F-16.net

Newbie Joined: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 1 Status: Offline

I think this topic has already been alluded to in some of the threads but I thought it might be good to frame it more explicitly. Did the Air force blow it by writing requirements for stealth aircraft i.e. F-22A for which the technology to produce AFFORDABLY does not exist, and the contractors instead of acknowledging it underbidding and then producing an unaffordable product? Would not the reasonable way to transition from a conventional to all-stealth airforce be in the following manner... Request production of a stealth next generation succesor for the F-117 mission of hitting radar installations in the opening of an air war, but in the replacement aircraft for the other roles; air supremacy, fighter-bomber, etc. ask that the designs incorporate stealth to the extent that the final aircraft is affordable, thereby gradually transitioning to an all-stealth air force as affordable technology for that is developed. Instead the air force decided to go all-stealth immediately and in one generation - the stealth strategic bomber B-2 (why? ballsitic missiles do its' role much better) the stealth ATF (F-22) the stealth A-12, the stealth helicopter (at least that's what some have been billing the Comanche as). Well, after billions of dollars spent some of these have proven to be completely unfeasible (A-12, Comanche) some unaffordable in significant numbers and of questionable utility (B-2), the others affordability (F-22 and F-35) is still an open question. And the requirements for some of these roles should have been known to be much harder to reconcile with stealth then the tactical attack role (the size of a strategic bomber and performance of a air superiority fighter is hard to deliver in a stealthy aircraft). So know we're stuck with aging airframes, enemies that can field airplanes comparable to F-15's, and no money to fully replace the F-15 with their successor F-22's. I agree, F-22 is a hell of an airplane - but I think that new concept of modernizing an air force; instead of replacing ALL the relevant planes with a capable successor, keeping most of the old and instead adding a few prohibitively expensive "silver bullet" planes is asking for trouble (after all, a few Me-262s did not win the air war for the Luftwaffe). In order for it too work, the F-22 will have to have an extreme advantage over anything the enemy fields, which is possible, but in the real world, you can never actually count on that, especially since a lot of the perceived advantage is based on stealth and aircraft sensors such as radar are evolving at a very quick rate (i.e. the radar system Tamara and the early F-117). I agree with what some of the posters have already said - they should pick one, F-22 or F-35, produce it in large numbers to maximize its' affordability - and in future designs request stealth features only to the extent that they can afford to replace all the aircraft that they need to. But that would be expecting for the weapons design and procurements process to be done in a rational way, and what are the odds of that?

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Enthusiast Joined: Aug 07, 2006 Posts: 24 Status: Offline

I think the requirements drove the specifications and the USAF wanted something that would outclass anything forseeable for the next 30-40 years at least. It wasn't just the stealth aspect that drove yp the costs.. the raptor incorporates so many leading-edge technologies, and making the jump from the lab to the flightlone was bound to be expensive.. along the way, they had to be integrated w/c had to be quite a feat. Anyway, they learned a lot of lessons w/c were applied to the F-35. Suffice it to say, the USAF is more than satisfied with the end-product and now the challenge is getting enough of them.

Elite 1K Joined: May 10, 2005 Posts: 1089 Status: Offline

This is the way it was explained to me by a guy who definately knows what he's talking about. The 22s will not ever hang around in any sort of situation where there is low or no threat. You will not have F-22s dropping JDAMS on insurgents in Iraq. The 22s/B-2s/117s are designed to totally dominate the enemy's best defences, both air and land, then let the rest of the inventory mop it up.

The Air Force didn't "blow" anything, and it amuses the people who know what the actual deal is to no end to read stuff like this on the net....and they do.....and chuckle.

The problem that I see with your question, from a maintenance perspective, at least, is not what they are costing us now, but what it will cost us in the in the long run. Some of the things that I've "heard through the grapevine" from different sources (including a couple of people working for Lockheed's Engineering Dept) have been more than impressive. What the F-22 can do over the F-15 is so far above and beyond as to compare the F-15 to the F-86 in a lot of respects. All are jet aircraft, but...

Do I think that a phase in plan for these aircraft would have been a better idea than to try to get all of them at once, not allow other countries to purchase this airframe, and to upgrade as we go? In some ways, definitely. A phased in approach would have been better, but it should have started in the 90's (most of the F-15s in service are so aged as to be almost non-cost efficient to keep in service now, and the F-16 isn't too far behind even after CCIP and Falcon Star/Falcon Up). I truly believe that allowing some of our allies to purchase this aircraft (though maybe toned down a bit from ours) would be a good thing (increases manufacture, lowers end price, increases availability of parts worldwide, etc.) And, yes, unlike a lot of things with the F-15, I believe that the AF learned a lot from the F-16 on the ability to upgrade. I truly believe that the F-22 will be able to do a lot of upgrades as technology advances.

But, at the same time, would you want to purchase a vehicle that can kind of do what you want and need and pay three to four times as much over ten years to get it where you need it to be, or would you pay double the starting price to start where you need it to be and upgrade beyond as new tasks are needed? I think the smart way is the second one, personally. Even if this prevents you from buying as many to start with, if it can do what you want and need from day one, then it's already paid for itself.

That's my respectful opinion, anyway. And we all know that an opinion and a buck won't even buy a coffee in most places Stateside anymore...

All I know is this: The less types of aircraft you operate, the cheaper your logistics tail is.

This is why the Navy only wants the F/A-18E/F and F-35. This is why the USAF ACC wants only the F-15E, F-22A, and F-35.

wwb23. The F-22A costs so much because we built so few of them in the initial production run. Simple economics. We went from 700 to 183. The cost of R&D was allocated over the entire fleet. Hence the percent of the cost per aircraft shows that the R&D portion vastly exceeds the actual aircraft production costs.

Hence, the USAF agreed on the 183 number up until 2011, because this gives them time to secure future funding. The F-22A after the 183 costs $120million. Approx $20 million more than an F-15K.

But, as production increases, costs further decline as line efficiency increases. So the costs drop even further. We can see F-22A's being cheaper than the F-15C is now. And have them perform the same missions the F-15C does currently.

As for too much too soon: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairf ... 60824.aspx

Russia has broken PAK-FA up into two programs. One to counter the F-22. The other to counter the F-35. While highly unlikely... these aircraft may be competitors in the future.

Its escalation: We build a super stealth fighter, or enemies respond somehow.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 10, 2005 Posts: 26 Status: Offline

Actually until the PBD-753 and the QDR chopped the numbers down to 183 Raptors, the USAF had a stated policy that 380 Raptors would be able to replace the F-15C, F-15E and F-117.

Also, the Raptor is not a case too much to soon. There are threats legacy fighter can't deal with that will be comming online in the comming years. the Raptor's job is to "knock down the door" so that other platforms can get in there to do the job.

I get the feeling I'm quoting the same extremely reliable sources as Afterburnerscott...

skrip00 wrote:

wwb23. The F-22A costs so much because we built so few of them in the initial production run. Simple economics. We went from 700 to 183. The cost of R&D was allocated over the entire fleet. Hence the percent of the cost per aircraft shows that the R&D portion vastly exceeds the actual aircraft production costs.

That's what I was saying by letting others purchase. I know I didn't come out and say anything about the US dropping the number; I just assumed that it was understood as part of raising the cost since every time the number ordered dropped, the price went up.

As for the F-22 being $20 million more than the F-15K, you are still talking about a huge generation gap. Heck, I'm sure that if someone got the production line on the F-4 re-opened, it could be tagged at even cheaper. That doesn't mean that it can come anywhere near the performance wanted/needed in the F-22.

Once production lines close, nothing, not even God himself can resurrect them.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1002 Status: Offline

skrip00 wrote:

Once production lines close, nothing, not even God himself can resurrect them.

C-5
U-2
B-1

But yeah, for the most part you're right. Especially when dumba$$es order the tooling destroyed. What could possibly be the reason for that other than stroking one's own ego? "I'm the man an NOBODY is going to overturn my decision when I'm gone no matter how stupid it was."

I believe the F-14 and SR-71 had their tooling destroyed as well. I'll bet that the Raptor production lines will remain open for longer than any fighter to date simply because its more of a computer based design, both in avionics and how it was built. CAD saves a lot of space over drafting tables.

DesignAndConquer wrote:

I'll be that the Raptor production lines will remain open for longer than any fighter to date.....

I sure hope your Right!!

I've often wondered....Let's say..Today..You take all of the info from the F-15 and pretend it doesn't exist..Start from total scratch and build the exact same Aircraft...How much would it cost??...

You could start out by saying you need 750 of them...Base all initial projections on that...Tell the suppliers to bid on those numbers ect...

Finally get the thing pretty close to production and cut the numbers to 380...

Then get her into production and cut the numbers to 183...

I just wonder how much an F-15 would cost to build just like that...Today??

P.S. DesignAndConquer..Thanks for the Vids!!! Your Awesome Dude!!

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3005 Status: Offline

I don't know about the Tomcat, but I know that the Blackbird tooling was destroyed - what a FOXTROTTING shame!

I'm not sure if this will answer your question, but designed in the '50s the Raptor had NATO requirements the biggest one was that it had to fit in a NATO Hanger, making the Raptor, smaller than desired, if it was bigger that would have increased its range, but as I said, I am not sure if this answers you question. Either way its an intresting fact.

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3005 Status: Offline

F-4Phantomflier wrote:

I'm not sure if this will answer your question, but designed in the '50s the Raptor had NATO requirements the biggest one was that it had to fit in a NATO Hanger, making the Raptor, smaller than desired, if it was bigger that would have increased its range, but as I said, I am not sure if this answers you question. Either way its an intresting fact.

Umm... correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Raptor design work started back in the 80's, not the 50's Confused

...

I think he meant the NATO hangar designed in the 50s ended up limiting the size of the F-22 by requiring it to fit in the existing hangars.

Kind of like the Space Shuttle == horse-drawn cart of the Roman Empire analogy...

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Is the F-22A a case of too much to soon?