Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_posting- ... -f-33.html

Wonder if they used total program cost instead of flyaway cost??? Looks like it.

F-16.net Sponsor

Uh, that link isn't what you think it is.

Top Ten Most Expensive Planes (according to Time.com)

There's a fixed link. Very Happy

Can 'Time' be trusted?
I'm pretty sure i've read a fair bit of crap from them before.
Just curiious if anyone has fact checked it as we all know what the media is like with military matters.

The F-18 was the first aircraft capable of striking both air and ground targets huh? Thanks "Time", I'm sure that the rest of your "facts" check out as well.

Quote:

Uh, that link isn't what you think it is.

OMG how the hell...?

Thanks cobzz! Must've been asleep when I put that up

try this link (the previous one took you to the end of the slideshow):

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0 ... 03,00.html

That said, I question the cost numbers. Even if you include the RDT&E dollars, the B-2 isn't $2.4B. Total acquisition cost was approx $40B. Divide that into 21 and you get $1.9B.

As a lean mean trained acquisition machine, I have issues with any dollar reporting. There are just two many ways you can slice that cat, and without describing how, the number you get is meaningless.

During an acquisition (like now for F-22 and JSF), the important cost figure ought to be dollars remaining to be spent. Including money already sunk in describing the cost of an aircraft is useless, cuz cancelling the plane ain't gonna bring that back. I always liked the term marginal production cost, the cost of one more tail (at the current "bulk" rates). That is the true measure of the cost of an airplane once it's in production. Once done, I can see the merit in describing the total cost (like the B-2 example above), but when you do, you have to remember what caused that number to skyrocket (canceling the program at 21 birds). I was on that program...the projected costs per bird was projected to be around $250M, which was in fact only 20% more than the B-1 when you calculate the dollars per warhead delivered, not a bad deal for what benefits the B-2 offered over the Bone. Most of the RDT&E was already spent (just like now on the raptor), but the press would lead you to beleive that you'd get it all back if you killed the program.

Ah well...

Salute!

Roscoe has it right.

I know. I've been there, have the tee shirts.

If you divide the R&D and such for the Viper, then divide by over 4,000 friggin' jets.....

What is the unit cost?

Original Viper was supposed to be someplace about $6 - 7 million per copy ( constant 1975 dollars) if USAF and the EPG bought all that were initially planned.

The original Raptor contract was about $35 million per copy(constant year dollars) based on over 700 of them.

So when Congress tries to save a billion here and a billion there each year we wind up with stretched out programs that increase unit cost. It's easy to explain.

Ford wants to market a new F-150 pickup. Spend a few millions on the design, the new engines, the robots to weld the sheet metal, etc. Then they can only sell a few hundred of them. So how much does the new F-150 cost? BEAM ME UP!

From the contractor viewpoint ( my second career), I can tell you that when Congress stretches out a program that things get added to the original spec/requirement. So we get new programs for the extra gizzmos and the "improved" radar, and, and ........

I can tellya that building the original design and then adding increased capabilities is cheaper than delaying production for years to get an extra inch of performance. The Warthog was a perfect example, and I can discuss that in detail.

One prime contractor we worked with walked away from the original bid/contract. USAF kept adding requirements and the initial bid was no longer valid. So you can see the lawsuits and challenges from "brand-x" coming. The weapon would have been a winner in Desert Storm, especially for the Brits flying the Tornadoes. And by the time the thing would have gone thru all the hoops, the GPS technology would have increased accuracy an order of magnitude.

The U.S. Congress is "saving" about $2 billion by canceling a few production jets. Meanwhile, it is spending a few trillions on other crapola. The dirty secret is that there are billions in the "pipeline" for the Raptor, but nobody seems to mention that. Then there's "shutdown" bucks that are part of a contract. How much does it cost to stop the contract?

later,

Gums sends ....

http://www.wallstats.com/blog/visualizi ... n-dollars/
.
Seemed appropriate for all the B-2 talk (it's in there, halfway down)

"A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real money"
--Sen. Everett Dirksen R-IL ca. 1968

salute

nice post prinz.

if i add up all the bucks our government spent for my comrades in arms that fought and died for this country the last fifty years , it would not be the ticket price of a new spirit bomber. but those days are gone, i should just let them go........

on the other hand, go look up the portion of the budget allocated for 'defense' versus the social programs.

seems to this old fart that we are getting a bargain.

the threat will not always be some folks with headwraps and living in the mountains of the 'stan. one of these days we may to face some folks with equal weapons and such as we have.

gotta go,

gums sends.....