this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
7 points (70.6% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7382 readers
233 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

It's likely he pulled it out of his ass, much like a lot of the headlines he throws up.

The mission-capable rate is 55 percent, but that definition is for a single-task mission. Considering the F-35 is meant to have multiple missions, the report is a bit damning on the supply issue. However, the report is meant to highlight the issues so that the military can take over supply and maintenance in 2027. And a lot of the issues are lack of supply and depots for maintenance.

The $1.7 trillion is an estimated cost over the lifecycle of the entire F-35 fleet of 2500 planes. The F-22 first flew in 1990 and entered service in 2005. So 20-30 years would be a decent lifecycle. The math for the F-35, using 20 year lifecycle, comes out to about $65 billion/yr for 2500 planes or $26 million/yr per plane. Part of the report is also providing recommendations on lowering maintenance costs.

It's still a lot of money, but when we're talking decades, we need to put that into perspective when healthcare spending in the US is $4.5 trillion per year.

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Bro hasn't made a single mistake in his life what a legend

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago

that's a whole lot of copium you got there