• runjun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kind of funny that it’s an F-16 used here. The 22 or 35 would have been even more apt as an example.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the F16 is one of the best examples of a fighter that can do nearly every role competently while being reasonably affordable. There is a reason so many countries bought it.

    • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      edit2: F22 is way more expensive than F35 nope, seems F35 is more expensive when you add A+B+C budget of F35, added links

      True, looking at the F35 (A+B+C) and F22 buget and plans over the years.

      Talk about bloated military budgets.

      James Web Telescope budget is made by the same companies, so we know that projects are bloated by design or just by how they operate.

      NASA vs. military, I am pretty sure some people would prefer to switch the budgets, hahahaha

      https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a25678/the-cost-of-new-fighters-keeps-going-up-up-up/

      https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/11/1489517410-isthemilitarygettingsmaller-figure4.jpg?resize=980:*

      • AccmRazr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        One of the biggest budget issues with the F35 program is that maintenance and repairs must go through private industry. Corporations just continuing to milk profit at every level. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/09/22/gao-blasts-contractor-led-f-35-maintenance-as-costly-slow/

        There was the semi-recent report following the plane disappearance in the Carolinas that pointed to the battle readiness of the F35 program being lower than is acceptable (don’t remember the percentage thrown out there), and a lot of that is due to the corporate side of the deal. Parts are not readily available when needed, repairs are going slower than we are used to, and this is on top of using newer technologies in an effort to PREDICT future conflicts.

        I hope we have learned our lessons from the F22 and F35 programs. New tank designs for the successor to the M1A2 Abrams are popping up. We cannot allow future programs to continue to favor corporate profits to these levels.

          • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also, a big contributor to the expense of the F-22, both as a program and on a per unit basis, is that the US didn’t make the aircraft available for purchase by foreign allies. So there’s only, iirc, 200-some-odd F-22s in existence.

            That means far fewer produced, and by extension, more of the one-time costs are baked into each fighter, and upgrades, maintenance, and “future proofing” expenses are spent in support of a smaller overall fleet, which lowers the ceiling on profitability and limits the benefits of scaling.

            All that, and it’s still the best air-to-air platform in existence, and the US is the only country that has em.

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We’d be mining asteroids and have a robot fleet sifting tritium from the moon surface

        Edit: Helium-3, not tritium

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not really that funny. The point is made despite it not being the most futuristic American dick extension on the market.