Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Billions upon BILLIONS!

Quote:

The Air Force estimates that the total 20-year cost to develop and build the F-22 is $63 billion (not accounting for inflation). In constant 1999 dollars, the total development and production cost of each of the 341 F-22s would be $172 million. Since the plane has been under development since 1991, much of this money has already been spent. The cost to actually build each F-22, which does not include R&D costs, is estimated at only $85 million.

Ref: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 1207-f.htm

When you consider that the F-15K, that was recently purchased by Korea, costs $105 Million each, a "redesign" of a legacy fighter isn't a good investment. (And that's the price without any fancy "new technologies" added.)

Overall, the F-15 program has cost $59 Billion over the years. If the Raptor stays at only twice that, and it is truly four times more capable, then we're getting a bargain. Then again, if the $300 billion for 2500 F-35A/B/C for the US holds true, it isn't too bad either... and that can still drop if the rest of the world joins in... Two Cents

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

F-16.net Sponsor

Considering that all of us are possibly going to contribute to the 700 billion to "rescue" the economy and allow a bunch of sleaze-balls to sail off in their yachts or drive off in their Maserati's & Lamborghini's after a bunch of stupid people refused to be responsible for their own ineptitude.........,

300 billion seems like a small price to pay for anything.

Even if the people flying them are only out for fast airplanes, cold beer & hot women.

regards, OL

outlaw162 wrote:

300 billion seems like a small price to pay for anything.

Even if the people flying them are only out for fast airplanes, cold beer & hot women.

regards, OL

And the problem with this is ? ? ?

Does anybody have pictures of the proposed F-15U that was reportedly offered to the UAE? It was supposed to have a redesigned wing, thrust vectoring, and other improvements.

I kinda think a "super Eagle" like this would be useful when competeing against the Flanker on the international market.

You all are forgetting something. Most 4th gen aircraft are all ready more maneuverable then what the stick actuator can stand as it is. You can easily make a 20G aircraft if you take the pilot out of it. Anybody remember the old HIMAT? Or the X-36? The low speed tail slides and flips all look cool but are pretty useless. Now being able to slew around Aim-9X style is useful, however that would kill a human.

kamov wrote:

Most 4th gen aircraft are all ready more maneuverable then what the stick actuator can stand as it is. You can easily make a 20G aircraft if you take the pilot out of it.

Agree. The light gray Eagle Driver that punched out going supersonic (Jon Counsell) actually only had to punch out, because he woke up from a G-LOC headed supersonic towards the Gulf, without sufficient altitude to recover. Other than that, he could've recovered the jet.

Granted, it might've been sent to Sheppard as an MX trainer after that, but if he'd had enough altitude, and time to recover physically, the plane would have brought him back, just despite the fact he pulled well past the recommended structural limits of the jet.

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

DO what the Russians did to the flanker to the F-15,/F-14?