[tw04]

If you read the source article, that's not what it actually says. What it says:

>Program costs—originally estimated at $4 billion for the United States — increased by $7.7 billion last year with $6.3 billion of this resulting from the addition of 73 F‐16B two‐seater aircraft to the program. The Air Force believes it can justify the addition of the other $1.4 billion.

So... it increased $7.7B with $6.3B of that being additional planes ordered.

That's a FAR cry from the F-35 costs which increased... because increase. Not because more orders were placed.

The F-35 program is at $1.8 TRILLION dollars, the F-16 would have needed to be $360 BILLION to be equivalent waste. They're not even in the same universe.

[ChrisLomont]

>The F-35 program is at $1.8 TRILLION dollars

That is the projected costs for it's lifetime, i.e., through 2070, an astounding 50 years from now. It is not at 1.8T in spending at the moment.

You're not comparing the same things.

[tw04]

The total cost of the F-16 program which was started in 1973 (an astounding 48 years ago) isn't anything approaching $360 billion.

I am comparing the same thing.

[ChrisLomont]

No, you're not. You're not accounting for inflation. You're not accounting for capability. You're not accounting for length of service times number of planes. You're not accounting for sales. You're not accounting for a host of relevant factors.

You're simply taking two numbers, looing at the nominal values, and doing a simply multiply, then concluding these are equivalent waste. You ignored so many relevant factors that it makes this simplistic "comparison" irrelevant.

[tw04]

I can't tell if you're just accusing me of what you've done or not actually reading any of the posts.

>No, you're not. You're not accounting for inflation.

Where exactly do you think the $1.8 Trillion >> $360 Billion number came from? Hint: it's accounting for inflation.

> You're not accounting for capability.

Capability is irrelevant to the discussion of gross cost overruns.

>You're not accounting for length of service times number of planes.

I literally am. The F-16 has been in service for almost as long as the projected F-35 which I stated in the post you were replying to. Except nobody actually believes there's any planet that the F-35 will ever be in service 50 years.

>You're not accounting for sales.

Again, I am. The F-35 will never EVER reach the sales numbers the F-16 has. Period.

>You're not accounting for a host of relevant factors.

I welcome a list of those factors. Everything you've mentioned so far has been accounted for by me, but apparently not you.

>You're simply taking two numbers, looing at the nominal values, and doing a simply multiply, then concluding these are equivalent waste. You ignored so many relevant factors that it makes this simplistic "comparison" irrelevant.

I didn't do that at all, and if I had it'd still be more than you appear to have done.

[ChrisLomont]

>>You're not accounting for inflation.

> Hint: it's accounting for inflation.

You started with a quote from what you called the source article, then concluded "So... it increased $7.7B with $6.3B of that being additional planes ordered."

Here's the source article [1] for your quote. From May 1, 1977. So try again to your values are inflation adjusted. They're not. The numbers you started with are 1977 nominal dollars. They had no idea you'd be quoting them in 2021 so there's no way they would have written those 1977 values in 2021 dollars for you to quote today. The other numbers for future F-35 costs also are not inflation adjusted. Track down the source and check; I did. They're nominal figures, added from each years budget. You're just making these claims up as you go.

Since you claim things that are so demonstrably untrue, apparently assuming I'll just believe you, it's not worth continuing.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1977/05/01/archives/f-16-fighter-pro...

[tw04]

The NYtimes article quotes a GAO report, which is THE SOURCE. The $360B quotes was what $1.8Trillion would equate to in 1977 dollars, inflation.

You have yet to provide a single number or source to your claims despite continuing to insist I have no idea what I'm talking about, until you do actually show up with some numbers to back up your claims I'm done with the conversation and will assume at this point you're just arguing for the sake of being a troll.