• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

What Does Lockheed's F-35 Fighter Jet Really Cost?

Phil1

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 3, 2009
465
7
Minot N.D.
May 24, 2013
Credit: U.S. Defense Department

Lockheed Martin is developing and building the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program, for three U.S. military branches and eight international partners.

The Pentagon released new cost projections for 78 major weapons programs on Thursday, including the F-35 program which showed the first decline in cost after years of increases and restructurings.

The partners who are helping fund the F-35’s development include Britain, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands.

Israel and Japan have also placed orders and Singapore may soon follow suit, according to U.S. government sources. Lockheed is also bidding for a 60-fighter order from South Korea.

Following are some key figures about the F-35 program:

COST OF THE OVERALL PROGRAM

* A new U.S. Defense Department estimate put the cost of developing, testing and building the F-35 multi-role fighter jet at $391.2 billion, down from last year’s estimate of $395.7 billion. The forecast assumes U.S. purchases of 2,443 production jets, on top of 14 test planes.

* Retrofits of existing planes to address problems found in flight testing are expected to total $1.7 billion over the first 10 production batches, according to the most recent report by the congressional Government Accountability Office (GAO).

* The cost of operating and sustaining the new planes is estimated to reach $1.1 trillion, assuming that they will be used for 50 years, according to the most recent Pentagon data, although those estimates are likely to be updated this fall.

* Senior Pentagon officials have said they consider that price tag unaffordable. Program officials are taking steps to reduce the projected operating cost, including hiring engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), to cut the fuel burn of the engine by 5 percent.

COST PER JET

* New cost estimates prepared by the Pentagon showed a drop in the projected average cost of the Air Force and Marine Corps variants over the life of the program, but the projected cost of the U.S. Navy variant for aircraft carriers edged higher.

* The Pentagon now forecasts that the conventional takeoff A-model will average a cost of $76.8 million per plane, excluding R&D costs, down which is $1.9 million less than the estimate provided last year. The B-model, which can take off and land like a helicopter, is slated to cost $103.6 million per plane.

* The latest estimate put the cost of the carrier variant at $88.7 million per plane, up $1.7 million from last year.

* The fifth and most recent batch of jets ordered by the Pentagon cost 4 percent less than the previous order, and prices should come down steadily in the future, according to Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, who runs the F-35 program for the Pentagon.

* Lockheed submitted a bid for the next two batches of jets in January and both sides hope to reach agreement this summer.

* The 22 Air Force models included in the last contracts cost $119 million each, according to Bogdan, compared to a price of $127 million per plane a year earlier.

* The cost of the three Marine Corps’ B-models in the fifth order, which have a more complex engine to allow it to land like a helicopter, is estimated at $153 million per plane, down from $164 million a year ago, when the Pentagon bought 17 B-models, according to defense officials familiar with the estimates.

* The seven Navy carrier variants or C-models in the fifth batch cost around $139 million, down from $148 million a year earlier, according to estimates by U.S. defense officials.

Over time, as production quantities increase, the jets are expected to start dropping in price. The per-plane forecasts factor in foreign orders, which are not included in the U.S. development, procurement and operating cost.

Bogdan recently said he expected to reach the target price at least for the A-model by 2020, when Australia is due to start buying the first of the 100 F-35s currently in its plans.

Lockheed executives say they believe the government’s estimates are too conservative, and predict that the price of the new warplane will be even lower once the company starts full-rate production later this decade.

Critics of the program say Pentagon cost projections are probably too low, noting that further technical issues may well arise during flight testing of the new fighter jet.

The jet is built by Lockheed at its Fort Worth, Texas, plant, with Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) and BAE Systems Plc (BAES.L) serving as key suppliers. Engines are built by Pratt & Whitney.
Factbox: What Does Lockheed's F-35 Really Cost?
 
My favorite part is, "...excluding R&D costs..."

Well, shoot. If I can exclude R&D costs, I have great ROI for most of my programs. Facts are that while it's important to keep developing new technology, this jet is not a whole lot of new technology. The JSF was touted as a "cheaper F-22" and better for cost management while retaining most of the same capabilities. Turns out it doesn't deliver in either sense. The R&D money really isn't well spent considering that we're not cutting our teeth on anything that radically new. If you include the cost of the R&D into each plan, that's another $100M+ per jet. So an actual cost of $150M+ per fighter once you are at nth jet steady state production levels.

The only projects that really challenge this one for WTF factor in my mind are (were) DDX and LCS. I really hope these jets are as good for our flyers and those they support as we're paying for them to be.
 
these new "less expensive" aircraft are so pricey that their use in the dirty little afghan type wars will not happen. "we can't afford to loose one" will be said.
 
What is wrong with the f-18 and the a-10?? Start building the a-10 again. The f-18 has got to be pretty well perfected by now
 
Whats wrong with Iphone1 you still can make calls with one and yet people are crazy about No5... $$$$$ talks
 
It’s like optics, a 700 dollar scope will allow you to win if you possess the skill but that 4000+ optic is funner and leads to a bigger :)

I wonder what the Chinese knock off F35's will cost... you know it’s going to happen with the amount of parts "out sourced". Will the genuine F35 have a gold ring around the cockpit, maybe a big white L (for Lockheed of course) emblazoned on the stabilizer?!?

But seriously, IMO we need the CAS the A-10 offers at least on a small scale or we won’t have one when we need one...
 
As I see it another cost of the f-35 is that it killed the F-22 Raptor before we had enough of them built. The Raptor is the ultimate manned fighter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Eunozs
I dont know a TON about the capabilities of the F35, but from my buddies that fly F15's they say the F22 is kind of ridiculous. Yea its cool to see it fly and supposedly flies awesome, but beyond that, it will possibly NEVER do what it was intended to do i.e. dogfight. The stand off capabilities it has means it can shoot down anything it wants from a few hundred miles away, which other airplanes like the F18 and F15 can already do. Unless we get into a war with the Chinese or Russians(which I dont think either are out of the equation at some point in time) the F22 doesnt have an enemy.

Now as far as what the F35 is to replace, I think its needed in this roll. Does it do anything dramatically different than say an F16 or AV8B? I dont know. I do know that those airplanes are getting OLD and long in the tooth and need to be replaced. Say we buy more F16's, whats the cost on those? AV8B's havent been produced in a long time I dont think. Maintenance on old F16's, F15's and AV8B's I know is very intensive to keep them flying and thus very expensive.

So we look at it from a per unit cost and yes the new airplanes are more expensive than those that they are replacing. By how much, I dont know. MX and fuel costs SHOULD go WAY down with these new aircraft. So the overall cost COULD be less than current A/C.
 
I'm for building a stack of A1's! Put them on the southern boarder, they can carry a ton of stuff, and they have a huge loiter time. They'd be perfect for the Afgan and other low intensity situations. I'd say we could get 2-300 for the price of one F35, not to mention the cost of maintaining the fleet.
Here are the basic specs of the Skyraider:
Specifications (AD-7 / A-1J):
Engine: 2800hp Wright R-3350-26B radial piston engine
Weight: Empty 10,550 lbs., Max Takeoff 25,000 lbs.
Wing Span: 50ft. 9in.
Length: 38ft. 10in.
Height: 15ft. 8.25in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 18,000ft: 320mph
Cruising Speed at 6,000ft: 190mph
Ceiling: 25,500ft
Range: 900 miles
Armament:
Four 20mm cannon
8,000lbs of hardpoint-mounted freefall and/or forward-firing weapons
Produce new version with turbo prop (save weight, better fuel eco, less maintenance), it's ability to carry "stuff" would allow for the use of almost any kind of camera, infer-red, NV, thermal, for border work. In places like Afgan/and the like, 2 20mm's, and 8000 pounds of precision guided would be a game changer, as it can stay on target for a long long long time.
 
Last edited:
You want to know why aircraft costs skyrocket?
Read the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich. It lays it out pretty well with the history of 3 of Lockheed's most groundbreaking aircraft (U-2, SR-71 and F-117).
The problem with R&D for the government is that the government is constantly making changes to what they want the airframe to do. Engineers are literally aiming at a target that not only moves, but changes shape daily.
 
There's always the other argument. How much more does it cost to defund the arsenal of freedom? Do we need it? Ask the Russians, or the Chinese, or the North Koreans; than ask yourself how much your own answer resembles theirs.

Freedom is not free.

The other folks have working prototypes of airframes that are far superior to F-15's and F-16's. All it would take for them to be put into production would be the announcement that we are gong to abandon modernization of our front line fighter force.

I'd like freedom to be free, too; but that's just never gonna happen.

Greg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: diverdon
I'm for building a stack of A1's! Put them on the southern boarder, they can carry a ton of stuff, and they have a huge loiter time. They'd be perfect for the Afgan and other low intensity situations. I'd say we could get 2-300 for the price of one F35, not to mention the cost of maintaining the fleet.
Here are the basic specs of the Skyraider:
Specifications (AD-7 / A-1J):
Engine: 2800hp Wright R-3350-26B radial piston engine
Weight: Empty 10,550 lbs., Max Takeoff 25,000 lbs.
Wing Span: 50ft. 9in.
Length: 38ft. 10in.
Height: 15ft. 8.25in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 18,000ft: 320mph
Cruising Speed at 6,000ft: 190mph
Ceiling: 25,500ft
Range: 900 miles
Armament:
Four 20mm cannon
8,000lbs of hardpoint-mounted freefall and/or forward-firing weapons
Produce new version with turbo prop (save weight, better fuel eco, less maintenance), it's ability to carry "stuff" would allow for the use of almost any kind of camera, infer-red, NV, thermal, for border work. In places like Afgan/and the like, 2 20mm's, and 8000 pounds of precision guided would be a game changer, as it can stay on target for a long long long time.

Like this?

Super Tucano Nears Debut In Paris
 
Well, kinda-like that, but the Skyraider is much larger", and let's be real, if we are going to buy SE AC, let's get Skyraiders!
 
I'm coming back to this thread, as I don't want anyone to think I was joking. I am not. An updated A1 (or A1 type turbo prop) could be purchased for cheap (as far as military AC go, dirt cheap), there are tons of missions that could easily be done by this type of AC, and some better, as dwell time is a plus, without the need for in flight refueling. An A1 can carry 4 tons of stuff, what ever you want, from rockets, bombs, missiles, droppable cargo, etc. With a full load of weapons, there is no doubt one A1 could bring it to a fire fight with assholes like the Taliban. They could work border security on our southern border, etc. Every AC does not have to be a front line fighter, I dare say we wouldn't have a shortage of American's wanting to fly them! Cost savings from purchase to up keep. The problem is the Air Force's retired generals aren't working for the type of companies that can produce these AC! The 4 20mm guns could be updated to 2-25mm etc. These could be real work horses, with the country as broke as it is, we need to start thinking about how to get the job done, for a hell of a lot less money. Freedom is not free, I agree 10000%, but when we waste money, we are harming our freedom, there has to be a balance. Of course our military should have the very best, but who is to say A1's are the best for certain jobs? I really wish we would get some forward thinking leaders in the DoD, the money is already running out.
 
There are many light attack/CAS/interdiction roles an aircraft like the Super Tucano (A-29B), Texan II (T-6B) or Air Tractor (AT-802U) would be well suited for. Fairly inexpensive to purchase & efficient to operate for our current conflicts - but purchases have to be made including the capabilities of modern military powers like China & Russia in mind.

IMO, a modernized, new production A-10 would be "better" in about every way save cost.

I'd love to see a 2013 Skyraider as much as the next guy...but it ain't gonna happen.
 
There has been a F35 sitting at Dulles for years; kinda have to wonder why ; if it is so state of the art, top secret...? I am guessing that it isn't that great; otherwise you couldn't get that close to it, and they wouldn't let other countries have it. Money pit!
 
There has been a F35 sitting at Dulles for years; kinda have to wonder why ; if it is so state of the art, top secret...? I am guessing that it isn't that great; otherwise you couldn't get that close to it, and they wouldn't let other countries have it. Money pit!

Where exactly? like in a secured hangar with a guard or just sitting on the tarmac? I wouldn't associate it's stored location with it's performance or importance.
 
Where exactly? like in a secured hangar with a guard or just sitting on the tarmac? I wouldn't associate it's stored location with it's performance or importance.

Not exactly a secured hangar w/ a guard now; is it!
2zdoj8g.jpg
 
I think that for the CAS role, the A-10 was an ideal design..., for its day. But airframes have stress and fatigue limits, and age out of the fleet. Today's existing A-10's are becoming last century's curios and relics.

A new design, embodying the original A-10's outstanding core design features, updated to incorporate modern materials, powerplants, avionics, and armaments would be my choice. IMHO, the key feature the A-10 brought to the party was survivability. Without that, I wouldn't consider a replacement.

My preferred replacement would look a lot like the existing A-10, might incorporate some faceting/contouring/control surface angling/anti radar coatings/materials to reduce detection/lockon signatures; and like the A-10, would trade top speed for loiter capability.

Modern look and shoot targeting, including an anti-air defensive capacity, would enhance my wish list. Trade the titanium tub pilot compartment for modern fiber/resin armor.

I would also make it modular, so it could fit in a large transport and not take ages to ferry somewhere crucial. Just like the Navy's LHD assault carriers, it could be a shake-n-bake CAS workhorse.

I wouldn't call it a Warthog, I'd call it a Pit Bull, always on alert, close by, ready to put the hurtin' on the Badguy, swift and certain, tough, determined and resilient in a slugfest; an ultimate evolutionary descendant of the IL-2 Stormovik.

Greg
 
Last edited:
I don't see the A1 or like AC being a front line fighter, but a role in securing out southern border could be a huge benefit to the US. The dwell time, and ability to carry ALL the needed detection equipment-call ground or rotor wing to interdict would be cheaper and more effective than blackhawks alone. All of our "problems" are not with Russian or Chinese military machines. We seem to have an ability, second to none, for involving our selves in extremely low intensity conflicts-this is why we have to rise of drones. Drones are cheap to operate, have long dwell times etc. We have millions of none Americans strolling into the US, across our southern border-who are these people and what are they here for? None one knows-they are only guessing. Remember, if only 1% or even 1/10 of 1% are here to do harm to our country, blowing up buildings/killing etc. that's still a hell of a lot of destruction and death. The current system of protection, if you want to call it protection, does not work. We do not need F35's to patrol our southern border, that would be insane, but a capable turbo prop-could with the right equipment could easily be used to "pinpoint" where ground/rotorywing need to deploy. The job would actually start getting done and the cost of operation would be quite low, in the grand scheme of things. I've been watching in horror as so many homes have been burning down in CO, the A1 could carry 1000+gals of water/sortie. Final note: It would be great to see A1's (or like AC) being brought back into service, a new chapter in aviation history!
 
Okay, here's the crux of this issue. Is the F-35 going to be more capable than its predecessors? Definitely. That's not the real debate. The problem is whether it brings capabilities we can't do without...AND whether we can afford it...especially at the expense of not buying other mil gear (read:shit the grunts need.)

At a time of extreme mil cutbacks (like existing squadrons grounded for lack of funds), should we really be buying the most expensive airplane (overall program cost) in history? This is sort of like the guy whose home is in foreclosure, and whose Corvette has bald tires and no gas, pulling out the credit card at his nearest Ferrari dealership.
 
IMO the A-10 and the Predator drone are the replacements to the Skyraider. Radial engines aside, the survivability against manpads and radar controlled AA puts the venerable A1 into the history books.

The F-35 is designed for the S-400 / Pantsir-S1 networked battlespace systems.

Russia's new air defense systems: Pantsyr to shield S-400
Among the most important tasks faced by modern troops is protecting their air defense systems. The Russian defense ministry has struck a number of deals with the weapons manufacturing giant Almaz-Antei, triggering a major revamp of production facilities. Still, manufacturing rates have already begun to surge.

Under the 2012 state arms program, Russian troops are to be supplied with 28 Pantsyr-S1 surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon systems. These mobile close combat systems are designed to protect long-range air defense and anti-missile complexes from cruise missiles, self-propelled bombs and other high-precision attacks.

The Russian air defense is currently equipped with just 10 systems of this type, supplied in 2010. This two-year military experience was taken into account by system’s designers who updated the Pantsyr-S1. Its deliveries were later resumed and even surged. Pantsyr battalions are to be deployed with anti-aircraft missile brigades to step up their combat survivability: it often happens that air defense systems, especially long-range ones, are the first to be targeted by the enemy in an attempt to secure a “clear sky.”

The Pantsir is not the only system capable of tackling such tasks. Russian arms makers are currently creating another short-range complex, the Morfei, with new missiles and a strike range of up to 10 km. One of its special features is a high number of compact missiles on the launcher (up to 36), which increases the its ability to withstand massive air raids and vast volleys of cruise missiles, making the system echeloned and allowing for forceful strikes, penetrating deep into the aircraft formation. The closer the enemy is to the protected target, the higher is the fire density.

The entire system works as follows. Fighter jets act as the first echelon, covering the area beyond the range of anti-missile systems (from 300-400km to 1,000-1,500km). At the distance of 50-100km to 250-400 km, targets are engaged by S-300PM, S-400 and S-300V4 air defense systems, capable of shooting down combat jets, unmanned aerial vehicles and airborne command posts deep in the enemy’s formations. Medium-range surface-to-air systems, such as the Vityaz (with a range of up to 120km) and the Buk (with a range of up to 30-70km), cover the further stretch of the way to the vital military facilities. Short-range and close combat systems then comb the sky and shoot down everything that made it through the previous defense lines.

Under the state arms program, the Almaz-Antei weapons company has embarked on a mission to modernize its production facilities. It remains to be seen whether it will be hasty enough to keep apace with the manufacturing schedule, but in this case it’s “better late than never.” After some 20 years of stalled modernization one shouldn’t complain about additional two to five years.

Among the factories to undergo this profound revamp is the Moscow anti-aircraft building plant, Avangard. Almaz-Antei has invested large sums of money into this factory, increasing its manufacturing capacity tenfold over the past several years and upping its annual outputs to hundreds of missiles.

The factory is now working to establish ties with Russian universities. For instance, it founded a joint R&D center, Avangard, with the Moscow Bauman University to engage students in its work and add “fresh blood” to its staff. The average age of Avangard employees has thus been decreased from 56 to 40 years. However, the industry still falls short of 35-45 year old experts who fled the country in the 1990s – early 2000s, creating a deep skills gap between generations.

The implementation of the 2012 state arms program is still staggering. The media have multiple times reported that the development of the S-500 and the production of the S-400 systems are lagging behind the initial schedule. This gap could be bridged by using production capacities to the full. The good thing is, they are already doing that.

Russia's new air defense systems: Pantsyr to shield S-400 : The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events, Expert opinion, podcasts, Video

Which are sure to proliferate given Putin's propensity to put the "stick" to the eye of the USA.

More F-35 Delays Predicted
By Bill Sweetman
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

July 01, 2013
Credit: USAF

Less than two years after a new Pentagon leadership team adopted a new integrated master schedule (IMS) for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program—which in 2010 plans was to have been declared operational by now—the latest plan is at risk, according to the Defense Department's chief weapons-tester.

Software required to meet the Marine Corps' limited initial operating capability (IOC) date is already expected to be eight months late relative to the August 2011 IMS, Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E) told the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee on June 19. Radar and electro-optical system snags have delayed weapons integration, consuming all the margin built into weapons testing. Buffet and transonic wing-drop “continue to be a concern to achieving operational combat capability.”

The root of the software delays is that the program has been forced to add tests at a rate that more than offsets better-than-scheduled testing performance. The main causes, Gilmore says, are the helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) and regression testing—which ensure that changes have not caused problems in areas previously vetted. Regression testing alone has already forced the addition of 366 test points in 2013.

Flight-testing of Block 2A, the last non-combat software release, started in March 2012 with the goal of finishing in February, but was only 35% complete at the end of May. The Marines' IOC software release, Block 2B, was to be delivered for flight-test in August, according to the IMS, but is now not expected before April 2014, only six months before the due date for completing those tests. These have to be finished before the program can perform an operational evaluation in 2015 that must be completed before the Marine IOC, set for July-December 2015.

Sacrificing Block 2B capabilities to meet the schedule is not an attractive option, Gilmore notes, because even full Block 2B aircraft will “likely need significant support from other (fighters) . . . unless air superiority is somehow otherwise assured and the threat is cooperative.”

The Block 3i configuration, the basis of the Air Force's planned IOC date (August-December 2016) is also under tight schedule pressure, Gilmore explains. It is wedded to significant changes to the radar, and to the electronic-warfare and communications-navigation-identification processors (not just the integrated core processor, as reported earlier). Lot 6 F-35s, which start deliveries in 2014, include this new hardware and cannot fly without 3i software. “Maturing Block 3i hardware and software will be a significant challenge in the next 12 to 18 months,” Gilmore warns.

The DOT&E adds that “the most significant source of uncertainty” regarding what combat capability the JSF will provide in 2018 is that the program has to deliver an operational Block 3i while concurrently developing Block 3F, which is intended to meet the key performance parameters set in 2001.

Lockheed Martin says it is “confident that we are on track to meet the software development schedule” and says that prime software design for Block 3F is 41% complete.

Results of tests on the long-troubled HMDS are “mixed, according to comments from the test pilots,” says Gilmore's report. For instance, software to reduce the effects of jitter have done so—but at the cost of introducing another instability, described as “swimming” of the symbology. The fix to light leakage or “green glow” requires the pilot to perform “fine-tuning adjustments” of display brightness as ambient light changes.

Another threat to schedule is weapons integration, which Gilmore characterizes as “very slow.” Synthetic-aperture radar modes have provided inaccurate coordinates, and the electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) has had difficulty maintaining tracks. These problems had to be remedied before weapons tests could proceed.

Some radar and EOTS issues have been fixed, but all the margin built into the IMS, for both Block 2B and 3F weapons testing, has been used up before a single guided-weapon test has been performed. Gilmore writes: “The final Block 3F weapon integration tests are likely to be completed in late 2017, instead of fall 2016. This will make beginning operational testing of Block 3F in January 2018 a challenge.”

Current weapons-test goals include a guided AIM-120 test in November 2013—dependent on fixing software deficiencies—a GBU-12 laser-guided bomb test in October and a Joint Direct Attack Munition guided test in December.

Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves—still affect all variants of the JSF, despite control law changes. The program will conduct flight tests this year to assess the problem, but has now reached a limit on what can be done with control laws, Gilmore reports. Further changes would degrade maneuverability or overload the structure.

Earlier DOT&E reports have been critical of the F-35's ability to tolerate accidental or combat damage, and the new report follows that pattern. Gilmore observes that lightning-tolerance testing is yet to be completed and that even then, the fighter's airframe will have to be inspected after known lightning strikes—including skin penetration—because it does not use lightning-tolerant fasteners, Conventional fasteners were selected to save weight. Lockheed Martin says that inflight lightning protection has been approved and the critical design review is closed, with more tests due later this year. On the ground, the current plan is that ground crews will purge the fuel systems of parked aircraft with nitrogen, repeating this process as often as once every 24 hr.

Gilmore also notes that the prognostic and health monitoring system, currently, is unable to provide timely detection of combat damage to the F-35B lift-fan system, which “might fail catastrophically before the pilot can react” during transition to vertical landing. Lockheed Martin comments that “in the remote chance of a failure, the pilot would auto-eject.”
More F-35 Delays Predicted
 
I wouldn't call it a Warthog, I'd call it a Pit Bull, always on alert, close by, ready to put the hurtin' on the Badguy, swift and certain, tough, determined and resilient in a slugfest; an ultimate evolutionary descendant of the IL-2 Stormovik.

Why the Sturmovik, and not the P-47 Thunderbolt? There is a reason the A-10 got the name Thunderbolt II, and it's legacy came from the reliability of the P-47, and the actions of the pilots who flew them. The name Thunderbolt, if anyone would care to read up on it, is a legacy unto itself(Like the ability to get totally shot the fuck up, and still be able to land) .

I agree on the modern enhancements though, but I think they should be to a point where it doesn't dissolve the extreme durability of the Thunderbolt name, and legacy. It's a mighty big legacy at that too.
 
TEN YEARS LATER...


 
It won’t cost em over 3 million to biuld. Guarenteed
 
There's always the other argument. How much more does it cost to defund the arsenal of freedom? Do we need it? Ask the Russians, or the Chinese, or the North Koreans; than ask yourself how much your own answer resembles theirs.

Freedom is not free.

The other folks have working prototypes of airframes that are far superior to F-15's and F-16's. All it would take for them to be put into production would be the announcement that we are gong to abandon modernization of our front line fighter force.

I'd like freedom to be free, too; but that's just never gonna happen.

Greg
One day short of 10 years for me to reply.

Semper Fidelis Greg, hope youre doing well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: diverdon
As I see it another cost of the f-35 is that it killed the F-22 Raptor before we had enough of them built. The Raptor is the ultimate manned fighter.
Cool, I just got notified of getting a "like" on a post that is one day short of 10 years old!