with $400,000 each for pilot 'helmets'

[suprunp]

The $400 billion spent on developing a new fighter jet (with $400,000 each for pilot 'helmets') could have given [...]
(Phantom Self; D. Icke)

Would you be so kind as to tell me what exactly it means here? Does it mean that $400,000 (for pilot helmets) is spent for each fighter jet?

Thanks.

 

[ChinaDan]

It just means that each pilot helmet costs $400,000.

The context is about highlighting this cost as something you are supposed to see as an absurd amount of money for a helmet (I can buy a quality motorcycle helmet for about $400).

 

[suprunp]

It just means that each pilot helmet costs $400,000.

But it doesn't say "with $400,000 for each pilot 'helmet'", but "with $400,000 each for pilot 'helmets'".

It might also mean that each new fighter jet has two pilots and therefore it's $400,000 for two helmets, might it not?

Thanks.

 

[ChinaDan]

But it doesn't say "with $400,000 for each pilot 'helmet'", but "with $400,000 each for pilot 'helmets'".

It might also mean that each new fighter jet has two pilots and therefore it's $400,000 for two helmets, might it not?

"...with $400,000 each for pilot helmets" equals "...with $400,000 for each pilot helmet".

It means the same thing - these are just different ways to write it.

 

[suprunp]

So have I understood it correctly that 'each' here simply cannot refer back to 'fighter jet'?

Thanks.

 

[GoesStation]

I think the sentence is deliberately ambiguous. It could well be that $400,000 of each plane's total cost is devoted to providing the two helmets required.

 

[Matthew Wai]

So have I understood it correctly that 'each' here simply cannot refer back to 'fighter jet'?

My understanding is that 'each' here refers to 'fighter jet'.

(I can buy a quality motorcycle helmet for about $400).

It is even cheaper in your current location.

 

[Barb_D]

My understanding is that 'each' here refers to 'fighter jet'.

No, there's not reason to think that. The billions refer to developing the entire program, including the costs for the materials and production of each jet.
I would have understood that it was each helmet. If the cost has been listed for each individual airplane, then the "$400,000 each for the helmets" might imply one for every person on the plane.

However, if you read the article: the single-seat F-35
So one plane = one pilot = one helmet = $400,000 each helmet.

In addition, it's not just to protect the pilot's head: its specialized helmet display gives pilots a 360-degree view of their surroundings.

The head unit, made with help from Lockheed Martin (which designed the F-35) is way more than a protective shell. Built around a custom-fitted insert based on a 3-D scan of the pilot’s noggin, it combines noise-canceling headphones, night vision, a forehead-mounted computer, and a projector. (https://www.wired.com/2016/06/course-f-35-comes-400000-augmented-reality-helmet/) This article asks if the helmet is an accessory to the airplane or the airplane is an accessory to the helmet.
When tethered to the plane, the helmet gives pilots the combined visual capabilities of Superman and Iron Man, if they were flying Wonder Woman’s invisible plane.

 

[SoothingDave]

I think "helmet" is in quotes here to demonstrate that it is much more than a simple helmet.

 

[emsr2d2]

I took it to mean that $400,000 of the $400 billion (total cost for one fighter jet) was used to purchase however many helmets are needed for that jet.

 

[ChinaDan]

So have I understood it correctly that 'each' here simply cannot refer back to 'fighter jet'?

Thanks.

Well, yes, I suppose it could. If that is the intent, I'd say this could have been written better. But you are correct; it is a possible interpretation. I didn't see it at first because it appeared more strongly associated with "helmets".

 

[Matthew Wai]

Well, yes, I suppose it could.

Does the above disagree with the following?

No, there's not reason to think that.

 

[ChinaDan]

Matthew, when you read the rest of Barb_D's post, you realize she isn't saying categorically that this alternate interpretation is impossible. All of us native speakers, I think, saw no reason to analyze the statement beyond associating the "each" with the helmets. I think that is the most natural interpretation.

In view of the OP's specific question, however, I now concede that it is possible to associate "each" with the fighter jets. I still think most native speakers would associate it with the helmets, but the alternative is possible.

And this is an excellent example of something I might write the way the OP asked the question, but later while proofreading rewrite in a way to remove ambiguity.

So, "no", I don't think my position is in conflict with Barb_D at all.

 

[Matthew Wai]

All of us native speakers, I think, saw no reason to analyze the statement beyond associating the "each" with the helmets.

Did the following native speaker think otherwise?

It could well be that $400,000 of each plane's total cost is devoted to providing the two helmets required.

 

[ChinaDan]

GoesStation was responding to the OP post pointing to the alternate interpretation as far as I can tell.

I assume, like me, when the OP pressed, he looked again and saw the ambiguity.

You should probably ask GoesStation, however. I'm not clear on where you are trying to go with this.

 

[Tdol]

The overall helmet coverage could involve more than one layer and be put on separately.