1 billion dollars to buy 23 more F-22s.

news.yahoo.com...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT - news) has won a contract worth $1 billion to build 23 more F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft plus one test aircraft, the Pentagon said on Tuesday.

The order, for the sixth production batch of the radar-evading fighters, is to be wrapped up by February 2010, the Pentagon said in its daily contract summary.

A total of 131 Raptors are now under contract, with 83 already delivered to the Air Force, said Joseph Quimby, Lockheed's spokesman for the F-22 program.

I say buy them until we have 1,000 in our inventory. But thats just wishful thinking.

get 300 f-22s

Then plow the other funds into a robotic/remote fleet.

Hey we could have astronauts working gyros up in a space station and directing a battle on earth. Mind you they would be a bit removed from the battle but that seems like the future of warfare.

These planes are not cheap are they?

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
These planes are not cheap are they?

Actually, a billion dollars for 23 works out to just over 43 million apiece. It's actually 41.6 million if you count the test aircraft. It's really reasonable when you completely ignore the development cost.

Originally posted by deltaboy
I say buy them until we have 1,000 in our inventory. But thats just wishful thinking.

Wishful? Yes. Unfounded? No. Lets see how the political shift in Washington and in the Pentagon plays out, the USAF wants at the very least 300 Raptors, and they may just get their wish. If we buy that many the fly away cost will fall below 100 Million.

But I love the fact that they're getting a test aircraft, speed and altitude records here we come!

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
These planes are not cheap are they?

For the capabilities that they offer the price is actually pretty good, however it could be much lower if the monkeys in congress listen to the Military.

[edit on 21-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

unbelievable! those things are THAT cheap now?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But I love the fact that they're getting a test aircraft, speed and altitude records here we come!

It's hammerin' time!!!!

The Raptor will pretty much smash all of the records in its weight class if they let it. It'll probably be another avionics testbed though.

That is one bad-ass fighter plane.I'd have to say its well worth the $$$$$$$

Originally posted by JFrazier
The Raptor will pretty much smash all of the records in its weight class if they let it.

Oh most definitely, the F-22 would crush several records even with a full internal weapons load and fuel, let alone an empty version with limited fuel and non essential parts.

I persoanlly think 1000 is pretty much, there are better things to put that money in if we think that 300 is perfectly enough to kill any enemy out there. So 300 would be a better number in my opinion.

Awesome!

Now, if they'd only kill the JSF, buy more AC-130's, E8 JSTARS, C-17's, tankers, and accelerate the new heavy bomber program I'd weep for joy.
I think 500 is the right number of Raptors if they killed the F-35, fwiw.

Originally posted by lpbman
Now, if they'd only kill the JSF, buy more AC-130's, E8 JSTARS, C-17's, tankers, and accelerate the new heavy bomber program I'd weep for joy.

Killing the F-35 would be a disaster, the Hi-Lo mix has worded for the US so far and the F-35 will be the workhorse for the Air Force, not to mention our export market. The F-22 simply cannot do all of the jobs the F-35 can and it cannot fulfill all of it's roles (Navy, Marine Corps), no matter how many you build. There is a reason the F-16 was created along with the F-15 and why so many more were produced.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Killing the F-35 would be a disaster,

OH Dear, How ever will the US Military suvive without it's expensive toys!

Come on WestPoint 23, The F-35 is more of a fancy, fast flying TOY than a critical Weapon System! You can do the Same thing with an F/A-18 E Super Hornet. Right now the V/STOL capibilities of the marine corps version are the only notable Improvement over what we currently have. Just having stealth doesn't make something a good tactical weapon.

Why do People act like the F-35 is such a big deal? Other than being new and fancy looking, I don't really see what it's brining to the battlefeild that is worth what we are spending on the Project. They should have Killed JSF when it was just a paper concept at Wright-Patterson AFB! For the sake of time, I won't Point out all the basic design flaws of the F-35! However, I will say if you stady the design for a few minutes, you should be able to pick out some of the flaws that could get it shot down really easy! (For one thing, in the CAS mission, the F-35's a damn Magnet for Stinger Missiles)

Yet another way the Pentagon Throws money out the window without improving the military! It so sad to see people cheering as their tax dollar are thrown in the Trash, and this from a website that's about Denying Ignorance!

Tim

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Ghost01]

Just a thought for the Brits on ATS. If the F-22 now only costs $43 miilion a piece and with the pound sterling at its current exchange rate with the dollar wouldn't it be cheaper to buy the F-22 than the Typhoon? I know it won't happen but if we'd lift the ban on foreign sales would the RAF consider it?

The F-35 is more important than some people think, when it comes down to it; it has to do more with export sales than anything else. The US isn't the only nation getting the F-35, England and maybe a few others are getting it too. The F-35 in my opinion is more of a F-16 kind of aircraft. A jack of all trades.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by Ghost01
Come on WestPoint 23, The F-35 is more of a fancy, fast flying TOY than a critical Weapon System! You can do the Same thing with an F/A-18 E Super Hornet. Right now the V/STOL capibilities of the marine corps version are the only notable Improvement over what we currently have. Just having stealth doesn't make something a good tactical weapon.

No you cannot do the same thing with a Super Hornet, first the F-35 offers improved and more capable avionics, better information sharing and gathering capabilities (cannot be understated), stealth, expanded weapons payload and better flight specs. But anyway, the F-35 is not replacing the Super Hornet, it's replacing the C/D versions, as such, the Navy will have a powerful duo for ground and air ops. I don't even need to list the improvements over the Harrier. The AF currently has no airplane that can even come close to the F-35 in the A2A role (besides F-22) all the while it will still offer you a capable A2G capability with improved avionics and survivability.

Like others have pointed out, the F-35 will fill the Lo end of the Hi-Lo mix, and it will serve as our workhorse and main export program. Why do you think thousands upon thousands of F-16's have been produced (and exported to far more nations) when arguably the F-15C and F-15E offer more capabilities in their respective roles?

Originally posted by Ghost01
(For one thing, in the CAS mission, the F-35's a damn Magnet for Stinger Missiles).

For one thing the F-35 is not replacing the A-10 nor is it going to be doing 300Kt at 5K to get shot at by a Stinger. It's going to be dropping JDAM's from 20K like the F-16 does now. And BTW, when was the last time an A-10 was shot down by a stinger?

Whats the point? Do we even have anyone that can match our air power?

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Whats the point? Do we even have anyone that can match our air power?

Match? Currently no. Surpass in the future if we stay idle? Perhaps. But that's not the point, we want to be as overwhelming as possible. Why let others think they even have a chance or why let them score significant kills against you (I'm not talking about 3rd world's here)? Having the F-22 and F-35 ensures total air dominance fairly quickly.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And BTW, when was the last time an A-10 was shot down by a stinger?

That's becuase America generally only get's into war's with 3rd world countries. Most of there people don't even have shoe's.

Not having a aircraft taken out by these people isn't exactly a big achievment.

The A-10 can easily be destoryed by any competent 1st world or even 2nd world armed forces. All it will take is a single Russian SA-18 or SA-16 to take it out or even a French Mistral or a laser guided RBS-70 Surafce to air missile.

Originally posted by iqonx
That's becuase America generally only get's into war's with 3rd world countries. Most of there people don't even have shoe's.

Actually, these countries do have stinger missiles and other MANPAD's. But the A-10 (especially the A-10C) is not a Helo, it has an ECM suite among other systems to defeat such threats, however it's primary tools are it's weapons and kinematics. We have lost A-10's in combat over Iraq due to enemy fire (mostly in ODS) but not as many as one would expect for such an aircraft in that role.

Originally posted by iqonx
All it will take is a single Russian SA-18 or SA-16 to take it out or even a French Mistral or a laser guided RBS-70 Surafce to air missile.

Doubt it, against an A-10 in level flight at 200 Ft doing 200 Kt (with no ECM) it might take just one but you're not going to have great success with a single MANPAD missile against this kind of aircraft.