| Author |
Message |
|
tmofarrvl
|
 Posted: Mar 05, 2010 - 03:27 PM
|
 
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Oct 20, 2006 - 12:35 AM
Posts: 215
Status: Offline
|
The Rand Corp recently released a study that the USAF had commissioned, to explore the cost of either continuing F-22 production, or shut down the F-22 production line - preserve all the necessary tooling - and restart the production line after two years. The conclusion of the Rand study was that if the USAF attempted to restart production after a two year hiatus, the flyawa cost would jump from $139 million to $179 million (in FY08 dollars).
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/201 ... 97.sum.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG797.pdf
No one asked what the cost would be if they attempted to stretch out the restart process by another two years or longer. The USAF is reportedly weighing whether or not to order the F-22 tooling scrapped, or to pay to have it preserved.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... oling.html
I suspect that the Pentagon had already made the decision for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 26, 2012 - 7:45 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corsair1963
|
|
Posted: Mar 08, 2010 - 02:05 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1831
Status: Offline
|
|
tmofarrvl wrote:
The Rand Corp recently released a study that the USAF had commissioned, to explore the cost of either continuing F-22 production, or shut down the F-22 production line - preserve all the necessary tooling - and restart the production line after two years. The conclusion of the Rand study was that if the USAF attempted to restart production after a two year hiatus, the flyawa cost would jump from $139 million to $179 million (in FY08 dollars).
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/201 ... 97.sum.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG797.pdf
No one asked what the cost would be if they attempted to stretch out the restart process by another two years or longer. The USAF is reportedly weighing whether or not to order the F-22 tooling scrapped, or to pay to have it preserved.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... oling.html
I suspect that the Pentagon had already made the decision for them.
Well, I hate to say it but the US Government has a bad habit of destroying tool for aircraft after production stops! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
madrat
|
|
Posted: Apr 12, 2010 - 02:37 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Mar 03, 2010 - 03:12 AM
Posts: 739
Status: Offline
|
| The tool makers love it. Its when they shred the plans that ticks me off. You can always rebuild a tool base. You cannot restart plans from scratch without major changes. You may as well start over at that point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
popcorn
|
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 - 12:30 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Sep 24, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Posts: 1179
Status: Offline
|
| Nothing has changed to warrant the DoD building additional Raptors. The recent PAK-FA unveiling didn't seem to make that much of an impression on the policy makers.. maybe its just what they projected it would be alll along, no big surprises. after all, the F-22 is supposed to dominate the then-best opposing fighter and any platform that succeeded it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lampshade111
|
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2010 - 04:31 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Sep 22, 2008 - 03:17 AM
Posts: 191
Status: Offline
|
| Well Popcorn, theoretically the DoD could recognize what a stupid decision they made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bobbyjoeblob
|
|
Posted: Jul 01, 2010 - 04:25 PM
|
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jun 30, 2010 - 04:12 PM
Posts: 12
Status: Offline
|
[quote="lampshade111"]Well Popcorn, theoretically the DoD could recognize what a stupid decision they made.[/
Stupid,yes and I think it would make them look even stupider if they didn't bring it back.
RAPTORS RULE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
