Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Dude, in this thread alone, you've used $120M twice and $162M twice. Which is it? Please tell us which 'unit cost' you're talking about, which variant, and which LRIP lot -- since they all vary accordingly. Then, tell us how many production numbers DoD has taken out of the buy since 2007, and tell us why economies of scale don't matter; make sure you point out the concurrency monster and make us more afraid.

What is a 'set' of F-35s?

I don't see how it wouldn't be enough, except for those Ace Combat types used to 150 AIM-9Ms and 60 AMRAAMs. No competitor system can carry more.

quicksilver-

rebird87 simply divided projected program cost of ~$387B by the 2,443 airframes to get the $162M number, the same method that says an F-22 cost $200M+.

Sufa Viper

bigjku,

From strictly a military point of view, you may be correct. But this is an economic and political question as well. In case you haven't noticed, we have a bit of a budget issue in this country. It's amusing how many techno-folks on sites like this seem to assume there is an unlimited supply of capital available for procurement of these things. Furthermore, those of us in the military need to not only remember, but embrace the reality that we serve at the pleasure of and under the control of civilian elected officials. To be upset with that reality puts one at odds with the constitution. This reality makes the politics of the situation not only relevant, but crucial. Because of the mismanagement and lack of transparency of this program, and more critically our fiscal dilemma, it is easy to see the number of units purchased getting significantly reduced. Of course then, as was the sad fact with the F-22 (a truly great plane IMO), the R&D and testing cost will account for a much larger amount per unit. You can be derogatory and call it crying or whining if you wish. I call it being a pi$$ed off tax payer.

A few things.

1. It is dangerous to assume you have any idea what the background of people you don't know are. My involvement with the military is tangential only. However what I do for a living is provide financing and manage capital. So if you think that I believe money just falls out of someones butt then you are sadly mistaken.

2. Lecturing people on civilian control of the military is, in my view, a sign of desperation from someone taking a beating on this subject on several levels and is frankly insulting to myself and everyone here. Did any of us at any point suggest that the military alone should be making these decisions or that civilians are not over the military? If you want to debate matters of the constitution I am more than willing but bringing it up here is just odd.

3. It is fine to be an angry taxpayer. But I would hope that people making actual decisions are smarter than the average angry taxpayer if this is an example of what you are calling for.

To put this in context of a business decision lets say I spend years developing and am horribly over budget to create my Mk. II widget maker that makes three times as many widgets as my Mk I model for the same cost. That certainly sucks and it is one proper way to account for the cost of my Mk II widget maker to take the cost of building it plus the R&D cost for the thing.

But that would not be the proper way to make decisions going forward. Assuming that I need to keep making widgets (assuming we still need an air force of certain capability) I have to decide between a Mk I widget maker and a Mk II widget maker. Assuming there is demand for all the production the relevant numbers for this decision at this point are the cost of buying the one vs the cost of buying the other. The R&D cost on them no longer matters as it is already a sunk cost.

That is not me assuming the military can operate without regard to cost (or engaging in whatever strange military budget coup that you seem to have concocted). It is me as a taxpayer asking that decisions be made based on what makes the most sense given the reality we are faced with today.

All I have to do is look around at what it would cost to buy something else of a modern vintage and then put around the support that would let it do the F-35's mission to realize that would cost more money. Assuming we want to have an Air Force with a certain capability then it needs planes. The F-35, as expensive as it might be, is probably the cheapest option out there to fill that role.

I can make financial statements say any number of things I want and have them all be "accurate and truthful". Different kind of assessments allow me to do different things. I invite you to attempt to explain how accounting for cost in the manner you are is a solid basis for making acquisition decisions because I don't think you can do it.

6. Both the 9x and AMRAAM are capable of "over the shoulder" shots. It's a matter of LOAL capability, not final target aspect. So no, the F-35 does not lose it's EODAS advantages when only carrying the AMRAAM.

Against enemies of that caliber and quantity, you could beef up your number of weapons by carrying external missiles, without worrying about turning into giant flying "shoot me" beacons. With the enemy's radar signatures and your more advanced radar & other sensors, their spheres of vulnerability to you would still be much larger than your spheres of vulnerability to them, with their more primitive radars trying to track your still-tiny signatures (essentially only the signature of some of your missiles, and only until you fire them).

And someone, pls remind me again on the missile burn time, effective range and energy loss upon an 'over the shoulder missile launch'?

You're not going to be shooting over the shoulder anywhere near maximum missile range. If you had that kind of distance to work with, you'd turn and shoot them in the face. You'll be shooting well under maximum range, at a target that is itself closing on your location at transsonic to supersonic speeds. So the burn time, effective range, and energy loss can all be safely summed up as a reminder to you as "more than