A think tank has just said there's no way the United States can afford their planned F-35 numbers procurement.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/11/10/experts-bomber-cost-could-upset-f-35-plans/75528532/
Soon after that Air Force officials said themselves that they might not be able to afford planned purchases and are investigating whether or not they can build new 4th gen planes to keep on policy. Upgrades were also included as part of this new investigation.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-considers-72-new-f-15s-or-f-16s?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20151120_AW-05_723&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000001584921&utm_campaign=4309&utm_medium=email&elq2=209ff6050f7f4b168e6fdf628bf53f4e
Non subscribers can read about it here.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/f-35-too-expensive-us-air-force-might-buy-72-new-f-15-or-f-16-fighter-jets/
>>27942108
>A think tank has just said
Buying 50% of the F-35's capabilities for 75% of the cost is not saving money.
>>27942410
>75% of the cost
>not saving money
>all in the same sentence
It's going to be really cool if we get new prototypes from this and you know it.
>>27942108
>Think tank said this
>Post a bunch of links to .com websites.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR124z1.html
Do people really wake up every day and think "yes, time to make another F35 thread" and proceed to Google "latest F35 trouble" "F35 cancellation" "F35 budget" every single fucking day
Please kill yourself you fucking moron
>>27943387
A simple "yes" would've been fine.
>>27943405
No it wouldn't have, because it defused any response you could have produced and it's absolutely true.
>>27943387
>brainwashed goyim
>>>/pol/
>>27943417
>I win no matter what you might've said
Stay mad, kiddo.
>>27943445
Faggot plz
>>27943307
>have to buy 2 to have the same capability
>150% of the cost of an F-35
You dun fucked up.
>>27943417
>if I pass myself off as a big enough retard you wont bother responding, and I will win by default
>>27943508
>doesn't know that policy is more about numbers built than capability
We have countries to protect and places to be. The F-35 doesn't currently cut it in that regard.
F-35 now comes with money vacuum missiles and laser guided "It'll be done next year" bombs.
>The total procurement cost of the 1,763 F-35s is about $215 billion.
>$215b/1763=$122m
But it was said it would cost $60m per plane
Either cut the entire defense budget or field a literally invincible military IMO
>>27943508
That is not how the numbers game works. Quantity has a quality all its own, especially when it's amplified by the more capable units. Sometimes, there's something to be said for more minds and eyes in the sky.
>>27945322
1763 is only the USAF, its 2443 with the USN and USMC.
>$215b/2443=$88m
A new Super Hornet costs $65mil, >>27942410 applies.
>>27942108
>The United States of America
>Can't afford something
Choose one and only one you communist dunecoon
>>27945559
>Choose one and only one you communist dunecoon
Not even America has infinite buying power.
>>27945345
>>27943560
Buying new F-15's because you will get 3 planes instead of 2 is not a viable solution when the 2 planes have the effectiveness of 4 F-15's.
>>27945569
No existing plane is the right answer. The F-35 was designed with air defense network penetration in mind, which involves sophisticated avionics and air to ground strike capabilities. At the same time, it has significant air to air capabilities and powerful kinematics in many areas. I'm not about to say "not a pound for air to ground," but if the Air Force, The Pentagon, and Congress decide to buy "a couple hundred" of Northrop's new stealth bomber, wouldn't it be better to design a fighter that has a stronger focus on air to air? Avionics software development costs have scaled exponentially with the overall system complexity, airframe costs scales directly with weight, while performance decreases with it.
>>27945627
No.
>>27945628
>>27945648
Too bad its cost effectiveness is compromised by trying to take up the missions serviced by an overly low number of F-22s, B-2s, and (highly outdated and badly needing a follow-up program) A-10s.
>>27945540
Are you illiterate or what? It quite clearly states 1763 costs about $215b, if you want to tweak the # of the planes you better come up with a source that states what the procurement cost of all 2443 then is.
>>27945706
>its cost effectiveness is compromised by
No.
>>27945727
>No
Yes. Having more shit in the airplane is going to make it more expensive, no matter what.
>>27945722
$261 billion / 2443 (A, B and C models) = $107 million
http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/F-35-2013-SAR.pdf
F-35A's already cost less than what OP's article claims while in LRIP.
>>27945753
>F-35A's already cost less than what OP's article claims while in LRIP.
This is a good thing, but the F-35A is also the simplest version of the aircraft. The F-35B's engine is much more expensive, and the rest of the aircraft has a lot more moving parts.
>>27945731
Your argument is that it would be more cost effective to buy more F-22s and B-2s and less F-35s, despite both of them being significantly more expensive than the F-35.
>>27945785
My argument is that LRS-Bs make the F-35's role as a stealth ground pounder less valuable, while the intended number of F-22s would reduce the F-35's needs as an air superiority fighter. Revolutionary leaps in technology are incredibly expensive, and the more things you try to do with one airplane, the more rapidly the costs grow. The bulk of the F-35's development costs are already paid for, and at this point it's only possible to realize cost savings by shifting the future acquisitions budget into more specialized and/or simpler airframes that introduce fewer new technologies. I still think there are potential savings to be realized by re-engineering the F-35A with a more aerodynamic (lift fan eschewing) shape, re-using the already developed avionics suite in a package that places less emphasis on air to ground capabilities in favor of air to air payload and maneuverability.
It's believed that Northrop's new bomber is basically a pair of sub-sonic F-35s in an even stealthier airframe. Modifying the F-35 into a more potent air to air fighter sounds like a potentially sensible evolutionary development.
>>27943372
Lockheed pls
>>27943372
The F-35 gets bad news like twice a month. Of course I google it every day.
I don't even post everything I find. Here's another fun trinket from Americas embarrassment.
http://www.janes.com/article/55987/wing-spar-cracks-found-on-usn-f-35-variant
>>27945648
>Reaper
>Useful in actual war
Pick one
>>27947708
So embarrassing to be the only country with operational stealth fighters.
Do us all a favor and go find a nice quiet place in the woods to hang yourself.
>>27947708
>vehicle had over 6,850 flight hours
>fix is to add half a pound of material
such a scandal
>>27947708
> literally in the article that it's an easy fix on current and future builds
> missing the point that finding stuff like this is the purpose of the LRIP process
>>27947708
>>27947975
>>27948025
So an aircraft with almost 7,000 flight hours has a small crack (easily fixable) in it. Compared with the life span of the Typhoon at 6,000 hours and the Su-27 hours, that only makes the plane look better.
>>27948074
*Su-27 at 2,000 hours
>>27948074
>>27947975
>>27947954
>>27948074
>All this Amerilard damage control.
Hey chuckle-fucks.
Even at "life span" a wing spar is NOT meant to crack.
>>27948139
> get proven wrong by your own link
> accuse others of damage control
>>27948139
>longer wing than other two variants with folding mechanism
> cheap, easy fix
> Sprey.jpg
>>27948216
>>27948218
Link wasn't me guys, but a wing spar isn't a do-nothing part.
>>27948240
Read. The. Fucking. Article.
They already a fix. Shit like this is why we're doing LRIP.
>>27948257
>They already a fix. Shit like this is why we're doing LRIP.
They're already going to implement a fix.
But even so, it's not a small issue.
Designs faults will be found - it is a new air frame - but we don't have to kick and scream like babies, refusing to acknowledge them.
>>27948288
Fuck off. Every little minor flaw is treated like the final nail in the F-35's coffin. Even though the reality is that the only reason that talk is happening is because the internet makes it easy and the LRIP process means we're finding the flaws before they're a problem. Unlike, say, the F-16 Lawn Dart.
>>27948330
>Fuck off. Every little minor flaw is treated like the final nail in the F-35's coffin. Even though the reality is that the only reason that talk is happening is because the internet makes it easy and the LRIP process means we're finding the flaws before they're a problem. Unlike, say, the F-16 Lawn Dart.
I'll tl;dr for anyone else who wants to read this:
>WAHHH, WAHHHH, STOP SAYING BAD THINGS!
Look, I get you want to go MURIKA/ISRAYUL/ETC STRONK, but how is someone posting a relevant article hurting you?
Of course this is going to be fixed, just like with every airframe ever, but it's worth talking about.
>>27948360
You keep missing the point that it's how the article link was framed, dipshit.
