Want to Look for Government Waste

[mikoyan29]

Each of these planes represent the hotness of their day. The costs have been adjusted to 2012 dollars. So the F-35 is approaching 10 times the cost of the plane it is supposed to replace, is it really 10 times better? Judging by the fact that the tailhook doesn't work, the recent issues with the engine, the VSTOL doesn't work well, etc., I'm going to say no. Yet somehow we can't touch the defense department.

P-51 - 650,000
F-86 - 2 million
F-100 - 5.5 million
F-104 - 11 million
F-4 - 17 million
F-15 - 42 million
F-16 - 26 million (A relative bargain)
F-22 - 160 million
F-35 - At least 237 million (as we know probably much more)

[smileyeagle1021]

Oh, I had the misfortune of overhearing part of Bill O'Reily's show tonight and he was railing about why should the military have to make cuts when the government is wasting money on things like studies about the causes of obesity in lesbians (which, I'll actually agree with him on, that is frankly a waste of money, we know what causes obesity in all people, eating too much and not exercising enough)... but I can't fathom why the hell he (or anyone thinks) that the military somehow magically is 100% efficient and has no waste and shouldn't be forced to cut back and make due like the rest of the government.

[drunkenwildmage]

Alot of the cost is the natural evolution of a technology for the modern 'fighter' That main problem with the F-35 is they are trying to make it a 'one size fits all' type of plane. As you can see with all the problems, one size fits all doesn't really work in this applications. It's suppose to replace everything from the A-10 to the F16 and F/A18. Now personally even as pro military/defense as I am, I'm in favor of doing a complete audit of the defense department. The problem is, from everything I have read that's a damn near impossible task..

[mikoyan29]

Alot of the cost is the natural evolution of a technology for the modern 'fighter' That main problem with the F-35 is they are trying to make it a 'one size fits all' type of plane. As you can see with all the problems, one size fits all doesn't really work in this applications. It's suppose to replace everything from the A-10 to the F16 and F/A18. Now personally even as pro military/defense as I am, I'm in favor of doing a complete audit of the defense department. The problem is, from everything I have read that's a damn near impossible task..

I'm about as pro-military as they come but this is a bit excessive. As a for instance, the Model T costs $850 when it came out. This translates to about $17,000 in today's dollars which is baiscally the cost of a Ford Focus. The Ford Focus is world's better than the Model T. so somehow Ford manages to keep its costs about the same...yet Lockheed can't manage to do this? I should look up the cost of a B-29 because in terms of relative complexities to its contemporaries that's where you are at.

But then again, Ford has to answer to shareholders and its customers to keep its costs down. In the case of the F-35, it's customers are congressmen who don't seem to give two shits about costs when there are jobs in their districts to be had. And even if the kinks are worked out, can Lockheed honestly say that the F-35 will be 10 times better than the F-16?

And serious, what good is having the "world beater" if you can't build enough of them to make a difference?

[drunkenwildmage]

Alot of the cost for the F-35 is related to the 'one size fits all' model, so they are trying to cram all they can on one air frame with the idea day of buying less in numbers. The main problem with 'one size fits all' type of approach is that it may fit all, but it does it poorly. From what I have seen, depending on the options you can get one any where from 107 mil, to 237 mil. (I wonder if that includes rust proofing and extended warenty )




On the other hand, each unit should be cheaper per unit, if they just made something just to replace the F-16.. then made something else to replace the A-10, F/A-18 etc, but they it would have more costs related to training and upkeep since they had to purchase more different models, and replacement parts per model.

In this case, pick your poison.

As far as accountability in governmental, unfortunately that goes across all areas, not just the military, so the same argument can (and should) be made for pretty much anything.

[mikoyan29]

As another for instance, the first Aegis cruiser was $1 billlion (which works to about 2 billion now). How come this plane is 1/10th the cost of a ship? The ship has more radar and computers systems and what not....

[Greenday]

I'm about as pro-military as they come but this is a bit excessive. As a for instance, the Model T costs $850 when it came out. This translates to about $17,000 in today's dollars which is baiscally the cost of a Ford Focus. The Ford Focus is world's better than the Model T. so somehow Ford manages to keep its costs about the same...yet Lockheed can't manage to do this? I should look up the cost of a B-29 because in terms of relative complexities to its contemporaries that's where you are at.

But then again, Ford has to answer to shareholders and its customers to keep its costs down. In the case of the F-35, it's customers are congressmen who don't seem to give two shits about costs when there are jobs in their districts to be had. And even if the kinks are worked out, can Lockheed honestly say that the F-35 will be 10 times better than the F-16?

And serious, what good is having the "world beater" if you can't build enough of them to make a difference?

Comparing cars to planes is apples to oranges. The F-22 and F-35 are much more maneuverable, more stealthy, and just in general much more advanced than previous generations. The technology that needs to be created and put into jet fighters costs a ton more than what needs to go in a simple car.

[mikoyan29]

Comparing cars to planes is apples to oranges. The F-22 and F-35 are much more maneuverable, more stealthy, and just in general much more advanced than previous generations. The technology that needs to be created and put into jet fighters costs a ton more than what needs to go in a simple car.

The Focus is much more maneuverable and stuff than the Model T. I don't think a Model T had the Sync System, computer controlled fuel injection, etc. In relative terms of technology, you are talking about the same thing. The other thing....the Focus works. The F-35 can't even get a basic thing like a tailhook right. We've been landing planes on carrier decks for 100 years now.

And seriously, how much more advanced is the F-35 compared to an F-16? 10 times? Doubtful.

[TheHuckster]

Comparing cars to planes is apples to oranges. The F-22 and F-35 are much more maneuverable, more stealthy, and just in general much more advanced than previous generations. The technology that needs to be created and put into jet fighters costs a ton more than what needs to go in a simple car.

In that case, let's look at Boeing.

The 737-100 had a unit cost of $32 Million.
Their latest generation, the 737-900ER has a unit cost of $89 Million. It's quite a difference, but not nearly the same as jet fighters.

The generations of 737s, while similar in shape, are very different airplanes on the inside, and have, more or less, kept up with technology advances in aviation and aeronautics, especially in computer tech and fuel efficiency tech.

Now I understand that there are still some differences. Jet fighters, obviously, do have to keep up with not only hostile military forces, but the contractors who develop these projects must ensure that they keep their jobs. However, I do think that a lot of these contractors are milking the feds, as in return for their work in R&D and production, they can effectively receive a blank check.

[mikoyan29]

Is that unit cost in current dollars or 1960 whatever dollars?

[TheHuckster]

Is that unit cost in current dollars or 1960 whatever dollars?

Hmm... upon checking that out, it looks like it is not adjusted. So, it's very possible that the price for a Boeing 737 actually remained the same despite their vast improvements made over the last few decades.

[crashhelmet]

This reminds me of the scene in Independence Day when they first get to Area 51

President Thomas Whitmore: I don't understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?

Julius Levinson: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?

[HYHYBT]

On the other hand, each unit should be cheaper per unit, if they just made something just to replace the F-16.. then made something else to replace the A-10, F/A-18 etc, but they it would have more costs related to training and upkeep since they had to purchase more different models, and replacement parts per model.

Many of the parts will inevitably be different... but they could coordinate things to the point where as many parts as is practical are the same as well.

[mikoyan29]

The funny thing is that the F-35 came about because it was supposed to be a cheaper version of the F-22. It was supposed to be the F-16 to the F-15 basically. Now it is turning out to be more expensive than the F-22. Go figure.

Another interesting tidbit, it's basically been in development for almost 20 years. The B-29 went from concept to bombing Japan in almost 4 years.

[drunkenwildmage]

The funny thing is that the F-35 came about because it was supposed to be a cheaper version of the F-22. It was supposed to be the F-16 to the F-15 basically. Now it is turning out to be more expensive than the F-22. Go figure

Everything i've seen about the F-35 is mult-role fighter, while the F-22 is primary's used in a single role, so I imagine that's part of reason.

Now something that I suspect is really ramping up the cost on the higher end F-35s is it's vertical take-off and landing capabilities, which the F-22 doesn't have. I have a feeling if those were not part of the mix, the F-35 would be more inline with the F-22 Costs.

Another interesting tidbit, it's basically been in development for almost 20 years. The B-29 went from concept to bombing Japan in almost 4 years.

We were 'inspired' more to pump out new designs faster back then.

The generations of 737s, while similar in shape, are very different airplanes on the inside, and have, more or less, kept up with technology advances in aviation and aeronautics, especially in computer tech and fuel efficiency tech.

How many 737's do you see with Stealth Technological, or VTOL capabilities? Well..i guess you could land a 737 vertically.. once..

Now I understand that there are still some differences. Jet fighters, obviously, do have to keep up with not only hostile military forces, but the contractors who develop these projects must ensure that they keep their jobs. However, I do think that a lot of these contractors are milking the feds, as in return for their work in R&D and production, they can effectively receive a blank check.

That I don't doubt.... Alot of congresspersons that have military contractors in their districts and work like hell to funnel funds to them, knowing there if the factory closes not only are the employees are out a job, the next election cycled changes are they will be to congressperson will be to.