Trillion Dollar Trainwreck: How the F-35 Hollowed out the US Air Force by Bill Sweetman

[sienar]

Look at how much the B-58 costs and how many were procured vs the B-2 or now B-21. Costs and development time have climbed astronomically, and this is all unavoidable because the complexity to get the capability has shot up.

 

[edwest4]

Look at how much the B-58 costs and how many were procured vs the B-2 or now B-21. Costs and development time have climbed astronomically, and this is all unavoidable because the complexity to get the capability has shot up.

Really? I don't think so. Look at how many B-2s were built. A handful, along with parts for a handful more. Costs go down based on an increase in units. When you only build 21, it's more expensive.

 

[sienar]

Really? I don't think so. Look at how many B-2s were built. A handful, along with parts for a handful more. Costs go down based on an increase in units. When you only build 21, it's more expensive.

You think this is just down to volume?

 

[sferrin]

You think this is just down to volume?
View attachment 743381

Look at the F-106 vs the F-4. Volume certainly plays a part. That the F-35 is where it is, with three variants no less, suggests that was the way to go (vs three separate programs).

 

[sienar]

Of course volume lowers costs but just how are you going to achieve enough volume to return to 1950s unit pricing?

While software and the like has allowed relative design costs to come down this has been countered by increased complexity. And while automation has lowered the costs of some operations the raw material, labor and energy costs have all stayed about the same or gone up.

 

[edwest4]

You think this is just down to volume?
View attachment 743381

Look at the timeline. It's not just about statistics. The Soviet Union collapses in the early 1990s. What happens to aircraft manufacturers? They shrink. Fewer programs and fewer aircraft. Investors begin to meddle. Mergers and acquisitions. Those who designed aircraft in the 1950s and 1960s retire. Less competition. The threat environment goes down.

 

[quellish]

You think this is just down to volume?
View attachment 743381

Largely yes. How unit cost is calculated changed (in the 80s?). Unit cost is the entire expected cost of the program over its lifetime, including R&D, divided by number of aircraft. Reduce the number of aircraft and the unit cost goes up.

 

[Airbus A340 Fan]

Lots of good stuff here not just for this thread but for others. Germane to this thread: Build more bombers, 4th gen fighters as vulnerable as 5th gen on the ground, where they will be attacked. CSIS Study

 

[Sprues]

Of course volume lowers costs but just how are you going to achieve enough volume to return to 1950s unit pricing?

While software and the like has allowed relative design costs to come down this has been countered by increased complexity. And while automation has lowered the costs of some operations the raw material, labor and energy costs have all stayed about the same or gone up.

I think you bring up a very good point. However I think the counter argument to that is twofold. First while the price per unit of an early jet age plane may have been low, the lifespan of that aircraft as being the premier frontline was also quite low. So while cost may increase, each development dollar in a modern aircraft tends to be amortized over a longer number of years. Second, while the cost of aircraft rises, so does capability. What once required fleets of bombers dropping dumb bombs can now be done with small squadrons of fighters carrying smart weapons. I think it was Ben Rich in his Skunkworks books that remarked about how the F-117 could go where a fleet of bombers, escorts, ECM aircraft and fuel tankers would have been required to go. This isn't to say that the F-35 is a wonder weapon, it is just one part of a larger ecosystem, but that increasing costs don't necessarily have to be paired with a similar volume.

To put it in the historical perspective, if you amortize the cost of the B-36 program and the B-41 bomb over the number units produced you are going to get a very high cost per unit ratio. But if you compare that with the number of B-29s dropping conventional bombs that would be necessary to equal 25 megatons worth of damage, you need alotta B-29s. And those B-29s need crews, which need support staff, which need housing, etc. etc.