Yeah, it’s just like the people hating on the Osprey- the read the media about all the crashes and don’t realize that the overall crashes per mission hour is on par or lower than other military helicopters. The military just takes more chances. Even though they do try to minimize the unnecessary risks being in the military is still inherently risky.
Over budget just means it costs more than originally projected. It does not necessarily mean it’s too expensive or overpriced, just it’s more than anticipated.
I guess if it won’t fix your whataboutism…then “mmm yes you’re abso-liootly right!”
But I say this in the voice of that tuxedo wearing Simpsons Yes-guy. If you’d prefer to be taken seriously, perhaps a post that is not completely irrelevant to the subject at hand is in order.
Which kept the manufacturers working, kept the supply chains moving, and aligned nearly all of the west onto a shared, network-able platform? These things literally get more deadly when more are in use. All in a jet that is better than most (not all) of the near peer opponents.
Man it certainly ran over budget but now it’s a steal of a deal for all that allied interop.
Plus keeping the aerospace contractors moving means you keep potential wartime production avenues open and lubed.
Edit also I’d assume defense planners saw all that value beyond the sticker price, so when the public hears “budget overrun” the defense planners said “nah, we good”
The only cost I can find that is anywhere near that order of magnitude for the F-35 is the total lifetime cost out to 2070 (!!!), which includes operations and maintenance in the figure for the approx seven decades of its total expected life.
Which fighter is a better match than an F-35 if you want stealth? (If you don’t want stealth, you aren’t looking at a F-35) The A model is damn nice for most, and the B model wipes the floor with the VTOL competition. There is damn good reason over 1,000 of these have been produced already and orders keep coming in.
I don’t doubt that F-35 has some good stats, I am looking at this from a more general perspective, what I have seen is that because F-35 costs substantially more than other fighters this limits countries that does not have a US level defense budget on how many planes they can afford, for example instead of 50 F-16 they end up with 10-20 F-35.
And by looking at those numbers it seems like they get less defense for the same amount even if F-35 is better than the alternatives.
From what I’ve seen, the F-35 defeats enemy F-16s because of its advanced sensors. Mostly it’s firing missiles at things beyond visual range. Plus it has stealth capabilities that avoid detection and retaliation.
It’s worth the cost because you lose fewer experienced pilots, which are the real bottleneck for an air force.
Yeah, if a country doesn’t need stealth, they really shouldn’t be purchasing stealth. Most countries will probably want a mix of both. Stealth for air dominance and heavily-contested, high-value strikes, and fourth generation air frames to provide bulk ordnance delivery.
With the exception of VTOL, in which the F-35B is the only reasonable option, even if you don’t need stealth.
Honestly, if you already have air superiority and you just need a bomb truck, you can’t go better than strapping a ton of hard points onto a crop duster and raining hell
I hear you have also heard of the US’ newest aircraft, the armed crop duster! (Not a joke, this is a real thing, and it works for exactly the reasons you said)
The F-35 might have gone wildly overbudget, but it was never going to be out of reach of the US economy. There are over 2,500 orders of it from foreign governments, which run around $80M each. That’s $200B on a development cost of $416B (the >$1,000B figures cited are for total lifetime costs). Given that this was never meant to be profitable on foreign sales, that’s pretty good.
Russia cannot afford a next gen tank and next gen aircraft program (and they’re doing two next gen aircraft, Su-57 and Su-75). Countries in its economic peer group buy their military hardware from bigger countries. They’re trying to pretend they still have the resources they did under the Soviet Union, and they just don’t.
Edit: for another way to look at this, the $416B development cost of the F-35 represents less than 2% of US GDP for a single year and the cost was spread over 20 years. If Russia was able to do it for half as much, it would be about 12% of their single year GDP. They would need to spread the cost over 80 years to get close to GDP percentage parity with the US on this project.
This economic reality is why Putin is so hard for conquering Ukraine, btw. Losing Ukraine was like Texas seceeding.
Yeah, you don’t really need them, and they can be more trouble than they’re worth, but it’s still a very sizable chunk of your resources, population, and technical capability. A chunk that let you play with big boys.
deleted by creator
There have been over 1,000 F-35 produced and they are continuing to sell in droves. The F-35 is kicking ass.
Yeah, it’s just like the people hating on the Osprey- the read the media about all the crashes and don’t realize that the overall crashes per mission hour is on par or lower than other military helicopters. The military just takes more chances. Even though they do try to minimize the unnecessary risks being in the military is still inherently risky.
deleted by creator
Over budget just means it costs more than originally projected. It does not necessarily mean it’s too expensive or overpriced, just it’s more than anticipated.
like nba players
unit price is quite affordable, but it’s mostly economies of scale at this point
I guess if it won’t fix your whataboutism…then “mmm yes you’re abso-liootly right!”
But I say this in the voice of that tuxedo wearing Simpsons Yes-guy. If you’d prefer to be taken seriously, perhaps a post that is not completely irrelevant to the subject at hand is in order.
There’s a budget? I thought they just took that out of the price of my tuna and rice diet.
The one selling like hotcakes?
deleted by creator
Which kept the manufacturers working, kept the supply chains moving, and aligned nearly all of the west onto a shared, network-able platform? These things literally get more deadly when more are in use. All in a jet that is better than most (not all) of the near peer opponents.
Man it certainly ran over budget but now it’s a steal of a deal for all that allied interop.
Plus keeping the aerospace contractors moving means you keep potential wartime production avenues open and lubed.
deleted by creator
Finally? We been here like 6 minutes dude.
Edit also I’d assume defense planners saw all that value beyond the sticker price, so when the public hears “budget overrun” the defense planners said “nah, we good”
an eternity
deleted by creator
U good dude?
The only cost I can find that is anywhere near that order of magnitude for the F-35 is the total lifetime cost out to 2070 (!!!), which includes operations and maintenance in the figure for the approx seven decades of its total expected life.
What stealth alternative would you have? Stealth costs a lot. It’s a steal compared to the f22.
F22 is not for export which makes it much lower volume product and so it has higher unit cost
Plus it’s been out of production for a decade.
deleted by creator
It was a comment of whataboutism
That’s the general feeling from people in allied countries that have been put on the F-35 program.
Other fighters could have been a better match, instead they got the expensive Letherman.
Which fighter is a better match than an F-35 if you want stealth? (If you don’t want stealth, you aren’t looking at a F-35) The A model is damn nice for most, and the B model wipes the floor with the VTOL competition. There is damn good reason over 1,000 of these have been produced already and orders keep coming in.
I don’t doubt that F-35 has some good stats, I am looking at this from a more general perspective, what I have seen is that because F-35 costs substantially more than other fighters this limits countries that does not have a US level defense budget on how many planes they can afford, for example instead of 50 F-16 they end up with 10-20 F-35.
And by looking at those numbers it seems like they get less defense for the same amount even if F-35 is better than the alternatives.
From what I’ve seen, the F-35 defeats enemy F-16s because of its advanced sensors. Mostly it’s firing missiles at things beyond visual range. Plus it has stealth capabilities that avoid detection and retaliation.
It’s worth the cost because you lose fewer experienced pilots, which are the real bottleneck for an air force.
I was talking about countries replacing their old F-16s and the F-35 was not the only candidate.
Look at what Belgium were considering in 2018 https://www.brusselstimes.com/48129/eurofighter-there-are-only-two-real-candidates-for-f-16-replacement
Edit: it’s so funny, to me it seems you have to be a F-35 fanboy in this thread, Reddit vibes…
Belgium ultimately picked the F-35 over the Eurofigher, and found that it would come in cheaper than projected. But I guess Belgium are F-35 fanboys.
Yeah, if a country doesn’t need stealth, they really shouldn’t be purchasing stealth. Most countries will probably want a mix of both. Stealth for air dominance and heavily-contested, high-value strikes, and fourth generation air frames to provide bulk ordnance delivery.
With the exception of VTOL, in which the F-35B is the only reasonable option, even if you don’t need stealth.
Honestly, if you already have air superiority and you just need a bomb truck, you can’t go better than strapping a ton of hard points onto a crop duster and raining hell
I hear you have also heard of the US’ newest aircraft, the armed crop duster! (Not a joke, this is a real thing, and it works for exactly the reasons you said)
https://www.twz.com/modified-crop-duster-chosen-for-special-ops-armed-overwatch-mission
The F-35 might have gone wildly overbudget, but it was never going to be out of reach of the US economy. There are over 2,500 orders of it from foreign governments, which run around $80M each. That’s $200B on a development cost of $416B (the >$1,000B figures cited are for total lifetime costs). Given that this was never meant to be profitable on foreign sales, that’s pretty good.
Russia cannot afford a next gen tank and next gen aircraft program (and they’re doing two next gen aircraft, Su-57 and Su-75). Countries in its economic peer group buy their military hardware from bigger countries. They’re trying to pretend they still have the resources they did under the Soviet Union, and they just don’t.
Edit: for another way to look at this, the $416B development cost of the F-35 represents less than 2% of US GDP for a single year and the cost was spread over 20 years. If Russia was able to do it for half as much, it would be about 12% of their single year GDP. They would need to spread the cost over 80 years to get close to GDP percentage parity with the US on this project.
This economic reality is why Putin is so hard for conquering Ukraine, btw. Losing Ukraine was like Texas seceeding.
Yeah, you don’t really need them, and they can be more trouble than they’re worth, but it’s still a very sizable chunk of your resources, population, and technical capability. A chunk that let you play with big boys.
That said…
Do it, Texas.
You pussies.
Texas is right. Everything is bigger in Texas, including how big of pussies they are for not seceeding. Do it Texas, you won’t.