By Andrea Shalal-Esa "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - ...The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the costliest weapons program in U.S. history. The Pentagon estimates it will cost $392 billion to develop and build 2,443 of the new jets for use by the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The U.S. government has slashed its estimate for the long-term operating costs of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets by more than 20 percent to under $1 trillion. The new estimate of $857 billion could help ensure the new plane turns out to be as affordable as advertised..." [ It is reassuring to be assured of lower costs by estimating them to be lower. In Pentagon "speak" $392$ billion to develop and build the 2,443 fighters, cut down from the original 2500, plus the paltry $857 billion operating costs over 55 years brings the total to a miserly $1.25 trillion, or barely noticeable at 22.9 Billion per year, a nearly invisible 17 cents per day for each individuals share of the cost. Who in their right mind wouldn't be happy to pay 17 cents a day to be free from communism, or the evil Chinese threat, or whomever the next monstrous enemy of freedom and the American way turns out to be? As is widely known, combat fighter jets normally have a lifetime far longer than 55 years, so the Pentagon estimates appear way too conservative. At a more reasonable thousand year lifetime, the cost practically disappears, as its less than a cent a day per person. These planes are practically free. There seems to be no reason not to go ahead and order a few thousand extra, just in case.] "A second senior defense official said the current estimate by the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office put the cost per flying hour of the F-35B model at over $41,000, but the actual cost would likely be closer to [a mere] $37,000."
That 17 cents a day per individual doesn't add up. That would be the cost if every man, woman and child in America paid equal taxes. Now, we may be pretty ignorant around here, Pie, but we all know that ain't true. So, you're for bigger miltary?
Indeed he was. And of course you're right, Hoof, simply dividing any government cost by 350 million can never gives us the correct cost distribution. We should recognize however that even Romney's 47%, which includes our proud welfare mommies, end up chipping in through deficit caused inflation. Then there is another factor we should be wary of in any "estimates" coming out of the Pentagon. DO THEY CONTAIN INTEREST? My guess is they don't, because they don't assume that part of the estimated total will be borrowed, which it will. Another issue here is the 55 year lifetime?? What a wild guess that must be!!! That's a very long time for technology to stand still. Yes, there would be costly upgrades, left out of the estimates no doubt. And I do hope these composite materials will still be airworthy at mach two, 55 years from now. (76 of the original 744 B-52s are still flying after 64 years since production began, and the air force says they we'll keep upgrading them until 2044 when they'll be 84 years old. But THEY are not made out of plastic!) The real question is this, why on Earth do we need 2400 new fighter aircraft? Remember when gates said we didn't need 7 more F-22s but the Senate tried to force them on the Pentagon anyway. In the end Gates won, thank God. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5177419-503544.html I have a question? If we haven't used the 187 F22s we've got in Iraq or Afghanistan why do we now need 2500 new F-35s. Couldn't we scrape by on 400? A hundred each for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines! Frankly, to the casual observer, such as myself, it appears that the U.S. deserves to be in OGDA (one-god-damn-awful) financial mess.
For once pie, I do agree with you. Look for the idiot republicans to rally around this though. Defense contractors are one big industry that still writes checks to them. If only they'd fight as hard for their constituents. Why on earth do we need another hyperexpensive manned fighter program? Isn't the future drones? The simple answer is the Air Force brass hates drones. They want to have a lot of hot shot pilots to command,not computer geeks, and vast squadrons of expensive planes to procure and maintain. They remind me of the management of the US auto companies in the 70's.