking years to develop this. [editline]24th May 2013[/editline] Keep in mind, the osprey program was a 10th of the cost of the F-35 and it's still getting shit on for sucking so much money.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40772110]You're kidding me, right? You're saying a craft that has crashed seven times, killing 36 people, is safer and better-engineered than a craft that has never crashed at all? Having room for pilot error is a design flaw. Problems with aircraft are not things you solve for one aircraft and then have working perfectly for everything else. The F-35 is a brand new fighter with brand new systems and it is unreasonable to expect it to function perfectly in all respects.[/QUOTE] The Osprey is a tilt-rotor. Most pilots have never flown one before; rookie pilots don't always know what to do during the transitional phase and I believe almost every service crash has been a result of that. Its mechanical and technological flaws have been ironed out and it [I]works fine.[/I] Anyway, you can't attack the Osprey for that while defending the F-35. The F-35 is a tragic example of a good idea gone bad. I love the F-35, but it's a money pit and there's no reason to pour billions of dollars into the program when it clearly isn't going to be able to justify the money in the long term.

There's literally no reason to spend that much money on it, even as a deterrence. An expensive multi role airplane is fucking stupid as hell since it will end up not being used in multiple roles due to the risks.

Additionally the Osprey has proven itself with over 140,000 total flight hours since it was fielded. The Marines run their Ospreys hard and in some of the worst conditions you can operate such a high tech aircraft. It's done very, very well for a first of its kind aircraft. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey[/url] [quote]On 18 February 2011, Marine Commandant General James Amos indicated Marine MV-22s deployed to Afghanistan surpassed 100,000 flight hours and were noted as having become "the safest airplane, or close to the safest airplane” in the Marine Corps inventory. The average V-22 mishap rate based on flight hours over the past 10 years, has been approximately half the accident rate for the USMC aircraft fleet. The V-22's accident rate is the lowest of any Marine rotorcraft.[/quote]

On the downside, they had to remove the cup holders.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40773140]The Osprey is a tilt-rotor. Most pilots have never flown one before; rookie pilots don't always know what to do during the transitional phase and I believe almost every service crash has been a result of that. Its mechanical and technological flaws have been ironed out and it [I]works fine.[/I] Anyway, you can't attack the Osprey for that while defending the F-35. The F-35 is a tragic example of a good idea gone bad. I love the F-35, but it's a money pit and there's no reason to pour billions of dollars into the program when it clearly isn't going to be able to justify the money in the long term.[/QUOTE] Uhh no, they haven't. The V-22 is a fundamentally flawed design. In the event of an engine failure, you die. The blades aren't large enough to auto rotate and the lift surfaces aren't sufficient to glide. You lose power, you crash in a bad way. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft have procedures for power loss. The V-22 doesn't. Unacceptable for a combat transport. The aircraft is a novel design, but has absolutely no place on a battlefield.

Holy crap, that's a lot of money.

[QUOTE=GunFox;40774652]Uhh no, they haven't. The V-22 is a fundamentally flawed design. In the event of an engine failure, you die. The blades aren't large enough to auto rotate and the lift surfaces aren't sufficient to glide. You lose power, you crash in a bad way. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft have procedures for power loss. The V-22 doesn't. Unacceptable for a combat transport. The aircraft is a novel design, but has absolutely no place on a battlefield.[/QUOTE] That, and it's just dangerous as hell. Transitioning from vertical to horizontal gives you a couple seconds where you don't have any lift at all.