Lockheed Cuts Price of Raptor.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   


The first Raptors cost about $185 million per copy, excluding research and development, and planes in the most recent production block cost about $130 million apiece, Lockheed reports.

Each new Raptor lot has cost an average of 13 percent less than its predecessor, and the company thinks it can cut production costs even farther — perhaps even pushing the price tag near $110 million, said Loran Bodnar, the senior manager of F/A-22 final assembly for the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics plant in Marietta, Ga.

Lockheed Cuts Raptor Price: Seeking More Orders, Firm Looks To Trim Costs 15%


Word is that Lockheed has also stated that by the time that the Raptor hits Block6, the cost of the Raptor will be under 100 million, per plane.


Thoughts/comments?




seekerof




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
lowering the price helps the company more, since the U.S. Air Force would no doubt be eager to order more. maybe 80-90 million would be a good benefit for the seller and buyer.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Is Lockheed allowed to sell the Raptors outside of the USA? If it is that's bad competition with the USA.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
jeez if they can get it under $100 million means that Australia can afford it
a combination of F-35s and F-22s would be nice (65 and 35 respectively). Though i cant see it ever happening but one can dream



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaVirus
Is Lockheed allowed to sell the Raptors outside of the USA? If it is that's bad competition with the USA.


The F-22 is not nor will it be available as an export item for quite a very long time.

Very few allies would even be considered to get it, fewer will be able to afford it.
Strictly a USAF aircraft for now.




seekerof

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
thats a smart move by Lockheed, since back when they got the contract they were figuring 700 planes, then 400, and it just kept fallen, to the current number of like 170...so hopefully with the price decline the USAF can take another look at it and get more of em.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Sweet, if we're lucky maybe the USAF will be able to buy more than a mesily 180 of them. That would be sweet if we could get a couple hundred of them. If we could get that figure back up to 700 planes we would have one hell of an air force.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
The title says Lockheed cuts the raptor's price, while the article says that lockheed is thinking of cutting the price ....


a 20 million $ cut per airplane is huge to say the least. do you guys suppose that this will mean that some of the equipment is compromised ???



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I have to tell you I read through the article pretty quickly, but, alot of the "Savings" are being made by not factoring in the flyaway costs and lumping the devlopment costs into a different budget well so to speak. SO are the jets really that much cheaper or is this a budgetary sleight of hand?
to make the unit cost look more appealing to congress?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Assuming that, as Fred is suggesting, this isn't just some PR BS, and the actual aircraft is going to be a lot cheaper, this is great news.

The one flaw with the Raptor has been it's earth shattering proce tag. If they could get it under 100M per airframe, I think 4 to 5 hundred of these things would form the backbone of yet another 20 years of USAF dominance.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I kinda question our need for any of these aircraft--especially at the prices they cost.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   
We might not have the Soviet Union to fight anymore, but there are quite a few countries out there that have some pretty darn good tech. Our fighters are getting older, and are starting to be outmatched by other fighters out there. We need to stay on the cutting edge. Yeah, they're expensive, but there are still plenty of threats out there.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
The title says Lockheed cuts the raptor's price, while the article says that lockheed is thinking of cutting the price ....


a 20 million $ cut per airplane is huge to say the least. do you guys suppose that this will mean that some of the equipment is compromised ???




You must have missed the first line quoted from the article?


The first Raptors cost about $185 million per copy, excluding research and development, and planes in the most recent production block cost about $130 million apiece, Lockheed reports.

What does 130 million from 185 million leave ya with in savings per unit, Stealth Spy?





seekerof

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I have to tell you I read through the article pretty quickly, but, alot of the "Savings" are being made by not factoring in the flyaway costs and lumping the devlopment costs into a different budget well so to speak. SO are the jets really that much cheaper or is this a budgetary sleight of hand?
to make the unit cost look more appealing to congress?


Once they go into production, they quickly recoup the development costs for the design. By the time the third block comes out, they can bring the price down on them, because generally by block three everything is profit.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
FredT, American Mad Man, and Astronomer68....

I can certainly understand that some may be taken back by the "price tag" of the Raptor at this current stage or block series, but lets put this in simple and realistic terms here for a moment, k? Bear with me.


The cost for the latest upgraded versions of the F-15 is roughly/approxly. 47-60 million per unit.
We all know that a mock F-22 recently went up against 4-5 F-15s and defeated them in less than five minutes, without being seen/detected. I will try to locate the article later when I get on a faster computer, but given what I just mentioned, lets take simply just the procurement of 4 F-15s versus the procurement of one F-22:

4 F-15s at 50 million per unit = 200 million for the bunch.
1 F-22 at 185 million per unit.
Lockheeds recent reduction in cost = 130 million per unit.

or

5 F-15s at 50 million per unit = 250 million for the bunch.
1 F-22 at 185 million per unit
Lockheeds recent reduction in costs = 130 million per unit.

How much more cost effective does this need to be spelled out for you guys?
The F-22 is well worth every dime spent to procure them.






seekerof

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
While I will be the first to agree that the F-22 is one hell of an aircraft, we have to look realisticaly at how it will be used. My biggest concern is that we are spending alot of money just to get a few air-to-air missiles in range. If you put enough ordinance on the Raptor to be useful you eliminate its stealth capability. Air-to-air is not going to play a large role in the next war. Look at Iraq, the US didn't lose a single aircraft air-to-air it lost them from surface-to-air. I figure about 200 Raptors would be about right. Figure 150 operational and 50 in rework, upgrade or long term maintenance. Then we take the remaining money and develop a stealthy SEAD aircraft. Remember one thing about stealth, even if the enemy can't see you on radar if they put enough rounds into the same space sooner or later they are going to get lucky.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
jeez if they can get it under $100 million means that Australia can afford it
a combination of F-35s and F-22s would be nice (65 and 35 respectively). Though i cant see it ever happening but one can dream



I totally agree

Aus got F-111's, Sould get F-22's and if made F-22b's



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
The F/A-22 probably is not necessary in larger number only if the world stays static and does not change in the next 20 years. But that is one hell of an assumption to make, and we don’t need the Raptor for wars like Iraq but can you guarantee that no big wars between advanced countries will happen in the next 20-25 years? The F/A-22 is money well spent.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaVirus
Is Lockheed allowed to sell the Raptors outside of the USA? If it is that's bad competition with the USA.


No, the F-22 will never be allowed for export.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I was saying this long ago and nobody wanted to believe me... Actually the F-22 is not that expensive as many people think. The recent procurement cuts were not because of cost overruns but because of Iraq war. If the USAF procures more than 500 Raptors, the price could easily hit 90 mil.$ per piece IMHO. The main reason why first Raptors costed that much was high R&D.

To the export possibilities - I think that Australia and Japan are the most likely candidates for Raptors, especially Australia needs plan with better range than JSF. Concerning the Raptor limited payload - well it's true it can carry only 2 1000lbs bombs internally, but there are also stealth underwing stores being developed (each can carry 5000lbs and Raptor has 4 of them). That means the Raptor could end being more versatile than JSF with "clean" internall load only configuration for AA combat and dangerous ground attack misions or be equipped with stealthy external stores for missions where more bombs are necessary and supercruise is not needed.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join