The USAF did post “Non-Recurring” (YELLOW Lines in the pic below) costs for the F-35A in the latest budget docs ($7.8mil)… they just added it in as part of the “Recurring costs”.

Go back a few years and you will see how it was supposed to be listed (ie after Recurring costs)

Here is the current USN Budget shown with the numbers in the correct location.

Keep in mind that there was an artificial 5% SDD fuel buffer that is being removed since SDD is ending this year. This is the likely reason why it got a large jump in range for the FY2018 SAR.

The equation does not include a buffer margin of 5% of fuel capacity, which is intended to be preserved through the end of the flight test period in 2016. Eliminating the buffer margin adds another 72.4km to the aircraft’s combat radius, the source said.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35a-may-need-mods-to-fix-range-shortfall-356581/

That’s what I get for posting at work…

If it’s a large/slow/high flyer then it not a “fighter”, it’s a surveillance drone.

Um.. Why are you linking WW2 fighters in a discussion about a solar & battery powered fighter????

Solar Impulse flew 50mph with 270m^2 of solar panels while weighing 5000 lbs.

A fighter would have a significantly smaller wing & weigh significantly more while powering a significantly less efficient power plant not to mention that a fighter has to fly at night, in bad weather, etc. Hell, just turning drops the solar collection values significantly.

You are seriously high if you think that a fighter sized aircraft can be powered from solar & batteries.

I don’t see how this can make any difference since it would be the same amount of watts being removed from the engine.