Young: 100 F-22s Need $8 Billion For Upgrades

Well every miltary plane has upgrades, $8 Billion for 100 planes so that's $80 million per plane, is hell of a lot. Isn't that more per aircraft then the new price of an other fighter/ground attack aircraft.

Don't know how much of that is for the A2G if you could seperate it out easily. But if the F22 is a good as it's meant to be in the A2A then you would think most of it is for A2G so why would you want to bother when for less you can have a new F35 which has a more useful stealth A2G load, and the air force says they haven't really got enough F22 to be every they need to be in the A2A role

As far as I'm concerned the 22 is only worth $40 Million, and should coast no more than $10 Mill a year to maintaine.

reply to post by deckard83


$80 mil per plane is more than the cost of the F-35 , and thats just for `upgrades`


it had better sing and bloody dance for that sort of money.

Originally posted by Harlequin
Its not that the F-22 is `non functional` - but its an aircraft conceieved and built for a wa thats no longer valid - the same can be said of the Typhoon;

Actually recent use of the aircraft in training has shown it to be quite a force multiply and its evenutal electronic attack abilities will give it even more capacity

which is why EADS are cramming as much A2G stuff into the Typhoon i the early stages as they can get ready on time; and thats the problem with the F-22 ,

The F-22 was designed for the air dominace role. That being said as they work out the kinks, its going to be far more than that. Yes it can do the A2G role, but its far more valuable IMHO in the SEAD, C3I, and electronic attack modes than being a simple bomb truck which teh F-35 can perform.

Its also way to early to be condemming an airframe that has yet to be wrung out here.

Reply to StellarX

That's pretty funny saying that the B-1 is only now becoming operational. I have first hand experience working on them, and they were nowhere near as bad as they were made out to be. They had issues when I worked on them, but what plane doesn't. They are now becoming MORE effective than before with the SNIPER pod and other upgrades. You and others like you try to make it out to be a pig, when it wasn't. And I love the line about how it's only used for National Emergencies. If that was the case why were so many deployed to Guam and Diego Garcia to use against Iraq and Afghanistan? I'd hardly call those "National Emergencies" considering how many B-52s and B-2s were used in both countries.

Instead of playing armchair general how about getting some actual honest to god first hand experience in what you're talking about. Not that I expect that to make any difference since you've already made your preference known. Since I'm not someone famous, my experience doesn't mean a damn thing right?



[edit on 12/5/2008 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Harlequin
www.defensenews.com...

Pentagon acquisition executive John Young says the U.S. Air Force will spend $8 billion to upgrade 100 F-22 fighters, which he said would be "lesser models" without the modifications

and the big damning report

But that's not all the next Pentagon leaders will have to debate about the super-secret Raptor, he said. He said operational tests have showed the plane is "proving very expensive to operate."

We're not seeing the mission-capable rates that we expected. And it's complex to maintain," Young told reporters. "I would highlight the maintenance on the plane is too high. They are struggling with some of the [low-observable features] and other issues."

183 + 4 is all there getting - theres more reports as well how if the ultra high maintanence requirements arnt`t kept then the LO goes through the roof to the worst case that current aircraft AESA and high end PESA can detect it at viable ranges.

a first look i think as to why no more will be bought.

edit: source link might help

[edit on 1/12/08 by Harlequin]

The current F-22 program is approaching $200 billion. I don't know about you, but for $200B, they better be able to raise the dead. We need to get the F-22 in adequete numbers to defeat our most forminable opponants. If I was in charge of the F-22 program, I would give the aerospace companies a goal and a budget that was NOT NEGOCIABLE. The areospace companies would be told take your best shot, in addition with the money available to cover the odd technological problems we know will crop up in any new aircraft program. For those companies sucking down the dollars, and demanding more? Get a life, but the American people are at the edge of the abysis, and when it comes to money?, we can say no...

The reason why the current cost is $200B is because they're only buying 184 of them. If they bought them in the numbers that they wanted originally, the cost would have gone way down.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's pretty funny saying that the B-1 is only now becoming operational. I have first hand experience working on them, and they were nowhere near as bad as they were made out to be.

Yes, i should be more specific in saying that the mechanical issues were largely sorted out in the late 90's ( as i understand) and my insistence on saying that they are not 'operational' should be restated to make clear that it's their EW and ECM suits which have never lived up to even much reduced expectations. Having said that even without such they are on the face of it formidable conventional bombers.

They had issues when I worked on them, but what plane doesn't. They are now becoming MORE effective than before with the SNIPER pod and other upgrades.

With the latest ( 2006) upgrades they can deploy precision weapons but what you should also mention is that there were serious problems with the integration of weapons that have long ago been succesfully adapted for use in the B-52H's.

You and others like you try to make it out to be a pig, when it wasn't. And I love the line about how it's only used for National Emergencies.

If that was the case why were so many deployed to Guam and Diego Garcia to use against Iraq and Afghanistan?

In the late 90's , more than a decade after becoming nominally 'operational'.

I'd hardly call those "National Emergencies" considering how many B-52s and B-2s were used in both countries.

There were half as many B-52's and three or four times less B-2's. Again national emergencies was a overstatement as these planes can certainly be used to bomb terrorist and civilians who have no air defenses or interceptor aircraft.

Instead of playing armchair general how about getting some actual honest to god first hand experience in what you're talking about.

Not that i think one lands up on B-1 crews by accident but why would i wish to spend my life fixing imperial weapons? Whatever my possible misconceptions about the utility of the B-1 at least i was never involved in supporting their quite illegal bombings of foreign countries....

Not that I expect that to make any difference since you've already made your preference known. Since I'm not someone famous, my experience doesn't mean a damn thing right?

My preferences are my own but my information might very well be somehow wrong ( Other US weapon systems have gotten very bad press that turned out to be produced by folks who should have their citizenship revoked for treason) and weather or not it seems that way to you i DO value your contributions and am in fact, definitely in my own mind, trying to arrive at objective truths.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The reason why the current cost is $200B is because they're only buying 184 of them.

There is no reason to fall on one's sword needlessly either. The total program cost will , according to GOA data, amount to 62 Billion dollars by the time 184 F-22's have been procured at the end of 2011. How the current request for a additional 8 billion dollars will affect that production run i/we don't yet know but if numbers are to be maintained this will result in the 70- 72 billion LM/Boeing originally requested for this production run going in my mind some way towards 'proving' that this was in fact a hidden cost they have been aware of for some time.

Either way this is chump change as compared to the esclating 250 odd billion dollar cost of the 'completed' JSF program. Sorry for the needlessly typing if you were accidentally confusing the JSF program cost with that of the F-22...

If they bought them in the numbers that they wanted originally, the cost would have gone way down.

A production run of around 800 aircraft will push the program cost to around 100 billion dollars. In my mind it doesn't make much sense to kill the program at this stage ( would have made sense to scrap it at the 30 odd billion dollar pre production 'sunk' cost stage) but given the pentagon's apparent goal of spending as much cash as they can while destroying the US armed forces capacity to fight, while keeping up appearances to the contrary, modern wars this seems to be good call.

Stellar



[edit on 6-12-2008 by StellarX]

Actually you're wrong about the program cost for 400 aircraft. The more they buy the lower the per unit cost. The reason why the B-2 cost $2B per airplane or more is because they only bought 21 of them. If they were bought as originally planned the cost per airframe would have been significantly lower, because the would have gotten back the cost of the R&D and the cost of tooling. That's what drives the cost per airframe up.

Click here for more information.

100 billion for 800 planes is likely optimistic. Total procurement cost for 183 was 33.157 billion. 800 / 183 = 4.37 x 33.157 = 145 billion. That doesn't count development costs either (25 billion?). 145 + 25 = 170 billion. Obviously the ramp up would lower the cost - but 70 billion less? That's almost half of the weapons system itself. Maybe if you could half the price of the F-22 to 60 million each, in future year dollars; but that's not the way the cookie crumbles.

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

Wonder if F-35 RAM technologies could be ported to the F-22 to make it cheaper to purchase and maintain.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by C0bzz]

Reply to StellarX

What, run out of sources so now you have to insult me? Good try.

As for your comment on reading a book on fixing planes try again. The only books I read on fixing them were T.O. manuals. I have honest to god experience working on them which is a HELL of a lot more than you can say but yet you seem to think that you're some sort of genius when it comes to US military doctrine and pointing out all the mistakes it makes.

I have YET to see you show ANY kind of experience with ANY kind of military aircraft except to quote people that have a bone to pick with that aircraft as gospel.

Since you seem to be such an expert on all things USAF, explain WHY the B-1 has such a problem with the EW systems. And then maybe you can explain the maintenance codes used to show readiness for the B-1s. Show off what an expert you are at Google and how well you can find these things.

Originally posted by C0bzz
100 billion for 800 planes is likely optimistic.Total procurement cost for 183 was 33.157 billion. 800 / 183 = 4.37 x 33.157 = 145 billion.

Admittedly that estimation might be a a bit low by ten - twenty billion but i don't think it would come to 145 billion for procurement only.

By the time all 183 jets have been purchased, around $28 billion will have been spent on research and development. An additional $34 billion will have been spent on actually procuring the aircraft. That's about $62 billion for the total program cost. Divided out, that's comes to about $338 million per aircraft.

But the reality is, if the Air Force wanted to buy just one more jet, it would cost the taxpayer less than half that amount. The current cost for a single copy of an F-22 stands at about $137 million. And that number has dropped by 23 percent since Lot 3 procurement, General Lewis said.

"The cost of the airplane is going down," he said. "And the next 100 aircraft, if I am allowed to buy another 100 aircraft ... the average fly-away cost would be $116 million per airplane."

www.f-16.net...

So presuming a program cost so far of between 60 - 70 billion ( thus including this eight billion 'upgrade' young calls for) for 185 odd aircraft a additional 30 billion with a presumed reduction of cost ( which obviously can't continue forever) of 15% per 100 aircraft for the next three hundred should yield five hundred aircraft for close to one hundred billion in total program cost. If , as i believe, that eight billion is somewhat of a sunk cost already ( they know they can't finish the 185 without it) that price for copy 500 should be in 85-100 million dollar range depending on just how much the Pentagon allows LM/Boeing to steal/mismanage into oblivion.

That doesn't count development costs either (25 billion?). 145 + 25 = 170 billion.

I am confident that with a properly funded ( i suppose that's very unrealistic) GOA oversight of Boeign/LM conduct the USAF may get 800 F-22's for a program cost of between 100-120 billion dollars.

Obviously the ramp up would lower the cost - but 70 billion less? That's almost half of the weapons system itself.

Yup; that's how these things tend to work. The problem is in part due to the USAF simply having committed too much money elsewhere thus not being able to meet even the reduced total program cost; pretty much what happens when you have a ten year long air war to enforce illegal genocidal sanctions. And then there's the Yugoslavia affair.

Since the most recent cost ( young's admission of the additional eight billion requirement) would put the program cost in that range they could apparently never do without at least that spending to keep up their subsidies of civilian Boeing aircraft; so much for Airbus inefficiency. As i understand the original program cost ( 1986 estimation for 750 aircraft) were going to be close a hundred billion to start with so i am really starting to wonder about all the flak this program has received.

Having said that the Pentagon/national security state well understands that Boeing needed at least as much cash and i have some hopes that the F-22 program might still be salvaged post 2011. One must take into account that they were preparing to build many dozens of planes per year obviously leading to MUCH reduced fixed costs. Currently you have to pay for almost the same staff and infrastructure for just twenty aircraft...

Maybe if you could half the price of the F-22 to 60 million each, in future year dollars; but that's not the way the cookie crumbles.

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

I wouldn't go THAT far but i think a average price per frame ( 750 planes against total program cost might come in around 100 million dollars which isn't nearly as bad as the numbers currently being thrown around.

Wonder if F-35 RAM technologies could be ported to the F-22 to make it cheaper to purchase and maintain.

Fat chance given how the B-1's, B-2's and F-117's 'stealth' didn't seem to 'port' so well to the F-22 or apparently the next boondoggle JSF affair.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Fat chance given how the B-1's, B-2's and F-117's 'stealth' didn't seem to 'port' so well to the F-22 or apparently the next boondoggle JSF affair.
Stellar

What B-1 "stealth"? The B-1 primarily uses shape for a reduced RCS not RAM. There is SOME RAM on the B-1, but very very little. As for the B-2 and F-117 RAM they were early generation. The F-117 RAM was altered several times during its life, and some of those changes made it to the F-22. But since they had vastly different missions they had to change things. The RAM coating on the F-22 has to be able to withstand a much higher thermal envelope than the F-117 did.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What, run out of sources so now you have to insult me? Good try.

I was in fact asking you why you were insulting me. I suppose that's the type of twisted reasoning that will ensure that we don't resolve many disagreements.

As for your comment on reading a book on fixing planes try again. The only books I read on fixing them were T.O. manuals.

I didn't mention books in relation to fixing planes. I attempted to point out that i have actually read books related to many issues as written by 'experts' such as yourself hence the fact that i am familiar with a host of issues you somehow presume to be known just to yourself. Again i attempted to ask why you presumed that i didn't know what i clearly did only for you to again see this as a 'attack' on you. Maybe it's hard to be a American and not to see everything as covered hostility?

I have honest to god experience working on them which is a HELL of a lot more than you can say but yet you seem to think that you're some sort of genius when it comes to US military doctrine and pointing out all the mistakes it makes.

Actually i know all this about you as we talked at length about where you worked and even who you were dating/married to at the time. Maybe you just have a short memory? Again i didn't suggest that i 'knew more' but that people who also worked on these aircraft wrote books and or had to present their findings to senate commissions. Apparently you think that first hand knowledge is the only form of knowledge despite the fact that i seem to be familiar with all the 'common insider' knowledge that you are in part objecting to. So much for first hand experience being the only type?

As for being a genius my IQ isn't that high and i never suggested that there was a conspiracy to artificially lower my IQ scores. What i in my opinion is well ( or possibly even 'better'; shock, horror ) read than you are and if you don't like that or can't accept, or wont consider that, it's entirely your problem.

The fact that one can escape sanction despite hopelessly twisting the words of others , perpetually presuming and accusing them of ignorance, without providing proof, and just generally taking a condescending attitude is, i suppose, the benefits of defending convention where convention is just about all that's known.

I have YET to see you show ANY kind of experience with ANY kind of military aircraft except to quote people that have a bone to pick with that aircraft as gospel.

Right and we all know that those who have anything negative to say about American weaponry and or equipment are from the devil and or Soviet/Chinese/Vietnamese/North Korea/Iraqi' agents. When you wish to make sensible arguments against what your fellow 'experts' wrote in those books you are free to do so but these blanket denials and accusations that no one can know anything about your job unless they know it is HOGWASH and you should know better.

Since you seem to be such an expert on all things USAF, explain WHY the B-1 has such a problem with the EW systems.

It's automated threat identification and similarly automated countermeasure systems originally were meant to counter dozens of pre-identified threats but the system were never quite able to do this automatically despite a much reduced threat range. Basically the B-1b's ECM system were as much a threat to the B-1's situational awareness ( self-jamming) as it was effective in suppressing threats. And no, i didn't have to google for this.

And then maybe you can explain the maintenance codes used to show readiness for the B-1s. Show off what an expert you are at Google and how well you can find these things.

I can only quote what the GOA and other oversight commissions said and or concluded and since i have done that in the past i don't see what i should repeat myself. The B-1b's couldn't take part in the original desert storm because of structural issues but even if that wasn't a problem they were not going to be of much use in the opening phases with their broken EW systems.

Why do i have to be a 'expert' to know any of these things when a few books and many hours online will reveal what experienced and knowledgeable people in various oversight commissions concluded about these systems and events? Why do you so self righteously/arrogantly believe that no one can know anything about these issues from reading?

PS: Before i get into even more trouble i would appreciate a copy of the ATS field guide Zaphod is using. It would be of some service to me if i could at times be condescending, insensitive, rude and generally obnoxious without getting on the wrong side of the ATS forum staff.

And no, this isn't a joke or meant as one. I really want to know how what i should be doing beside just not posting and or turning the other cheek; i am not a Christian after all and i don't much like being treated this way.

Stellar


[edit on 7-12-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What B-1 "stealth"? The B-1 primarily uses shape for a reduced RCS not RAM.

Do you have a point beside stating the abundantly obvious, AGAIN?

There is SOME RAM on the B-1, but very very little.

Who said otherwise? Would RAM on a F-15 matter much? Since when does planform not 'port'? They didn't learn anything from the layouts of all the planes that were designed with RCS reduction in mind? Why don't you tell me as lay person something i don't know?

As for the B-2 and F-117 RAM they were early generation.

So what? Since when don't we learn anything from 'early' generation technology? I don't understand your reasoning here.

The F-117 RAM was altered several times during its life, and some of those changes made it to the F-22. But since they had vastly different missions they had to change things.

Right and despite the knowledge gained in those programs it still cost 30 odd billion dollars to develop the changes required for the F-22? How do we know that's where any significant part of the money went and if so why do they still have such immense problems with it?

The RAM coating on the F-22 has to be able to withstand a much higher thermal envelope than the F-117 did.

And how much of a issues is that really when the F-117's and B-2's low altitude penetration profile still resulted in RAM being severely affected by rain and general humid conditions? I mean hasn't it become obvious that this technology just isn't ready for practical operational employment?

When do i and all those who disagree with the massive expenditure/operational tempo degredation on 'passive' defense get to say 'we told you so? Isn't it yet obvious that this technology needs more time to mature?

I am not asking for your respect but until you can start telling me things i do not know about the issues i am choosing to discuss your condescending attitude wont get you anywhere good with me. Just keep it up and lets see how far your presumed knowledge and intelligence ( without ever having to cite a source; you apparently being too good to stoop as low as to provide 'proof') gets you with someone who doesn't have any first hand knowledge and chooses to rely exclusively on the expert opinions of actual experts.

Stellar

MY condescending attitude? Don't make me laugh. Who's the one that goes into every military thread they post in and inform everyone just how wrong they are? Who's the one that sits there and insults people when they try to say things?

As for posting sources when you find a library with T.O.s and other manuals online or find a way for me to post private conversations online I'll be happy to provide a source for you. Not all of us accept as gospel everyone that posts things online and ignore people that we've talked to or things that we've actually DONE. How many of the planes that you sit here bashing have you actually worked on? None? I didn't think so.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
MY condescending attitude?

Yes, your condescending attitude, like right now.

Don't make me laugh. Who's the one that goes into every military thread they post in and inform everyone just how wrong they are?

This isn't funny to me and i most certainly do not go into every forum here or anywhere else to 'inform' 'everyone' just how wrong they are. I am disagreeing with YOU so please defend YOUR point of view instead of pretending that you are above having to defend what you believe. If you do not wish to to talk to me or consider yourself above discussing these matters with amateurs add me to ignore. If not stop wasting time defending a presumed convention.

Who's the one that sits there and insults people when they try to say things?

According to me you are. All i am doing is trying to set your misrepresentations of my claims strait. I would be more than happy if you disagree with what i say but as it stands you are attacking claims and statements i never made.

As for posting sources when you find a library with T.O.s and other manuals online or find a way for me to post private conversations online I'll be happy to provide a source for you.

And when did this become part of the discussion any ways? Why do you want to bother us with 'personal' conversations when we have GOA and USAF documents showing us exactly what the readiness numbers were like at various times? Do you wish to provide proof that these numbers are not in fact accurate and that the GOA and USAF were complicit or subject to a rather large and long term fraud?

Not all of us accept as gospel everyone that posts things online and ignore people that we've talked to or things that we've actually DONE.

Well i don't do that and last i checked you were the one who wanted to bring personal discussions into this discussion to 'prove' that i were relying on falsified or generally inaccurate GOA/USAF/Senate documents? Why are you trying to make me out as the problem when all my sources are easily inspected online?

How many of the planes that you sit here bashing have you actually worked on? None? I didn't think so.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Where do you think the GOA/USAF and Senate get their information from if not from people like you? What is wrong with my reasoning here? Are you proposing that these oversight commissions or command structures are dealing with entirely falsified data as provided by base commanders from the data you are giving?

Who's the conspiracy theorist now?

Stellar

I'm attacking statements that you never made? I made a mistake when I said 400 instead of 800. As for the B-1 stealth remark, you very clearly said in your reply "B-1, B-2, and F-117 stealth". How is that twisting what you said or how is that not something you said? Now please, explain how they're going to take stealth from a B-1 that uses very little ram, and uses primarily SHAPE and transfer that to an F-22? And while you're at it, explain how you didn't say it? Here just to make sure, I'll go quote where you said it.

Originally posted by StellarX
Fat chance given how the B-1's, B-2's and F-117's 'stealth' didn't seem to 'port' so well to the F-22 or apparently the next boondoggle JSF affair.
Stellar

But you're right. My reply about the B-1 stealth had nothing to do with what you said.

As for private conversations and T.O. sources the people that maintain the equipment know a little bit more than the GAO does sometimes. The GAO is looking at every aircraft that falls under every maintenance code, whether it's PMC, NMC, or FMC. Then they take those aircraft and they show the availability rate. A B-1 that is PMCM for a radio antenna doesn't make it non-available, but since it's under the PMC code ON PAPER it isn't available. So the paper sources aren't the be all, end all. They're going by the rule book, and marking an aircraft that's PMCM not available when in reality it might very well be. At one point almost every B-1 was PMCM, but yet they were still flying missions and doing TDYs.

As for the F-22, it's going to get a little better every year. As they learn new tricks it will go up. The B-2 had a horrid MA rate for awhile, but as the crew chiefs learned short cuts, it climbed a little every year. And as they flew aircraft that were PMCM for minor issues, it climbed.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Zaphod58]

Good Afternoon.

This thread is about the f22 needing, or not, 8 billion dollars in upgrades. Not personal animosity, so I'm going to cordially ask you both to knock it off. Issues, not each other.

thanks so much.