It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First F/A-22 crash

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Based on 1998-99 figures, the price per plane is 187.3 million.
F-22 Raptor Cost

This source (PBS) states that the cost range between:


The price tag: At least $70 billion. Depending on whos doing the counting, each plane will cost somewhere between $70 million and $160 million, at least twice as much as the F-15, the fighter the F-22 is replacing.

THE F-22 DEBATE

And this edu site says:


the Raptor's high production price tag--$125 million per aircraft, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate

The Plane Truth: Fewer F-22s Mean a Stronger National Defense

Hehehe, I'd go for the "between 70-160 million"......




seekerof


Last I heard the USAF is getting 331 F-22's. Altough it was posted in september '99...




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
From the link in my earlier post, I quote:



Air Force officials announced 07 November 2002 a potential cost overrun of up to $690 million in the engineering, manufacturing and development phase of the F/A-22 program. The potential overrun appeared to be related to achieving cost and schedule in the developmental phase of the program, officials said. It is not related to its technology or performance. The aircraft remains on schedule for first aircraft delivery in 2004 and initial operational capability in 2005 as planned. The projected overrun is about 3.3 percent of the program's $20 billion development phase and about 1 percent of the program's $69.7 billion estimated total pricetag. The Pentagon approved an $876 million restructure to finance the extended development effort. The restructure sliced $763 million from the procurement profile, cutting 49 airframes from years 2004 to 2009. This decision brought the procurement profile from 325 to 276 through FY-09.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
From the link in my earlier post, I quote:



Air Force officials announced 07 November 2002 a potential cost overrun of up to $690 million in the engineering, manufacturing and development phase of the F/A-22 program. The potential overrun appeared to be related to achieving cost and schedule in the developmental phase of the program, officials said. It is not related to its technology or performance. The aircraft remains on schedule for first aircraft delivery in 2004 and initial operational capability in 2005 as planned. The projected overrun is about 3.3 percent of the program's $20 billion development phase and about 1 percent of the program's $69.7 billion estimated total pricetag. The Pentagon approved an $876 million restructure to finance the extended development effort. The restructure sliced $763 million from the procurement profile, cutting 49 airframes from years 2004 to 2009. This decision brought the procurement profile from 325 to 276 through FY-09.


That is an incorrect number, the USAF will be receving at least 300 (305) raptors.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Crashes happen; the same kind of criticism is on the Marine Corps V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft; everyone calls it dangerous because it had a few crashes, which they fixed the errors too; they also now know that you cannot take the aircraft into a certain dive and expect it to recover.

But I mean when the Huey helicopter first came out, they didn't know it at the time, but if you maneuvered it a certain way, the main rotor would detach. The Blackhawk had a big problem when it first came out, but when repaired, it has proven to be one of the greatest helos out there. And the Apache had its share of problems too.

Crashes happen. And I would not simply say that "the pilot was an idiot." Test pilot school in the United States Air Force or Navy is for the ELITE OF THE ELITE. Foreign countries send their pilots our test-pilot schools. You have to do some hard-core academics and some hard-core flying. You have to be able to fly well, you must have an advanced degree in engineering, mathematics, or science, and you must know the aircraft you are flying. You are required to write 20+ page technical papers on evaluating the aircraft and such.

So I seriously doubt a test pilot piloting the F/A-22 Raptor, of all aircraft, is going to be any idiot. Also, to even get into USAF or US Navy Test Pilot School (they each have their own test pilot schools), you have to be a damn good fighter jet pilot from the start!

Another thing is, usually, because of the above, test pilots aren't young hot shots, they're the older, more experienced guys and gals, usually with wives (or husbands) and children. They aren't gonna do anything stupid while flying that could make them a widower.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

That is an incorrect number, the USAF will be receving at least 300 (305) raptors.


If you have more correct fiscal report figures, please share! It doesnt matter what the USAF says, its what the budget reports say that matters. And the figures in the budget report usually go down over time, rather than up. All the figures I have thus managed to come up with have all supported my origional post of a reduction to 276 aircraft.

Remember that the airforce origionally asked for 600 F-22s, and this has been steadily reduced over the years. The F-22 has gone through major role changes, with increased varieties of weapons being made available, as its scope has been widened to cover other areas.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I highly doubt the flight control software has anything to do with this mishap. The VMS program is one of the more reliable systems on the air vehicle. More than likely there was an AMAD issue causing a fire. It is an open bay all the way to the top of the fuselage, so that would explain the reports of seeing fire coming from the top.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
This crash will not harm the F-22 program. This was one of 33 OPERATIONAL aircraft already delivered to they Air Force at Tyndall, Eglin, and Nellis Air Force Bases. It was not a test bed aircraft.

Calling the pilot an 'idiot' is absurd. Pilot error is an accident. Gen Larry Farrell landed an F-16 gear up and went on to become commander of USAFE and a three star. The latest crash of the Thunderbirds was caused by the solo pilot not setting the altimeter to the field elevation. The list goes on. Accidents happen and it does these men serious discredit not to mention slander by calling them an 'idiot'. I would put their character up against the name calling 'poster' any day.

Most aviation accidents are caused by pilot error.


[edit on 12/23/2004 by just_a_pilot]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I heard a story, though I have no clue as to whether it is true or not, about an Israeli F-16 that got shot so badly it lost a wing, and the pilot still managed to fly it back and land it.

How can you land an aircraft "gear up" though? Wouldn't the cockpit shatter from the impact?

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
It happens alot actually. I guy I know is in a partnership with four others in a Mooney 231 and one of the guys just landed it without putting down the gear. Thats why it is my habit to touch the lights and call three green on each leg of the pattern. It happens, it is an error.

Also the canopy on fighter aircraft is not glass. The flex from a bird strike to an F-16 canopy can cause so much flex that the resulting wave can be enough to hit the pilot on the head. Lucky for helmets.

[edit on 12/23/2004 by just_a_pilot]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Well, This article will be interesting to you guys then...
www.globalsecurity.org...

it clearly states the cost and how many will be produced...



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Don't have the link at the moment but witnesses said that they saw the fighter produce some flames and a few explosions while the pilot bailed and the fighter yawed and pitched before it impacted the ground... The preliminaries suggest that a mechanical problem was to blame, not software...



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
The current price of the F/A-22 is 258 million USD? WOH!!!!!!! Thats one expensive flying piece of metal. I thought the price was near 150 million? Oh well, I guess the less plane the better the quality it'll be then.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
The current price of the F/A-22 is 258 million USD? WOH!!!!!!! Thats one expensive flying piece of metal. I thought the price was near 150 million? Oh well, I guess the less plane the better the quality it'll be then.


Keep in mind, the lower the quantity in the contract, the higher the price per unit.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:17 AM
link   
theres some footage of an f22 crashing on take off with a test pilot on this site

www.alexparkin.com.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by calhoun

Originally posted by COWlan
The current price of the F/A-22 is 258 million USD? WOH!!!!!!! Thats one expensive flying piece of metal. I thought the price was near 150 million? Oh well, I guess the less plane the better the quality it'll be then.


Keep in mind, the lower the quantity in the contract, the higher the price per unit.


How very true. Everyone laughs about a 500 dollar hammer but forgets that the original contract if fulfilled would have place each unit into Home Depot prices. Same with the toilet.......not sure about a stupid pen though. Jeeze use a pencil.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot


How very true. Everyone laughs about a 500 dollar hammer but forgets that the original contract if fulfilled would have place each unit into Home Depot prices. Same with the toilet.......not sure about a stupid pen though. Jeeze use a pencil.


Actually, the story about the hammer is true. When the USAF purchases an aircraft, every item that gets delivered with that aircraft - including maintenance tools - costs the same. Basically they take the cost per aircraft and divide it by the number of parts delivered. So a hammer cost the same as an engine - according to military accounting
Im not sure if this method of accounting is in use today, but it was in use as late as 1995.

Also this story has its origins in the multthousand pound toilet seat, which was specially designed for the B-1B. The story caused outrage in newspapers when it was printed, but few people realised that you couldnt just run down to the local hardware store and pick up a 99c special. The seat was designed for a specific location, out of lightweight materials, and was non spill!

Oh, and the NASA pen story is completely false, both sides used a wax pencil until a company designed the pressurised pen completely seperate from NASA, with no funding from NASA and no guidance.

[edit on 27/12/2004 by RichardPrice]



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I though the duplicate post thing was fixed. Sorry all.

[edit on 12/27/2004 by just_a_pilot]



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I do understand that Richard. Most projects run with unique to the item procurements. I was just trying to point out that the cost of the item can be directly corrolated to the original projects cost per unit. Right now the most cost efficiant plane to date is the F-117. General Motors and Ford actually complained that they build many more units and don't earn the same cost per development item.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
I do understand that Richard. Most projects run with unique to the item procurements. I was just trying to point out that the cost of the item can be directly corrolated to the original projects cost per unit. Right now the most cost efficiant plane to date is the F-117. General Motors and Ford actually complained that they build many more units and don't earn the same cost per development item.


Sorry, I didnt mean for that to sound as harsh as it did
I was just pointing out how military accounting may not be obvious at first glance, but it makes sense with a little explanation.

Interesting about the cost of the F-117, I first expected the cost to be fairly expensive, but after a bit of investigation it looks like these were pretty much budget aircraft! Amazing for the bang per buck cost, but it looks like these planes cost under $50million each.

To keep the price of the F 117 "low" ($ 42.6 million a piece) Lockheed used parts of existing planes. The engines are of the F 18 Hornet, landing gear is of the F 15 Eagle and the A10, flight control system are of the F 16 Falcon and the F-18 Hornet, the ECS (environmental control system) is from the C-130 Hercules and the INS (Inertial Navigation system) is from the good "old" B-52 Bomber.

This allowed a good portion of the cost of the F-117 program to be passed off as 'spares' for other aircraft.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Yes, it is quite amazing what Skunk Works turned out on the budget they had. The plane is ugly as all get out, but given the AAA and SAMs over Baghdad in GW1 it is quite amazing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join