It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The article says that,
One Pentagon estimate last year for an aircraft plus support costs for the first few years came out at £154m ($253m) each.
I know that the cost per plane over the lifetime of the production run will fall, but is £154m, initially, each just too much?
Would an adapted version of the Typhoon not have been cheaper and just as capable?
"The aircraft, originally called the Eurofighter in a joint project with Germany, Italy and Spain, was conceived in the cold war when the Ministry of Defence ordered 232. The RAF will end up having fewer than half that number from a project in which the cost of each plane has increased by 75% to £126m each.
The overall project is costing £20.2bn, £3.5bn more than first expected, says the report by MPs on the Commons cross-party public accounts committee. The RAF has had to spend an extra £2.7bn buying 16 additional aircraft it does not need to honour contractual commitments to other countries producing the planes. In 2019, it will scrap more than 50 Typhoon jets that became operational only three years ago to a cost of more than £4.5bn because it cannot afford to update them.
reply to post by buster2010
The U.S. has bought planes from England. No reason the reverse isn't applicable.
The cost of developing a similar stealth aircraft would cost England far more.
A "well placed bullet" will stop ANY modern aircraft.
All fleets have high down time with all the gizmos, coatings and the like. A still developing airframe has higher down time...yawn.
reply to post by aboutface
China and Russia between them have three stealth aircrafy under development already.
The British are calling it the "Lightning 2".