I based that on an Inflationary figure of 18.8million from 1998 based on F16C block 52 not a newer version.
So comparing apples to oranges then.
If you consider the Maturity of the design and numbers built a very low per unit cost is logical for a 4th gen F16 a design over 40 years old vs A very high per unit cost and new design of less than a decade for F22.
That's very good reasoning, but too bad it doesn't stack up to the reality of how much late gen F16s are going for these days.
Is the latest new built Blk52 really more than twice the plane of the 1998 version, even adjusting for inflation? To justify more than double the price tag? Especially considering the upgrade in performance you get get by applying a decent MLU to your 1998 vintage F16 and still have a total package price of around half what new built F16s are going for today.
It makes zero sense to insist them Chinese will see a similar, unjustifiably huge, price spike in their weapons costs just because America is suffering such a problem.
and travel back in time and this argument gets repeated with every first of it's kind new generation. " Why do we need carriers When we have Battleships, Why do we need Radar when we have eye sight, Why missiles when we have cannon, Why Subs when we have destroyers, Why Tanks when we have Cavalry..." and yet What has happened?
Yeah, nice cherry picking there. But you perhaps didn't notice the gaping holes in your reasoning.
Firstly and most obviously, not everything America makes is a sure-fire blockbuster success.
There are plenty of firsts that have gone down like a lead ballon never to be resurrected.
Based on performance, costs-benefit analysis and intended role, the examples I listed don't look anything like a blockbuster ready to change the game, and seem more like near misses or even outright flops.
Funny you brought up the whole carrier vs battleship example, since the DDG1000 is a battleship, with the big guns to prove it. Do you want to work out which side you want to take first?
The LCS is over-engineered, over costed and under-armed, and there are two different designs both aiming to fill exactly the same roles because that makes perfect sense.
The F35 looks OK in isolation, but it's entering service more than a decade after the F22, does it look or feel like a decade beyond the F22?
How many pilots would seriously pick the F35 over the F22 in a fight, even with the F22 in its current, politically motivated, upgrade starved form?
The F22 was a blockbuster. The F35 is like your typical sequel.
The Russians and Chinese are racing to catch up to F35 And F22.
F22 yes, F35, not so much.
Nor do you see them in any hurry to make their own LCS or DDG1000.
Just because the US decided to go a certain direction is by no means any proof or guarante that that is the right path for America to be taking, never mind China, who has a very different security environment and needs.
Similarly, just because the US arms industry is charging unjustifiable price hikes is no indication that the Chinese arms industry will do the same.
