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.

 

Quantity versus Quality

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
The per unit cost is difficult to accurately determine, as the amortization of a large development cost over a varying number of units produced can greatly vary the price. Moreover, the purchase price does not reflect lifetime costs of maintenance, parts, and training. A useful guide to costs come from export prices, which are widely reported, and represent a mix of the marginal cost of production plus some recouperation of development costs.

Dassault Rafale More than €50m, depending on export sales
Eurofighter Typhoon Austrian version: '03 €62m
Mitsubishi F-2 US$ 100m
MiG-29 about '98 US$ 27m
MiG-35 '07 US$ 70m
Sukhoi Su-27US$ 24m
Sukhoi Su-30 US$ ~38m (Several variants)
Sukhoi Su-30K for Indonesia: '98 US$ 33m
Sukhoi Su-30MKK/MK2 for China: '98 US$ 38m
Sukhoi Su-30MKI for India: '98 US$ 45m
Sukhoi Su-30MKM for Malaysia: '03 US$ 50m
Saab Gripen about '98 US$ 25m
Ching Kuo IDF (Taiwan) initially large order put cost per unit at US$ 24m
F-14 Tomcat '98 US$ 48m
F-15 Eagle '98 US$ 43m
F-16 Fighting Falcon late models about '98 US$ 25m
F/A-18 Hornet E/F model '98 US$ 60m
F-22 Raptor Fly away unit cost is about US$ 120m
F-35 Lightning II:
F-35A US$ 45m
F-35B > US$ 100m '06
F-35C US$ 55m

What im looking for is a discussion on Quantity versus Quality in fighter
aircraft.
And yes i know the above prices would be old and support and inferstructure cost should be added as well.

EG: Buying small number of RAPTORS compared to buying more
MIG 35 airframes for the price.
Like when Australia bought 75 hornets we could of got over a 100 of F 16s instead as a example of an 80s purchase.

LINKY

What would ur thoughts be?????
Or a hi-lo mix????




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I think for BVR quality wins. For WVR quantity wins.

For BVR A quality aircraft can put multiple long range missiles on target and kill those targets without being detected (in the case of the F-22)

For WVR however, no stealth aircraft can stand up to more than one aircraft like the MiG-35 or Su-30MKI. One on one? Maybe. Double team it? No. The sheer volume of IRAAMs that would be in the air makes quantity an advantage here.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Quality wins over quanitity. You have to be able to match the enemy in battle or numbers alone won't help you. If it was all a numbers game, there would be no point in upgrading to new aircraft. Don't make the errornous assumption that the level of technology makes something higher quality. Technology and quality are two very different things.

Tim



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23

For WVR however, no stealth aircraft can stand up to more than one aircraft like the MiG-35 or Su-30MKI. One on one? Maybe. Double team it? No. The sheer volume of IRAAMs that would be in the air makes quantity an advantage here.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by BlackWidow23]


I don't understand this part. a 22 that is stealth and a 35 which is not. the 35 would have a harder time holding a lock on to the target would it not? I agree more IRAAMs in the air makes it harder but keep in mind the mind set that the 22 pilots are taught in keeping their advantage. the 22 pilot would have to be making some major mistakes. Just a thought not sure how correct it is but it makes sence to me.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I was thinking guns and IRAAMS only, I dont think the raptor is IR stealthed.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
I was thinking guns and IRAAMS only, I dont think the raptor is IR stealthed.


your correct it is not



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
your correct it is not


Well, consideration for IR has gone into it but at WVR it is likey such measures would not matter as much.

As for quality v. quantity, well I think you need a little bit of both, no real extremes but I tend to vlaue quality more. If you have a high quality fighting force then they can stand up to ridicules numbers however realisticy speaking if the advantage is in double digits it's very hard to overcome that even for an effective force.

But ghost is right, technology does not always equate to better quality, training, tactics, command and control, planning are also vital.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
What I was saying more so WestPoint was that it doesn't have some of the IR cooling methods that were employed on the F-117 ie the platapus ducts.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
More aircrafts need more pilots - that means quite significant training (and maintance) costs. Each pilot needs a lot of flight time. Also logistics - each airfield has limited capacity - for example you have 900 not very advanced planes and enemy has 300 better ones. However if your airfields within combat radius can "serve" just 300 planes (and his too 300) - (for example during GW1 Saudi airfields were completely full) your numerical advantage means nothing, because it's still 1 on 1 ratio and your enemy has better planes, so he will win.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Quality wins over quanitity. You have to be able to match the enemy in battle or numbers alone won't help you. If it was all a numbers game, there would be no point in upgrading to new aircraft. Don't make the errornous assumption that the level of technology makes something higher quality. Technology and quality are two very different things.

Tim


no matter how fancy your super duper plane it cannot be in 2 or 3 places at the same time...

in any case due to very high inflation of super duper planes...an economist calculated that in 50 years the entire airforce budget will buy just 1 superplane and 1 super warship...


imagine that...



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
How about a link to THAT?

I dont buy that for ONE MINUTE. 50 years and we will only be buying one plane and one ship? BS.

Psh, "an economist calcualted."

[edit on 3-3-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
dont buy that for ONE MINUTE. 50 years and we will only be buying one plane and one ship? BS.


At the rate aircraft development and build costs are increasing at?

It doesn't really surprise me, if things were to continue as they are.


However, with the spread of UCAVs and the introduction of DEWs, we will see a fundamental change in air combat, and the use of airpower itself.



My personal hope would be all the people of the world see the big picture (for once), and realise what is the point on wasting resources that could be better used to give our grandchildren (and their grandchildren) a much better planet to live in (ecologically). So aircombat ceases to exist, space becomes the new playground, and its more for humanity than for any individual country.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
im sorry i just cant believe that. In 50 years we will be introducing the first of the 6th generation fighters, and were not only going to have one of them.

Lets make a bet, if in 50 years the USAF decides to spend its entire budget on one aircraft, I will personally buy you a fighter aircraft of your choice.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Even the USA cant afford one type (Quality)
Theres no way they could exchange one 4 one, F22s from F15s.
They would still need the hi lo mix
F 15s and F 16s in the eighties and nineties
F 22s and F 15s air combat.
F 15 was once the high end now the F 22 is.
F 22s and F 35s for future.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezza
Even the USA cant afford one type (Quality)
Theres no way they could exchange one 4 one, F22s from F15s.
They would still need the hi lo mix
F 15s and F 16s in the eighties and nineties
F 22s and F 15s air combat.
F 15 was once the high end now the F 22 is.
F 22s and F 35s for future.


you are missing the point...
fewer and fewer aircraft are being bought due to both to both higher and higher unit cost and higher and higher development costs..

i suggest you draw a graph and see fewer and fewer aircraft being ordered every generation...
then extrapolate...

you end one up with 1 super duper plane...

inflation for aircraft is at least 25%...
growth rate for economy varies around an average 5%...

something has to give...



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
im sorry i just cant believe that. In 50 years we will be introducing the first of the 6th generation fighters, and were not only going to have one of them.

Lets make a bet, if in 50 years the USAF decides to spend its entire budget on one aircraft, I will personally buy you a fighter aircraft of your choice.



except you will not be able to...


just ONE example.

eurofighter wiki:-
Costs and delays

The cost of the Eurofighter project has increased from original estimates. The cost of the UK's aircraft has increased from £7 billion to £19 billion and the in-service date (2003; defined as the date of delivery of the first aircraft to the RAF) was 54 months late.[12] The UK's commitment to its 88 Tranche 3 aircraft has been questioned.[13]



In 1995 concerns .......However, all the nations then reduced their orders. The UK cut its orders from 250 to 232, Germany from 250 to 140, Italy from 165 to 121 and Spain from 100 to 87. According to these order levels the workshare split should have been 39/24/22/15 ...

same for USA.

F-22 AND F-35 and all other planes being cut in numbers drasticaly and cost per unit going up and up at a rate greater then growth rate of the defense budget....

in other words it's already happaning...



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Lets make a bet, if in 50 years the USAF decides to spend its entire budget on one aircraft, I will personally buy you a fighter aircraft of your choice.


Did you miss the "if things continue as they were" in there?



With current procurement procedures and methods, it is inevitable. When is the last time an inventory increased with a new machine's arrival?



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
When will this more tech = winner stop? Heres an idea - What if in the future a nation replaced all fighter type aircraft with small harrier type vectored thrust remote aircraft?

1 x f22 = $120m, how many remote controlled aircraft with simple weapons could you buy for just the price of one F22 aircraft.

Attacking - spread these out over the country to be attacked, how would a comparitavely small number of high tech aircraft like f22's cope?

Defence - More problematic but who knows with hundreds of them swarming all over the attacking aircraft all they need is one to get lucky they can affort to loose them, the trained pilot is still on the ground just put up another inexpensive remote from storage and go again.

Problems - Jamming the control signal of course and comparatively small weapons load.

Probably not an option now but 10 - 20 years in the future who knows.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join