Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russia to launch new F/A-22 competetor

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Well when you factor in the substantially higher wage costs and the naturally non competitive nature of the defense air industry, planes such as the raptor can have a huge inflated price relative to its real price point. The US government can in effect be held ransom to whatever Lockheed charges for the privilege of making one of its planes, knowing the DoD can and will have to pay the price set to remain the world's superpower.
With Russia we have nearly the exact opposite conditions in place, whilst the number of manufacturers is no bigger, the companies have to remain competitive if they want Russias DoD business, having a smaller budget. With technical expertise assumed to be similar in both countries, here arises a situation where a plane of equal sophistication can be manufactured in both countries for a vastly different price.




posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Sorry, but I must dissagree.

First of all, the US like Russia has different companies make competative bids. There was the YF-22 and the YF-23 for the US. In fact, the Raptor was chosen over the Black Widow in large part because of Lock-Marts ability to deliver the aircraft with little cost over runs.

In addition, I have said many times, the very materials used are inharently expensive, regardless of the wage you pay your workers. Just as gold is expensive, so too is RAM, titanium, electronics, etc.

There is simply no getting around the FACT that ANY aircraft which is made intirely from RAM is going to be by it's very nature MUCH more expensive then one which is not. Then there is the expensive delema of reducing the heat signature on the exhaust while also allowing TVC (that is if they are actually trying to make a true rival). There is no way to get around that - it is by it's nature extremely complicated requiring exotic techniques and materials.

Any way you cut it, a true rival to the Raptor will cost around 100 million dollars a pop. Russia can not afford that. China can not afford that. India can not afford that. Syria can not afford that. Iran can not afford that.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   





posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Well I would argue the price reduction of the raptor from $180million to $130million is a clear signal the company is operating in a highly uncompetitive market and has inflated wage costs, it also shows you how large the labour costs are as a percentage of total costs even in a manufacturing industry.
As materials are fixed costs for each plane, the easiest factor of production to change to increase demand from the market (the DoD) are labour costs. Capital costs are an initial investment which decreases over time with each plane produced, however this is a marginal effect that occurs over a long time of mass output and certianly wouldnt explain the huge reduction of price after some dozen planes produced.
If Lockheed was operating in a truely highly competitive market where final demand for the product from the DoD is price elastic, they may have little power to pass on higher wage costs to the DoD through a higher price. However with the reduced orders for the raptor, perhaps conditions in the market are changing. Still we end up with the same conclusion, planes of equal sophistication can be built in both countries for a vastly different price.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by picard_is_actually_a_grey
Well I would argue the price reduction of the raptor from $180million to $130million is a clear signal the company is operating in a highly uncompetitive market and has inflated wage costs, it also shows you how large the labour costs are as a percentage of total costs even in a manufacturing industry.


The reduction experienced in the raptor is true in ALL aircraft from ALL countries. As more are made, the price goes down.

And stop with this 'uncompetative market' garbage. Thats what it is, GARBAGE. The US aerospace industry is THE most competative in the world. You have Lock-mart, Boeing, AND Northrope all competing for every freaking contract. The rest of the world COMBINED can barely stand up to those three alone.


As materials are fixed costs for each plane, the easiest factor of production to change to increase demand from the market (the DoD) are labour costs. Capital costs are an initial investment which decreases over time with each plane produced, however this is a marginal effect that occurs over a long time of mass output and certianly wouldnt explain the huge reduction of price after some dozen planes produced.
If Lockheed was operating in a truely highly competitive market where final demand for the product from the DoD is price elastic, they may have little power to pass on higher wage costs to the DoD through a higher price. However with the reduced orders for the raptor, perhaps conditions in the market are changing. Still we end up with the same conclusion, planes of equal sophistication can be built in both countries for a vastly different price.


No, sorry. The price goes up for each plane when fewer are built because the total income from sales has to cover all the costs. If the US had signed a deal for 700 like they originally wanted, the price would have been vastly lower.

Wage has absolutely ZERO to do with it. Lockheed isn't suddenly upping the price of the plane to make more money, it's a result of the DoD asking for fewer airframes.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


The reduction experienced in the raptor is true in ALL aircraft from ALL countries. As more are made, the price goes down.

And stop with this 'uncompetative market' garbage. Thats what it is, GARBAGE. The US aerospace industry is THE most competative in the world. You have Lock-mart, Boeing, AND Northrope all competing for every freaking contract. The rest of the world COMBINED can barely stand up to those three alone.

No ones saying these aren't good companies here, but the fact remains it is in an uncompetitive market.



No, sorry. The price goes up for each plane when fewer are built because the total income from sales has to cover all the costs. If the US had signed a deal for 700 like they originally wanted, the price would have been vastly lower.

Wage has absolutely ZERO to do with it. Lockheed isn't suddenly upping the price of the plane to make more money, it's a result of the DoD asking for fewer airframes.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by American Mad Man]

Whoa, clearly you need to reread what I wrote because wage has absolutely everything to do with it, shows why the market isn't competitive and why the inflated raptor price is above the real world market price.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by picard_is_actually_a_grey]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Well, apparently, the Russian's cannot do this program on their own.
Just ran across this article and it will prove interesting to some here:


Sukhoi general director Mikhail Pogosyan has invited European companies to participate in developing Russia’s fifth-generation fighter – the first time Russia has opened the way into its armoury for foreign suppliers since the Second World War, writes Howard Gethin.

Pogosyan says European firms could supply components for the aircraft, highlighting avionics as a likely area of collaboration.

Sukhoi has previously installed French, Indian and Israeli avionics and electronic warfare equipment in Su-30s for delivery to India, but no foreign components have been used on its aircraft intended for use by the Russian forces.

Pogosyan says Sukhoi is formulating the specifications for Russia’s fifth-generation fighter, which it is thought to be provisionally designated the T50.

“Many questions here could be the subject of joint work by the Russian and European aerospace industries,” he says.

Any co-operation would require regulation and international agreement in areas such as intellectual property and to control the proliferation of military technology, a Sukhoi official told the Vremya Novostei daily newspaper.

Sukhoi asks Europe for fighter help

No further comment.





seekerof



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I'm skeptical of this project. The F-22 is well beyond other aircraft. When a Russian-designed F-22-like aircraft will come around, I think it will be well after the F-22 will be equivilant to the technological superiority the F-35 is versus 4th gen fighters, today.

It's all well and good to have stated design goals, but achiveing them, and doing so affordably, will take a long time coming.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Quite frankly, the Russians cannot and have not built anything "equal" to the Raptor.


That they "have not" is true...infact no country other than the US has.....but saying that they cannot is the height of arrogance to say the least.



the Russian's cannot do this program on their own.


Its not that they cannot, but its that they wish to take in other partners-primarily for the funding part....perhaps not for the technical part.

Infact if you go through related articles, France and Dassault have shown particular intrest in the very project.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
If you have good enough designers than everything is possible. Why is it impossible for the Russians to make a breaktrough which makes theire plane lots of stealthier and cheaper?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
ok lets pretend for one minute; that the Russians Can Design this jet

OK Good Job RUssians

NOW, can you afford to Build Any????

EXACTLY





posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
That they "have not" is true...infact no country other than the US has.....but saying that they cannot is the height of arrogance to say the least.


Arrogance denied, Stealth Spy.
Apparently, you missed my last post and what the article indicates?
*points up*

'Arrogance' is subjective, Stealth Spy.
Try being a bit more objective when replying on something that I personally lean towards you not knowing much about.






seekerof


[edit on 20-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
'Arrogance' is subjective, Stealth Spy.
Try being a bit more objective when replying on something that I personally lean towards you not knowing much about.




which one of you all is an iconomist or an expert in russian industry so to know enough about the subject and say with seartency something like "they can't do it/make it/build it"

This topic was about a new russian aircraft and charecteristics and not about the russian's iconomy and industrial and intelectual capabilities.
You all going so far of topic every time it's about a russian aircraftproject is simply...bad bad


[edit on 20-7-2005 by vorazechul]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
And apparently, you have missed the on-topic article I posted two posts up.
*points up*

Btw, greetings and welcome to ATS.
Look forward to your further commentary within the Aircraft forum.






seekerof



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by vorazechul
which one of you all is an iconomist or an expert in russian industry so to know enough about the subject and say with seartency something like "they can't do it/make it/build it"

This topic was about a new russian aircraft and charecteristics and not about the russian's iconomy and industrial and intelectual capabilities.
You all going so far of topic every time it's about a russian aircraftproject is simply...bad bad


[edit on 20-7-2005 by vorazechul]


Well, I am attending the Wharton school of buisness, does that count?


I am no expert on Russia's industry, but it doesn't take a lot of common sense to see that they are very far behind in a lot of areas when compared to the US.

Just look at their military budget for starters. 60 billion vs 400 billion. Now, understand that over the last 15 or so years, the US has enjoyed this 300+ BILLION dollar advantage. In other words, the US has a multi TRILLION dollar lead since the cold war ended. This would logically indacate that the US is ahead of Russia by a substantial margin.

As I have already explained, an aircraft that would rival the Raptor would inharently cost nearly as much as the Raptor.

Now, again, the US has a 340 billion dollar plus spending advantage - EACH YEAR - and yet is struggling to afford the Raptor. Now how will Russia afford it on their comparatively small budget?

And if all that doesn't do it for you, just read the artical Seekerof posted.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
well expert or not I can't stop you comenting on the subject but you are still of topic here and so am I with this post.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   


Well the Russians have gone public to say that the first flight is in 2007


Do you think the Raptors of 2007 will be the same as 2005? Heck, while still under wraps, they tested improvement after improvement. The US doesn't rest when a design rolls off the assembly line, it's continually improved. Even older planes like the F-15's of today, are far and above those of just a few years prior...

Echoing the comments of others, notably Seekerof, etc. I have no doubt the Russians are fully capable of building such a fighter. Indeed, more likely than not, the full plans of the Raptor are sitting in the Kremlin files (the Soviets always were better than us at the spy game)...BUT, and here's the big BUT, they simply don't have the economic resources to build them.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Hey American Mad man the US is like 2 times as more expensive at least than Russia. Most likely even more.

So that would turn the Russian budget say in 150-200 billion. Still an advantage for the US but they have several wars which eat money like hell. Russia has Chetnia or however you spell it but doesnt cost as much money as its only 1 war.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
So that would turn the Russian budget say in 150-200 billion. Still an advantage for the US but they have several wars which eat money like hell. Russia has Chetnia or however you spell it but doesnt cost as much money as its only 1 war.


if it aint so expensive why did they withdraw from Chechnya in the first war? also they are still fighting for the 2nd Chechnya war, and the misconception that it doesnt cost much blinds u. fighting just one war is expensive no doubt it. either ancient times or modern times.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
However the funding for such an ambitious project is a concern. However Russia is the world's 2nd largest spender on defence and spends over 60 billion $ anually; true it may be no match for the US's 400+billion $ budget, but most of that has gone into funding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc ... so i wont be very surprised if i happen to learn that Russia spends the same amount (or only a little less) as the US on defence R&D. And Russia have been trimming their huge air force, army & navy of late making it a "lean-mean" outfit....thus reducing the spending on salaries, maintainence,etc And they have been having great sales of their weaponry of late to China, India, middle east, etc.


Russia isn't the 2nd largest spender:

www.globalsecurity.org...

Your estimate was close anyway. It is, however, interesting to note that the rest of the world (other than USA) combined has a military budget barely higher than that of the USA's. Iraq and Afghanistan can only cost so much.

Russia has also been trying to modernize their military lately as well.



Defense appropriations emerged as the top priority in the draft budget approved 23 August 2004 by the Russian cabinet. Military spending is due to rise to 528 billion rubles ($18 billion - $1 is about 29 rubles) in 2005, up 28 percent from last year's 411 billion rubles ($14 billion). The nominal defense budget stays at a level of 2.6% to 2.7% of GDP. Years of neglect and under-funding have left the Russian forces in desperate need of extra funds. For 2005 the military was supposed to spend 146 billion rubles [$5 billion] for modernization.


www.globalsecurity.org...

So that's about 1/10 of Russia's defense budget going to modernization.

I personally don't think Russia can counter the Raptor. Not all of the info concerning the Raptor has even been declassified yet.






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join