Development Cost - Comparison w/ other fighter jet programs

No I don't think you do get it.  You seem to be confusing yourself as you go especially as you mention of precision strikes and collateral damage.

The whole issue of stealth is that it makes one more survivable.  Therefore one can actually complete a mission and do so efficiently.  Even the most uncaring malicious warlord would jump at the chance of having a weapon that would allow 1 man/plane do the same job that 100 or 1000 do...even if this is just because he could send out these to strike 100 or 1000 targets rather then 1.  

Rather then focussing on aircraft, think of it in simple terms:  if you had the ability to make a soldier/assassin invisible.  Wouldn't that soldier be more likely to slip in to kill your enemy then sending 100 of your toughest men against his defences?  Why would you send the 100?  Unless you simply wanted to kill the 100?

Bringing it back to the likes of Iran, Nth Korea china etc that you have mentioned.  If these are so uncaring about stealth why do they even paint camouflage on their aircraft?  Why not send them in to battle in hi viz schemes covered in anti-imperialist slogans?  Why?  Because they do care about these actually completing the missions set to them.  Painting camouflage is one of the most basic means of achieving stealth.

And even if one were to accept your premise then it simply makes the job of dealing with such an enemy all the easier.  All one has to do is make sure one has plenty of bullets/cannon rounds/missiles because there is going to be a turkey shoot a happenin'

No I don't think you do get it.  You seem to be confusing yourself as you go especially as you mention of precision strikes and collateral damage.

The whole issue of stealth is that it makes one more survivable.  Therefore one can actually complete a mission and do so efficiently.  Even the most uncaring malicious warlord would jump at the chance of having a weapon that would allow 1 man/plane do the same job that 100 or 1000 do...even if this is just because he could send out these to strike 100 or 1000 targets rather then 1.  

Rather then focussing on aircraft, think of it in simple terms:  if you had the ability to make a soldier/assassin invisible.  Wouldn't that soldier be more likely to slip in to kill your enemy then sending 100 of your toughest men against his defences?  Why would you send the 100?  Unless you simply wanted to kill the 100?

Bringing it back to the likes of Iran, Nth Korea china etc that you have mentioned.  If these are so uncaring about stealth why do they even paint camouflage on their aircraft?  Why not send them in to battle in hi viz schemes covered in anti-imperialist slogans?  Why?  Because they do care about these actually completing the missions set to them.  Painting camouflage is one of the most basic means of achieving stealth.

And even if one were to accept your premise then it simply makes the job of dealing with such an enemy all the easier.  All one has to do is make sure one has plenty of bullets/cannon rounds/missiles because there is going to be a turkey shoot a happenin'

Look, I do understand the value of Stealth, I'm not against it, in fact I'm for it. Any technology that allows our forces to be more survivable is worth it IMO. If we can have Star Trek level cloaking technology now, we would employ it for our forces.

That being said, not all enemies will fight in the same manner.
Yes Stealth is a huge aspect to offense, but for a force like North Korea who doesn't have Stealth technology, they have something called MASSIVE numbers, they can zerg rush the enemies on land, air, and sea and cause massive damage to South Korea before NATO / US can come in to back them up.

Yes the South Korean's are watching with radar and other sensors, but all the sensors in the world can't stop a massive wave of military force unless you have brute force on your end to keep them at bay.

Luckily South Korea has decent numbers, but better technology than the North Koreans. What's not so lucky for everybody in the area is Kim Jong Un and his Saber Rattling with that underground nuke test.

Should Kim Jong Un ever become foolish enough to launch a full scale invasion of South Korea and have China / Russia help out with supplies for whatever reasons, things will get very ugly. After that Stealth will only help to such a degree, after that raw power is needed to deal with the situation, that's something the US / NATO has plenty of on top of Stealth.

I think the days of China and Russia helping out Nth Korea in such a situation are long, long gone...

I think the days of China and Russia helping out Nth Korea in such a situation are long, long gone...

For our sake, I hope you're right, I want you to be right, but always prepare for the worst IMO.

Great thread, and very happy to help out with the 'cost comparison' response...

First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

Next, let's estimate the R&D Programs of the Hornet, the Harrier and the F-16. OK, do those 3 R&D Programs combined equal $60-65B? Probably not, but we can discuss that further, no problem.

Finally, estimate procurement costs of 3,100 combined units (total compared procurement of F-35 units being procured) worth of F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B and F-16!

Thus, for comparison sake, compare the most recent 2,500 worldwide F-16 units ever procured (unit Weapon System cost + initial spares) + most recent 450 Hornets procured + most recent 150 AV-8B. Totals equal 3,100 units to fill an optimal 1-for-1 replacement numbers requirement.

Do those 3,100 combined legacy unit procurement costs equal more, or less than 3,100 combined F-35 Procurement (weapon system + initial spares)?

I thought so.

Not even a question requiring fact checking on Wiki...

So yes, very unfortunately... the most expensive US acquisition Program (2,440 units worth + majority of development) in history.

Next.

Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, India. They all are in Asia right?

We were trying to sell the F-35 to all of these countries?

India sure, but There are no interest from them.

Indonesia and Malaysia no, perhaps in the future, far into the future, since the Flankers are pretty much out of the box. Or so i heard people state 5 years ago..

The F-18E/F prototype first flew in 1995. And the MMRCA didnt feature the Flanker either. Thus by your rules the flanker is a failure because it wasn't selected--It wasn't entered of course. (Also its hard for the F-35 to win in a contest it never entered)

Did I say the SH was that old?
Wasn't There an F-16I or F-16V model also on the MMRCA Tender?

The whole basis of your arguement is "sure the F-35 is going to sell 3,000 units to multiple countries, but we are going to sell a hand full to a few countries too!" checkmate alright.

Are you claiming 3000 F-35 on Export alone!?

India sure, but There are no interest from them.

Indonesia and Malaysia no, perhaps in the future, far into the future, since the Flankers are pretty much out of the box. Or so i heard people state 5 years ago..

The F-35 was never evaluated for India. The timelines just didn't match up with what they wanted for their MMRCA competition. (Though as things are turning out it likely could have been available in time...)

First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

The F-35 will have a large SA advantage over the F-16 that will be of particular importance in the CAS mission. That, and I'm not sure that CAS won't be swallowed completely by Army drones and surface launch weapons early in the service life of the F-35.

That being said, not all enemies will fight in the same manner.
Yes Stealth is a huge aspect to offense, but for a force like North Korea who doesn't have Stealth technology, they have something called MASSIVE numbers, they can zerg rush the enemies on land, air, and sea and cause massive damage to South Korea before NATO / US can come in to back them up.

If you actually look at the numbers of servicable aircraft in the Chinese/Russian/DPRK aresenals, and the tactics they practice, this "MASSIVE" wave of aircraft as an opponent in the near term is not realistic. In twenty years perhaps, but even if half of China's airforce and the entirety of the North Korean's MiGs boldly flew south of the DMZ, the current forces US/SK forces in place would still have missiles left over after shooting two at each enemy airplane. And in twenty years we'll have perfected Cuda, and things will get even worse for the swarms.

Even if a hundred guys armed with pitchforks and knifes rush a machine gun nest, the machine gun is still going to win. Technology at work.

How many SAM sites / missiles are located on the SK DMZ?

Great thread, and very happy to help out with the 'cost comparison' response...

First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

Next, let's estimate the R&D Programs of the Hornet, the Harrier and the F-16. OK, do those 3 R&D Programs combined equal $60-65B? Probably not, but we can discuss that further, no problem.

Finally, estimate procurement costs of 3,100 combined units (total compared procurement of F-35 units being procured) worth of F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B and F-16!

Thus, for comparison sake, compare the most recent 2,500 worldwide F-16 units ever procured (unit Weapon System cost + initial spares) + most recent 450 Hornets procured + most recent 150 AV-8B. Totals equal 3,100 units to fill an optimal 1-for-1 replacement numbers requirement.

Do those 3,100 combined legacy unit procurement costs equal more, or less than 3,100 combined F-35 Procurement (weapon system + initial spares)?

I thought so.

Not even a question requiring fact checking on Wiki...

So yes, very unfortunately... the most expensive US acquisition Program (2,440 units worth + majority of development) in history.

Next.

Did you adjust for inflation? Not only that, but the F-35 is being built in its fewer numbers thanks to its improved capability. So for the F-16/18/AV-8B to be as effective, it has to be built in greater numbers. the USMC is buying 240 F-35Bs, obviously 150 harriers is not equivelant no matter how you slice. The USMC is also retiring the EA-6B. Or does that not count either?

By this logic, we could retire the under 100 heavy bombers in USAF inventory and replace them with under 100 B-29s, and not miss a beat. Never mind that the B-29 is not as capable and its only thanks to the improvement of the B-1,B-2 and B-52, that we don't need 600 B-29s to do the same job.

Maybe we can buy 3100 P-51s and really save money?

So lets review: You basically took arbitrary numbers that would fit your own logic, failed to adjust for inflation, and then subsequently declared yourself correct. Congratulations.

Or so i heard people state 5 years ago..

Its a good thing no one on the internet claimed the Flanker would be the first interstellar aircraft capable of .5 past light speed, or It would be considered a failure since it can't do that.

I do see your point though, if someone says something on the internet that isn't true, its a reflection of the aircraft and not the idiot that stated it.

Are you claiming 3000 F-35 on Export alone!?

No, but thanks for the twist in the words.

Hopefully you feel you have defended mother Russia enough, and we can get back to the original subject.

Even if a hundred guys armed with pitchforks and knifes rush a machine gun nest, the machine gun is still going to win. Technology at work.

It doesn't quite work like that -- the casualties caused by machine guns don't happen when the machine gun nest itself is rushed by a line of men -- the targets are too far apart. The killing happens when a machine gun is able to shoot down a charging line from the sides.

That being said, not all enemies will fight in the same manner.
Yes Stealth is a huge aspect to offense, but for a force like North Korea who doesn't have Stealth technology, they have something called MASSIVE numbers, they can zerg rush the enemies on land, air, and sea and cause massive damage to South Korea before NATO / US can come in to back them up.

If you actually look at the numbers of servicable aircraft in the Chinese/Russian/DPRK aresenals, and the tactics they practice, this "MASSIVE" wave of aircraft as an opponent in the near term is not realistic. In twenty years perhaps, but even if half of China's airforce and the entirety of the North Korean's MiGs boldly flew south of the DMZ, the current forces US/SK forces in place would still have missiles left over after shooting two at each enemy airplane. And in twenty years we'll have perfected Cuda, and things will get even worse for the swarms.

Even if a hundred guys armed with pitchforks and knifes rush a machine gun nest, the machine gun is still going to win. Technology at work.

Can you please provide a link to that site giving details into said tactics and actual numbers of serviceable manned and 'unmanned' jets available today and by say, 2017? Sounds like an interesting website. Thanks!

First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

The F-35 will have a large SA advantage over the F-16 that will be of particular importance in the CAS mission. That, and I'm not sure that CAS won't be swallowed completely by Army drones and surface launch weapons early in the service life of the F-35.

Order new build F-16C/D with new computer, new display (in development), equip with latest MAWS (providing ground fire location capability), AESA w/SAR and Litening SE pod (1k FLIR). Add CFT and a couple EFT enabling up to an extra 1 hr on station vs F-35. Arm with next-gen precision guided CAS munitions under development.

Buy 3 said new F-16s (fully equipped and armed) for every 2 F-35 in FY15. Sustain nearly twice more flyable hours per operational budget allocated. Call it a day.

First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

The F-35 will have a large SA advantage over the F-16 that will be of particular importance in the CAS mission. That, and I'm not sure that CAS won't be swallowed completely by Army drones and surface launch weapons early in the service life of the F-35.

Order new build F-16C/D with new computer, new display (in development), equip with latest MAWS (providing ground fire location capability), AESA w/SAR and Litening SE pod (1k FLIR). Add CFT and a couple EFT enabling up to an extra 1 hr on station vs F-35. Arm with next-gen precision guided CAS munitions under development.

Buy 3 said new F-16s (fully equipped and armed) for every 2 F-35 in FY15. Sustain nearly twice more flyable hours per operational budget allocated. Call it a day.

If the F-16 has the sensor fusion of the F-35, you won't be getting 3 for 2. Heck, with all the things you are adding, it might not even be cheaper than the F-35.