Gates to cut F-22

[Realms09]

(Flyaway costs per wikipedia, which I believe exclude R&D in both cases)

F-15 C/D 29.9 million in 1998 dollars

CPI adjustment between 1998 dollars and 2009 dollars: 1.30

F-15 C/D 38.9 million in 2009 dollars

F-22 143 million in 2009 dollars

Production to production the F-22 costs 3.6 times the F-15.

Including R&D the F-22 is at 355 million per aircraft. I could not find a program cost for the F-15 in my quick search to account for its R&D. If you have better numbers please post them.

One advantage of producing a simpler, cheaper airframe is that you make more of them. This puts you farther down the factory learning curve and disperses the research costs further, making them overall even cheaper. Expensive airframes consistently go the other way, getting shut down before their designers intended, driving up costs even further (B-1, B-2, and now, it seems the F-22). It's a tricky world out there.

 

[MikeD]

Clearly you've forgotten that Gates is a holdover from the Bush administration.

Give it a rest already.


As opposed to the previous administration's logic of "paying" for increased military spending with tax cuts?

The messiah's aura is fading.....Gates being a holdover from Bush is irrelevant. He takes instructions from the new boss.

You do know that the national debt Obama has created is twice the entire debt of G. Washington to Bush 43 combined?

 

[OhioStatePilot]

You do know that the national debt Obama has created is twice the entire debt of G. Washington to Bush 43 combined?

Do you know if that's all in adjusted dollars, or period dollars? Heh, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[MikeD]

Do you know if that's all in adjusted dollars, or period dollars? Heh, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

It goes towards the idea of spending your way out of a recession.....creating more $$$ out of thin air with no backing behind it; thus getting the country further and further down the drain.

 

[thehobbit]

according to this article the latest model f-16 costs 37.5 million a piece in 2007.
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...-uae-shows-off-its-most-advanced-falcons.html

 

[jhugz]

So "almost 200" is enough because we should simply spend the extra 150m on other, unspecified projects? Hell, we don't even need fighters if we're never going to war with anyone with an Air Force, right? No matter that the other 2,000 fighters in the Air Force inventory are falling apart. Thanks for such insightful commentary, as usual, Jhugz.

I am sure you are still sore about the GoJet stuff get over it. You obviously know better then everyone in congress and the president's cabinet, so what else can I say. If we go to another major combat with a world power the world will be over. Enough is enough with us playing world police. We need enough planes to efficiently defend ourself and nothing more. How do you expect a defense budget when the American Dollar takes a total dumb. 150 million goes a long way to fix internal problems instead of imaginary ones that high-up Government and Lockheed-Martin CEO's make us think we have. Stop spending money inefficiently on needless material. And seriously get over yourself and your ego. Just because you may be military now doesn't make you an expert by any means just like sitting in the right seat of an RJ makes you an ALPA expert.

 

[mhcasey]

You obviously know better then everyone in congress and the president's cabinet, so what else can I say.

The irony in this statement is truly remarkable.

I'll edit this in the morning when I get other figures on the 22 costs. I'm too tired right now.

 

[Hacker15e]

Anyone who even puts the F-22 in the same sentence as the F-15 and F-16 has all ready shown that they don't know what they are talking about.

Anyone who considers further production of 35-year-old airframes as an "alternative" to one that is only a decade old clearly doesn't understand the capabilities of ANY of the aircraft.

They also clearly don't understand how currently existing aircraft like the Flanker, J-10, and others stack up to the "legacy fighters" and the Raptor.

That's not even looking at the proliferation of double-digit Russian SAMs in the world, and how the legacy fighters perform against those threats.

You simply can't look only at the "bottom line" to decide which aircraft is best. Honestly, the "more F-15/F-16" alternative argument to the F-22 is like saying that it would have been okay to use P-51s as our front-line fighters in Vietnam (they were only 25 years old at the time!!) because those pesky F-4s were just too expensive.

It's awfully easy for people who will never have to risk their own pink butts in combat against a Flanker or an SA-12 to say "we don't need the Raptor...the F-15 is good enough."

 

[Maurus]

I think people are hoping the F-35 will be a better alternative.

 

[HVYMETALDRVR]

Well unless Boeing and the DOD is lying about what the F-22 is capable of I think 187 will be more than enough to deal with any reasonable conflict in the future and its not like we can't build more if we have to.

Not to open up a whole new can of worms but back in 2000 with Bush 2 elected and later when the American P-3 landed in China I remember the experts everywhere predicting a new arms race with China. 9/11 later flipped things upside down and maybe it sidelines such a standoff? I don't know about that but it seems now that China, Russia, the US, and Europe are making to much money off each other to really want to fight. And without China and Russia what other threat could put up a reasonable fight to one F-22? Nevermind 187...

Unless we go after the Chinese for their deadly babyfood and poisonous drywall! Bastards!

 

[Hacker15e]

Well unless Boeing and the DOD is lying about what the F-22 is capable of I think 187 will be more than enough to deal with any reasonable conflict in the future and its not like we can't build more if we have to.

Well, that's just it. You say that number is "more than enough"...based on what? What scenario?

It's fine to look at the F-22's capabilities mano-e-mano against every other threat in the world, but that is not the question posed when considering the NUMBER of aircraft to be built.

How many aircraft do you think are required to fill the air superiority role both over North America and in any deployed location in the world?

To give you some perspective, right now there are about 250 F-15Es in the fleet -- that is 6 operational squadrons and two training units. With that number of squadrons, it is enough for one squadron to deploy every 18 months and keep constant coverage over one GWOT theater.

The other 5 squadrons use that 18 months back in the US to re-train in the skills lost while performing CAS for 5 months, and "upgrade" pilots to replace those lost through the normal reassignment process. Then, a couple months prior to their next deployment, they start re-focusing on what they'll be doing in theater.

It is a constant never-ending process. The jets never get back to prime maintnenace health and the squadrons never get back to their manning and qualification health.

All of that with only ONE squadron deployed at a time (sometimes two), and with 30% more aircraft than the Raptor fleet will have.

So, since you feel that "187 is enough," then how many squadrons do you see being carved out of that number? How do you see those squadrons spending their time training versus deploying? What kind of coverage does that number REALLY give you...especially once the F-15Cs start going to the boneyard?

I think your idea that 187 is "enough" isn't really based on anything.

I think that 187 is not enough by a wide margin.

 

[thehobbit]

Could you give an example of when you would actually need an f-22?

 

[Hacker15e]

Could you give an example of when you would actually need an f-22?

Well, that would be getting very close to OPSEC issues that don't belong on the internet.

But, let me just reiterate what I've said in other threads that the Flanker and PL-12 missiles are both very, very capable. In addition, the "double digit" Russian SAMs (SA-10, SA-12, SA-20) are also extremely capable.

Any time that a potential adversary would posess these weapons, the F-22 would provide a very necessary advantage.

That is...unless you don't care if American pilots die or not.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Could you give an example of when you would actually need an f-22?

Weakness, real or imagined, is an invitation to aggression. Part of having an advanced system such as the -22 is knowing that if you go against it, you may well be promptly handed your *ss. Thus.. a reluctance to challenge.

Not a fighter pilot but a reader and from the articles, it seems the -22 is not just superior to the -15 but clearly superior. And the only way the Indian Flankers had any success was for both sides to dumb down their systems to not show their full capabilities. But the Indian Flankers were no push-overs and the new Chinese copy is reportedly "not your Dad's Flanker".

We saw this 'play nice' scenario in the 70s with "Jimmah" and the Iranians ignored him. It seems the current admin with its populist rhetoric against corp jets is a replay of Jimmah's yacht taxes and smiling is a show of force.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I'd also be interested to hear numbers about operating the aircraft, rather than just buying them. As in how many hours wrenching on a 40 year old fighter vs. a brand new one? Maintenance isn't just parts and gas, it's paying the kids who will turn the wrenches, training said kids, their healthcare, their GI benefits etc etc etc.

One thing seems clear: It's insanity to pay stratospheric amounts to develop a weapons system only to cancel it or procure a couple dozen of a planned fleet of 10,000 (or whatever). Economies of scale.

 

[Mariano]

Change you can beleive in, eh comrads.

Ok. Number one, "comrad". Socialist or communist countries aren't precisely characterized by minimum military spending.

This isn't a cut in spending, but a relocation of the money. Seriously. It looks like an smart thing to do.

Better spent that money in armor for the troops in the ground. Recon aircraft, etc.

The USAF can annihilate any enemy in the air (or in the ground) as it is right now. With the type enemy that we have right now, we need more money where it will save lives.

 

[Hacker15e]

The USAF can annihilate any enemy in the air (or in the ground) as it is right now. With the type enemy that we have right now, we need more money where it will save lives.

That statement is based on what?

 

[Firebird2XC]

The USAF can annihilate any enemy in the air (or in the ground) as it is right now. With the type enemy that we have right now, we need more money where it will save lives.

You fail to recognize the primary mission of the USAF. 'Air Superiority' means other planes can't shoot down our attack or bomber aircraft. The real purpose of an Air Force is to put ordinance on target on the ground, to advance, protect, and augment the troops.

Not to mention-

In 2005, in Iraq, we had one of our Blackhawk helicopters have a bird strike in a marsh south of Baghdad. It destroyed one of the tip caps on a main rotor blade, and due to extreme airframe vibration the crew was forced to make a precautionary landing right there.

Shortly thereafter, two aircraft from my unit were dispatched to recover our own. We were not armed with suppressive weaponry. We had M-4 carbines (rifles) and pistols. The Ukranians from the Coalition were sending a Quick Reaction Force by ground to give us a better perimeter. They send a Hind-D helicopter and a Lynx as well for 'air cover'.

The locals started poking around and taking a look-see anyways. From a distance, mind you, but who knows who has a cell phone and is calling up their mad-bomber cousin?

It was about this time that our local air superiority kids showed up. Two USAF F-15s took turns making low passes and lighting their afterburners. They were very loud.. and very hard to not notice.

These 'show of force' presence-passes got the attention of the locals VERY well. They all scattered and split the scene.

The goal of the USAF is not to shoot down every single plane in the sky, it's to 'move mud' in support of the troopies on the ground.

The F-22 program is all part of that. The F-15 fleet is very old and likely approaching mechanical retirement issues. It needs to be relieved, en masse.

The F-16s aren't far behind it.

We need the F-22 program. All of it.

 

[CrippleHawk]

Has anyone seen this yet?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...ates-calling-cuts-high-tech-weapons-programs/

 

[jtrain609]

That statement is based on what?

Probably the fact that he's in the infantry and IS that dude on the ground that would much prefer the armor over a stealth fighter jet.

Further, what in the world does it matter how many of these things you have if you can't see them to shoot them down? I mean cool, the Soviets built some awesome weapons...but the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The Chinese aren't exactly known for their R&D (but they're great at ripping people off) and there's no other nation on earth that could even come close to starting a real fight with us as far as air combat is concerned.

I know, you guys want the best piece of machinery possible. You have it, and unless you've got access to classified information that I don't, that says that China has built a clone of the F-22 and has in fact found a way to shoot the thing down, then why do we need thousands of the things? There's a point where being over prepared will bankrupt the country, and then what are these things going to do?

I mean can't this thing track and engage multiple targets at the same time? I.E. 5 Flankers vs. 1 F-22 results in 5 destroyed Flankers? Wasn't that part of the mission statement of this aircraft?