"Cheaper to Build Separate Planes than F-35" Topic

More fodder for the fans and haters. Enjoy!

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT) F-35 jet fighter, designed by the Pentagon to serve the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, is likely to end up costing more than it would to build separate planes for each service, a Rand Corp. study has found.

…

link

Except, of course, that the 3 separate planes would also overun on costs and end up costing far more as well.

And the cost per plane will go down as sales increase. We don't even have a product yet and conjecture on final cost isn't right until real orders are filled/placed.

You can blame a lot of the cost overruns on our own government too.

I agree with GarrisonMiniatures. You can't make such a claim because who's to say that the separate planes won't encounter the same cost overun problems the F-35 is experiencing?

I'm sure Lockheed-Martin and other defense contractors will find a way to inflate costs and maximize their return on dividends. It's what any self-respecting company does. Something about a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders I think.

Having said that, the F-4 Phantom is the only plane I can think of that can be deemed a multi-service success, having served in the USAF, USN and USMC, not to mention the many numerous foreign countries it served in.

Still think it would have been better to have 3 different companies to have done 3 different planes. Something to be said for some competition. Also easier for one company to work on VTOL on one plane and let the others work on their own planes needs for the other services, no need to try make them all compatible.

Just because you went for one aircraft doesn't mean the ride will be smooth.

So soon they forget the troubles the Eurofighter went through. Now it is seen as largely successful, but that program went through crazy overruns and decades of development.

link

Having said that, the F-4 Phantom is the only plane I can think of that can be deemed a multi-service success, having served in the USAF, USN and USMC,

Off the top of my head the following aircraft are/were multi-service success stories:

A-1 Skyraider (USMC, USAF, USN)
A-7 Corsair II (USN, USAF)

C-130 Hercules (USMC, USAF, USN)

F-86 Sabre/FJ Fury (USN, USMC, USAF)

H-1 Huey (USMC, USN, USAF, USAR)
AH-1 Cobra (USAR, USMC)
H-13 Sioux (USMC, USN, USAF, USAR)
H-19 Chickasaw (USMC, USN, USAF, USAR)
H-34 Choctaw (USMC, USN, USAF, USAR)
H-53 Sea Stallion (USN, USMC, USAF)

OV-10 Bronco (USAF, USMC, USN)

T-6 Texan (USN, USAF) WWII vintage
T-6 Texan II (USN, USAF) modern
T-33/TV-2 Shooting Star/Sea Star (USN, USMC, USAF)

I might've missed quite a few.

Note in most instances they were deisgned for one service and adopted by the others – same happened to F-4 Phantom.

Yet none of those aircraft previously quoted, including the Eurofighter, were mostly developed using Concurrency, which is developing supporting or featured technology while building the aircraft itself. Concurrency is the main reason for the enormous delays and cost-overruns associated with Joint Strike Fighter and Littoral Combat Ship. 'Nuff said.

You also run into another nasty problem with multiple types of aircraft: Each bird needs it's own spare parts, trained loading crew, trained mechanics, and the schools to teach them.

That adds up to a whole lot of dollars in 'lifetime costs' that are not a part of the per-plane cost.