These costs dont include engines, accessories and weapons. That adds up (40% more). I recall reading costs for the proposed Indian version of F-18 to be in $100 million range. (not sure which cost sorry no cite)
But your point on marginal costs for 1 more plane holds good.
Cope India was not Indians beating Americans. The rules pitted some of the lesser experienced F-15 pilots against some more experienced Indian pilots, and handicapped the Americans by having 3 to 1 odds against, older radars and no use of long range missiles (where US really is stronger). Personally , I think the rules were more similar to some scenarios Indians might face against Pakistan than against the typical US rules/way of war.
And leaking the results would have been very handy for US manufacturers pushing Congress for budgets.
No way. Simple reason: many fundamental parts of the Harrier simply aren’t made any more. Let’s just say for simplicity’s sake that an AV-8 runs off of a flight computer powered by an 80286 processor. Where are you going to find 20 year old components for that computer? Sure, maybe you can find some, but it is going to be a challenge to make sure they aren’t damaged or tampered with. Without a doubt, it will be more expensive to build a 286 computer today than build an Intel i3 computer… And oh yeah, an i3 will perform much better than the 286.
So you decide to build an i3. Well, guess what: this being the military, you will have to have to qualify every new part that goes in to that weapons system, and write new code to suit the new hardware. You aren’t starting a new production line, you’re starting a new development program for an aircraft that wasn’t particularly great in any case. And oh yeah, you’re locked into a sole-source contract with BAe, which isn’t a great position to be in.
And why do you want to do all that to buy an aircraft that is simply going to be useless against any semi-modern adversary within this decade?
The F-35, as it is expected to enter service, will be more stealthy, carry more, have longer range, and have phenomenally better sensors (both radar and optical) than the F-16. The F-35 will have better optical sensors than the F-22, far better air-to-ground capability, and have half of the operations cost.
Just out of curiosity, did you think the idea that the F-18 should replace the A-6, A-7, and F-14 to be a big mistake? Do you think we should have stuck with A-6s to the current day? Because the A-6 could carry more and go farther at a cheaper cost than the F-18, plus the Hornet was basically invented by kludging together a pure fighter and a pure attack design into one which didn’t do either role quite as well as originally intended.
hypothetical straw man. The B-52 has been modified and flown for over 50 years. What makes modifications easier to bring forward in today’s age is the standardization of parts such as connectors and buss lines.
Half the operational cost of an F-16. No way. Longer range than an F-22 in super cruise. No way. As far as weapons go any plane can be update and historically has been updated with the newest equipment. The B-52 carries weapons that will glide to a target area and then self deploy autonomous weapons that seek out tanks. That wasn’t even a dream when it went into production.
The F-18 didn’t replace all those aircraft. Even the Super Hornet has less payload and range than the F-14 and that is basically an entirely new aircraft.
The plane is slated to be in service in the US until 2030. That means Boeing is still making replacement parts for US variants. You are talking about tooling for replacement airframes, which has already been scrapped.
F/A-18A Hornet (mix of F-18A and A-18A were planned originally) was supposed to only complement A-6, A-7, and F-14. They were replaced by the Super Hornet. And the Super Hornet can carry larger payload (17,750 lb) than the Tomcat (13,000 lb).
No question about stealth or sensors. As to weapons, they are about the same on quantity (if F-35 sacrifices stealth), and F-35 will need a couple of years before it catches up with F-16 in quality and variety. The range is difficult to say. With similar weapons and equipment, they will come out fairly even.
B-52 if very different from a fighter. It has plenty of room (both space and weight) for upgrades and modifications. And the resulting small loss in performance is no big deal. Nobody expects B-52 to actually carry 70,000 pounds of iron bombs or fly to a distant target without air refueling.
why not build lots of “cheap” (less than $50 million each) fighters and plan on losing 50% of them? That reduces the cost, provides for more pilot training, and you don’t worry about losing $200 million in some hypothetical mission in Syria. A major was with China or Russian simply will not happen-its like planning and preparing to repel an invasion from Mars.
Didn’t the Japanese have a problem with that? 
I find myself agreeing with Ralph all over the place in this thread (but not on everything), so I am going to make sure that I am apocalypse ready, lay down some more beans and rice, and do whatever it is we Presbyterians do to make us right with God. (Show up 10 minutes late for the ice cream social I believe.)
The simple matter is that neither China nor Russia are going to cross the oceans to make war with the USA. It makes no sense, and both are traditionally consolidators, not expansionists. Long term preparation in the aftermath of Hitler and Tojo remains making sure that nobody gets ahead of us in armaments, which we have achieved with plenty of room to spare. The F-35 is a step backwards. Ultimately, it will be just as, if not more expensive than the F-22.
From Wiki: The empty weight of the Super Hornet is about 11,000 lb (5,000 kg) less than that of the F-14 Tomcat which it replaced, while approaching, but not matching, the F-14’s payload and range…
It’s not as fast as the F-14, cannot fly as far, or carry the Phoenix missile which has a greater range. So it’s less capable of defending a carrier group or flying deeper missions.
Yeah, the problem with that plan is that it’s short-term. It’s a lot harder to replace an experienced pilot than it is to replace an aircraft.
Super Hornet and Tomcat have very similar range, with SH being slightly better. And except for Phoenix, SH can carry a much larger variety of weapons.
the SH has a combat range of 350 miles and the TC has a combat range of 500 miles.
OK, so it sounds like we cannot compare the F-35 with any fighter other than the F-22 because the advantages of stealth puts them in a different league. They can see you and kill you ebfore you even know they are there.
So the F-22 seems like a much better plane than the F-35 but the F-22 cannot do SVTOL or take off and landings from carriers.
So if you compare the air force variant of the F-35 with the F-22, does the F-35 make any sense considering the cost?
If electronic warfare is going to be determinative going forwards, didn’t we need to have a fifth generation plane for the navy and marines or were we going to use them as cannon fodder? Was there really a better more cost effective way to get thesse capabilities to the navy and marines otherwise?
Can we make stealth drones much cheaper than F-35s?
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Can we make stealth drones much cheaper than F-35s?
[/QUOTE]
Ask instead: can we make fighter drones that could be effective in combat comparable to even a 4th generation fighter (hell, even a 3rd generation fighter)? Answer…not today we can’t, and probably not in the foreseeable future either. AFAIK, we are just starting to even look at this as a possibility, and there is nothing even close to production on this front today.
It’s also a lot harder to wage a war of convenience when it’s people the public care about who are dying. The dirt cheap fighter that wins by attrition does have potential, but only as an unmanned drone.
The Phoenix is like fifty years old and was designed specifically for the tomcat. The reason the fa18 is smaller and lighter is because the tc is ftiggin huge and took up too ugh space on carriers.
Stealth drones? I have no doubt they are being built/tested/used… off-budget.
I don’t know… We were testing a highly maneuverable, remotely-piloted aircraft from 1979 to 1983. The HIMAT could turn nearly twice as fast as an F-16. Given a warload, and a spherical field of view for the remote pilot, something like that might not be too far away.