Defense Department: F-35 Fighter Jet Is ‘Unaffordable’

Source: Agence France-Presse

WASHINGTON – The cost of building the F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, is "unaffordable" in its current version and must be reviewed, the Pentagon's top acquisition official said Thursday.

"Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft we want has doubled in real terms," said Ashton Carter, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
--CLIP

"Said differently, that's what it's going to cost if we keep doing what we're doing. And that's unacceptable. It's unaffordable at that rate."

The cost of the plane has jumped to $385 billion, about $103 million per plane in constant dollars or $113 million in fiscal year 2011 dollars, said Christine Fox, the Defense Department's director of cost assessment and program evaluation.

MORE...

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/19/defense-department-f-35-fighter-jet-is-unaffordable/

that hasn't doubled in price at least between bid and production?

Eisenhower was absolutely right about the military industrial complex and nobody paid any attention to him, at least not since the moronic excess of the Ronnie Raygun years.

ever been declared "unaffordable" by the War Department?

but always after millions had already been spent as far as I know.

The Crusader howitzer debacle was stopped back in 2002 when they figured out that there was no real need to actually replace anything that already existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing/Sikorsky_RAH-66_Comanche

$6.9 billion in development. Cancelled before anything was delivered.

at the time the legislation was passed?

Our entire level of spending on the military industrial boondoggle is unsupportable and is bankrupting our country.

we could have had a freaking colony on Mars by now.

The number of people it hires to produce little, the amount of technological development it funds (both in terms of science and engineering), the amount of hardware that it requires to be produced.

Dispose of half of everything in the military budget, and you immediately have 600,000 unemployed people from age 18-25 in need of jobs, you wind up with a lot of academics losing their grant funding and grad students losing their funding, you wind up with a lot of design teams and production lines shut down, you wind up with a lot of pension plans taking big losses on their capital investments and a loss of dividends.

I suppose the result would be to take that money and invest it in some sort of jobs program to hire the 600,000 young people, fund some sort of science and engineering projects, and design something to be produced. But then the argument wouldn't be about budgetary savings but the purpose the money is budgeted for; the spending would be no less but suddenly be judged not only affordable but necessary and good, and instead of bankrupting our country it would be found to be essential for its economic health.

The jobs are good quality, and the industry is globally competitive.

I hold little hope that much of the savings will be invested, and even less hope that the jobs that replace these will be of equal quality.

It's easier to tear something down than to build something up. Way easier.

But the time has come.

and put in the Real World cost, it would never get approval.

They're not business.

And isn't it important that government not be run like a business?

They still have to get the money from Congress.

If McDonalds sent their customers to do a stint in the Pentagon, they would come out believing that $500 for a Big Mac was a bargain.

but i dont have a problem with a project like this for some reason...

i dont mind technology upgrades in the military... just wish theyd take away from something else..

one would assume these planes would replace other planes right?

surely theres money to be saved from decommissioning older aircraft ?

if its as advanced as people say, 1 should easily cover 2 of the old right?

Now a single F-35 costs as much as 2 F-18 Super Hornets it is supposed to replace?!?

But Corvettes win a LOT more races, for 1/10 the price.

the classic F-16:

the russian's badass MIG:

the A-10:
http://image.automotive.com/f/eventcoverage/23862019+soriginal/131_0909_09_z+gray_rock_orv_park+buggy_roll_5.jpg
The air force's F-35:


What I'd spec out:

And there was nothing too expensive then. Equipment I would like to have was a wave of the pocket book and it magically appeared. I watched a remote controlled crane drive off the deck of an LHA and into the depths of the Gulf of Mexico. $19 million for that little screw up. The company was also caught using funds for defense contracts on their jack up oil rig contracts that were loosing money. A slap on the wrist and a promise not to do it again was all that happened.

Today, I would wonder just how much is being funneled into rabbit holes. With money in the trillions floating around keeping tabs on that just can't be done. Costs are unsustainable. Everyone here knows that. Why does it seem that Washington doesn't? Oh yeah, I forgot, if you are against anything Defense you can plan on a new career at the next election. Regardless, the U.S. has to cut back on Defense spending or we absolutely will collapse over the strain on our economy. The old Soviet Union discovered that too late. We don't seem to learn from the mistakes of other's however.

and already have them in service. Better plane and it already works.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/77-billion-22-raptor-fleet-grounded-indefinitely/story?id=13545306

$77 Billion Fighter Jets That Have Never Seen Combat Now Grounded Indefinitely

For 90% of what the airforce does these days (beyond air transport), low, slow ground attack aircraft are superior to anything else. Honestly, the old prop-driven Skyraiders from the Vietnam era would probably be more versitile in the sort of quagmires we keep getting into these days.

In the 1970s. They were an inspired design.
There is an A-10C; I wonder when the last A-10s were produced. I had heard that some Air Force leaders wanted to end the A-10 program.

That The Air Force thinks they want to fight. Warthog's mission is "close air support" - which would make it ideal for the Army, but they can't use fixed-wing aircraft.. Inter-service rivalry and empire building cost us BILLION$$$$$, and leave us a less effective military.

very insightful
I think of acquisitions being driven by the members of the Congress who are patrons of the weapons industry. The management at Boeing ultimately drive our military policies.

The A-10C is a modified plane, not a new one.

That had the cost of the A-10 in the $700,000 to $800,000 range. At that time, F-15s cost ten times that amount. Thanks for the information.