The Pentagon wants a half-billion more dollars for the F-35

[Nadiru]

But fuck single payer healthcare or universal healthcare am i right?

I had this whole thing typed out about how 500 billion dollars isn't even close to enough to fund single-payer, it's like 4 bucks a day to the country for a year. But then I see I'd misread "million" as "billion" so here's a big fat LOL instead. Enjoy that candy bar's worth of F-35.

[Kellhound]

By the time they finish F-35 the blueprint for F-48 will be obsolete.

And it will STILL be more advanced than the contemporary Russian fighter. Your point?

[druenos]

Pretty much.

Oddly enough, we spend more on healthcare than the military.

Not too surprising, in the UK we spend 2% of our GDP on Defence and about 30% of GDP on our NHS

[Deleted]

Thats what happens when you let the US government get involved in healthcare.

strange.
since most western nations have very heavily government run healthcare systems.

- - - Updated - - -

The way I see it, it is a program that isn't supposed to give great results initially, or even after 15 years..

the problem is that it is a completely flawed project.
It is designed for a role (stealth strike fighter) that is completely pointless - given their use, standoff missiles are way cheaper, better and safer.
It will be a poor 'fighter'.
It is completely useless in CAS.
- to be clear, the F35 - is an expensive, poorly designed, piece of shit.
Just to take one thing, the vast majority of the Aircraft will not be constructed with Vtol - There is nothing inherently bad with that, but since the marines want Vtol, and this thing is supposed to be used by the marines, all the aircraft will be designed around Vtol.
Designing it around Vtol lowers its capabilities.
something like 90% of the F-35's wont have Vtol capability, but will still have the design fucked over to make it work with Vtol.

[Kellhound]

strange.
since most western nations have very heavily government run healthcare systems.

- - - Updated - - -


the problem is that it is a completely flawed project.
It is designed for a role (stealth strike fighter) that is completely pointless - given their use, standoff missiles are way cheaper, better and safer.
It will be a poor 'fighter'.
It is completely useless in CAS.
- to be clear, the F35 - is an expensive, poorly designed, piece of shit.
Just to take one thing, the vast majority of the Aircraft will not be constructed with Vtol - There is nothing inherently bad with that, but since the marines want Vtol, and this thing is supposed to be used by the marines, all the aircraft will be designed around Vtol.
Designing it around Vtol lowers its capabilities.
something like 90% of the F-35's wont have Vtol capability, but will still have the design fucked over to make it work with Vtol.

We are talking about the US government here.

Strike fighters are by nature more flexible than standoff weapons and have the capability to reduce collateral damage better.
It is actually a capable fighter, especially given modern missiles. Its main issue is low top speed induced shorter max standoff AAM range.
Its no more or less capable in CAS than, say, the F-16.
Yes, the VTOL requirement caused performance issues, but not fatal ones.
The only reason the F-35 is really poo-pooed is its cost.

[Deleted]

Half a billion? Isn't that what the different US government departments "lose track of" on a regular basis?

[Traveler Voltin]

sounds like someone needs to learn the US budget before talking crap

[Deleted]

So in retrospect... the costs are now so high that they shouldve just mad themselves a whole lot more F22's?

My country also ordered F35's but maybe the Eurofighter or Rafale Dassault were a better idea afterall.

[Lynarii]

Ultimately the problem isn't the $ amount though. As people have pointed out, $500 million isn't going to break the US treasury.

The problem is that the project is already 50% over budget, and what they have gotten for that money is still not up to what was originally promised. No matter the price tag, it's generally considered to be fiscally prudent to at least be getting reasonable value for the money you're spending, and not getting completely ripped off. To make it worse, the F-35 was NOT supposed to be a US only plane (like the F-22 was). The F-35 had other countries shouldering part of the bill, and is meant to be sold to other countries. As the price continues to rise, more countries want to pull out of the project, and fewer are interested in buying the end result. This pushes the total costs to the US taxpayers even higher, and reduces the amount that they can expect to recoup in the end.

[Ulmita]

Pretty much.

Oddly enough, we spend more on healthcare than the military.

Which means exactly nothing.
The health care system in USA is lagging behind many countries and its nowhere to be found in the top 30 world wide.


nonsense argument is nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit:

Here is a 2016 list for best healthcare systems:
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian...ealth-systems/

and here is a 2016 list for most efficient healthcare systems world wide:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...east-efficient


I don't get how US people put up with shit like that, aka having governments that prioritizing invading and killing thousands of people in other countries (unprovoked) while their country inside is lacking badly from social provisions.

here is an idea to combat the retarded arguments: If you are happy with the crappy medicare system in the US how about you take that 500,000,000 and give them for college education so their parents can take a breather, and go to some vacations every few years.

[Collegeguy]

Sounds like Lockhead needs some serious auditing.

[Sunseeker]

Ultimately the problem isn't the $ amount though. As people have pointed out, $500 million isn't going to break the US treasury.

The problem is that the project is already 50% over budget, and what they have gotten for that money is still not up to what was originally promised. No matter the price tag, it's generally considered to be fiscally prudent to at least be getting reasonable value for the money you're spending, and not getting completely ripped off. To make it worse, the F-35 was NOT supposed to be a US only plane (like the F-22 was). The F-35 had other countries shouldering part of the bill, and is meant to be sold to other countries. As the price continues to rise, more countries want to pull out of the project, and fewer are interested in buying the end result. This pushes the total costs to the US taxpayers even higher, and reduces the amount that they can expect to recoup in the end.

Exactly. I mean, I made mention of the Zumwalt earlier, a project that has already been canceled after MASSIVE cost overruns, but still, here's the thing:
A single Zumwalt-class destroyer costs approx 7.3 Billion. That's a lot for a fancy boat and even the government realized that. But we're still talking about a 600ft-long stealth destroyer that generates enough power for 75,000 homes for a year with a budget crew, top of the line electronic systems and some seriously crazy new toys the DoD developed for the project.

For comparison, each F-35 has a price tag of 8.7 Billion. We have paid MORE on average for a 50ft-long jet than a 600ft-long destroyer. That is INSANE. I'll happily trade you 10 F-35's to get 12 Zumwalts.

[intrinsc]

[Kellhound]

Exactly. I mean, I made mention of the Zumwalt earlier, a project that has already been canceled after MASSIVE cost overruns, but still, here's the thing:
A single Zumwalt-class destroyer costs approx 7.3 Billion. That's a lot for a fancy boat and even the government realized that. But we're still talking about a 600ft-long stealth destroyer that generates enough power for 75,000 homes for a year with a budget crew, top of the line electronic systems and some seriously crazy new toys the DoD developed for the project.

For comparison, each F-35 has a price tag of 8.7 Billion. We have paid MORE on average for a 50ft-long jet than a 600ft-long destroyer. That is INSANE. I'll happily trade you 10 F-35's to get 12 Zumwalts.

You are taking the total F-35 lifetime program cost and dividing it by the small number aircraft delivered at this time.

[intrinsc]

For comparison, each F-35 has a price tag of 8.7 Billion. We have paid MORE on average for a 50ft-long jet than a 600ft-long destroyer. That is INSANE. I'll happily trade you 10 F-35's to get 12 Zumwalts.

wtf are you getting these figures from? The F-35C without engine is about $116mil. You are about $8bil short...

[Sunseeker]

wtf are you getting these figures from? The F-35C without engine is about $116mil. You are about $8bil short...

The total cost of the program (1.5 Trillion) divided by the number of planes we've produced (171). Sure, each physical jet may only cost us say 200M but the additional costs of R&D must be included in the cost of each unit, otherwise we have a completely unrealistic picture of how much each F35 actually costs. 1.5T/171=8.7B. That's how much each F35 really costs.

[Kellhound]

The total cost of the program (1.5 Trillion) divided by the number of planes we've produced (171). Sure, each physical jet may only cost us say 200M but the additional costs of R&D must be included in the cost of each unit, otherwise we have a completely unrealistic picture of how much each F35 actually costs. 1.5T/171=8.7B. That's how much each F35 really costs.

The cost you are quoting is for the life of the program: R&D, Procurement, Operating Costs, etc. over 30+ years.

[Sunseeker]

The cost you are quoting is for the life of the program: R&D, Procurement, Operating Costs, etc. over 30+ years.

My calculations are only problematic if we actually reach anywhere near our ordered unit total. As it stands, at our current production rate (using the first unit entering flight in 2006, having produced only 17 units/year, we would need to double our production to at least 32 units/year in order to reach the total number of ordered units by 2070. 2013 was the only year Lockheed-Martin produced units at nearly this rate. The following year production dropped to a mere 14.

[Kellhound]

My calculations are only problematic if we actually reach anywhere near our ordered unit total. As it stands, at our current production rate (using the first unit entering flight in 2006, having produced only 17 units/year, we would need to double our production to at least 32 units/year in order to reach the total number of ordered units by 2070. 2013 was the only year Lockheed-Martin produced units at nearly this rate. The following year production dropped to a mere 14.

Do you add up all the costs (insurance, gas, repairs, tires, etc) when you say how much a car costs to buy?

LM has built 171 F-35s in 8 years, which is an average of 21.3 planes a year. Here is the funny thing, they are called Low Rate Initial Production aircraft for a reason. Oh, and 2015 saw 55 produced.

[Sunseeker]

Do you add up all the costs (insurance, gas, repairs, tires, etc) when you say how much a car costs to buy?

When I look into purchasing a vehicle, yes those are considerations. Low-maint, easily-replaceable, high-mileage is what has driven me away from almost everything made in the last 20 years.

LM has built 171 F-35s in 8 years, which is an average of 21.3 planes a year. Here is the funny thing, they are called Low Rate Initial Production aircraft for a reason. Oh, and 2015 saw 55 produced.

Well good for them. Somehow I doubt that'll remain consistent, and I likewise doubt there will be no further significant cost overruns.