F-16.net

I'm curious.

The USAF is definitely procuring 183 F-22As at $338mil a pop. This covers the $28bil development costs.

This means all following F-22As will cost roughly $135mil a piece.

In addition to this, development of the F-35 has yielded many new technologies and refined systems. Examples include: EOTS, AESA, DAS, and new stealth apps.

The F-22A was also slated to get a ground/sea search capability and 360degree radar coverage.

Questions:

1. The USAF currently maintains a fleet of approx 342 F-15A and Cs with 100 more in AMARC. Along with 72 F-22As (?). While the F-22A is more than 10x the capability of the F-15, it doesnt mean it can be in as many places as 10 F-15s, nor carry the same weapons loads.

So. Is it reasonable to assume the USAF will procure more F-22As after the initial production run as to fully retire/replace the active F-15 fleet?

2. With the technological advancements mentioned above... would a redesigned F-22 incorporating said systems warrant a new designation? The F-22B?

3. If production continues as is, or under a new aircraft desig (F-22B), then will the overall per unit costs drop?

4. If what I asked above occurs, can we see a drop in price for the F-22? How low?

**I'm curious about this because I'm wondering if the F-22's life span will emulate that of the F-15...

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Also, If the USAF fully replaces the F-15, will the overall cost of maintaining the fleet of F-22As be cheaper? 1. Its a new aircraft. 2. Its optimized for ease of maintenence. 3. Its currently in production.

Alright I'll see if I can answer some of these to some degree of truth.
1) You have to remember, only a certain number of aircraft are deployed at any given time. We might have one wing or squadron out at a time, something like 18 aircraft (forgive me, I'm not closely involved in military so I don't know numbers). If it's really hot, we'll have a few there at a time, but remember after a few days the bad @ss 22 will not be needed as much after the first few days. The enemy won't have an air force at that point (presumably) so the 22's won't be as necessary and 15's, 16's, or 35's can be brought in to replace them. I believe the 22's are getting placed into Air Force Expeditionary Wings, basically people that go places first, but I could be wrong.

As for acquiring more, it's possible, but the budget is getting gobbled up by the 35 at the moment. If we go to all out war, you better bet we'll get more, but that is very unlikely unless China gets really uppity. I believe it will take the 15's a long time to retire just like everything else getting retired.

2) Once the initial stuff that was planned to be put in at a later date is in, adding new stuff may make it a new model. I'm not exactly sure what constitutes a new model, but it may be possible. They say it's not, but who knows what the future holds.

3) Production cost would depend on if the dies and other things are destroyed at the end of a production run. If we were to destroy all the tooling that make to make the 22, well yeah it would cost more because we have to remake the toolings. If we don't destroy the tools, then the price may slowly drop but it depends on some outside factors.

4) To paraphrase Gums, "It was originally supposed to be a $30 million aircraft, but we cut the number in half so the cost doubled." If we pump up to high scale production for a long time, the price could drop maybe towards $100 million, but I'm not sure about all the mitigating factors involved in aerospace business. I know engineering, not management. It's all up to Lockheed Martin and all the stuff they're getting.

Bonus) Once the bugs are worked out of the 22, yes it should be cheaper than F-15 maintenance. It should be one of the cheapest fighters in the world to maintain. RAM coating is somewhat expensive, so the more that's taken on and off the more it will cost. The problem is right now that the bugs are getting worked out.

LordOfBunnies wrote:

3) Production cost would depend on if the dies and other things are destroyed at the end of a production run. If we were to destroy all the tooling that make to make the 22, well yeah it would cost more because we have to remake the toolings. If we don't destroy the tools, then the price may slowly drop but it depends on some outside factors.

I dont see why the tooling or dies will be destroyed. The dies and tooling from the B-1B are sitting in AMARC.

To kill F-22A production at 183 is a waste. The USAF acknowledged that they need about 400 at the minimum.

The F-15C cant fly forever.

The F-22 Integrity program and logistics planners have been working to a 40 year life requirement. This means that structure and systems were designed and tested to that requirement using accelerated usage profiles. Limited life items have been identified (typically rubber goods) and they will have to be replaced a couple times during the lifespan during some sort of programmed depot maintenance.

Once the production line shuts down after #183, it will be expensive to restart. I wouldn't be supprised if many component suppliers have already shut down their manufacturing capability and disposed of their tooling and re-tasked their workers. To re-generate the tooling, and retrain new workers costs $$$$$s. This is something that Congressmen don't understand (most have never worked a manufacturing job in their lives).

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2230923

If there is enough media and national push, this may follow through.

183 + 40 = 223. I'd be happy with 80 more. The USAF definitely needs at least 250ish. Primarily due to attrition, training, and deployment needs.

Planes crash. Planes are needed for training. Planes are needed for global deployments in many different areas simultaneously.

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 957 Status: Offline

skrip00 wrote:

LordOfBunnies wrote:

3) Production cost would depend on if the dies and other things are destroyed at the end of a production run. If we were to destroy all the tooling that make to make the 22, well yeah it would cost more because we have to remake the toolings. If we don't destroy the tools, then the price may slowly drop but it depends on some outside factors.

I dont see why the tooling or dies will be destroyed.

Because you get people like MacNamara who want to make sure somebody doesn't come back and correct their f--kup so they order the tooling destroyed. (Blackbird in this case. Same thing happened later to the Tomcat IIRC). I could easily see some Democrat getting in office and doing the same just because they can.

Tooling costs tens of $million each year to maintain. Tooling exists not only at the airframer's factory, but at every one of hundreds of suppliers who built parts for the airplane.

Newbie Joined: Jul 13, 2006 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

The main assembly line is only one part of the equation. No aircraft can be made to an existing design for more than a few years, because the parts start disappearing. You have to continuously replace old parts with substitute parts, requiring more engineering. The SR-71 is a typical example of what happens when you make an airplane with only one thing in mind. That thing being performance. When they designed it, no thought was given as to how they would maintain the thing. Don't blame McNamara, because tooling is only good for making a certain number of planes before it becomes unuseable. Who said he "ordered it destroyed"?

skrip00 wrote:

I'm curious.

**I'm curious about this because I'm wondering if the F-22's life span will emulate that of the F-15...

The F-22A will replace some F-15C squadrens but most deffinitly not all of them. So there will be F-15C's and F-22A's Squadrens

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22A Life Span