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.

 

My uncle hates the F-22A!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by Shugo
 


its not their fault they pick the fights, to much Fox news



What does that have to do with Russia having the "advanced" tech, you claim they have? I'm still waiting on this proof of yours.


[edit on 1.9.2008 by Shugo]




posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 


that was aimed at this sentence


Originally posted by Shugo
Not our faults that those countries are the ones that pick the fights.




just wreaks of Fox news



on your question

Russian tec and so on
is on how they get details of US gear through espienage and so on.
only a fool would say that they will always have the upper hand
and no country can work on matching them



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
And normally by that time, the technology is considered old or outdated by the United States Military, and has been upgraded. It all comes back to how the US steps ahead daily, where Russia waits for their "sources" to come back to them, if at all.

Bad juju, no dog biscuit for you.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 


so 30+ years service?
is a short period of time



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bodrul
 


Who said 30+ years?
I never gave a time. It takes Russia about 30 years just to get their craft boating alone.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Your uncle is dead wrong.


It is interesting to note a number of things, first. The F-15 has never acheived Mach 2.5. It has never gone much past Mach 1.5 in combat.


Actually i think it was Riccioni that noted that fact , for reasons that currently escapes me, and i think it was basically a summary of how planes are slowly cluttered down with all kinds of aids and systems that degrades their original decent performance margins.


To get to supersonic speeds with any external weapons you're going to need the afterburners; which sucks the tanks dry very quickly, particularly because acceleration as these heights & altitudes is relatively slow.


Then you should build planes with higher fuel fractions such as the Mig-31 which can fly out to 720 Km's at a sustained speed of Mach 2.3; not something the F-22 can emulate on internal fuel.


Radius of action, km
supersonic (М=2,35) 720
subsonic without drop tank 1200
subsonic with drop tank 1400
subsonic with drop tank and refuelling 2200

www.testpilot.ru...



Combat Radius (NM)
Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 260+100nm 310+100nm 14%

www.f22-raptor.com...


The F-22 ( if this data is correct which i'm sure it is for the Mig-31) can not sustain supersonic cruise speeds over it's combat range of 800 odd Km's while the Mig-31 can apparently cover that entire range ( it's been observed on radar) at Mach 2.3. You can not supercruise when you have a fuel fraction of .29.


Yet, the F-22 has been demonstrated to fly at speeds of Mach 1.7 on without afterburner - with a full internal load of air-to-air munitions. It can get to these speeds with relative ease.


For 200 Km's out of it's stated combat range of 800 Km's... With tanking assets and stealthy ( Westpoint had links and data on that) drop tanks this might obviously allow the F-22 to add another 100 - 200 km's at high Mach speeds...


Top speed is estimated at Mach 2, but I've seen no data on that... fixed inlets may prevent higher speeds. F-22 has thrust vectoring, which, when supersonic, significantly lowers aerodynamic loads on the aircraft which gives the aircraft pitch rates 50% better than with no thrust vectoring.
www.af.mil...


And and that speed it will destroy seriously compromise it's combat range... Either way the thrust vectoring and like WVR performance capabilities are largely wasted in a interceptor that's is so tremendously expensive.


Stealth worse than F-117 is rediculous. The design delta between the aircraft is 20+ years.
And by modern standards a faceted flying dorito is hardly stealthy.
Oh yeah, and not a single professional defense analyst agrees with him. I've seen estimates on the F-22... here. That doesn't tell us the details... but either way it's a thousand times better than F-117.


In the frontal aspect it will surely be even if not a thousand times better. As long as ground based search radards can't relay data to the Mig-31's the F-22's will have the advantage in frontal engagements.


Sensors are a billion times better than F-15... avionics are a billion times better than F-15. AESA is an advantage to start. It has sensor fusion, DAS... & so on.... New sensors are inheritely stealthy so you can keep out of harms way, & gain a massive situational advantage.


In fact much of the F-22's processing technology is positively ancient as compared to what your working on on your desktop and it will take a immensely expensive program to replace or integrate more modern electronics. At least that was last time i checked so feel free to set me straith with other links.



Why don't you ask your uncle how the F-22, in Northern Edge Exercise, had the most lopsided results ever. 2006: 241-to-2.
If he tells you they were 'lieing' then I'm sure nothing would save him.


In fact i would rather have a uncle that believes that the F-22 isn't a fantastic airplane than a uncle who believes that F-22's can arrange for exchange rates of 120 to one. In fact maybe that's not so brilliant as that's almost exactly what's claimed for the F-15 at 103 for NO official losses ( but more probably closer to ten than to zero)! I suppose your going to argue that they are flying against 'the best' but i would just interject that the best can't really do much when their aircraft performance margins are horribly restricted with probably no RWR, EW assets and bad tracking and engagement parameters.


This obviously doesn't mean it's the perfect aircraft however. It's pretty damned expensive, & had (has?) maintainence and has or had structural problems, & integration issues. Unfortunately I only have one link for you in this area.
www.pogo.org...
I disagree with some aspects of the report for a number of reasons...


Right you do as do we all for our various pet beliefs.
The F-22 is extraordinary expensive and the technology transfer to the F-35 doesn't seem much in evidence when that program is well on it's way to becoming equally horribly expensive.


If you want more informaton look up StellarX, & Westpoint23 members posts here, or ask here.


And i managed to get the impression that we were disagreeing in a disagreeable type of way...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
You're missing the point of my post. I was noting the F-22s comparative ease getting to supersonic speeds over the F-15 - which the OPs uncle doubted. Infact, I don't believe I mentioned supercruise once - or radius. Perhaps, other than the fact that when supersonic it destroys the F-15.


Riccioni



I Wonder who's worse, Carlo, ELP, Goon, or Riccioni? I think I'd have to go with Carlo followed by Goon however.
Goon can now be called 'Pidgeon' after his fake article on AAP.



Then you should build planes with higher fuel fractions such as the Mig-31 which can fly out to 720 Km's at a sustained speed of Mach 2.3; not something the F-22 can emulate on internal fuel.

If you want a good supercruise radius you need good aerodynamics, good engines, light aircraft, lots of fuel. Fuel fraction is a small part. Try comparing the fuel fraction vs range between the F-22, F18E/F, & F-35. The F-22 has a tiny fuel fraction compared to both, but matches the F-35 radius & obliterates the F-18F + external tanks, radius.


In the frontal aspect it will surely be even if not a thousand times better. As long as ground based search radards can't relay data to the Mig-31's the F-22's will have the advantage in frontal engagements.

Fantasy scenario.

As long as USAF exists as it does today and planned, the F-22 will ALWAYS have an advantage over any force, present or near future... That's why I could care less about these fantasy scenarios OR massive amounts of Super F-15s.

2025 force is likely to be something like this - 1863 F-35s, 183 F-22s, 70 B-1, 20 B-2, 100+ Medium bombers, 250 AESA F-15C, 225 F-15E, 450 F-35C, 350+ F-18E/F, 80 B-52, & 340 F-35B - armed with JSOW, SDB, JASSM, & AMRAAM-D. Obviously does not include US allies.. We do, and continue to, outnumber them by atleast 10 - 1 with aircraft that are for the most part superior to them. In your scenario? Systematically destroy the defense network with other assets letting the now invisible F-22 handle the Foxhound.

So, I ask you, why should we spend EXTRA on massive amounts of Super F-15s? It is, infact, going to be extra money.... bigger tanking force, bigger airlift force (they must be awefully inefficiant if you don't need to increase this), more spares, more pilots, more ground crew ...... In the other thread, you suggested getting 10 F-15 for 1 F-22. How does that work? Including development costs the F-22 is 300 mil a pop. If you get X 10 aircraft for same program price, then you / 10 the individual aircraft cost. 300 / 10 = 30 million $. That's one cheap AESA, F-119, Super F-15. Maybe you could get 1830 F-16 MLU+?

Excluding development costs F-22 is no more than 150 million a pop. Development costs are PAID FOR. F-15l & Eurofighter are not dramatically cheaper than this. So the whole arguement for it will be cheaper / more effective is moot anyway. Had the idea 15 years ago and it may of been actually worth something.

And even if it did happen. What would it offer over 183 F-22? The confidence that if (and, truely, there is not) there was force that was better than 3rd world we'd destroy them?


In fact much of the F-22's processing technology is positively ancient as compared to what your working on on your desktop and it will take a immensely expensive program to replace or integrate more modern electronics. At least that was last time i checked so feel free to set me straith with other links.

It's still better than 1973 model AN/APG-63. And the capabilities of it are for the most part impressive.

Planned to be upgraded with AN/APG-81 technology if I'm not mistaken.


In fact i would rather have a uncle that believes that the F-22 isn't a fantastic airplane than a uncle who believes that F-22's can arrange for exchange rates of 120 to one. In fact maybe that's not so brilliant as that's almost exactly what's claimed for the F-15 at 103 for NO official losses ( but more probably closer to ten than to zero)! I suppose your going to argue that they are flying against 'the best' but i would just interject that the best can't really do much when their aircraft performance margins are horribly restricted with probably no RWR, EW assets and bad tracking and engagement parameters.

Probably?

What you said is an assumption. I'd argue that they never had horribly restricted ROE. I do not think it's true, because when you're training your pilots it's usually not a good idea to cripple them while wasting billions of dollars on JUUSSSTTT to show good good your new aircraft is.
Could you provide a citation showing restircted ROE? Furthermore, even if it was 10 - 1 exchange rates... we win.... by a wide margin.


And i managed to get the impression that we were disagreeing in a disagreeable type of way...

You two have had long discussions about the F-22 so if he wants to learn more then by all means read up on previous discussions. I agree with you the supercrusie radius is small, and I agree with you the F-22 programme was too expensive. None the less, I agree with all true professional analysts in that a small F-22 fleet is on the whole superior and more viable than anything else.


The F-22 is extraordinary expensive and the technology transfer to the F-35 doesn't seem much in evidence when that program is well on it's way to becoming equally horribly expensive.

Technology transfer between the F-35 / F-22 is huge & there has been every indication of that being so. F-35 has much less indication of being expensive, however.

[edit on 10/9/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Yeah that stuff is junk I hear they didnt build a real airplane .

Yanks have the US navy , the Dwight and the super f-18 , british design helicopters and the tank . Thats all she wrote in the US army having much that is like the rest of the first world countries with real air force like Sweeden . Real hockey too , hey yanks , NFL Toronto the patriots , the team was dismatled its now half Edmonton eskio and a colege team from one of the southern Rez lands . 2 games a year with Cleaveland and 2 games and year with Buffalo and 1 each other team in the scene .



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jokerdazey2
 


Excuse me? Didn't build a real plane? What in gods name are you talking about? Real air force like the Sweedish? Oh, I guess SAAB is "cutting edge" now huh? I'd love to see a Grippen and a Raptor go at it and see who ends up on top.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Oh yeah, and I'd rather have an uncle who based there opinion fact not nonsence like, 'it cannot exceed mach 1.6', or, 'not as stealthy as the flying dorito'... etc... Would you rather that?


[edit on 11/9/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shugo
n only a few ways.
The Widow didn't have the range, nor the payload that the F-22 had, which is what the air force was looking for.


In the test versions it had more range and more payload which was in theory what the air force was looking for...



Originally posted by Reise Reise
Theres just NO WAY the air force would spend that much on a plane that cant do as much as even talk to other aircraft.


I can name a few recent aircraft that cost a boats worth and haven't been able to affect the outcome of any war or even contribute significantly to it.

1: B1b 'Lancer' ( a dead loss)
2: B2 'Spirit' ( too few, too far)
3: F-17 ' Nighthawk' ( as good as it got)

You might notice that these are all 'stealth' aircraft and maybe that might help you to understand why the F-22 is in many ways yet another 'dud'.


As for the rest of what it "doesnt" have then its because its got something better. The Raptor has been updated and improved continuously since we decided to buy them.


Which has done a great deal of damage to a basically flawed design.


F22 vs F23? The F22 of today is a VAST improvement over what was pitted against the widow and today would eat its lunch.


The F-22 wasn't superior in any significant way and on the whole , in my opinion, inferior.


As for the F23 I to am fascinated to find out what happened to the F23 airframes that recently disappeared from museums. I think well see vastly improved F23s come back as FB23s. Just watch.


Not a chance as the JSF have already have now started to make it's 'presence' felt.

www.counterpunch.org...


And cmon ppl. Get a subscription to Janes. Seems everybodys parroting info thats now ten years old....
thank you...


I agree but i don't think it would be 'cured' by reading Janes. People have a amazing capacity to be deceived once they set their minds to it.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
You're missing the point of my post.


Yes. In retrospect much of that post seemed to have missed my intended mark....


I was noting the F-22s comparative ease getting to supersonic speeds over the F-15 - which the OPs uncle doubted. Infact, I don't believe I mentioned supercruise once - or radius. Perhaps, other than the fact that when supersonic it destroys the F-15.


And according to the data on the 'official' web page supplied earlier it can 'supercruise' ( supersonic flight) for somewhere between 6-10 minutes at mach 1.8. If the F-15 wishes to oblige it by engaging it in that period then yes, maybe.
Since i don't know what you think 'comparative ease' means in terms of getting to supersonic speeds i will leave it at that. I would still like to know what about the F-22 planform/aerodynamics makes it so superior in level flight acceleration!


I Wonder who's worse, Carlo, ELP, Goon, or Riccioni? I think I'd have to go with Carlo followed by Goon however.
Goon can now be called 'Pidgeon' after his fake article on AAP.


Well now your going to have to tell me more........


If you want a good supercruise radius you need good aerodynamics, good engines, light aircraft, lots of fuel. Fuel fraction is a small part. Try comparing the fuel fraction vs range between the F-22, F18E/F, & F-35. The F-22 has a tiny fuel fraction compared to both, but matches the F-35 radius & obliterates the F-18F + external tanks, radius.


The fuel fraction of the F-35 ( A/C, B being the CTOL bad idea) are currently stated to be between 40-50% thus being far larger than the F-22. The F-18 has always been fuel deficient and it compares badly with pretty much anything with wings. What i would really like to know is how the F-22's aerodynamics are so widely superior to that of the F-15 and other aircraft of it's size class?


Fantasy scenario.
As long as USAF exists as it does today and planned, the F-22 will ALWAYS have an advantage over any force, present or near future... That's why I could care less about these fantasy scenarios OR massive amounts of Super F-15s.


And your probably right. What is it costing the American public to arrange this "ALWAYS" advantage? What could have been had for those the hundreds of billions of dollars that will be expended on the next generation of attack aircraft?


2025 force is likely to be something like this - 1863 F-35s,


Well i plan to be around in 2025 so how much do you want to stake on that?


The projected cost have already escalated to 300 billion dollars and numbers built reduced to 1800 from 2800 so if this even roughly follows the F-22/B-2/B-1/F-111 model the various services will be lucky to get 700-1000 aircraft.


183 F-22s,


Yup, there's that.


70 B-1, 20 B-2, 100+ Medium bombers,


The B-1's have barely been operational since they were built ( readiness of around 50% at best; maybe it's not wiring/integration problems and their really trying to install DEW's( lol)?) and while this must have extended their useful lifetimes no end i wonder if they will have made these planes fully operational by then. The B-2's will be the maintain of the effective strategic bomber force for probably another two decades and i seriously doubt if any 'interim bomber' will fly in numbers at all or in numbers before 2025.

newsgroups.derkeiler.com...


250 AESA F-15C, 225 F-15E, 350+ F-18E/F, 80 B-52, - armed with JSOW, SDB, JASSM, & AMRAAM-D.


Right so the majority of the aircraft in service in 2025 will likely have been built in the 90's? You can add plenty of late generation F-16's as well as the F-35's will be far too few in number to make do in all the wars the Pentagon is planning to fight. As for the AESA F-15's and F-15E's they picking up the slack for so many other aircraft that i wonder in what condition even the very late model F-15's and Super Hornets will past 2010. Either way taking those things into a air superiority contest will be fine up until the time someone starts shooting back and you stop caring about airframe stress and pull it apart while getting out of dodge.

www.freerepublic.com...
www.cnn.com...


Obviously does not include US allies.. We do, and continue to, outnumber them by atleast 10 - 1 with aircraft that are for the most part superior to them. In your scenario? Systematically destroy the defense network with other assets letting the now invisible F-22 handle the Foxhound.


Which allies would that be? Like the Allies outnumbered the Germans in the low countries with their superior technology? Right.... I wouldn't bet on the ten to one and i wouldn't coun't on too many allies at the current pace.


So, I ask you, why should we spend EXTRA on massive amounts of Super F-15s? It is, infact, going to be extra money.... bigger tanking force, bigger airlift force (they must be awefully inefficiant if you don't need to increase this), more spares, more pilots, more ground crew ....


Well i just don't see how it's going to be more expensive and the production lines for F-15's are still very much in operation so there wont be such costs. As for a bigger tanking force tankers are cheap and they are very much dual use aircraft that can be put to civilian/public use if there isn't a ongoing war. Evolutionary designs of F-15 parts have greatly extended their service lives and that's the case for most spares. In terms of ground crew your doing a public service and can easily recruit men on 5- 10year contracts where they study for the first few and basically pay back that money over the rest of there term. This serves the nation both in defense and is just a more useful and logical subsidy that can eventually lead to a national airline? Isn't that better than subsidising Boeing's commercial activities by building F-22's?

.

. In the other thread, you suggested getting 10 F-15 for 1 F-22. How does that work? Including development costs the F-22 is 300 mil a pop.
If you get X 10 aircraft for same program price, then you / 10 the individual aircraft cost. 300 / 10 = 30 million $. That's one cheap AESA, F-119, Super F-15.


Including developmental costs the F-22 is nearer 350 million USD each and i pointed out that you could probably buy 5-10 late model Flankers for that price. Like anything else a mass produced thing becomes cheaper and if instead of building maybe 400 -229's ( 360 + 40 in stores?) you building 2000 they will become a relatively small part of that price. Either way C/D versions were produced for 30 million dollars each in 98' so even if you include the massive devaluation of the USD and 'throw in' thrust vectoring and other 'goodies' I would be surprised if you wont end up with a F-22 sans stealth for less than 80 million dollars.


Maybe you could get 1830 F-16 MLU+?


I would be content with block 60/ E/F's which will probably go for forty odd million today so you really may get ten of those for each F-22!



Excluding development costs F-22 is no more than 150 million a pop. Development costs are PAID FOR.


I'm sorry but they had spent 20 billion dollars by 2001 and presumably not on the 'production line' ( hehe). The additional costs that have been incurred since means a fully funded 62 billion dollar program will buy 185 aircraft for around 220 million per copy and i wont be easily convinced that it's in fact 137 million per copy.


F-15l & Eurofighter are not dramatically cheaper than this. So the whole arguement for it will be cheaper / more effective is moot anyway. Had the idea 15 years ago and it may of been actually worth something.


Can't do anything but agree! As compared to the F-22 the Typhoon looks to be even more of a rip off considering that it's a single engined fighter in the F-35/F-16 class...

www.militaryglobal.com...


And even if it did happen. What would it offer over 183 F-22? The confidence that if (and, truely, there is not) there was force that was better than 3rd world we'd destroy them?


It could be done for half the price allowing for higher pilot pay, twice as many flight hours in tested airframes and weapons that are nominally equal to or superior to anything out there. What it wouldn't do is create the illusion that the US doesn't want to fight and wants to win by shear intimidation.


It's still better than 1973 model AN/APG-63. And the capabilities of it are for the most part impressive.

Planned to be upgraded with AN/APG-81 technology if I'm not mistaken.


Which have little to do with the F-22 program. Imagine what could have been developed if some of that F-22 funding had been redirected to research in radar technologies?

Continued

[edit on 16-9-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Probably?
What you said is an assumption. I'd argue that they never had horribly restricted ROE. I do not think it's true, because when you're training your pilots it's usually not a good idea to cripple them while wasting billions of dollars on JUUSSSTTT to show good good your new aircraft is.


This is not a question of 'wastage' as much as it is in presumptions about inferior technologies elsewhere as have been proved far too often when it comes to Russian made weaponry. There are some notable examples of serious underestimations that had to 'corrected' in both Korea and Vietnam. You must remember that when the F-15 were originally introduced to the blue force it also managed those 100-1 ratio's which turned out to be not so inaccurate against third world airforces lacking integration, intelligence securit , training and experience.


Could you provide a citation showing restircted ROE? Furthermore, even if it was 10 - 1 exchange rates... we win.... by a wide margin.


Not as specifically as i would like but if USN and USA wargames are anything to go by it doesn't bode well. I have a few sources related to the USAF but i havn't managed to validate them in the way i would like. Ten to one ratio's are certainly enough but since the USAF has never achieved this in air to air combat despite having overwhelming superior numbers and technology/ trained pilots hoping for such against a first class power is probably daydreaming too loudly. To build a entire class of new aircraft to achieve such is making the USAF exceedingly vulnerable to digital/computation breaktroughs that will invalidate stealth and leave the F-22 badly outnumbered and without any noteworthy advantages.


You two have had long discussions about the F-22 so if he wants to learn more then by all means read up on previous discussions. I agree with you the supercrusie radius is small, and I agree with you the F-22 programme was too expensive.


To think that i could have been taking a nap! Yawn*


None the less, I agree with all true professional analysts in that a small F-22 fleet is on the whole superior and more viable than anything else.


Viable for whom? Warmongers in office who wants to fight bloodless wars( god forbids if a pilot actually gets killed; it might even make CNN!) against national liberation movements who don't own many planes and can't afford fuel to fly with? A small fleet of aircraft with low readiness ( show me a USAF stealthy airframe that can fly one combat mission a day) is simply a disaster waiting to happen as those 'inferior' foreign models will be flying two or three a day interdicting your strike aicraft or troops if you can succeed in keeping them away from your airbases. The Germans tried this not so long ago and it didn't get them anywhere i want to see the United States of America.


Technology transfer between the F-35 / F-22 is huge & there has been every indication of that being so. F-35 has much less indication of being expensive, however.


Well it hasn't brougth down the F-35 programs cost or unit price or led to more numbers being planned for production. There may have been technology transfer but i think they pocketed the cash far faster than the technology were made available.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
I agree fully with your post. I think we're mostly on the same page here. I just seem to be speaking more for the neocons & military industrial complex, sadly, and you're speaking for what should of been done.

Cheers.



EDIT: And Carlo, & Goon, (not so much Riccioni... at all) are a bunch of outspoken F-22 proponents who favour Australia getting the F-22 while upgrading the F-111. Fantasy lane... but the problem is they're getting tons of press attention & sukhoi fanboys always link to there website (Ausairpower.com). Goon also 'caused flame war on another forum too...

[edit on 16/9/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Can't do anything but agree! As compared to the F-22 the Typhoon looks to be even more of a rip off considering that it's a single engined fighter in the F-35/F-16 class...

www.militaryglobal.com...


When was the Typhoon a single engine fighter!

Not to mention that linked article is outdated, from before the typhoon entered service.

Why do people here keep on insisting on comparing the total project cost of the Typhoon (actually probably most non US fighters) which includes devolpment and a certain number of spares. To the airframe cost of the F-22/F-35.

Yes I know it's probably because the US releases airframe cost figures as a batch of aircraft, where everybody else release total project cost. But you can't compare the 2.

As an example,
For the US $43.7 million for 2 MQ-9 (Predator B) www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

For the UK $1.071 billion for 10 MQ-9 (the order got cancelled)
www.air-attack.com...

Incidently Current airframe cost for the F-35A/B $182 million ($2.2 Billion for 12 aircraft LRIP II) They got a long way to bring production cost down to target, of course LRIP is always more expensive.

Not saying what is best that depends a lot of your requirements.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by deckard83
Not saying what is best that depends a lot of your requirements.


Wouldn't a requirement be to save money

Sorry had to bring some sort of humor to this heavy thread

-EH



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by deckard83
When was the Typhoon a single engine fighter!


Maybe back in 1980? A pretty stupid mistake to make so you have my apology.


Not to mention that linked article is outdated, from before the typhoon entered service.


As far as my knowledge goes the Typhoons have gotten more expensive, not cheaper. If you have taken up the Typhoon cause i would be more than happy to look at whatever information you want to present.


Why do people here keep on insisting on comparing the total project cost of the Typhoon (actually probably most non US fighters) which includes devolpment and a certain number of spares. To the airframe cost of the F-22/F-35.


I do my best to consider both and i always point out the disparity. Of the mistakes ( note above) i do make ignorance and haste ranks far far above nationalistic bias.


Yes I know it's probably because the US releases airframe cost figures as a batch of aircraft, where everybody else release total project cost. But you can't compare the 2.


No you can't and i apologise for taking such a cheap shot at the Eurofighter.


As an example,
Incidently Current airframe cost for the F-35A/B $182 million ($2.2 Billion for 12 aircraft LRIP II) They got a long way to bring production cost down to target, of course LRIP is always more expensive.

Not saying what is best that depends a lot of your requirements.


The average cost of the projected 1800 JSF have already escalated to 120 million per copy while the project cost when from 220 billion to 300 billion with planes down from 2800 copies.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

The average cost of the projected 1800 JSF have already escalated to 120 million per copy while the project cost when from 220 billion to 300 billion with planes down from 2800 copies.

Stellar


A question I would pose is why the escalation in price in (I have my own opinion along with a thread following recent development hurdles etc.) Also why the reduction in airframes? To hazard my opinion first it would be directly tied to the program costs which are eating away at the planes much like the B-2 and its development cost minus the fact this project never had any black funding to appear better then it was for costs so far.

Outside of all this why bring up the 35 into the argument about the 22? Are we talking the merits of each aircraft or focusing on operational capability which then other forces come into play that I've seen sprinkling of in this thread.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   

TOM BURBAGE & GEN C.R. DAVIS
Rebuttal

PROGRAMME LEADERS RESPOND - BY TOM BURBAGE AND MAJ GEN CHARLES DAVIS

Fact: F-35 unit costs have increased 38 per cent since the contract was awarded in 2001 (not 54 per cent). Fully 35 per cent of that increase is due to economic factors outside of the programme's control, including cost of raw materials, such as titanium and carbon fibre composites, and inflation factors. The average per-unit cost of the F-35 is USD77 million in future-year dollars on a programme expected to be in production through at least 2036.

www.defencetalk.com...

(JANES)



UNITED STATES AIRFORCE, FY 2009 Budget Estimates.

F-35 Flyaway Unit Cost ($ M):

2007: 247.450
2008: 215.035
2009: 199.489
2010: 158.546
2011: 124.580
2012 101.726
2013 91.223
TOTAL: 83.131.

*THEN YEAR USD.

www.saffm.hq.af.mil...


The cost of each F-35 rose 38.01 percent to $69.3 million per plane at the end of 2007 from $50.2 million in October 2001, when the development program began; but that was an increase of just 0.25 percent from December 2006, according to a copy of the draft document.

Estimated operation and support costs for the F-35 over the life of the program, though, rose 17.5 percent to $764 billion from the December 2006 estimate of $650 billion, it showed. The document did not explain the increase, but the cost of jet fuel zoomed higher during 2007.

uk.reuters.com...

(69.3 in 2002 dollars.)


USAF is getting 1863, USMC/USN is getting about 650, Australia 100, Britain 100... + more.

[edit on 17/9/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


C0bzz I don't doubt your sources but the issues of powerplant development and delays with just that one part of the program would seem to increase the cost of development. I'll go back and look at what other delays have played a role but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't only account for 3% for the over all costs.

pfft You know what they want you to be confussed on the freakin costs and as far as I'm concerned the program is costing more and its not because of freakin inflation. I don't know anything that inflates that quickly over 5 years.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join