Military Review

How much is F-35, or features of military pricing

124
It is well known that the program of equipping the US Air Force, Navy and International Maritime Assistance (Marine Corps) of the 5 generation fighter-bombers of the generation raises many questions. This applies to both the combat qualities of the F-35 family of aircraft and the cost of their development, acquisition and operation, while the cost issues are no less interesting than the tactical and technical characteristics of the newest aircraft. However, this is hardly surprising - today the F-35 program is the most expensive system. weapons for all history humanity.




Is it any wonder that almost every mention of the F-35 leads to disputes regarding its cost? While some debaters prove that the cost of one such aircraft is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, others show the latest information from overseas, according to which The “price tag” for one F-35 is now “only” 85 million, and this price includes both the aircraft and the engine, and not as before, for example, in 2013 g, when the cost of the aircraft, depending on the modification, was USAF 98-116 million ., but - without engine.

In the article that is brought to your attention, we will try to deal with the pricing of military products, including F-35. But for this we need a small excursion into the economy.

So, all the costs of creating new products, regardless of whether we are talking about an ultra-modern fighter, the next version of the Apple smartphone or new yogurt, can be divided into 3 categories.

The first is the cost of research or development work (R & D). We, of course, will not now consider all the nuances of the allocation of a particular type of cost according to the accounting rules, and use only the basic principles of cost allocation. So, usually the appearance of a new product occurs as follows: first, the requirements for a new product are determined. In the case of the Apple smartphone, such requirements can (very conditionally, of course) be formulated as follows: based on the performance of the previous model, we want the new model to be 30% more efficient, to store more information on the 50%, to be 20% it is easier and, at last, to have a beer opener.

Of course, from our desire alone, such a model will not appear. In order to get a smartphone that meets our expectations, it is necessary to do a lot of work to improve the material base (electronics) and software (as it also affects the speed) of materials, etc. etc. And all the costs that we incur when developing a new smartphone will be R & D costs.

It is important to understand that R & D costs are not production costs. The result of R & D will be the design documentation and description of technological processes, following which the manufacturer will be able to adjust the serial production of smartphones with the characteristics we need. That is, R & D gives the opportunity to produce the goods we need, but only that.

The second category of costs is the so-called direct costs (more precisely, it would be more correct to use the term “variables”, which strictly speaking have a number of differences from direct ones, but recently direct ones are often used simply as another name for variable costs). These are the costs that the manufacturer bears directly on the output. So, for example, if a mechanic is able to make one stool within two hours from one board and four nails, then the cost of this board, nails, as well as the salary of the specified mechanic for two hours with all the contributions due to the law will be manufacture stools.

The very name of these costs suggests that they are directly dependent on the number of manufactured products, direct costs are proportional to them. That is, on one stool we need: 1 board, 4 nail and 2 hours of locksmith time, two stools - respectively 2 boards, 8 nails and 4 hours, etc. And this is the key difference between direct costs and R & D costs, because the latter are almost completely unrelated to the volume of production. If, say, the cost of developing a new smartphone model amounted to 10 million dollars, then they will remain so, regardless of whether 10 thousand will be produced or 10 million new smartphones. They will remain so even if the management of Apple decides to cancel the release of these smartphones and start developing an even more “advanced” model.

And finally, the last, third category of costs, let's call them overhead. The fact is that any firm is forced to bear a number of costs not directly related to the production of products, but still necessary for the operation of the enterprise. A simple example is the payroll of accounting staff. The accountants themselves do not produce any product, but the operation of an enterprise, even of medium size, is impossible without them - if no one submits reports to the tax office, charges wages, etc. etc., the company will very quickly cease to exist. Since overhead costs cannot be tied to a specific product, to get the total cost of goods produced, these costs are allocated to the cost in proportion to something — the quantity of goods produced, the wages of the main production workers, or the cost of direct costs.

At this economic minilection can be considered complete, and we turn to the features of the pricing of military programs. The thing is that this pricing is fundamentally different from the pricing of ordinary, civilian products.

Here, for example, how is the price of an Apple smartphone shaped? Suppose (the figures are conditional), the company's marketing department says - if the new smartphone has the characteristics listed above (and do not forget the beer opener!), Then in the next three years we will be able to sell 100 million of such smartphones at the price of 1 000 dollars for one smartphone , and revenues of 100 billion dollars. In response, the designers state that they will need 20 billion dollars to develop a model with such characteristics. The technologists reported that 450 dollars of materials and components will be needed for the production of one smartphone and the fact that wages and salaries will amount to $ 50., ie the direct costs of producing one smartphone will be 500 dollars, and for the entire 100-million production - 50 billion dollars. The accountant said that the overhead costs of the company, along with taxes, will be 10 billion dollars over three years. Total, if the company decides to implement this project, the cost of it will be 80 billion dollars, including:

1) R & D - 20 billion.

2) The direct costs of producing smartphones - 50 billion.

3) Overhead - 10 billion.

At the same time, the proceeds from the sale of 100 million smartphones will be 100 billion dollars, and the company is “shining” with a profit of 20 billion dollars for the next year's 3.

This looks perfectly acceptable to the company, and the head of Apple gives the green light to the project. Let's say everything planned everything correctly, and then you, dear reader, buying a smartphone for 1 000 dollars, pay 200 dollars for R & D on this model, 500 dollars directly for production and 100 dollars - payment for accountants and other overhead costs of the company . Also, thanks to your purchase, the owners of Apple will become richer by 200 dollars. That is, by paying the smartphone at the store’s cash desk, you will compensate absolutely all the company's costs for its development and production and do not forget to replenish the pocket of its owners.

But with military technology is not at all the case. Why? There are many reasons, but there are two main ones.

Competition in the market for military products is based on the principle of "either all or nothing." What does it mean? Let's return to the “smartphone” example above. For example, the global smartphone market was divided by two giants Apple and Samsung, and each of them is going to sell 100 million smartphones of the new model in the coming 3 of the year. But the Samsung smartphone turned out to be better, which is why Samsung sold 140 million smartphones, and Apple only 60 million. It seems to be a disaster for Apple, but we’ll count.

Since Apple’s sales were only 60 million smartphones, then revenue was not 100, but only 60 billion dollars. And what about the costs? R & D expenses (20 billion dollars) and overheads (10 billion dollars) will remain unchanged, but the direct costs for the production of smartphones will be reduced to 30 billion dollars - our total costs will be 60 billion dollars. With 60 revenue billion dollars. the company will not earn profits, but will not incur any loss. In other words, such a failure is unpleasant, but not fatal.

Now let's imagine that the US Department of Defense wants to get a new smartphone model for military needs on a competitive civilian market. The Ministry of Defense selects the two strongest manufacturers and brings them to the attention of the performance characteristics of the desired smartphone. Constructors Apple, on reflection, say that for the development of this they need all the same 20 billion dollars.

So, Apple, of course, can take a risk and invest in development. But if Samsung can offer a better smartphone than Apple, then the US Department of Defense will order Samsung smartphones, and Apple will not get anything. And 20 billion dollars will be a direct loss to the company, because no one, of course, does not compensate for them. What will you do if an Apple employee approaches you in the store and says: “You know, we spent a lot of money here on a supersmart project, but it turned out to be worse than Samsung and did not go on sale. Could you pay us for that? ” I am not going to judge what your reaction will be, but I think that the answer option “I will get a wallet and support my favorite company” will be at the very bottom of the list.

There is a second aspect. The fact is that, as a rule, the development of modern weapons is a long-term process, which is quite capable of stretching over 10-15 years. And the competition of military equipment is a little different than the competition of transnational corporations. If the same Apple invests in the development of a certain smartphone and fails, then this will be a local tragedy of Apple, but the failure of rearmament programs means a hole in the country's defense capability, which is completely unacceptable for the state. In other words, the state is directly interested in controlling the process of R & D on military products at each stage in order to be able to adequately respond to the problems facing the project. The Ministry of Defense of any country cannot wait for the 15 weather for years at the sea and, after their completion, hear from the developers: “Well, I couldn’t, I didn’t.”

So it turns out that the ordinary, civilian market model for creating new products does not work very well in the case of military supplies: it carries high risks both for the customer (not receiving the necessary equipment in time), and for the contractor (loss of funds R & D in case of choosing another supplier).

Therefore, for the most part, the creation of new types of military equipment is different:

1) The Ministry of Defense announces a competition among developers, bringing to them the indicative TTX of the products it needs.

2) Developers make a preliminary offer at the level of demo versions - sometimes at their own expense, sometimes even this is paid for by the state.

3) After that the Ministry of Defense chooses a developer and concludes an agreement with him to conduct research and development on the required product. In this selected company, of course, all expenses incurred by it earlier in order to fulfill the concluded contract are immediately paid.

4) The R & D plan is divided into many stages, the state accepts each stage and pays for it.

5) The cost of R & D includes not only the compensation of the contractor’s costs, but also a reasonable profit for the work performed.

Thus, risks are minimized for both the MO and the developer company. MO knows exactly what state the R & D is in, and the developer does not risk his own money. But at the same time, the performer is very well motivated to work effectively, because the R & D data is the property of the Ministry of Defense, and it can at any time pick up all the materials and transfer them to another developer. However, even if this happens, the executing company still receives compensation for costs and some profit from above.

And it also means that by the time R & D is completed, they are all fully paid by the customer. In other words, in fact, the Ministry of Defense, wishing to receive finished products from the contractor (for example, combat aircraft), divides the transaction into two stages: at the first, it buys design documentation and technological processes necessary and sufficient for the production of products, and at the second these products. Of course, when a second contract is concluded for the supply of products, the cost of this contract does not include the cost of R & D. Why, if MO already bought and paid them on a separate, already executed contract? Of course, no one will pay twice for the same job. Consequently, the cost of the contract for the supply of military equipment will include the direct costs of its production, the share of overhead costs that the company will attribute to the output of products under this contract and, of course, the company's profit.

Therefore, when we open the same Wikipedia and see that in April 2007 r was signed a contract for the supply of a batch of LRIP-1 of two F-35A worth 221,2 million dollars for each (without an engine), then we understand that the specified cost - This is only the cost directly to production, plus overhead and company profits. Not a penny of R & D costs in this amount.

And how do the costs of R & D relate directly to the purchase of military equipment? Of course, in different ways - it all depends on the specific product and there is no uniform proportion here. But let's try to estimate the cost of R & D in the case of the F-35 program.



According to lenta.ru with reference to the report of the United States General Administration for Control (GAO), the cost of creating the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II through 2010 inclusive amounted to $ 56,1 billion. This amount includes expenses directly on R&D, including the acquisition of prototypes test aircraft and the tests themselves. If the author of this article was able to correctly read the budget requests of the US Department of Defense (and why do they write them in English? It's inconvenient), then in the period 2012-2018. The F-35 program spent (and is planned to be spent in 2018) $ 68 million, of which $ 166,9 million were spent on the purchase of F-52 aircraft of various modifications, and $ 450,6 million were spent on the F-35 program. dollars - for RDT & E (Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation), that is, for research, testing and evaluation (of purchased equipment). True, 15 falls out, for which no data could be found, but presumably we will not be much mistaken in taking R&D costs as the average annual in the period 716,3-2011. those. $ 2012 million

In total, it turns out that a little more than 2018 billion dollars will be spent on the R & D of the F-35 program in 74 g, but ... most likely, this is not all. The fact is that the US control bodies and the budget clearly took into account their own, that is, US spending, and besides the US, other countries spent the development of F-35. But to allocate the amount that the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands and so on. spent on R & D the author of this article could not, so let's leave foreign funding as if it was not, and to simplify the calculations we take R & D expenditures for the program F-35 in the amount of 74 billion dollars.

And what about the direct and overhead costs?

In 2014 g, the acquisition cost of the F-35 family (LRIP-8 batch, without engine) was:

F-35A (19 pcs) - 94,8 million dollars / pcs

F-35B (6 pcs) - 102 million dollars / pcs

F-35C (4 pcs) - 115,8 million dollars / pcs

How much are the engines - alas, so easy to not understand. It is known that for a batch of 43 aircraft, which included 29 machines for the USA (listed above) and 14 machines for Israel, Great Britain, Japan, Norway and Italy, a contract was signed for the supply of engines worth 1,05 billion. But the matter is That engines for various modifications of the F-35 vary greatly in price. So, in 2008, the Pentagon stated that the engine for the F-35A aircraft costs 16 million dollars, and for the F-35B - 38 million dollars. Unfortunately, the author of this article could not find information about how much of 14 acquired the United Kingdom (only she buys F-35B, the rest of the countries take F-35A), but assuming that the other powers purchased two planes, and that the cost of the engine for F-35C is 20% more expensive than for F-35A, we have the increase in the price of engines on 13% in comparison with the level of 2008 g - which is quite logical, and more than explainable by inflation (which, surprisingly oh, the dollar is also subject). If the author is right in his assumptions, then we are not too mistaken in estimating the cost of the F-35 family of aircraft together with the engine as of 2014 g:

F-35A - 112,92 million dollars / piece

F-35B - 142,77 million dollars / piece

F-35C - 137,54 million dollars / piece

According to other data (the site "News MIC), the cost of the F-35 family aircraft gradually decreased (although it is not clear for how long).

How much is F-35, or features of military pricing


This data is indirectly confirmed by the Wall Street Journal, which in February 2017 reported that

“The planned deal for 90 jets with Lockheed Martin Corp. program leader The F-35A is a model of the planes that have been used for the US Air Force.


What the translation (if prompt does not cheat) sounds like

"The planned agreement for the supply of 90 aircraft according to the general supplier of Lockheed Martin provides a price for F-35A for the US Air Force and US foreign allies at the level of 94,6 million dollars, which will be cheaper by 7.3% than those supplied for 102 million dollars . aircraft of the previous batch "


At the same time, according to the portal warspot, another 11 June 2016 g

“Lockheed Martin’s CEO Marilyn Hewson told CNBC television that the cost of the aircraft that will be delivered to customers in 2019 on contracts concluded this year will decrease from more than $ 100 million to $ 85 million per unit.”


Why is the reduction in the cost of aircraft? “Blame” for this is both the improvement of production and the increase in the volume of purchased equipment. But how does the growth in sales reduce the price?

In order to understand this, you need to deal with the economic concept of "margin". Imagine a situation that there is a certain company engaged in the production of cars and selling their cars for 15 thousand dollars apiece, while the direct costs for the manufacture of these cars are 10 thousand dollars apiece. So 5 thousand dollars the difference - this is the margin.

And if, say, the overhead of a firm is 300 thousand dollars per month, and the company considers itself a normal profit in the amount of 200 thousand dollars, then the company needs to earn a monthly margin in the amount of 500 thousand dollars. How many cars need to be sold to provide such a margin? 500 thousand USD / 5 thousand USD = 100 cars for the price of 15 thousand USD

But the same 500 thousand dollars can be earned by selling monthly 200 cars with a margin of 2,5 thousand dollars. That is, selling 200 cars at the price of 12,5 thousand dollars will provide the company with the same profit as selling 100 cars by 15 thousand. There is an effect of scale - the more we sell, the less we need to earn on one each unit of goods in order to cover our costs and earn profit that suits us.

But there is one more important aspect. Here, for example, we provided ourselves with 200 auto orders for 12,5 thousand dollars and suddenly we had another buyer for 10 machines - but he is ready to purchase them from us for the price of only 11 thousand dollars. Can we imagine that allow? Of course we can. Yes, the margin will be only 1 thousand dollars, well, so what? After all, the existing contract base allows us to fully cover all our overhead costs and provide us with the profit we desire. Accordingly, the execution of this contract will simply increase our profits on 10 thousand dollars, that's all. Simply, since other contracts have already covered all overhead costs, everything that is beyond direct costs goes to profit.

Accordingly, it is not surprising that with the increase in the supply of F-35 to the United States Air Force, their price began to fall. Now Lockheed Martin can afford not to earn as much on each plane as it did before, but the size of its profits does not suffer from this. The “scale effect” will be felt until the United States reaches the planned production level and, in theory, this should happen in time for 2019 g - unless, of course, there is another shift in the graphs so typical of the F-35 program.

But you also need to understand something else - the margin cannot go down to infinity. The dollar is subject to inflation, raw materials, materials and other costs for the production of F-35 are getting more expensive every year and the cost of direct costs (and the size of invoices) will increase, and the economies of scale will stop as soon as the maximum planned performance is reached. Therefore, if the Lockheed Martin forecasts are nevertheless justified, then towards the end of this decade, the F-35A can really reach the 85 million mark with the engine - well, then the cost of this aircraft will grow in proportion to inflation. Or higher, if the United States Air Force cannot order such large batches of aircraft (the price of 85 million was announced for a batch of 200 aircraft), then the scale effect will start working in the opposite direction and Lockheed Martin will either have to accept losses or increase price of their products.

How much will the F-35A aircraft cost the American taxpayer the cheapest of the whole family? Well, let's try to count. As we have said, the total R & D costs for this aircraft for 01.01.2019 g will be 74 billion dollars - without taking inflation into account, of course. If we take into account that the indicated amounts were spent in the period from 2001 to 2018, when the dollar was significantly more expensive than it would be in 2019 g, then at 2019 g prices the cost of R & D will be approximately 87,63 billion dollars - and this is VERY cautious estimate because it assumes approximately uniform annual spending, while in the period 2001-2010. on average, they spent a lot more on research and development per year than in 20011-2018.

So, if we emphasize, IF it happens that:

1) R & D on aircraft of the F-35 family will be fully completed at 01.01.2019 g and will not require a cent in excess of the expenses that were included in the budget of the US military for 2018.

2) The United States implements its initial rearmament plans and will supply all planned 2 443 aircraft of all modifications (1 763 units F-35A, 353 units F-35B and 327 units F-35C) to its armed forces,

then the F-35A cost for the American taxpayer in 2019 prices will be 85 million (purchase price) + 87,63 billion / 2 443 aircraft (R & D cost per aircraft) = 120,87 million.

But in 2017 prices, at the lowest of the above prices, the purchase of 94,6 million dollars and the R & D cost reduced to 2017 g, the cost of F-35A for the USAF was 129,54 million dollars.

But this, we repeat, provided that the cumulative production of aircraft of the F-35 family will be 2 443 machines. If it is reduced to, say, 1 000 machines, the cost of the F-35A in 2019 g, subject to the purchase price of 85 million, will amount to 172,63 million.

But the US allies can get this plane much cheaper. The fact is that American taxpayers have already “kindly” paid Lockheed Martin for its research and development costs, so it has already compensated them, and it makes no sense to re-deposit these costs in the price of their aircraft for other countries. Moreover, deliveries to the USAF compensated all the overheads related to the F-35! That is, Lockheed Martin will be enough if the price of the aircraft exceeds the direct costs of its production - in this case, the company will cover its costs of producing the aircraft and will receive some other profit from above. Therefore, we can expect that for third-party consumers in the same 2019 g the price of the F-35A may fall even lower than the 85 million dollars. But, again, this is possible only because American Sami and Johns have already paid for R & D to develop F-35 and overhead "Lockheed Martin" - foreign buyers to pay these huge costs (and we are talking about tens of millions of dollars in terms of one aircraft) is no longer necessary.

And, finally, a couple of words about the price ratio of the Russian and American aircraft industry. More recently, in parallel with the supply of F-35, Su-35 began to flow into the Russian Air Force. The author of this article does not possess expert knowledge in the field of aircraft, but, if we discard the extreme estimates, then these machines are at least comparable in their fighting qualities. At the same time, the price of Su-35 under the contract was 2 083 million rubles. - given that the contract was agreed in December 2015 g, and the dollar in 2016 g did not fall below 60 rubles, the cost of one Su-35 can be estimated at about 34,7 million dollars. The cost of F-35A in this period fluctuated by about The level of 112-108 million rubles. That is, the purchase price of the Russian fighter was three times less than the American. And that's not counting the completely incomparable costs of developing the aircraft ...

But when selling to China, Rosoboronexport did not bargain - Su-35 were sold at 80 million dollars apiece. What does this mean?

While the Russian Federation is extracting super-profits from selling at its market prices its very cheap in aircraft production (where this super-profit settles is another matter), the US is forced to shift the cost of developing its F-35 onto its own taxpayers in order to “squeeze” the price of their new products in the market framework.

Thank you for attention!

PS On the screen saver - a screenshot from the Air Force briefing.



Major General James Martin suddenly became ill, and he lost consciousness during a press conference on the Pentagon’s budget project for 2017. We wish Mr. Martin good health and all kinds of well-being. But we state that fainting happened after he was asked a question about the financing of the F-35 program ...
Author:
124 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Theodore
    Theodore 25 January 2018 06: 10 New
    +5
    And the last aspect: He is strongly "recommended" to get allies!
    1. MadCat
      MadCat 25 January 2018 18: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: Theodore
      And the last aspect: He is strongly "recommended" to get allies!

      Does he have competitors? After all, no one in the USA will be against purchases of the choice of f15, f16, f18 but they choose exactly f35
      1. Shahno
        Shahno 25 January 2018 18: 39 New
        +5
        I think that if you discard the policy, xNUMX is really a technical breakthrough. Customers do not want to live in the past.
        1. Archon
          Archon 25 January 2018 19: 00 New
          +4
          Only f16 is known, tested in real battles, and f35 has not yet been shown to the maximum, only scandals.
          1. karabas-barabas
            karabas-barabas 31 January 2018 02: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Archon
            not shown to the maximum, only scandals.


            “F35 scandals” are hotly discussed only on Russian-language Internet resources, but in reality, exercises have been carried out on this aircraft for a long time, even maneuvers using nuclear weapons. Nobody even has such a reliable and modern machine and at the moment the fleet of F-22 and F-35 is already a serious strategic trump card in front of any military power in the world. And what is the point of focusing on the cost of American military equipment, when several hundred lard greens are stolen annually in the Russian Federation, which would be enough for several such programs.
    2. Motherland Russia
      Motherland Russia 26 January 2018 08: 44 New
      0
      After all, someone needs to return the costs ...
  2. ares1988
    ares1988 25 January 2018 07: 04 New
    +7
    Article Ok! It remains to wait: when we develop, put into service and bring to combat readiness two hundred light fighters of the 5th generation (and the MiG draws something there slowly), after which it will be possible to compare their price (taking into account R&D and other things) with the F-35. And yes: at the same time, when determining the cost, it is important not to forget the difference in the salaries of John and Ivan (the aforementioned iPhone on Amazone is the same for them, in general).
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 25 January 2018 08: 28 New
      +8
      Quote: ares1988
      And yes: at the same time, when determining the cost, it is important not to forget the difference in the salaries of John and Ivan (the aforementioned iPhone on Amazone is the same for them, in general).

      Not the same! laughing laughing laughing
      The technology of dynamic price changes on Internet sites has long been implemented, depending on your metric. We entered from the American IP - one price, we entered from the European - another, from the Chinese - the third.
      Andrey wrote above about pricing in the civilian industry. This is a classic, but really today the price is not determined by this. And by how much you are willing to pay for the product. The mechanisms are very complex. By country, it depends not only on the amount of dollars in the pocket of an average citizen, but also on potential "fanaticism." If in some country the same iPhone is elevated to the rank of a fetish, then it’s not a sin to bend the price, but in the USA where it can be bent for everyone (for example). Knowing these mechanisms and setting up your entry point through, for example, the United States, you can buy some things cheaper.
      And even more. If, for example, you looked at a particular product and its price but did not buy it right away, then the next time you look at it (for example, the next day), the prices may become higher. A little bit. The third time - even higher. Such a technology should create the feeling that you need to buy urgently - it is getting more expensive every day! Will it be even more expensive tomorrow? Buy it now. Bingo! )))))))
      1. ares1988
        ares1988 25 January 2018 08: 57 New
        0
        Marketing as it is, I do not argue) But the point about the iPhone was that the salaries in the Russian Federation and the USA are different (alas), even taking into account the teaching staff. And then I liked the article)
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        25 January 2018 11: 47 New
        +3
        Quote: Alex_59
        This is a classic, but really today the price is not determined by this. And by how much you are willing to pay for the product.

        Therefore, I have an iPhone description and begins with the fact that
        The company's marketing department says that if the new smartphone has the characteristics listed above (and don't forget the beer opener!), then in the next three years we will be able to sell 100 million such smartphones at a price of $ 1 for one smartphone
        1. ares1988
          ares1988 25 January 2018 12: 18 New
          +2
          Andrey, I like your articles. I would be very grateful if you would find time for an article comparing the prices of a couple of the most comparable weapons and military equipment, such as ah-64 vs mi-28 / ka-52 or f-15 vs su-27 (or something based on it). Still, it seems very conditional to compare the 5th generation light fighter with the 4th generation heavy fighter (in all conventions of these classifications). I have no doubt that the state equipment will be more expensive. And therefore it would be wonderful to indicate the reasons for this difference. Of course, I understand that our Protestant friends also love cuts and kickbacks, but it seems to me that this is not only the case.
          1. karabas-barabas
            karabas-barabas 31 January 2018 02: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: ares1988
            I have no doubt that the state equipment will be more expensive.


            And I doubt something so much in the Russian Federation needs to be created from scratch and myself, due to the lack of infrastructure of high-tech suppliers within the country, and the West stopped cooperation since 2014. In addition, the efficiency and exhaust from each invested state $ is higher in the US than in the Russian Federation, where kleptocrats, "effective managers" rule.
    2. Archon
      Archon 25 January 2018 19: 02 New
      0
      Ivan let xiaomi buy. There is at least some sense.
    3. svd-xnumx
      svd-xnumx 25 January 2018 20: 38 New
      +1
      Article Ok!
      Well, if you are entrusted with the production of making stools to a locksmith
      That is, for one stool we need: 1 board, 4 nails and 2 hours of locksmith time, for two stools, respectively 2 boards, 8 nails and 4 hours, etc.
      then you will already have losses at this stage: a damaged board 1 pc., 4 bent nails and payment for temporary disability due to a broken finger (in the best case, otherwise you can grab something with a hacksaw and there’s already a lifetime compensation for the loss of a part of the body)
  3. Alex_59
    Alex_59 25 January 2018 07: 35 New
    +6
    As always, I put a plus. hi
    But when selling to China, Rosoboronexport did not sell cheaper - Su-35 were sold at 80 million dollars apiece.
    Here you need to look at the scope of delivery. I suspect that the price of 80 million was obtained by dividing the contract value by the number of delivered aircraft. But in addition to the aircraft themselves, ground-based equipment is also transferred with them (maintenance, training, spare parts, simulators, test tools, all kinds of step-ladders, covers, plugs, carts, cables) as well as weapons (missiles and their maintenance, cannon shells ) And in addition, the contract may include the training of Chinese specialists by our employees, both pilots and ground technical personnel.
    Major General James Martin suddenly became ill, and he lost consciousness during a press conference on the draft Pentagon budget for 2017.
    If the same toad stood next to me, I would also faint. laughing
    1. realist
      realist 25 January 2018 09: 58 New
      +4
      this is a man who eliminates the general, if he begins to chat too much ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        25 January 2018 11: 45 New
        +3
        Quote: realist
        this is the man who eliminates the general

        How? She will sit on him
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 25 January 2018 12: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          How? She will sit on him

          laughing laughing laughing
          Oh well, why. Just make a face like in the photo. Where incidentally and captured, it seems, the moment of false start. Aunt overdone, worked ahead of time. ))))))))))
        2. Archon
          Archon 25 January 2018 19: 03 New
          0
          Just eat it! Already prepared.
        3. realist
          realist 29 January 2018 09: 04 New
          0
          Yes, just get up and look strictly :)
    2. Alf
      Alf 25 January 2018 22: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      as well as weapons (missiles and their facilities, cannon shells).

      It is not known. Usually indicate that the cost of the BC goes separately.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 26 January 2018 21: 11 New
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        It is not known. Usually indicate that the cost of the BC goes separately

        Contract contract is different. Without reading it (specific), it makes no sense to argue about something. More often I came across the fact that under the contract there is not only equipment, more often - all together, i.e. Spare parts for it, ammunition (in the agreed quantity and type), as well as educational and training tools and even direct training of customer representatives in using all this equipment (on its territory or on its own base). It would be pointless to get only an airplane or a tank without everything else. Because sometimes such wild price tags for contracts are found - there, in addition to two aircraft (for example), there are also BCs in a couple of hundred missiles, 4 spare engines, test and control equipment and training for 20 pilots (exaggerated, of course, but the point is)
  4. Vadim851
    Vadim851 25 January 2018 07: 55 New
    +5
    Yes, the normal price for a fighter, he is average. Typhoon and Rafal are much more expensive, also 100 million for us and 100 million for their GDP are also completely different figures.
    Su-57 is unlikely to be cheaper than the F-35, especially at the beginning of production.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 26 January 2018 21: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Vadim851
      Su-57 is unlikely to be cheaper than the F-35, especially at the beginning of production

      well .. the first prototype F-35s cost more than 220 million apiece - and this is without an engine! If we compare the experienced ones, then with the experienced ones, the serial ones with the serial ones. And then it can reach senility ...
  5. sabotage
    sabotage 25 January 2018 07: 57 New
    +1
    All is not quite so. In smartphones, most of the costs will be spent on preparation for production, writing software, organizing sales and after-sales services, and not on design documentation. To make a prototype of the chip is $ 5 million. In total, for 20 million, we definitely get a chip with the necessary characteristics. Further around it we make a device, catching mikruhi kvalkomma, Toshiba, Samsung, clinging to it matrices from LG and Samsung, packing it in a milled aluminum case with plastic spacers. But to make software will be expensive.

    Leave this "simplified" economy to the Fritzmorgen.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 January 2018 11: 45 New
      13
      Instead of a smartphone, you could put any other product - many readers do not understand the principle of cost allocation and what they are. This is what I tried to explain, and not imagine the exact costing on the smartphone. Is it imperceptible that the example is exaggerated?
      1. sabotage
        sabotage 25 January 2018 22: 46 New
        0
        It turns out like in a joke: I didn’t win, but lost, not in the lottery, but in preference, not the Volga, but 3 rubles, and that's right.

        If the reader does not know these accounting, financial and managerial squiggles, then he will still not understand anything.
  6. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 08: 33 New
    10
    Umm ... I look, the heading "economics for the smallest" is becoming constant.
    On the little things
    the author of this article could not find information on how many of the 14 aircraft the UK acquired

    Did you watch it?
    http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-35/serial
    s-and-inventory / airforce / RAF% 20 &% 20RN /

    Essentially
    If the author described the texture correctly (he did not fit into the question himself), then the aircraft was created according to the Cost + scheme, which is usual for the American military-industrial complex. This means that all documentation and rights to the aircraft belong to government agencies. LM is an aircraft manufacturer (and an integrator of systems produced by other organizations). NYA, LM was not a general contractor, aircraft system manufacturers sat on their contracts with the government (but did not go into detail).
    Thus, LM does not sell the aircraft himself to the side - this is not his (LM) aircraft. The US government allows LM to manufacture and sell a certain number of American aircraft for foreign customers. The rights of LM itself in this situation are the same as those of the Chinese Apple contractors that produce its phones. Since we are talking about US allies, the kind American government does not demand from them a percentage of their R&D expenditures. Of theirI emphasize costs, not LM.
    And yet - NYA, American law expressly prohibits the government from doing business. There is no mechanism that would allow foreign customers to pay DDo for R&D. This is a purely political decision.
    Since, again, Cost + is the American standard, Petrosianism about Sam and John is inappropriate. The post-war military-industrial complex works only according to two schemes, and the second - the Soviet one, departmental research institutes - are much more expensive. The third option - "we buy what we need in the commercial market" does not take root well, although it is slowly growing, where possible.
    then the cost of this aircraft will increase in proportion to inflation.

    The fact that the cost of a car in a series is growing due to cost inflation is usually not true. Of course, the price of the aircraft will increase, but not because of inflation, but because of the ups of the filling.
    At the same time, the price of the Su-35 under the contract was 2 083 million rubles. - taking into account the fact that the contract was agreed in December 2015, and the dollar in 2016 did not fall below 60 rubles, the cost of one Su-35 can be estimated at about 34,7 million dollars

    This is ridiculous. Even if the author was an insider of Sukhoi (and he is not), he does not know how much he actually paid for the car, taking into account R&D. Worse, there are great doubts that the bones on the Su-35 were even reduced by anyone.
    1. sabotage
      sabotage 25 January 2018 08: 46 New
      +2
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Worse, there are great doubts that the bones on the Su-35 were even reduced by anyone.

      And what are these doubts connected with?
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 09: 08 New
        +6
        Quote: sabotage
        And what are these doubts connected with?

        So that all work related to the Su-35, NNP, was carried out by state structures. In the aforementioned example, the Su-35 could also go for the ruble, what's the difference? Is in the budget line. Sukhoi will work at a loss, receive a transfer. They will not bankrupt explicitly.
        It is almost impossible to figure out what expenses are related to which program under the Soviet defense industry system. Yes, and why?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 January 2018 11: 42 New
      +7
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Since, again, Cost + is an American standard, Petrosianism about Sam and John is inappropriate.

      Only your Petrosyanism is inappropriate here - in the scheme that you described it was Sam and Jon who paid for R&D on the F-35 :) That is, from the fact that Lockheed sells his F-35 through the government this fact does not change
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      This is ridiculous

      Agree
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Even if the author was an insider of Sukhoi (and he is not), he does not know how much he actually paid for the car, taking into account R&D.

      And why, taking into account R&D? In this case, we consider ONLY the purchase price, and compare the costs of the F-35 and Su-35 WITHOUT R&D.
      You are not even able to understand such elementary things. You do not
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      rubric "economics for the little ones"

      You need to read "economy for a day nursery"
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 15: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You need to read "economy for a day nursery"

        The new year is over, and your drop dead smart tips were completely free, what a joy!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        We consider ONLY the purchase price, and compare the costs of the F-35 and Su-35 WITHOUT R&D.

        Are you sure you are in the know about all UAC relations and the budget?
        However, the number 30 versus 80 goes well with your PPP position. In this case, it is more convenient to compare the SU-35 with silent needles, it is more expensive and more similar in every sense.

        This is not to say that the true price of the Su-35 is 80 million. This is to the fact that we do not know the real price. And it’s not so important, since in the case of the KLA we are talking about transferring money between state pockets.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        it’s Sam and John who paid for R&D

        Of course. Like many other programs, mostly crashed into a pipe, like the FCC, for example.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Lockheed sells his F-35 through the government, this fact does not change

        As I understand it, the analogy between LM and Foxconn has not come to your attention. LM is not selling through the government, but the government is assembling its planes at the LM plant. He wants for himself, wants for the Belgians. As if Apple allowed the Chinese to supply iPhones without a nameplate not only to themselves, but also to Yotafon for friendship, at an internal corporate price.
        Specifically, where whose rights are there, you need to look in more detail, usually everything is n * t complicated. But that picture that you described corresponds to exactly this scenario.

        Speaking of Sam and John. Assuming they paid to replace three planes: Fighting Falcon, Hornet and Harrier - $ 75G ridiculous money.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 January 2018 16: 28 New
          +4
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Are you sure you are in the know about all UAC relations and the budget?

          But this is not necessary. It’s enough that I perfectly know the military pricing system :))))
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          However, the 30 versus 80 figure goes well with your PPP position.

          Quite :)
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          This is because we do not know the real price.

          (shrug) Didn’t try to read the article? :)))) Well, do not believe the article - look at the contracts, they were somewhere in the public domain (general conditions, esessno). In general, falling into consiprology is not good. With the same success, we can say that the Americans are secretive of the real costs of the F-35 program.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          It is not LM that sells through the government, but the government assembles its planes at the LM plant.

          I repeat, this is - that we kick about the owl, that the owl about the stump. In any case, the government agrees on the price with LM, and it is exactly as I described it.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Speaking of Sam and John. Assuming they paid to replace three planes: Fighting Falcon, Hornet and Harrier - $ 75G ridiculous money.

          Argument in numbers, please :))) How much was spent on the development of F16 and F-18? :)))))))
          1. sabotage
            sabotage 25 January 2018 23: 13 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, do not believe the article - look at the contracts, they were somewhere in the public domain (general conditions, esessno). In general, falling into consiprology is not good.

            https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/55155bb89a79476452
            98f058
            When the KLA is recapitalized, is this a covert funding program? Captain Evidence suggests that YES.

            You suffer from conspirology, believing that an incredibly complex combat complex in Russia can be developed from scratch cheaper than in the West. Our industry and designers are decades behind them. Production culture below the plinth. There are no sensible leaders from the word at all.

            I’m calling the Chelyabinsk Electric Drive Plant - actuators are needed. I am offered for 35 rubles apiece. The guys on the budget are all indifferent to them. I’m calling to Linak (decaying Europe) - 000 rubles.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 25 January 2018 23: 24 New
              +2
              UEC in the framework of recapitalization may receive 123,6 billion rubles
              14: 03 24.02.2016


              Such recapitalization-every year and for all these "effective" state corporations
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              26 January 2018 10: 12 New
              +2
              Quote: sabotage
              When the KLA is recapitalized, is this a covert funding program?

              It is, of course. However, these additional capitalizations are associated not with Su-57, but with the failure of Supage
              1. sabotage
                sabotage 26 January 2018 15: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It is, of course. However, these additional capitalizations are associated not with Su-57, but with the failure of Supage

                How to prove it? Superjet at least in the series and is for sale. So maybe it went to zero. But 10 prototypes with the latest equipment were definitely not free.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 26 January 2018 06: 32 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In general, falling into consiprology is not good.

            I just wanted to write about the pornographic relations of the KLA and its structures separately (of the same Sukhoi) with shareholders (i.e. the state) and VEB (i.e. the state), but they already got ahead of me)).
            As regards military-industrial pricing, this, of course, is not strong. I ask you.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            How much was spent on the development of the F16 and F-18?

            Recall the 70s? So there the sausage was 2,20 each, and YF-16/17 at $ 40 million (this is part of the VFAX program, but there were several programs there).
            Why not remember Eurofighter?
    3. Mikhail Zubkov
      Mikhail Zubkov 25 January 2018 15: 11 New
      0
      Mattresses persistently give us the idea that their system of promoting the American taxpayer is better than ours. That their super-expensive aircraft is better than ours, which is at least 3-4 times cheaper (in overvalued amdollars or in undervalued Rusrubles). But the bottom line - we hit them in the air like fraers, having even an unmodified fleet of Mig-31, Mig-29 and Su-27, covered by the dome of our air defense, and after the anticipatory modification and additions in the form of Mig-31BM, Mig-35, Su-34, Su-35, and finally Su-57, we will knock them down without the air defense dome in any part of the oceans and the Eurasian continent on the initiative. Already, their vaunted Navy will be guaranteed to be drowned in case of aggression at a distance of 1500 km from our shores, and from 2020 it will be waiting for them from 3000 km. So chew your monkey ties, hegemonchiki, and chase your AUG to Australia and back, in order to intimidate everything Australian and New Zealand!
      1. The comment was deleted.
    4. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 26 January 2018 21: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      but not because of inflation, but because of the ups of the filling

      this is a different calico. Any upgrade is again OKR (also paid) - no one will upgrade anything from the floundering bay (without TTZ from the customer)! The introduction of ups in production will affect direct costs - but this is not the basic machine, it is a new, modernized version. According to it, a new calculation. I agree with the author - the price tag will decrease, but not to infinity, but to a predetermined minimum. And then - to grow.
  7. EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 January 2018 08: 43 New
    +1
    For PAK FA, the cost of R&D promised 2 billion green. Even if you exceed this amount by 2 times, it turns out to be insignificant against the background of F-35.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 09: 40 New
      +4
      Quote: EvilLion
      For PAK FA, R&D cost promised 2 billion green

      Ask how much the superjet program cost. Despite the fact that the complexity of aircraft and technical novelty are not comparable.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 25 January 2018 11: 38 New
        +5
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Ask how much the superjet program cost. Despite the fact that the complexity of aircraft and technical novelty are not comparable.

        A Super Jet is a completely Russian project? M. With completely Russian components and production?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 16: 07 New
          +1
          Of course not. Components are commercial, new, there seems to be a glider + integration (I could be wrong). Do you think this increases the cost of the program or reduces? I emphasize that we are talking about the cost of developing, rather than manufacturing, a particular machine (respectively, R&D and direct costs in the terminology of the article)
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 25 January 2018 16: 11 New
            +4
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Do you think this increases the cost of the program or reduces? I emphasize that we are talking about the cost of developing, rather than manufacturing, a particular machine (respectively, R&D and direct costs in the terminology of the article)

            Once again, if you do not understand, was the Super Jet developed entirely in the Russian Federation? You answered no. And R&D, or rather, the amounts in Europe and ours are completely different. Or do you think that the European designer or engineer will agree to work for the Russian salary? At the same time, the materials are also not the same for the price ... and the factors affecting the difference between Russian research and design and for example European, well, a lot.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 16: 25 New
              +2
              Quote: NEXUS
              Was the super jet developed entirely in the Russian Federation? You answered no

              As far as I know, SSJ was developed in Russia, but components are mainly foreign or semi-foreign (including an engine). I could be wrong.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 25 January 2018 16: 31 New
                +2
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                As far as I know, SSJ was developed in Russia, but components are mainly foreign or semi-foreign (including an engine). I could be wrong.

                That's why R&D of the same SU-57 made 2 Baku’s lard, and F-35 more than 300 lardov (if sclerosis doesn’t fail me)
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 18: 46 New
                  0
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  That's why the research and development of the same SU-57 2 lard

                  It's not about f-35, but about the cost of developing a regional budget.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 January 2018 17: 04 New
        0
        OK, let's go to the wiki.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100
        read: "The cost of the development program ≈ 44 billion rubles" That is, at the real exchange rate of 1.5 billion. I can not judge the complexity and number of systems, there must be moments for the liner, secondary or non-existent for the fighter.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      3. Town Hall
        Town Hall 25 January 2018 23: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Quote: EvilLion
        For PAK FA, R&D cost promised 2 billion green

        Ask how much the superjet program cost. Despite the fact that the complexity of aircraft and technical novelty are not comparable.



        It’s enough to see the “share” of Indians financing in the FGFA to roughly understand the order of the R&D cost figures ... somewhere around the same 12-15 yards as for f-35
    2. Town Hall
      Town Hall 25 January 2018 23: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      For PAK FA, the cost of R&D promised 2 billion green. Even if you exceed this amount by 2 times, it turns out to be insignificant against the background of F-35.




      Who promised this?
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 26 January 2018 06: 34 New
        0
        Quote: Town Hall
        Who promised this?

        TASS, probably.
  8. tchoni
    tchoni 25 January 2018 09: 41 New
    +1
    Don’t worry, guys. F35 will buy. Sleep well. Do not worry your nerves.
  9. realist
    realist 25 January 2018 09: 56 New
    0
    here with a stub there is subtlety, the cost of production of piece of iron at the level of 120-150 dollars, the rest is software and margin. moreover, the software has actually been written for a long time and there is no big cost for revision. The main part of the price is the margin for the image component ....
  10. Pacifist
    Pacifist 25 January 2018 10: 05 New
    +3
    Chic article hi good
    Only typo in
    the cost of one Su-35 can be estimated at about $ 34,7 million. The cost of the F-35A in this period fluctuated around 112-108 million rubles., that is, the purchase value of the Russian fighter was three times less than the American. And this is not counting the completely incomparable costs for the development of the aircraft ...

    112-108 million rubles should be adjusted by 112-108 million dollars.
  11. leonardo_1971
    leonardo_1971 25 January 2018 10: 13 New
    +1
    And if a locksmith makes stools and a carpenter fixes water supply, the price will be higher! And the quality will be lower!
    1. dog breeder
      dog breeder 25 January 2018 11: 39 New
      +1
      Bravo! Very attentive!
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 25 January 2018 11: 38 New
    +6
    "The US is forced to shift the cost of developing its F-35 to
    shoulders of own taxpayers "////

    Sorry? But isn't the F-35 sold abroad? - Still like, sold like hot cakes.
    With service, spare parts.
    This is not the shoulders of American taxpayers, but the shoulders of taxpayers
    those countries that bought planes. And Lockheed Martin pays income taxes on all of these
    who is interested in foreign sales? - America, thereby returning investments in research and development and giving
    money back to unfortunate American taxpayers.
    So if you are doing an economic analysis, complete the chain.
    For some reason, you still haven’t included the salaries of tens of thousands of qualified specialists.
    who take part in the mass production of the aircraft - for decades!

    I am still happy that the topic of "technical problems" F-35 has exhausted itself. laughing In the absence of these.
    They were, but repaired.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 January 2018 14: 16 New
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Sorry? But isn't the F-35 sold abroad?

      And I even wrote how :)))
      Quote: voyaka uh
      With service, spare parts.

      Of course - like any other technique. But - without compensation for R&D costs
      Quote: voyaka uh
      America, thereby returning investment in research and development and giving
      money back to unfortunate American taxpayers.

      Nope. Nobody here gives money back to anyone. That is, Lockheed sells the aircraft at a reduced price (but still having some profit from it because R&D and overhead costs were paid by Samy and John) the US government at the same price transfers the planes to the allies, a little money settled in Lockheed’s pockets, and nobody returned nothing
      Quote: voyaka uh
      For some reason, you still haven’t included the salaries of tens of thousands of qualified specialists.
      who take part in the mass production of the aircraft - for decades!

      This does not matter at all in this case, because if the F-35 program cost less, the United States would have the opportunity to finance much-needed and useful programs, such as improving the tank fleet, or artillery, or something else. And this money would also support qualified professionals.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      I am still happy that the topic of "technical problems" F-35 has exhausted itself.

      It’s just not included in the topic of this article. laughing
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 25 January 2018 14: 27 New
        +2
        You often use: "American taxpayers."
        The US government does not own industry,
        and resources. There are no state or semi-state enterprises there.
        All budget revenues are from taxes.
        Lockheed Martin pays taxes. And all of her many employees - from top managers to
        workers are paid taxes (on a progressive grid - the higher the salary and qualifications
        - the higher the percentage of tax).
        In the form of taxes, the mass production of F-35 brings the United States a huge
        profit. And this profit (for decades to come) covers the costs that the government
        The United States subsidized the research and development of this aircraft.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 January 2018 15: 05 New
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          In the form of taxes, the mass production of F-35 brings the United States a huge
          profit.

          Fine! If you think so, then please start financing me. I’ll drop my card number in PM. I undertake with every thousand dollars that you transfer to me to pay you 50% of the tax. You will get a huge profit! laughing
          In general, there is no need to come up with non-existent explanations. Sorry, you are not an expert in economics and this is obvious
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The US government does not own industry,
          and resources. There are no state or semi-state enterprises there.
          All budget revenues are from taxes.

          State-owned enterprises pay taxes to the budget in the same way as private ones. The only difference is that the state also has the right, at its own discretion, to spend the profit remaining after taxes
          Quote: voyaka uh
          In the form of taxes, the mass production of F-35 brings the United States a huge
          profit.

          It does not bring them any profit, but brings net losses. Because the United States, like any state, has limited resources, and spending huge sums of money on F-35 does not spend optimally. Yes, part of the money will be returned to him in the form of taxes - but this would happen with ANY government procurement of a product made in the USA. In this regard, the salary of an employee of Lockheed is no better than the salary of the manufacturer of any other products.
          And yes, the same thing happens in other countries - any expenditures of the state budget are partially returned to them by taxes. Thus, this is not the prerogative of F-35 and has nothing to do with the issue of its price.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 25 January 2018 15: 19 New
            +4
            "please start financing me.]
            I undertake with every thousand dollars ... to pay you 50% of the tax "///

            If you guaranteed that you would organize the production of a combat aircraft,
            which will be produced for 40 years, the deal would be profitable for me.
            With a 50% share of sales revenue.
            (I am in this example the American government, you are Lockheed Martin)

            "Sorry, but you are not an expert in economics and this is obvious" ///

            Here, right by the joke about the monkey: "d_ura-d_ura - but I have my fourth in a day"
            laughing
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              25 January 2018 16: 17 New
              +2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Here, right by the joke about the monkey: "d_ura-d_ura - but I have my fourth in a day"

              Of course you have - because R&D and Lockheed invoices are paid for you. Now you enjoy F-35 with the price of “direct costs + a little margin”. But this speaks of the loyalty of the US government to you, and not the cheapness of F-35
              Quote: voyaka uh
              If you guaranteed that you would organize the production of a combat aircraft,
              which will be produced for 40 years, the deal would be profitable for me.

              C'mon, why do you need any other planes? :)))))
              I repeat, the fact that part of the budget spent is returned to it does not justify the prices of F-35, because this process occurs with any budget spending aimed at purchasing a product made in the country
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 16: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          In the form of taxes, the mass production of F-35 brings the United States a huge
          profit. And this profit (for decades to come) covers the costs that the government
          The United States subsidized the research and development of this aircraft.

          Colleague, you invented the economic perpetual motion machine))). Everything is somewhat more complicated, unfortunately. Money spent on a penguin is not spent elsewhere with another multiplier, maybe more, maybe less. Usually the multiplier of military spending is the lowest - even a combat-ready penguin does not bring any benefit, unless, of course, the fascists land in Massachusetts.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 25 January 2018 17: 02 New
            +3
            We look at the economy much more broadly. Probably because
            and develops much faster. For example, the government has been persuading
            Intel to build factories in our country (and not in some other quiet,
            without rocket attacks). And they were given gifts, and tax exemption.
            All at the expense of me - an unfortunate taxpayer.
            When the factories were built and they began to work, it turned out that they gave such
            a powerful impetus to the economy that no one remembers budget spending.
            Intel Research Institute, dozens of sub-contractor firms have opened. Engineers, having worked
            and having learned from them, they opened their start-ups of special chips (which turned into successful firms).
            The whole industry flourished and began to supply its defense industry, which multiplied export times.
            GDP jumped up.
            Do not look at government appropriations in private business as a waste, but look at how powerful
            trigger development of the country.
            F-35 is an example of a successful high-tech inter-national project that raises
            up whole countries (which take part in it). All R&D and other expenses will return to America with interest.
            Therefore, the States are thriving, that over and over again they risk raising trillion-dollar innovation projects.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 18: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              trigger development of the country.

              You see. I understand this logic. However, you do not seem to have heard that a dollar spent on a penguin is a dollar not spent elsewhere. Whether it is well spent or not is a rather complicated question. As far as I understand you, the Israeli government lured Intel with gingerbread cookies, and did not build a plant for it at its own expense, paid for the development of a new processor, and provided demand for 40 years.
              Maybe Israel would be a plus then. Or not.
            2. KaPToC
              KaPToC 26 January 2018 22: 03 New
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Intel Research Institute, dozens of sub-contractor firms have opened. Engineers, having worked

              You are comparing a commercially viable product with a commercial failure - a penguin. US penguins are bought by penguins; they cannot refuse their owner.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 27 January 2018 00: 11 New
                +2
                Quote: KaPToC
                US penguins are bought by penguins; they cannot refuse their owner.

                If you took the manner of reading the thread, then you would know that vassals, such as the Belgians, have a choice of 4 American aircraft and 3 European.
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 27 January 2018 00: 34 New
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  If you took the manner of reading the thread, then you would know that vassals, such as the Belgians, have a choice of 4 American aircraft and 3 European.

                  This is an illusion of choice and not a choice.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 27 January 2018 03: 32 New
                    +2
                    Quote: KaPToC
                    This is an illusion of choice and not a choice.

                    Yeah. Since the penguin is even stronger than the silent needle, there is nothing to choose. If only the Americans were allowed to buy.
                    1. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 27 January 2018 12: 39 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      If only the Americans were allowed to buy.

                      Are you kidding? Your presidents come to FORCE their vassals to buy such "wonderful" penguins.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 27 January 2018 15: 00 New
                        0
                        Quote: KaPToC
                        Your presidents come to FORCE their vassals to buy

                        Trump lobbying LM? I have not heard anything about this.

                        Moreover, all sorts of stories with cache suitcases are mostly told in connection with the Boeing and its superhornet and airsoft. You somehow forget that Boeing is also an American company, and twice as much LM.
    2. Satanator
      Satanator 25 January 2018 17: 12 New
      0
      "I am still pleased that the topic of" technical problems "F-35 has exhausted itself. laughing In the absence of these.
      They were, but repaired. "

      Early rejoice! wink - New ones will appear, like any other aircraft. And they will be repaired, the question is only in price and time lol
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 25 January 2018 17: 15 New
        0
        Will appear, will appear. The combat operation of the aircraft began. And in Korea-Japan,
        and in Israel. There will be problems, and alterations, and accidents, possibly brought down.
  15. Dimmih
    Dimmih 25 January 2018 11: 48 New
    +2
    Accept the correction, it is written: "So, for example, if a locksmith is able to make one stool from two boards and four nails for two hours." Stools are usually produced by a carpenter, at worst a carpenter. Locksmith mainly works with metal.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 January 2018 14: 16 New
      +1
      I apologize, it was written on the machine and did not notice when subtracting
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 25 January 2018 16: 31 New
        +2
        When you calculate the cost of what the price of f-35 falls, take into account that the production of 1 aircraft in 2011-153 man hours. And already in 000-2015. In 50.000, 2020 are envisaged.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 25 January 2018 21: 29 New
      0
      Quote: Dimmih
      Accept the correction, it is written: "So, for example, if a locksmith is able to make one stool from two boards and four nails for two hours." Stools are usually produced by a carpenter, at worst a carpenter. Locksmith mainly works with metal.

      He was a teacher of labor, he was at the same time a carpenter, a locksmith, and a turner.
      1. Dimmih
        Dimmih 26 January 2018 07: 44 New
        0
        No, then he is a teacher of labor (or technology), a profession is like that. A carpenter, locksmith and turner are also professions. It’s kind of like a carpenter and a carpenter — both work with wood, but in different ways.
  16. _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 25 January 2018 11: 52 New
    +1
    I liked the phrase -
    More recently, in parallel with the supply of F-35, the Su-35 began to arrive in the Russian Air Force.

    laughing
    if we discard the extreme estimates, then these machines are at least comparable in their combat qualities.
    completely different machines for completely different concepts of aerial combat, when the SU-57 are adopted, it will be possible to compare them, but not with the F-35, but rather with the F-22.
    And at the price of the F-35 several times more expensive than the Su-35, but this does not prevent it from selling well
    1. Satanator
      Satanator 25 January 2018 17: 25 New
      0
      Quote: _Ugene_
      completely different machines for completely different air combat concepts

      well, the F-35 is not for battle at all - such as a flying platform for covert delivery and launch of missiles

      Quote: _Ugene_
      at the price of F-35 several times more expensive than Su-35, but this does not prevent it from selling well

      Well, here buyers just have no choice laughing
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 25 January 2018 18: 56 New
        +2
        Quote: Satanator
        Well, here buyers just have no choice

        What nonsense is this? Even among Jews (they are limited to American) - Penguin, silent needles, superhornet, the latest versions of Falcons. There is also Greenspan, Eurofighter and Rafal, especially for Europeans. But it’s not hard to buy for those who like drying and drying.
    2. Shahno
      Shahno 25 January 2018 19: 01 New
      0
      Not several times, but 2 times. All the same, F35 is the technology of the future. You feel the difference.
  17. Seld
    Seld 25 January 2018 12: 04 New
    +3
    ARTICLE - GUT!
    Quite simply and on the examples of "first-rate macroeconomics" it is stated correctly.
    I have one question for the author: why did the cost of the aircraft of the Russian Federation (produced for rubles !!!) and the United States (produced for bucks ...) be reduced to ..... bucks? Why not the yuan or the pound? Or to the euro? ... It’s not worth talking about world currencies ....
    Let me explain: the economies of the two countries are very different, due to both explicit and hidden features. Even if you just look at the overhead of salaries and taxes ...
    It is not entirely correct to translate tsifiri at the Central Bank rate to obtain actual cost / profit in each specific case (SU and F).
    Why?....
    And ask yourself, from what lyad the cost of goods from China is several times lower than the same "cubicle" from the states or Europe? And the usual explanation of the size of labor costs / s.p. on the forehead will not be so correct. For - "a lot of pitfalls" ... Chinas market prices (in dollars, euros, rubles, yuan, etc.) know at "5"! But they sell their “tambourines” for the same price ... The songs about the conquest of the market have also been heard, do not repeat.
    Regarding sales profits F: it will also be reasonable to take into account the factor (albeit subjective) of possible (or unconditional?!?!?!) Profits in the future that will arise from the application of technologies in the civilian that were found during R&D for the military-industrial complex ... How to count here?
    Regarding the use of “F” in a real theater of war: a personal opinion is “just like rolling a lamborghini on our rural roads” ...
    The story of the Tiger and T-34 tank, when the Aloisovich’s economy simply didn’t pull the cat’s project, is very clear.
    But the article is GUT! Thank!
  18. shinobi
    shinobi 25 January 2018 12: 04 New
    0
    F-35 is frankly weak even in comparison with 15 and 18. Not to mention our 35 crackers. But they buy. The lessons of Vietnam are completely forgotten. Their planes then had only one very small flaw, quickly corrected by costing a couple of dozen shot down cars. There were no cannon weapons. There are many more jambs. Our sawflies and haulers, just fluffy dogs against the background of their lobbyists.
  19. iwind
    iwind 25 January 2018 12: 16 New
    +2
    somehow the author with the numbers cost too much
    The price of R&D is incorrect 55. billion.

    It’s worth adding that this also includes the creation of engines



    Which of course is all the same expensive. But if you look at other projects of the new aircraft, Japan plans to spend 40 billion on 100 aircraft
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-
    jets / japan-plans-july-fighter-jet-tender-seen-wor
    th-40-billion-as-china-tensions-simmer-idUSKCN0ZF
    2Z8
    Turtsaya and the EU are planning on a new aircraft for NIKOR from 20 billion and they are planning it, but as practice has shown, there will certainly not be less expenses.
    This is of course less than for the F-35, but here is one plane, not 3. That is, everyone who talks about their expenses + is the same or more expensive.
    expenses for the Su-35 and Pak-fa are generally classified.
    The quantity is also not quite right. Already the actual is growing from the planned ILC order to the base plan added 13 pieces. And annual additional purchases are not yet included; they are not included in the basic plan. For 2018, up to 90 pieces were added only in the USA (F-35A -60 24 F-35B and 6 F-35C) + foreigners.
    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congr
    ess / 2017/11/17 / whats-inside-the-700-billion-defen
    se-budget-plan-headed-to-trumps-desk /
    so skepticism about 1000 is somewhat premature, and even with the growth in export orders that is now observed ... it’s definitely premature
    The target cost per unit is no longer 85, but 89 or lower by 2020
    https://www.rt.com/business/393015-lockheed-deal-
    jets-sale /
    https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/10/24/pentag
    on-kicks-off-intensive-f-35-cost-review /
    The engine in 2017 for the F-35a was worth 12.889 million.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 January 2018 14: 19 New
      +1
      Quote: iwind
      The price of R&D is incorrect 55. billion.

      It’s true, since in the 55 billion, as I understand it, the purchase and operation of prototypes are not included
      1. iwind
        iwind 25 January 2018 14: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        It’s true, since in the 55 billion, as I understand it, the purchase and operation of prototypes are not included

        Included.
        14 prototype is not even included in the total number of F-35. All this is separate from the production and operation program, as you wrote NIKOR, these are separate budgets.


        * The target cost per unit is no longer 85, but 80 or lower by 2020
        https://www.rt.com/business/393015-lockheed-deal-
        jets-sale /
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 January 2018 14: 58 New
          +1
          OK, let's look at the source where you get 55 billion from. Please give me the link or at least the full name of the document
          1. iwind
            iwind 25 January 2018 15: 00 New
            +1
            f-35 sar 2018
            https://fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR-2018.pdf
            The openness of the JSF program is unique.
            from there same flight hour expenses
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              25 January 2018 16: 03 New
              +1
              I want to say right away that I only have English through a translator, but I don’t understand where you got 55 billion from. To the cost table, where 55 billion appears
              Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) dated March 09, 2012
              what translator translates as
              Cost Assessment and Program Analysis (CAP) Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) dates back to 09 March 2012
              The tape with reference to the GAO gives 56,1 billion in 11.
              1. iwind
                iwind 25 January 2018 17: 02 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) dated March 09, 2012
                what translator translates as
                Cost Assessment and Program Analysis (CAP) Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) dates back to 09 March 2012

                yes .. Just pay attention to the fact that in this table TY $ M (current year)
                in 2012 what they expected point comparison
                here, over the years until the end of development, at the end of total, it is written


                Letna is likely about the total cost until the end of development.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  25 January 2018 18: 45 New
                  +1
                  Quote: iwind
                  here, over the years until the end of development, at the end of total, it is written

                  It’s painted :))) It’s just that it’s by no means actual costs that are painted, but some expectations, which, alas, in no way intersect with reality. If you wish, I can send you the budgets of the US Armed Forces - there are completely different numbers.
                  For example, at 2017 -2018, development costs were 2,4-1,7 billion.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 25 January 2018 19: 00 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    For example, at 2017 -2018, development costs were 2,4-1,7 billion.




                    or for modernization?
                  2. iwind
                    iwind 25 January 2018 19: 51 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    For example, for 2017 -2018, development costs were $ 2,4-1,7 billion

                    exactly?
                    Air Force Budget

                    looked GAO report the same amount of 55
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      26 January 2018 14: 28 New
                      +1
                      Quote: iwind
                      exactly?

                      More precisely - RDT & E + Spares not decrypted by me
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 26 January 2018 14: 48 New
                        +1
                        spares parts
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 January 2018 15: 35 New
      0
      Here are the data on the production of F-35 only for the United States until 2044. No fast growing
      sales to foreigners.

      The US Department of Defense said on July 10 [2017] it plans to purchase 2,456 F-35 jets,
      up from 2,443.
      The program, as it is currently outlined, would deliver the final jets in fiscal 2044
  20. Gennady Fyodorov
    Gennady Fyodorov 25 January 2018 14: 11 New
    0
    Great calculation! However, it does not take into account the fact that the price of labor of both R&D development engineers and production workers and workers in the Russian Federation is at least 10 times lower than the price of the same in the USA! "Cheap, cheap!" Is this for Mikoyan and Poghosyan? And for Sukhoi Design Bureau with Mikoyan? For them, almost for nothing. For a crust of bread in a "sharashka"!
    1. Gennady Fyodorov
      Gennady Fyodorov 25 January 2018 14: 22 New
      0
      Great calculation! However, it does not take into account the fact that the price of labor of both R&D development engineers and production workers and workers in the Russian Federation is at least 10 times lower than the price of the same in the USA! "Cheap, cheap!" Is this for Mikoyan and Poghosyan? And for Sukhoi Design Bureau with Mikoyan? For them, almost for nothing. For a crust of bread in a "sharashka"! And so everywhere in the Soviet-Russian economy. Deception, deceit and deceit, hidden behind a mass of details! Deceiving engineers and workers creating weapons to protect their deceivers! There is no sense, no purpose! Enthusiasm and patriotism end! Korolev and Kalashnikov received as much as the boy Prokhorov kidnapped? Or Burkhanich grabbed. After serving time in the jail, without working and in general, having created nothing in life? Economists! You still do not take into account intangible assets - patents and know-how, without which nothing new is obtained! Accountants ... Therefore, the economist should never manage production! His business is to count losses! And he will never create “savings” and profit all the more with his stupid logic (arithmetic of the 3rd grade of the Church and Parish School) in the modern world!
  21. valerij
    valerij 25 January 2018 14: 44 New
    0
    I came to a briefing, saw a grandmother ..., fainted. The general was weak ..
  22. SPLV
    SPLV 25 January 2018 14: 58 New
    0
    Educational program for non-economics was a success. Very competently. Many are useful and interesting, affordable to chew for young people.
    But, Andrey, the English "profit" is "profit", "profit" in Russian. And “margin” is value added. Well, as a last resort "exhaust".
    "It is annoying to me when the innocent are beaten ..." And this is the beating of infants, that is, clogging the heads. I would even put it - a kind of populism, no offense will be said.
    1. Do not care
      Do not care 25 January 2018 18: 09 New
      +1
      Can I also put my five cents in your discussion:

      Profit - profit
      Profit margin - Profitability or rate of return

      The word “margin” itself has a lot of meanings and is not used without reference to a specific subject. The exact meaning of the Russified “margin” is a mystery to me.
      And the added value or margin is Markup
      1. SPLV
        SPLV 25 January 2018 21: 25 New
        +1
        Quote: Do not care
        Profit - profit

        I guess I didn’t express my thought that way. It’s simply fundamentally against adding, and eventually replacing, with foreign words the traditional Russian lexicon. The use of many clever foreign words in domestic texts most often indicates insufficient knowledge of the topic. And if a competent person uses them out of place, then for me it is either populism, or neglect of the reader, or sabotage in order to destroy the language, then culture and society, even if the writer himself does not understand this. This is not a crime, but much worse - this is a mistake.
        And the margin (originally appeared at exchange traders, as far as I remember), profit (appeared at students from foreign programs and just those who like to show off) and profit in a modern philistine vocabulary are synonyms.
  23. gladcu2
    gladcu2 25 January 2018 14: 58 New
    +2
    So much for K. Marx, with accessible concepts.

    Capitalism is the value of the surplus-margin. The goal of capitalism is profit.

    Socialism in the price of goods includes margin but is tight, often administratively regulated.

    Communism is the principle of socialism but without a monetary system. There is no margin.

    Under communism, power is realized through trust, not an assembly system. This phrase is not clear. But explain for a long time.
  24. Town Hall
    Town Hall 25 January 2018 16: 47 New
    +1
    "...So, in 2008, the Pentagon announced that the engine for the F-35A costs $ 16 million, and for the F-35B - $ 38 million..."


    http://www.difesaonline.it/mondo-militare/f-35-gl
    i-attuali-costi-air-force-è-semper-una-questione-
    di-soldi


    Look here. The cost of the aircraft, as well as the cost, body, engine, avionics separately. For fiscal year 2016
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 26 January 2018 06: 46 New
      0
      Quote: Town Hall
      Look here. The cost of the aircraft, as well as the cost, body, engine, avionics separately. For fiscal year 2016

      The numbers are very strange. It seems that most of the electronics and software are stuck in the “glider”. On non-current aircraft, it is electronics and software that have the greatest financial weight, NNP.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 26 January 2018 08: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        The numbers are very strange




        Perhaps the cost of the Stealth hull (in proportion naturally) is higher than the cost of the hull of an ordinary airplane.
  25. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 25 January 2018 17: 15 New
    0
    For comparison, the latest F-15 versions (despite such pricing) still cost about 100 million .... The Boeing company, offering the F-15SE fighter to the market, believes that with its help it will be possible to extend the operation of aircraft for a considerable time. The Air Force expects to keep at least 200 F-15E fighter-bombers in service until 2035. The company estimates that the estimated price of the F-15SE aircraft could be about $ 100 million, taking into account spare parts and maintenance costs for radio-absorbing coatings.
  26. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 25 January 2018 17: 18 New
    0
    Accordingly, the question: Why will a plane with more expensive and sophisticated electronics be cheaper and cheaper all the time ....? You can compare with the latest versions of the F-16 and F-18 there the price tag will also be 80-100 million dollars. And all the costs of their R&D and production lines have long fallen off.
    1. sabotage
      sabotage 25 January 2018 23: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Accordingly, the question: Why will a plane with more expensive and sophisticated electronics be cheaper and cheaper all the time ....? You can compare with the latest versions of the F-16 and F-18 there the price tag will also be 80-100 million dollars. And all the costs of their R&D and production lines have long fallen off.

      This is when they fought back? Take the F16 of the early blocks and compare with the F16 block 52, so there is nothing to do except the glider. And to push new weapons into the old mass-dimensional characteristics is still a pleasure, both for designers and for production workers. And this is in the complete absence of prospects for contracts for hundreds of pieces.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 27 January 2018 21: 27 New
        0
        F16 and F-18 have the same situation as the MiG-29/35 upgraded glider. (once). Accordingly, the costs of building the plant, R&D of the airframe and engine have long been repelled .... F-16 is generally a record holder in terms of units ..... and nevertheless, $ 80 million (80 ... Karl).
        A plane with a large weight, a large engine, with a STELS coating made from scratch ... cheaper and cheaper ...
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 26 January 2018 21: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      their R&D and production lines have long fought back

      uh, when is it? On a non-modernized plane - by itself. Each new “block” is a new OCD with all that it implies plus preparation for production. Do you think that somewhere there were funny altruists who had modernized the plane for nothing? laughing
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. Mih1974
    Mih1974 25 January 2018 19: 14 New
    0
    All these “accounting” dances with tambourines are not so interesting until the comparison with the Su-35 lol No matter how much the “pregnant cow” is advertised, even the mattresses recognize that it is only under the cover of AWACS and from afar to fight the Su-35 laughing . Melee - contraindicated from the word Absolutely. belay laughing
    But no one promised the actual “greenhouse conditions” and easily, from the “other side”, there can be (and should) be an AWACS plane. After which all the vaunted or even sectarian "invisibility" - instantly become Visibility. And actually the aircraft of the AWACS of the Americans and NATO - no one guarantees an easy life. repeat
    And these are just my complete amateur assumptions. After this, I can not even try to convince me and others of the “prodigy” of the Fu-35.
    1. sd68
      sd68 25 January 2018 21: 16 New
      +2
      The situation with the F-35 is understandable - the platform has an all-round view, after adding a helmet that is being developed, and missiles with a full-sphere destruction zone and capturing a target after launch like Israeli Python 5, the F-35 will be ready for close combat with any enemy and it will not This will require special maneuverability.
      Obviously there will be some block number .....
    2. sabotage
      sabotage 26 January 2018 22: 35 New
      0
      Quote: Mih1974
      but even the mattresses admit that she is only under the cover of AWACS and from afar to fight the Su-35

      Who recognized what there?
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 27 January 2018 00: 27 New
        0
        Quote: sabotage
        Who recognized what there?

        Except for the tone, it is stated correctly. G5 is the second attempt after the 60s to create an airplane that is so good at DVB that BVB with its participation is excluded. The first time did not work. Now - maybe yes.
        Accordingly, it is not designed for BVB.
        1. sabotage
          sabotage 27 January 2018 19: 09 New
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Accordingly, it is not designed for BVB.

          That is, he carries missiles and can’t use them?
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 27 January 2018 23: 32 New
            +1
            Quote: sabotage
            That is, he carries missiles and can’t use them?

            Multi-angle rockets are unsportsmanlike. With them, Hercules will be beaten, by the way, will raise more. Does the penguin have a gun? In a cannon fight can? Huh? That's the same.
  29. sd68
    sd68 25 January 2018 21: 35 New
    +2
    There is no point in comparing the price with planes of past generations, the 5th generation is clearly more expensive and will still go up.
    The Americans make the platform, and then implement it in countless “blocks”, “lots” and other “baselines” that more fully realize the platform’s built-in capabilities - it can be seen that on planes, like F-16, that on ships are the same Arly Burke Strengthen your capabilities repeatedly and this process is ongoing.
    The same is seen for fifth-generation aircraft, for example, on the English Wikipedia page it says that after modernization, the capabilities of the F-22 radars improved markedly.
    F-22s from Lot 5 and on are equipped with the AN / APG-77v1, which provides full air-to-ground functionality (high-resolution synthetic aperture radar mapping, ground moving target indication and track (GMTI / GMTT), automatic cueing and recognition, combat identification, and many other advanced features). [130] [131] The APG-77v1 with newer GaAs modules provides a range of 250 mi (400 km) or more; this is believed to be possible due to the use of more narrow beams

    A similar situation with the F-35 is taken into service in the form of a minimal weapon carrier platform, and then finalized.
    Initially, they created the possibility of a full-spherical view, now they add a helmet to it, and after that they add a near-range missile with a full-spherical zone of destruction, which means high maneuverability up to the ability to reverse the flight direction, with ANN and capturing a target after launch like Israeli Python 5 (or will finalize the AIM-9 Sidewinder to the desired specifications), however, I’m sure that the Israelis will be the first to add the Python 5 to the F-35 and get an excellent melee system without any UVT.
  30. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte 26 January 2018 00: 48 New
    0
    Are you seriously? R&D at your own expense? Maybe someone has, but not the Americans.
    For example, the ATF program - in response to those issued by those. requirements, several companies presented their outline designs, some based on existing machines, in any case, the silhouettes of the F-16, X-29, SR-71 are obvious.
    https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2011-12/132344372
    8_F-22_RFI.jpg
    Of these firms, two were selected and each paid $ 800 + million for two prototypes.
    That is, only a small part of R&D turned out to be unpaid by the customer.

    As for cheap domestic ...
    A batch of Su-30MKM in Malaysia was sold at a price of $ 50 million apiece. This price includes expenses for training pilots and ground personnel, preparing ground infrastructure, sending the Malaysian cosmonaut into space, intermediary profit and other “overhead costs” (about 25% of the price). Well, the manufacturer’s profit (about 25% of the price).
    At the same time, the same manufacturer supplies the Su-34 Air Force with its relatives ... also at a price of $ 50 million apiece. The product itself is hardly more expensive (engines without UVT, electronics are not imported, but domestic), there are no intermediaries, the infrastructure and trained personnel are due to the Air Force. That is, the manufacturer makes additional profit by selling one plane to the Motherland at the price of two. Or shifts the costs of sending Malaysians into space on the shoulders of their own taxpayers. Watching how to evaluate.
  31. Korax71
    Korax71 26 January 2018 00: 48 New
    +1
    Hello, Andrei. The article is good, and the material in it and in the comments to the article is pretty well covered. You are probably one of the few authors whose articles are informative and interesting to read. However, I believe that it’s still too much to consider how expensive the project with the penguin early. well, and probably we won’t be able to calculate the effect of design decisions in related areas of this program, well, or the modernization potential inherent, because usually everything is laid at the development stage. It’s like with high-rise buildings in the USA. Providing a project for construction, it should automatically provide the project for its demolition. On the one hand, it seems like a rise in price, but on the other, it saves in the future.
  32. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte 26 January 2018 08: 48 New
    +1
    But the US allies can get this plane much cheaper. The fact is that American taxpayers have already “kindly” paid Lockheed Martin for its research and development costs, so it has already compensated them, and it makes no sense to re-deposit these costs in the price of their aircraft for other countries. Moreover, deliveries to the USAF compensated all the overheads related to the F-35! That is, Lockheed Martin will be enough if the price of the aircraft exceeds the direct costs of its production - in this case, the company will cover its costs of producing the aircraft and will receive some other profit from above. Therefore, we can expect that for third-party consumers in the same 2019 g the price of the F-35A may fall even lower than the 85 million dollars. But, again, this is possible only because American Sami and Johns have already paid for R & D to develop F-35 and overhead "Lockheed Martin" - foreign buyers to pay these huge costs (and we are talking about tens of millions of dollars in terms of one aircraft) is no longer necessary.

    Not quite right. 8 countries, except the United States, took part in the JSF program and invested $ 4,5 billion in it (of which about 2 billion is the share of the United Kingdom) before closing applications for participation in the program in 2002. At this point, development costs amounted to 19 billion. That is, 23,6% of R&D paid by foreign customers.
    Just the F-35 program differs from the usual practice of delivering aircraft for export exclusively through the Arms Export Commission, which excludes foreign participation in R&D and does not allow the possibility of preparing production at foreign capacities.
    Thus, “Lockheed” will begin to “make profit at the expense of taxpayers” only after the completion of deliveries to program participants.
    And it is worth considering that the F-35 is actually three different planes, i.e., the R&D costs in the cost of one side should, for good, be divided by 3 (although this is not entirely correct - the largest costs were for modification B, volumes of purchases which is the smallest).
  33. Radio technician
    Radio technician 26 January 2018 10: 36 New
    0
    Hello! Much more important for military technology is the "payback". Let's say the development of an air defense system and its purchase price can be much more than the development and purchase price of an aircraft. But if the complex crashes the plane on approach to the cover object, then it is believed that it paid for itself, even if it is then destroyed.
  34. dmb91
    dmb91 27 January 2018 20: 01 New
    0
    Great article. Everything is very accessible, clear, understandable. THANK!
  35. 3danimal
    3danimal 3 February 2018 14: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Satanator
    well, the F-35 is not for battle at all - such as a flying platform for covert delivery and launch of missiles

    A strange approach .. And how do you imagine a modern air battle - in the spirit of the Vietnam War or the 2nd World War? With cannons and medium-range short-range missiles?
    Look at the statistics of clashes in the air with the participation of NATO aircraft since the 90s: conventionally medium-range missiles AMRAAM were widely used, very effective by the way.
    The F-35 has maneuverability at the 4th generation level, the 5th is made by stealth, the latest radar and the DAS thermal sensor system, as well as the cruising “supersonic”.
    Let me remind you that the "stealth" does not make it "invisible", but significantly reduces the detection range of modern centimeter and decimeter radars.
    Radar "meter" range, which some like to give out as a panacea, are not accurate enough for guiding missiles and have multi-meter sizes, hopelessly outdated.
  36. 3danimal
    3danimal 3 February 2018 15: 16 New
    0
    Quote: shinobi
    F-35 is frankly weak even in comparison with 15 and 18. Not to mention our 35 crackers. But they buy. The lessons of Vietnam are completely forgotten. Their planes then had only one very small flaw, quickly corrected by costing a couple of dozen shot down cars. There were no cannon weapons. There are much more stocks.

    Do you know something about the F-35 and F-15, F-18?
    The last fought? Once upon a time they were new.
    Guns? There is, as on the MiG-21 (more maneuverable), this did not help them much in Iraq.
    "Childhood diseases? Everyone had it, it’s solved.
    The only advantages of the Su-35 are its longer flight range and deflected thrust vector. The radar of the 35th previous generation, only the radar created by the Su-57 can be compared.