Cost of Buying and Operating 2443 F35's: Estimated to be 1.3 Trillion - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GKQeavW9-ls/TdaRCLQ2M_I/AAAAAAAALiA/Dt55y5NFzYw/s1600/f35.jpg[/IMG] The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (Stealth multirole fighter) program is now projected to cost $1.3 trillion dollars to operate and maintain over its 30-year lifetime Ashton Carter, under-secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said that the new $133 million price per aircraft was not affordable. [B]Lawmakers Want Backup Plan After Carter Calls JSF Costs 'Unaffordable'[/B] [QUOTE]The Pentagon's top arms buyer this week called current cost projections for the Joint Strike Fighter "unaffordable," triggering a bipartisan group of senators to demand a Defense Department contingency plan for how tactical air forces would be modernized should the F-35 program collapse under the weight of its forecasted $1.3 trillion price tag. [/QUOTE] The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 F35 aircraft. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, fifth generation multirole fighters under development to perform ground attack, reconnaissance, and air defense missions with stealth capability. The F-35 has three main models; one is a conventional takeoff and landing variant, the second is a short take off and vertical-landing variant, and the third is a carrier-based variant. [IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-295xmsEad_U/TdaRZV4jn_I/AAAAAAAALiE/c6tk6-SNoDY/s1600/f35variants.png[/IMG] [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/cost-of-buying-and-operating-2443-f35s.html[/url]

[quote]over its 30-year lifetime[/quote]

Shit at least they know this expense is unaffordable. Not too long ago we probably would've bought them with no hesitation.

Meanwhile, at Lockheed Martin: [img]http://s3.gatheringmagic.com/uploads/2009/02/scrooge_mcduck_swimming_in_money.jpg[/img]

Does the US actually need that many fighters of that type? I'm not saying "Free love and peace man let's mass disarm and all take tokes from the peace pipe of love and world peace mannnnn" but seriously who is gonna threaten americas airspace to such a degree that their current air superiority fighters, supplemented by about 1000 or so of these fighters with spares, can't handle the job? Just saying I don't see the justification for this when that money could be put into a lot of government funded science research like DARPA and associates.

[QUOTE=bravehat;29949636]Does the US actually need that many fighters of that type? I'm not saying "Free love and peace man let's mass disarm and all take tokes from the peace pipe of love and world peace mannnnn" but seriously who is gonna threaten americas airspace to such a degree that their current air superiority fighters, supplemented by about 1000 or so of these fighters with spares, can't handle the job? Just saying I don't see the justification for this when that money could be put into a lot of government funded science research like DARPA and associates.[/QUOTE] There's also that wasteland in the desert where they keep old planes, maintaining them, at about 500 million every year because they do nothing.

imagine 1.3 trillion dollars put into US healthcare over the span of 30 years

That is a lot of fucking money.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;29949663]There's also that wasteland in the desert where they keep old planes, maintaining them, at about 500 million every year because they do nothing.[/QUOTE] Yeah the boneyards, they really should strip at least half on any decommissioned air craft, or sell them off, of course strip out the advanced avionics and the like or anything that could undermine any technological advantage the air craft offer the US. Seems the punisher disagrees, I wonder if he fancies explaining why. Hint Hint.

recycle old planes -> cheap housing made for poor people there you go problems sovled

2443 is a fuckload of planes. Perhaps we don't need that much... IIRC we only bought a couple hundred F-22's.

[QUOTE=thisispain;29949664]imagine 1.3 trillion dollars put into US healthcare over the span of 30 years[/QUOTE] That would only equivicate to 4.3 billion a year. While that sounds like alot, in the overall US budget thats a tiny slice. Not to mention that even though the US spends the most on its defense budget, a majority of the US's over all budget goes to medicare and medicaid

[QUOTE=thisispain;29949730]recycle old planes -> cheap housing made for poor people there you go problems sovled[/QUOTE] As planes age they get harder to maintain, thus the more money you have to put into them. F-15's are falling apart, some even crashing recently due to mechanical failures. We got rid of the F-14 because the newer F-18s could do everything they could do and they were also falling apart. HOWEVER, F-22's are so advanced that they need just as much babying as an old F-15 probably does. My brother use to maintain C-130s that were older than him and during a Japanese Friendship Festival at his base in Japan where they had various aircraft on display. The F-22's were the only ones to not get off the ground because their shit broke. So were kind of fucking ourselves in the ass by making these things so complicated.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29949801]That would only equivicate to 4.3 billion a year. While that sounds like alot, in the overall US budget thats a tiny slice. Not to mention that even though the US spends the most on its defense budget, a majority of the US's over all budget goes to medicare and medicaid[/QUOTE] still :colbert: something is definitely not working in the us when it comes to healthcare, we spend more than the rest of the world per capita yet receive atrocious care

[QUOTE=thisispain;29949664]imagine 1.3 trillion dollars put into US healthcare over the span of 30 years[/QUOTE] or education

[QUOTE=thisispain;29949868]still :colbert: something is definitely not working in the us when it comes to healthcare, we spend more than the rest of the world per capita yet receive atrocious care[/QUOTE] What do you think was one of the reasons why i joined the military?

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;29949663]There's also that wasteland in the desert where they keep old planes, maintaining them, at about 500 million every year because they do nothing.[/QUOTE] They are regularly brought back into service for various purposes. Sometimes as testbeds for new systems, other times as realistic targets for new weapon testing, or in the event of large-scale military conflict, they are cycled back into service again. A number of aircraft were brought out mummification for use in Iraq.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29950032]What do you think was one of the reasons why i joined the military?[/QUOTE] you like guns?

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29950032]What do you think was one of the reasons why i joined the military?[/QUOTE] Free stuff?

[QUOTE=thisispain;29950087]you like guns?[/QUOTE] Outstanding healthcare I think he means, soldiers and military personnel get some fucking glorious healthcare in most if not all first world countries.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29950061]They are regularly brought back into service for various purposes. Sometimes as testbeds for new systems, other times as realistic targets for new weapon testing, or in the event of large-scale military conflict, they are cycled back into service again. A number of aircraft were brought out mummification for use in Iraq.[/QUOTE] Maybe they can bring back the good old RF-4s into service. A former director of Fort Irwin's National Training Center said that in this time training rotating Army units, he found the old RF-4s to be more effective than what he called, the not-so-impressive and overly expensive UAVs that are still being used today.

[QUOTE=OvB;29949827]As planes age they get harder to maintain, thus the more money you have to put into them. F-15's are falling apart, some even crashing recently due to mechanical failures. We got rid of the F-14 because the newer F-18s could do everything they could do and they were also falling apart. HOWEVER, F-22's are so advanced that they need just as much babying as an old F-15 probably does. My brother use to maintain C-130s that were older than him and during a Japanese Friendship Festival at his base in Japan where they had various aircraft on display. The F-22's were the only ones to not get off the ground because their shit broke. So were kind of fucking ourselves in the ass by making these things so complicated.[/QUOTE] I dunno, the F-22 is a terrifying aircraft. Currently they are devising a way to make them work in conjunction with modified B-1B Lancer strategic bombers for, no this isn't a typo, air supremacy purposes. The B-1 would be outfitted with as many over the horizon air-to-air missiles as it can carry. The F-22 would use its stealth to penetrate deep into enemy air space and then use its targeting systems to transmit targets back to the B-1. The B-1, with its insane payload, would effectively be able to crush many air forces with a single payload and probably remain undetected in the process. Basically this would let one F-22 do the work of numerous fighter wings. How well the program will play out, or if it will continue to receive funding (I haven't even heard anything about it for some time already), is anyone's guess. But ultimately that is the sort of mission capability such advanced tech can provide.

Do they really need 2000 of the things?

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29950162]Maybe they can bring back the good old RF-4s into service. A former director of Fort Irwin's National Training Center said that in this time training rotating Army units, he found the old RF-4s to be more effective than what he called, the not-so-impressive and overly expensive UAVs that are still being used today.[/QUOTE] The F-4's get modified into drones and blown up by new Air to air missiles. I'm not sure they get used for much else, unfortunately. =/

[QUOTE=thisispain;29949664]imagine 1.3 trillion dollars put into US healthcare over the span of 30 years[/QUOTE] You one of those damn communists?

[QUOTE=bravehat;29950121]Outstanding healthcare I think he means, soldiers and military personnel get some fucking glorious healthcare in most if not all first world countries.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say glorious, the system is slow as fuck. Something that would have took a civilian doctor a week took them a month and 2 weeks. But it is compleatly free to me, and I've already had a few expensive procedures done to find out whats wrong with my kidneys.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29950187]The F-4's get modified into drones and blown up by new Air to air missiles. I'm not sure they get used for much else, unfortunately. =/[/QUOTE] IMO it's weird that new weapons constantly get tested on old shit. It's the same problem I see when anti-tank missile manufacturers test their newest ATGMs on old M60s or T-55s rather than potential threat MBTs. Though one time I heard that former Army Chief of Staff Shinseki actually blackmailed the US Army Armor community in the 1990s, threatening to release a video of a LOSAT ATGM punching straight through an M1A2 with the latest DU armor frontally and out the back if they didn't accept his Stryker program. That video remains classified. [editline]20th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29950168]I dunno, the F-22 is a terrifying aircraft. Currently they are devising a way to make them work in conjunction with modified B-1B Lancer strategic bombers for, no this isn't a typo, air supremacy purposes. The B-1 would be outfitted with as many over the horizon air-to-air missiles as it can carry. The F-22 would use its stealth to penetrate deep into enemy air space and then use its targeting systems to transmit targets back to the B-1. The B-1, with its insane payload, would effectively be able to crush many air forces with a single payload and probably remain undetected in the process. Basically this would let one F-22 do the work of numerous fighter wings. How well the program will play out, or if it will continue to receive funding (I haven't even heard anything about it for some time already), is anyone's guess. But ultimately that is the sort of mission capability such advanced tech can provide.[/QUOTE] Sounds pretty optimistic, and there's another aspect than technology alone.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29950168]I dunno, the F-22 is a terrifying aircraft. Currently they are devising a way to make them work in conjunction with modified B-1B Lancer strategic bombers for, no this isn't a typo, air supremacy purposes. The B-1 would be outfitted with as many over the horizon air-to-air missiles as it can carry. The F-22 would use its stealth to penetrate deep into enemy air space and then use its targeting systems to transmit targets back to the B-1. The B-1, with its insane payload, would effectively be able to crush many air forces with a single payload and probably remain undetected in the process. Basically this would let one F-22 do the work of numerous fighter wings. How well the program will play out, or if it will continue to receive funding (I haven't even heard anything about it for some time already), is anyone's guess. But ultimately that is the sort of mission capability such advanced tech can provide.[/QUOTE] Oh man I heard about this. The sheer amount of missiles the B-1B can carry is terrifying.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29950245]I wouldn't say glorious, the system is slow as fuck. Something that would have took a civilian doctor a week took them a month and 2 weeks. But it is compleatly free to me, and I've already had a few expensive procedures done to find out whats wrong with my kidneys.[/QUOTE] Ah well I'm thinking in terms of surgery and the like to help recover from battle injuries and the like, and over here in the UK at least as far as my relatively uneducated knowledge goes the military healthcare here is pretty good.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29950168]I dunno, the F-22 is a terrifying aircraft. Currently they are devising a way to make them work in conjunction with modified B-1B Lancer strategic bombers for, no this isn't a typo, air supremacy purposes. The B-1 would be outfitted with as many over the horizon air-to-air missiles as it can carry. The F-22 would use its stealth to penetrate deep into enemy air space and then use its targeting systems to transmit targets back to the B-1. The B-1, with its insane payload, would effectively be able to crush many air forces with a single payload and probably remain undetected in the process. Basically this would let one F-22 do the work of numerous fighter wings. How well the program will play out, or if it will continue to receive funding (I haven't even heard anything about it for some time already), is anyone's guess. But ultimately that is the sort of mission capability such advanced tech can provide.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I love the F-22, but it's starting to disappoint me with all the mechanical failures i'm hearing about this early in its life time. Although the B1[b]r[/b] is a cool development with the F-22 buddy system thing, though I don't think we'll need that unless we go to war with China or someone, but I guess it's a nice thing to have ready.