F35C...How Much !!!!

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

My personal take on it as a UK taxpayer is its a whole heap of money for something that isnt what the country needs. We cant afford to do some vital upgrades on the Typhoon never mind throw gazillions into a hole in the air. In 10 or 15 years time it might be the greatest thing to fly since the invention of the wing but at the moment its an overweight, underpowered, short legged, gold plated knacker which is making the UK defence budget stink.

It has to work and it has to work 100% better than its showing at the moment because we are too far down the line now the money will never be recovered. If in 10 or 15 years time it still doesnt live up to the bullmanure then the wests air forces are in trouble because you can be damn sure the Russians and Chinese are working on planes to cream the Fattie 35 out of the sky.

No one should ever put all there money into one scheme however good it looks just in case it turns out to be a dirty great Ponzi.
 
Well that's something the MOD should have thought of when the project was being developed. BAE partnered with LMCO during the development and don't know how much if any "after the fact add ons were induced by the MOD. Lockheed just didn't offer this aircraft as an unsolicited project, there was a flyoff and winner declared and all the F-35 partners had a part in developing the procurement spec for this aircraft.

As far as a Chinese version - I'll believe it when I see it. In the mean time they're still producing a lot of licensed built products with 30 year old technology.
By who's opinion? It's still being developed!! EVERY modern fighter aircraft has bugs to work out and this is no exception. As I showed earlier, the first F-14 crashed. The F-16 and F-22 prototypes also had crashes when they were under development and the F-15 was grounded the first week it went into service due to engine issues. The performance issues are being amplified by an anti-defense, anti-aviation media who doesn't even differentiate between the three versions and their mission.
fastmongrel said:
No one should ever put all there money into one scheme however good it looks just in case it turns out to be a dirty great Ponzi.
Click to expand...
I agree with that somewhat. I think too many after the fact mods are being done to the aircraft driving up the costs. This contract is firm fixed price which means that the cost over-runs have to be approved by the pentagon. I don't know how foreign operators will negotiate or enforce this but I could tell you the US media either chooses to ignore or doesn't have a clue about the way military aircraft are produced and paid for. In the mean time the flight tests at EDW continues and over 100 F-35s have been produced.
 
How many threads exist in this forum, regarding the exact same problem with the exception that it's with WWII era warplanes?

As soon as you get more than one member of the Brass in the room, you'll have a need for more than one feature. It has always been this way.

Let's just be glad that the DoD doesn't insist that the F-35 be dive-bomb capable...
 

Yep! As I said before, people think that the "Military Industrial Complex" is a guy like Howard Hughes or Tony Stark sitting in a mahogany office some where peddling their wares on the US taxpayer when in fact it's people at the Pentagon and at Wright Patterson who justify their jobs by continually coming up with more necessities, and this is not only with the F-35.
 
GrauGeist said:
Totally agree...and while I am thinking about it, didn't the early F-111 have a bad habit of losing it's wings until it was withdrawn from service and a new, improved titanium wing pivot installed?
Click to expand...

Horizontal stabilizer issues. The media crucified this aircraft but it became a pretty potent combat aircraft in it's own right.
 
When I was in the USAF in the 1980s, they were testing the Blackhawk helicopter, and losing many. We used to say that the Blackhawk killed more Marines than the Vietcong. Today, they have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damn near everywhere else. As I am sure Adler will tell you, they are damn good ships now.
 

Well, if I remember correctly, I saw somewhere that the Lancaster would cost £500.000 in todays money and with the cost of the F-22/F-35, it's no wonder that they get as much 'on the air' time as they do, don't want them to end up as poster boys now, do we?

As for the dive bombing capabilities, it's not too late yet....


Just a question out curiosity here, how many Blackhawks to a F-35 (or F-22)?
 
It's still a snip compared to a B-2 bomber. We'd better hope that the F-35's raison d'etre doesn't disappear before it comes into service as the B-2s did.
Steve
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Consider that's just for a WW2 airframe. Today's avionics are worth just as much as the airframe.
Click to expand...

A Lancaster, late war, was absolutely crammed with state of the art electronics too. I don't know what the relative price of the aircraft and its electronic systems might have been, but the latter would have been a significant cost.
Cheers
Steve
 
stona said:
A Lancaster, late war, was absolutely crammed with state of the art electronics too. I don't know what the relative price of the aircraft and its electronic systems might have been, but the latter would have been a significant cost.
Cheers
Steve
Click to expand...
State of the art electronics back then consisted of vacuum tube radios, ADFs and radar on some aircraft, now we're looking at GPS' onboard computers, and even computerized environmental systems. The gun sight on an F-35 is probably more complicated than a whole Lancaster airframe!
 

Indeed, but those electronic components cost relatively more than a solid state equivalent today. All those valves, gas discharge tubes (spark gap/nullode) etc were expensive to make, modern transistors and chips are two a penny. take a look at a 1940s triode to see what I mean. Even the CRT for the display was an expensive piece of kit, just look at the relative cost of a television in the 1960s and today. I used to do a bit of electronics as a hobby in the old days, much more fun than today

I reckon a tail warning radar like 'Monica' would cost at least as much in corrected cost as an equivalent system today. How much would the infra red system to prevent 'blue on blue' incidents with friendly night fighters have cost? What about H2s or any of the other systems? These were expensive, state of the art systems in the 1940s, just as the systems fitted to modern aircraft are today.

Also a substantial cost in the development of any aircraft is in the R+D. This is spread across the units sold. The number of F-35s that must bear this cost is insignificant when compared to the numbers of Lancaster produced in WW2. R+D costs are negligible across several thousand aircraft produced, not so for something like the F-35 or B-2.

There is a bit of apples and oranges here!

Cheers

Steve
 
stona said:
Indeed, but those electronic components cost relatively more than a solid state equivalent today.
Click to expand...
I think it depends what you're looking at and what type of aircraft. For example, a P-61 flyaway cost was just under 200K (~2.6 million in 2014 dollars). Without radar and armamant I show sources saying $170K. The $30,000 difference 1944 dollars equate to just over $400,000 in todays dollars. I see articles saying the AN/APG-81 AESA Radar that goes into the F-35 costing $3 million a unit. $3 million dollars today would have been $224,000 in 1944 dollars.
 
Last edited:
Ive seen stuff published in the (RAAF) air force Newsletters. here is an extract from one of those articles

"The F-35A provides Australia with a fifth generation aircraft capability to enable air superiority into the future.

Australia has committed to 72 F-35A aircraft – comprised of three operational squadrons - two at RAAF Base Williamtown and one at RAAF Base Tindal. In addition, a training squadron will be based at RAAF Base Williamtown.

The first F-35 aircraft will arrive in Australia in 2018 and the first squadron, Number 3 Squadron, will be operational in 2021. All 72 aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023.

The total capital cost of $12.4 billion for this acquisition includes the cost of associated facilities, weapons and training.

Around $1.6 billion in new facilities and infrastructure will be constructed, including at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales and RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory.

In the future, a fourth operational squadron will be considered for RAAF Base Amberley, for a total of about 100 F-35A's.

The F-35A (commonly known as the Joint Strike Fighter) is the most suitable aircraft for Australia's future air combat and strike needs, to replace the aging F/A-18A/B Hornets".

At $12.4 that runs to $172 million per copy, but that includes a lot of additional infrastructure and support.

Its pricey, unquestionably, but all the indicators are this will be a exceptionally capable aircraft. if it isn't, there are going to be seriously cranky customers.
 
Lucky13 said:
Well, if I remember correctly, I saw somewhere that the Lancaster would cost £500.000 in todays money:
Click to expand...

Surely someone was jesting, a lanc. has 4 Merlins, If you could build a new Lancaster for £500,000 there would be lancs all over, that is less than many people pay for a supercar or even a bloody Superman comic. Aircraft were expensive in WW2 and would be just as expensive today. As for the F35 I worry that it may be so expensive and therefore so few in service that it could be overwhelmed by massive numbers of low tech planes.
 
The media crucified this aircraft but it became a pretty potent combat aircraft in it's own right.
Click to expand...

It did, although the inlet boundary layer issues never quite disappeared. Nevertheless, exactly the same hoo haa in the media went on with the F-111 and the B-1 when it was conceived, the AMSA - America's Most Studied Airplane!

Surely someone was jesting
Click to expand...

I think you might be right, it costs a lot more to build a Spitfire than that. A Lanc would be a hell of a lot more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
So Much For Helicopters
Replies
2
Views
719
MIflyer
M
N
How come the Mirage-2000 failed to penetrate Western markets?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Frog
F
A
And then there was one. How could the IDF destroy Iran's nuclear research bunker?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Dimlee
What is one plane that is underappreciated for how effective it was in combat?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
7K
Elvis
M
How Many 4 Seat Twins Are There?
Replies
8
Views
706
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register