Trillion-Dollar Stealth Fighter Cleared for Flight Training ~ Why did it cost that much?

[mrstickball]

Badassbab said:

mrstickball said:

Badassbab said:

osamanobama said:

Marks said:
So they're about $14-15 trillion in debt but they can afford another trillion on new planes? Holy shit that's messed up dude.

it will cost $1 trillion to buy 2,500 jets, fly them, maintain them, etc over 50 years.

really not that much when you think about it, these planes will be viable for 50 years, before they need a major successor.

each Jet costs roughly 122million to make currently.

also the F-35, is set to replace the F-16, A-10, and the F/A-18, and others so again we will be decomishoning many of our older fleets (which saves money), and started this program in its place.

and if you think about it, these are a hell of a lot cheaper than our B-2 bombers, which cost like $800million to make each (we only have like 20 of these).

of course this is a completely different type of plane. with completely different objectives.

Viable for 50 years? I highly doubt that. The current fleet of 4th gen fighter A/S and Strike jet's lifespan is around 30 years but have been kept in service longer due to F-35 delays and this has resulted in numerous accidents due to the age of the aircrafts. Even if we take the highly dubious claim of 50 year lifespan into account(that's a long time by which time it will be quite obsolete) your looking at an average cost of $20 billion a year in 2012 money to buy and maintain the entire fleet.

Lets see:

B-52 bomber - 60 years old, 85 still in service

B-1 Lancer - 38 years old, 101 still in service

F-15 Eagle - 40 years old, ~1,200 produced and in service

F-16 Falcon - 38 years old, ~5,000 produced and in service

F-18 Hornet - 32 years old, 1,500 build and in service

A-10 Thunderbold II - 40 years old, >100 in service

 

American planes last a long time. All of our equipment does. Look at M-16s. They were developed in the 50s, deployed in the 60s, and our army still uses them. Heck, they are adapting the Carl Gustav 85mm and that design is over 60 years old. The Navy is just starting to build the Ford-class carriers, as the Nimitz carriers were constructed before the Vietnam war, and designed about 50 years ago.

The F-35 should last 50 years. The real problem is with the screwed up procurement process that has delayed its production while armament companies get favorable contracts.

I was only referring to strike and air superiority jets not bombers. Those airframes are under a lot more stress due to a combination of supersonic speeds, high G turns and used a lot more for training and war purposes.  I think those figures you've given are misleading as they are not from operational years but rather from when first flight tested and also they weren't built all during the 70's but over a decade or so. Also there are reasons why those aircraft are being kept in service beyond their lifespan, one being the fall of the Soviet Union which meant there were no equal adversary to warrant a mass purchase of new 5th gen aircraft and the other being the delays in procuring the F-35. If you look at fighter jets during the Cold War which basically lasted 46 years there were 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations developed which basically gave roughly 15 years lifespan per gen with say another 15 or so years of use before being completely phased out.

That still doesn't change the reality that the designs lasted for 40-60 years and are still in operation. The same should be said for the F-35 design - that it'll last between 30 - 50 years before being fully decomissioned. Very true the airframes last shorter periods of time (unless they're B-52s), but again, the R&D cost stays mostly static for the design.