Joined: Jan 31, 2004
Posts: 1476
Location: Near Beale St., Tenn.
Status: Offline
And as more jets come off the line, I can tell ya with some certainty that you'll also see per unit flyaway costs decrease as the manufacturing process gets more streamlined and efficient.
_________________ Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
SpudmanWP
Posted: Apr 09, 2008 - 10:36 PM
Active member
Joined: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
I even saw a quote a few days ago that the #2 official at the Pentagon said they 'are looking' at reducing any future F-22 buys (above 183) to get more F-35s.
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2811
Location: Australia
LowObservable wrote:
w00t
That was an interesting read.
Quote:
So the picture is not as simple as the press release suggests and (like the title) reflects the sunny optimism of Mr Wilkins Micawber. But it also brings to mind the observations of Mr Dury, a Londoner like Dickens, on the hope that springs eternal, and where it springs next.
_________________ - ELP -
That_Engine_Guy
Posted: Apr 10, 2008 - 01:26 AM
Elite
Joined: Dec 14, 2005
Posts: 652
Status: Offline
More jets is cheaper....
Less jets are more expensive....
No wonder Congress only wants 178 Raptors, otherwise they may not cost the government enough!?
geogen
Posted: Apr 10, 2008 - 06:03 AM
Veteran
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 293
Location: 45km @ sea... New England
Status: Offline
Sorry guys, but this is fuzzy math 101, and no disrespects to the necessary, positive aspects of our system serving the National defense
But an 'OMG', $1 billion dollar 'decrease' from last years estimate of $299 billion is an insult. And should be called out by congress once and for all. So to say the least, an insult to intelligence and ultimate US national security interests. And I hope to heck US congress will scrutinize defense policy conduct and general philosophy of the current structure, due to this program - which I would be thankful for.
I mean c'mon.. do the 4th grade math: 2,400+ aircraft are still the official equation. Call it 2,400. Straight up divide by a plausible 48 units produced per yr (as an example). Equals 50 year production line! Services will be buying F-35 beyond 2060?? Thats news!
So somewhere herein is a big stink of major misinfo, flawed accounting and half-truths (at best) being sold to US congress, FYI.
One could assume a more open, honest debate will happen under next admin?
_________________ The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Viperalltheway
Posted: Apr 10, 2008 - 12:32 PM
Veteran
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 431
The navy has been able to buy about 45 F-18Es per year. It's in the same price range as the F-35 and the AF has more money for aircraft than the Navy so I guess they should be able to get significantly more than 48 per year.
LMAggie
Posted: Apr 10, 2008 - 01:47 PM
Veteran
Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 269
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Status: Offline
Never fails....I guess if you try hard enough you can spin any story. I'm glad I just design the damn things, because the politics would drive me insane....
_________________ “Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
LowObservable
Posted: Apr 10, 2008 - 02:24 PM
Active member
Joined: Jan 11, 2007
Posts: 118
Status: Offline
Engineering, an honorable profession. Marketing and lobbying, not so much.
elp
Posted: Apr 10, 2008 - 03:19 PM
F-16.net Editor
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2811
Location: Australia
Viperalltheway wrote:
The navy has been able to buy about 45 F-18Es per year.It's in the same price range as the F-35 .
That will be an interesting magic trick to see performed on stage.
_________________ - ELP -
SpudmanWP
Posted: Apr 10, 2008 - 04:56 PM
Active member
Joined: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
geogen wrote:
Sorry guys, but this is fuzzy math 101, .... 2,400+ aircraft are still the official equation. Call it 2,400. ..... Equals 50 year production line!
Wow.. where are you getting your data for the WHOLE production run?
Also, the $1 billion is a reduction over the LIFETIME of the program, not just last year's portion.
If you look at the latest GAO-08-338 PDF on page 11, it CLEARLY shows that the F-35 production will reach it's peak of 225 airframes a year in 2015.
The 225 peak includes foreign orders of 95 airframes and 130 for US orders.
This chart also does not show the likely Israel or Japan orders.
Note the operative word on that chart is "plan". That is what all the partners have signed for. However what can be funded by the biggest F-35 customer the USAF may be very different indeed. A pauper Air Force.
_________________ - ELP -
SpudmanWP
Posted: Apr 10, 2008 - 05:17 PM
Active member
Joined: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
Where are you seeing the US NOT funding to plan?
If they did, it would drive UP the cost of the entire program.
If your about to say "look at what they did to the F-22", the dirty little secret is that they saw the end of the Cold War and the advent of the F-35 and decided to invest in the F-35 instead of more F-22s.
vertical
Posted: Apr 10, 2008 - 07:37 PM
Frequent Poster
Joined: Apr 10, 2008
Posts: 72
Status: Offline
SpudmanWP wrote:
Where are you seeing the US NOT funding to plan?
If they did, it would drive UP the cost of the entire program.
If your about to say "look at what they did to the F-22", the dirty little secret is that they saw the end of the Cold War and the advent of the F-35 and decided to invest in the F-35 instead of more F-22s.
I think the dirty little secret (AKA, reality) is that the US of A can't afford a 75% (or whatever the number is) stealth fast jet Air Force (AND Navy, AND USMC) while being this deep in debt and having higher priorities than tactical fighters (which just aren't the ideal platform anymore for 98% of today's missions).
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
