# Why have we wasted so much money on the F-35? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228 "2016-04-27T01:49:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/82 "2016-04-29T15:54:35Z")
Plus the Air Force is starting work on the F-22 successor, and the Navy is starting work on the F/A-18 successor. **coremelt** is unfortunately just poorly informed if he really thinks that the future of tactical aviation is exclusively F-22 and F-35. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/83 "2016-04-29T16:03:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Plus the Air Force is starting work on the F-22 successor, and the Navy is starting work on the F/A-18 successor. **coremelt** is unfortunately just poorly informed if he really thinks that the future of tactical aviation is exclusively F-22 and F-35. I read something about the Air Force working on a design to replace the Warthog as well for close support, though with the Air Forces attitude about the mission they are probably dragging their feet on it. I think it was [this](http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/07/air-force-moving-forward--10-replacement/82746220/) article: > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON — The Air Force is moving forward with a key step in developing a dedicated close-air support plane to replace the A-10 Warthog, a top general said Thursday. > > “My requirements guys are in the process of building a draft requirements document for a follow-on CAS airplane,” Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, said. “It’s interesting work that at some point we’ll be able to talk with you a little bit more.” > > Defining the requirement is the first concrete step toward potentially developing a replacement A-10 for the close-air support mission, often dubbed A-X. The Air Force has been studying the idea of a procuring single-role A-X for at least a year now, hosting a joint-service summit in March, 2015, to work out options for the close-air support, or CAS, mission. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/84 "2016-04-29T18:22:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Plus the Air Force is starting work on the F-22 successor, and the Navy is starting work on the F/A-18 successor. **coremelt** is unfortunately just poorly informed if he really thinks that the future of tactical aviation is exclusively F-22 and F-35. No, you are poorly informed of the timing of these things. The immediate replacement for the FA/18 is the F-35C. And a sixth generation fighter F-X to replace the F-22 is maybe possibly scheduled for introduction sometime around 2035, but its not funded yet, its just a concept. For the next 20 years the F-35 and the F-22 is it, the F-35 MUST step up to replace the F-16, the F-/A 18 the A-10 and others because there is nothing else in the pipeline thats planned in the next 20 years. Many people think that because of the failure and constant delays of the F-35 there is going to be a rather severe capability gap, I’m one of them. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/85 "2016-04-29T18:34:22Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > No, you are poorly informed of the timing of these things. The immediate replacement for the FA/18 is the F-35C. … For the next 20 years the F-35 and the F-22 is it, the F-35 MUST step up to replace the F-16, the F-/A 18 the A-10 and others because there is nothing else in the pipeline thats planned in the next 20 years. coremelt, you’re deeply confused. There are two flavors of F/A-18: 1. A/B/C/D, which are sometimes called Baby Hornets or Legacy Hornets, of which the US Navy has 300+ and … 2. the really quite different E/F/G models, which are called Super Hornets or Growlers, of which the Navy has 400+. The F-35C is to replace the A/B/C/D models (and really just C/D I think, because I believe we’ve retired all of our A/B models), but NOT the E/F/G models. The Navy’s plan is for the F-35C to fly along-side F/A-18E/F/Gs for the next several decades. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/86 "2016-04-29T18:38:15Z")
and coremelt, you are completely ignoring the F-15E Strike Eagle. The USAF has 200+ of them in service, and they’re not getting replaced by F-35s. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/87 "2016-04-29T18:44:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The F-35C is to replace the A/B/C/D models (and really just C/D I think, because I believe we’ve retired all of our A/B models), but NOT the E/F/G models. The Navy’s plan is for the F-35C to fly along-side F/A-18E/F/Gs for the next several decades. Yes you are correct the Navy is the only branch of the armed forces that has been skeptical about the F-35 from the beginning and is hedging their bets. I should have been more clear but the USAF and the Marines are going all in on the F-35A/B and planning it to replace all of their fighter / attack roles including close air support and SEAD. Let’s see, I’m dubious. And yes sorry the only feasible replacement for the F15-E at the moment is a modified F-35 and the F-15E is already 21 years old: > **[USAF mulls options for replacement of Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle](https://www.flightglobal.com/usaf-mulls-options-for-replacement-of-boeing-f-15e-strike-eagle/108236.article)** > > On 11 December, the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle marked the 26th anniversary of its first flight, but the venerable strike fighter will continue serving with... ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/88 "2016-04-29T18:52:34Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Yes you are correct the Navy is the only branch of the armed forces that has been skeptical about the F-35 from the beginning and is hedging their bets. I should have been more clear but the USAF and the Marines are going all in on the F-35A/B and planning it to replace all of their fighter / attack roles including close air support and SEAD. Let’s see, I’m dubious. No, the USAF is not. They’re going to buy a LOT of F-35s, and are planning to replace all of their F-16s and A-10s with them, but, aside from the F-22s, the USAF is still going to have a significant number of F-15s. They’ll have ~250 F-15C Eagles primarily for air superiority and ~200 F-15E Strike Eagles primarily for ground attack. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/89 "2016-04-29T19:31:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No, the USAF is not. They’re going to buy a LOT of F-35s, and are planning to replace all of their F-16s and A-10s with them, but, aside from the F-22s, the USAF is still going to have a significant number of F-15s. They’ll have ~250 F-15C Eagles primarily for air superiority and ~200 F-15E Strike Eagles primarily for ground attack. The last F-16 isn’t due to roll off the assembly line until 2017…next year. We will still have the things in service though most of the 2020’s at this point. And, as you say, the F-15s are still there too. This is going to be just like how we used the F-4’s, going from front line fighter status to doing other roles. Hell, I think there are still some F-4’s out there bumping along for that matter. This thing that the F-35 will be the only fighter out there (and that it’s a piece of shit that’s going to be useless) is just crap. I don’t even know where that’s coming from. It’s contrary to how the USAF and USN has worked for decades to think that we will be junking every other fighter class and relying on one to do it all. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/90 "2016-04-30T13:52:51Z")
> [@XT](#): > > This thing that the F-35 will be the only fighter out there (and that it’s a piece of shit that’s going to be useless) is just crap. I don’t even know where that’s coming from. Well the thing that it’s (currently) a piece of crap is coming direct from the Pentagon: > **[Pentagon Report: The F-35 is Still a Mess](https://fortune.com/2016/03/10/the-f-35-is-still-a-mess/)** > > The Pentagon office responsible for evaluating new weapons finds a myriad of problems continue to plague the troubled F-35 fighter jet. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/91 "2016-05-02T06:18:42Z")
Congress has just declared that effectively the F-35 cannot be the replacement for the A-10. See here: > **[Here's Exactly How Congress Wants To Measure The A-10 Warthog's Replacement](https://jalopnik.com/heres-exactly-how-congress-wants-to-measure-the-a-10-wa-1773949233)** > > America’s ancient but venerable flying tank, the A-10 Warthog, is on the budgetary chopping block. Congress is fighting to keep it flying, and has laid out exactly what they want to see out of any potential replacement jet. Several of those requirements are impossible to meet with the F-35. The only way I can see this playing out is them reducing the total number of F-35’s bought in order to get the money to do this, which is going to raise the per unit price of the F-35 even higher. Maybe Australia will wake up in time to cancel their order of the F-35 and get something that’s more suited for us. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/92 "2016-05-02T13:14:28Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Well the thing that it’s (currently) a piece of crap is coming direct from the Pentagon: > [Pentagon Report: The F-35 Is Still a Mess | Fortune](http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/the-f-35-is-still-a-mess/) I’m not going to gloss over the defects in the F-35, but it is notable that critics will jump all over every test report on the F-35 to say it is a piece of junk, but test reports critical of the F-22 are quite obviously ignored because F-22 is the most awesomest airplane evah. [Link.](http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/af/2015f-22a.pdf) > [@](#): > > The Increment 3.2A OFP is not operationally suitable as it did not meet the Air Force threshold Mean Time Between Avionics Anomaly requirement. Furthermore, based upon the demonstrated software stability performance during the FOT&E, there is a high probability that pilots may not be able to complete combat missions without having to reset or restart avionics subsystems during flight. . . . . > > Increment 3.2A cybersecurity testing consisted of compliance checks on security controls. Increment 3.2A did not meet standards for multiple compliance checks. . . . > > All F-22A modernization efforts and increments are tightly coupled, and recent years’ reduction in developmental test force aircraft and personnel leaves little margin for unanticipated regression testing and correction of critical deficiencies when discovered in operational testing. > [@coremelt](#): > > **Congress has just declared that effectively the F-35 cannot be the replacement for the A-10.** See here: > [Here's Exactly How Congress Wants To Measure The A-10 Warthog's Replacement](http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-exactly-how-congress-wants-to-measure-the-a-10-wa-1773949233) > > Several of those requirements are impossible to meet with the F-35. The only way I can see this playing out is them reducing the total number of F-35’s bought in order to get the money to do this, which is going to raise the per unit price of the F-35 even higher. That’s literally not what the legislation linked to says at all. The legislation calls for a report to be provided to Congress by an independent thinktank that would feed into an analysis of alternatives. An analysis of alternatives is the earliest, most fuzzy step in the DoD acquisition process. An AoA does not define what is to be done, it is essentially a brainstorming session followed by pros and cons of each idea. Even if an AoA determines that option 1 (whatever that may be) is ten million times better than options 2 through 5, an AoA does not bind DoD to pursuing option 1. The decision of what options should be pursued – which doesn’t even have to be part of an AoA, technically – is a decision made by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and top uniformed leaders from each military service. Hope that clears things up for you. What do you think is the current price of an F-35? ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/93 "2016-05-02T15:16:46Z")
Well at the very least it indicates that congress feels that the F-35 cannot be a good replacement for the A-10. The F-35A currently costs $98 million without an engine in the latest LRIP batch, the engine is around $30 million more. As I understand it, they were aiming for far less than this. The F-22 cost $150 million each and was canned as too expensive. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/94 "2016-05-02T16:56:56Z")
Well, you are close. The current flyaway cost for an F-35A with the engine is $110 million. This price is currently projected to decrease to $100 million per plane, with the engine, as production efficiencies set in. At a similar point in the F-22 program, the flyaway cost was indeed $149 million per, so the F-35 today is just about 30% cheaper than an F-22 at a similar point in the production run, even excluding the ten years of inflation that would make the F-22 somewhat more expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars. ETA: And here’s cites: [F-35](http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf) [F-22](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/F-22-SAR-25_DEC_2010.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/95 "2016-05-02T21:42:45Z")
[QUOTE=coremelt] Congress has just declared that effectively the F-35 cannot be the replacement for the A-10. See here: [/QUOTE] See here what? What do you suppose this is supposed to show? From your link: > [@](#): > > America’s ancient but venerable flying tank, the A-10 Warthog, is on the budgetary chopping block. Congress is fighting to keep it flying, and has laid out exactly what they want to see out of any potential replacement jet. > [@](#): > > Addressing the criteria for a replacement aircraft, H.R. 1735 details specifically what standards such a plane would be measured against. The exact language in the bill is below, but the main takeaway is that the HASC wants the Warthog’s replacement to be able to fly slow and low for long periods of time with a focus on air-to-ground assault abilities while being able to land without a paved runway. So, they want a vertical requirements aircraft for a very vertical mission…to be able to fly ‘slow and low’ and fight against opponents without the technological means to offer even a minimally contested air space. And they are balking at a ‘replacement’ that’s designed as a jack of all trades and can fly a variety of missions but doesn’t do as good a job at it as an air craft (or requirements for a new one) that is vertically designed to do that one job and can do NOTHING else? Leaving aside that this is a political football at this point, with ‘Congress’ doing what it always does, sticking it’s thumb and $.02 into the mix for their own political reasons I’m unsure what you…or they…think any of this actually proves one way or the other. The Air Force IS looking into designing and developing a vertical mission alternative…and they are dragging their feet on it because, frankly, they don’t WANT THE MISSION AND NEVER HAVE. The Warthog itself was designed, developed and deployed in spite of Air Force foot dragging and attempts to derail the project. A new theoretical replacement will suffer exactly the same thing and may or may not ever be developed (my guess is not) since it’s such a vertical mission and can basically do nothing else. If the combat environment changes and China or Russia sells a real, integrated air defense system to someone the US goes up against, as opposed to ISIS type missions we happen to have today, we’d be fucked with either the Warthog or a replacement to it, since it wouldn’t survive in that environment. Just because that’s the mission right now doesn’t mean it always will be. The F-35 is flexible enough that it can be used in multiple roles for multiple mission profiles instead of fixed on one specific type of mission and combatant. I really, really like the Warthog and, personally, I think we should keep them in service and refresh them, since the mission we have right now, today, warrants their use. And, hell, I’m not opposed to the Air Force developing a replacement for them down the road, though personally I wouldn’t buy more than a handful of them on the off chance that 10 or 20 years from now we are fighting exactly the same kinds of ISIS opponents we are fighting today. > [@](#): > > Maybe Australia will wake up in time to cancel their order of the F-35 and get something that’s more suited for us. Them and a host of other countries who are lining up to buy the things. Have you considered the fact that they might know something you don’t, having evaluated the air craft first hand with their own pilots and knowing full well that a cutting edge design like the F-35 is going to have some initial teething problems…and yet, they are STILL planning on buying them instead of developing their own (or developing their own A-10 knock off to fight this years battles 10 or 20 years down the pike)? Just a thought. > [@](#): > > Several of those requirements are impossible to meet with the F-35. Yeah…it certainly isn’t geared to fly very low or very, very slow in an uncontested battlefield. You and ‘Congress’ are absolutely right about that. Of course, the A-10 OR ANY AIRCRAFT DESIGNED TO REPLACE IT can’t do most of the myriad OTHER missions that the F-35 does, while the F-35 can actually do ground support missions. Just not as good as an A-10 does them or in the same way. > [@](#): > > The only way I can see this playing out is them reducing the total number of F-35’s bought in order to get the money to do this, which is going to raise the per unit price of the F-35 even higher. It’s a political football at this point, with those opposed to the F-35 cherry picking all of the issues and problems and tossing out vertical requirements for missions such as the ‘low and slow’ thingy to try and halt it’s deployment, or at least buy fewer of them. It’s exactly the same tactic used to block the US purchasing F-22’s or B-2’s or lots of other systems. Which will mean, in reality, that we basically just keep refreshing air frames, since we aren’t going to buy a fleet new generation of A-10’s…we’ll just keep refreshing the old ones, as we will just keep refreshing the older generations of fighters. You will probably get your wish…I can’t remember when the last time the US bought all of an air craft production we planned to buy. And it’s always the same tactic…latch onto the problems that every new system has, inflate them, cherry pick the issues and strawman or distort the system by comparing it with a vertical oriented system and say ‘well, it can’t do THIS as well as the old one’, while ignoring the fact that the old one doesn’t do most of what the new one does while the new one can do the old mission, even if not as good or in the same way. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/96 "2016-05-03T01:35:57Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Well, you are close. The current flyaway cost for an F-35A with the engine is $110 million. As far as I can tell thats an estimated cost for the upcoming LRIP batchs. Every other source on the internet I can find quotes $98 million per F35A without an engine for the last delivered batch. And Pratt and Whitney has apparently not been able to achieve cost reductions on the engine even as production ramps up. Some years the price goes up, not down. See here: [http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/163182/f\_35-engine-unit-costs-continue-to-grow.html](http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/163182/f_35-engine-unit-costs-continue-to-grow.html) So I’m skeptical that the price will actually be $110 million per unit, that would mean they’re delivering the aircraft for $80 million already since the engine is still going to cost $30 million. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/97 "2016-05-03T01:45:25Z")
Would it be legal for the DoD to threaten to disqualify Lockheed Martin from consideration in the future for defense contracts for a decade or two - “Because this is how you behaved with JSF, therefore you are suspended from bidding on contracts until 2030?” etc. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/98 "2016-05-03T02:01:04Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/99 "2016-05-03T05:17:49Z")
According to [http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/01/15/dod-pratt-whitney-reach-handshake-f-35-engine-deal/78864118/](http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/01/15/dod-pratt-whitney-reach-handshake-f-35-engine-deal/78864118/) > [@](#): > > JPO chief Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan welcomed cost savings found in the new deal. The unit prices for Air Force and Navy variant engines dropped 3.4 percent from the previous lot, LRIP 8, to LRIP 10. Meanwhile, the unit prices for the Marine Corps’ short takeoff and vertical landing engines decreased 6.4 percent. It seems like things are still headed in the right direction. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/100 "2016-05-03T12:20:40Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Well at the very least it indicates that congress feels that the F-35 cannot be a good replacement for the A-10. Without even getting into a single technical argument I am already skeptical. What the hell does the former jellybean salesman from MS-3 who got his job because he could dredge up enough money to sling mud at his opponent in TV ads, and whose main goal in life is bringing home pork to the people who gave him that money, know about the relative usefulness of two warplanes? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/101 "2016-05-03T14:02:05Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > So I’m skeptical that the price will actually be $110 million per unit, that would mean they’re delivering the aircraft for $80 million already since the engine is still going to cost $30 million. Well, since you wanted details, you’re going to get them. Good and hard! Go to [this](http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-160208-044.pdf) link – it is the official Air Force budget for aircraft. Scroll down to page 73. On the lower half of the page, there are columns for each year of procurement, and below those columns are rows labeled “flyaway end item cost.” You can see in each year, how much an airframe is expected to cost, how much for electronics, how much for an engine, and finally a row labeled “Subtotal: Flyaway - flyaway end item cost.” For 2016, the subtotal is $5.164 billion for 47 aircraft, and for 2017 the total is $4.256 billion for 43 aircraft. See that? That works out to $109 million per aircraft in 2016 that is budgeted BEFORE the contract negotiations take place, and $98.9 million per aircraft in 2017 also before contract negotiations take place. And as you can clearly see, that figure includes the airframe, radars, engines, engineering change orders (“We wanted this widget to point left, and now we changed our minds and want it to point right – here’s some money to rotate it”), and so on. Does that clear things up? You can also see that an engine costs around $13 million, not $30 million. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228.md?page=6)