F-15X or F-15SE, F-35, F-22 as air fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 20:39

disconnectedradical wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:As for creasing F-22 Production. That likely was the best outcome for the US Military and Western Alliance in the long term. Because if the US funded more F-22's. That very likely would have cut into the F-35 Program. Which, could have pushed up the price of the latter. Making the program unaffordable or at least far more expensive. (sound familiar)

In short canceling the F-22 made the F-35 "viable". Which, will allow us to produce it today in large numbers for us and our allies.


No, F-22 production was stopped at the worst time, when production is getting streamlined. Increase F-22 production also means no need to upgrade F-15C and retire it early which saves money by simplifying logistics. How does cutting F-22 make F-35 viable? F-35 is still needed even if we got 381 F-22s because of strike and other capabilities.


Additional F-22s would have been a drop in the bucket (as far as cost goes). For some reasons there was a coalition that wanted to kill the F-22. There was discussion of foreign sales to Australia and Japan to keep the production line going, but Democrats in Congress passed an amendment to ban foreign sales. Do you think they were really concerned with securing American technology from the Japanese and the Australians?
Last edited by blain on 19 Jun 2019, 00:24, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 21:34

If you know everything there is to know, that answer would be "YES".
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 00:55

blain wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:As for creasing F-22 Production. That likely was the best outcome for the US Military and Western Alliance in the long term. Because if the US funded more F-22's. That very likely would have cut into the F-35 Program. Which, could have pushed up the price of the latter. Making the program unaffordable or at least far more expensive. (sound familiar)

In short canceling the F-22 made the F-35 "viable". Which, will allow us to produce it today in large numbers for us and our allies.


No, F-22 production was stopped at the worst time, when production is getting streamlined. Increase F-22 production also means no need to upgrade F-15C and retire it early which saves money by simplifying logistics. How does cutting F-22 make F-35 viable? F-35 is still needed even if we got 381 F-22s because of strike and other capabilities.


Additional F-22s would have been a drop in the bucket (as far as cost goes). For some reasons there was a coalition that wanted to kill the F-22. There was discussion of foreign sales to Australia and Japan to keep the production line going, but Democrats in Congress passed an amendment to ban foreign sales. Do you think they were really concerned with securing American technology from the Japanese and the Australians?



Absurd.....a drop in the bucket at near $200 Million each! :doh:
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1078
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 03:18

Corsair1963 wrote:
blain wrote:
Additional F-22s would have been a drop in the bucket (as far as cost goes). For some reasons there was a coalition that wanted to kill the F-22. There was discussion of foreign sales to Australia and Japan to keep the production line going, but Democrats in Congress passed an amendment to ban foreign sales. Do you think they were really concerned with securing American technology from the Japanese and the Australians?



Absurd.....a drop in the bucket at near $200 Million each! :doh:


Billions for a single USN ship and for overall US Army "Big 6" programs (estimated 57billion) . 200mil is A LOT for a single fighter aircraft but when taken into context of how large US Defense spending is... it ain't that much. Also wouldn't the price gradually drop with each production lot of a hypothetical reopened F-22 line due to economies of scale and advances in manufacturing techniques?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5453
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 03:38

Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd.....a drop in the bucket at near $200 Million each! :doh:



Flyaway cost was down to about $125 million when they killed production.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 751
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 03:45

Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd.....a drop in the bucket at near $200 Million each! :doh:


Wrong, when there was full rate production F-22 cost less than $150 million. F-22 production restart is dead right now because reopening production means lots of non-recurring costs that wouldn't be there if production was not cut. So get your facts right before smugly throwing around emojis.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 04:52

disconnectedradical wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd.....a drop in the bucket at near $200 Million each! :doh:


Wrong, when there was full rate production F-22 cost less than $150 million. F-22 production restart is dead right now because reopening production means lots of non-recurring costs that wouldn't be there if production was not cut. So get your facts right before smugly throwing around emojis.



Sorry, try again.............the average was $150 Million in 2012! Plus, the cost to maintain the F-22 was ~ $60,000 per flight hour. Hell, in 2019 most think the F-35's 90 Million/$34,000 price is way to high.


F-22 Raptor vs F-35 Lightning II

Date 5/30/2019
By Colin Ritsick

QUOTE: F-22 vs F-35 Cost

The F-22 is expensive. The U.S. Air Force had to stop production early on the F-22 because of soaring project costs. The cost of one aircraft alone is an estimated $334 million which includes research and development (unit cost of $150 million). The Air Force wanted 700 F-22s to be produced but had to cancel production just shy of 200 because they were already over-budget. The flight cost per hour for an F-22 is roughly $60,000.

https://militarymachine.com/f-22-raptor ... htning-ii/


Plus to restart production today would drive the price to well over $200 Million each for ~ 194 additional aircraft. ($206 million to $216 million per aircraft)


https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... ayinmil.sm
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 751
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 05:38

Corsair1963 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd.....a drop in the bucket at near $200 Million each! :doh:


Wrong, when there was full rate production F-22 cost less than $150 million. F-22 production restart is dead right now because reopening production means lots of non-recurring costs that wouldn't be there if production was not cut. So get your facts right before smugly throwing around emojis.



Sorry, try again.............the average was $150 Million in 2012! Plus, the cost to maintain the F-22 was ~ $60,000 per flight hour. Hell, in 2019 most think the F-35's 90 Million/$34,000 price is way to high.


F-22 Raptor vs F-35 Lightning II

Date 5/30/2019
By Colin Ritsick

QUOTE: F-22 vs F-35 Cost

The F-22 is expensive. The U.S. Air Force had to stop production early on the F-22 because of soaring project costs. The cost of one aircraft alone is an estimated $334 million which includes research and development (unit cost of $150 million). The Air Force wanted 700 F-22s to be produced but had to cancel production just shy of 200 because they were already over-budget. The flight cost per hour for an F-22 is roughly $60,000.

https://militarymachine.com/f-22-raptor ... htning-ii/


Plus to restart production today would drive the price to well over $200 Million each for ~ 194 additional aircraft. ($206 million to $216 million per aircraft)


https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... ayinmil.sm


Wow, your English understanding is terrible. You're comparing the cost of F-22 when restarting production today, not when F-22 production was ongoing in 2009. Do you not see the difference? Of course restarting F-22 production today is going to cost more than $200 million per aircraft, because the production line is gone so you need non-recurring start up cost. If F-22 production wasn't cut in 2009 then unit cost is under $150 million.

And this has nothing to do with your argument of F-22 taking money away from F-35. If all 381 F-22s were built then F-15C can be retired to save money because that's one less aircraft type to support which saves logistics. Not to mention they're for different roles, F-35 is better for strike and is overall less capable in air to air, and F-22 is replacing F-15C which is for air to air.

Also, you got yourself banned from Key Pubs, which is quite an accomplishment. :roll:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 06:35

disconnectedradical wrote:
Wow, your English understanding is terrible. You're comparing the cost of F-22 when restarting production today, not when F-22 production was ongoing in 2009. Do you not see the difference? Of course restarting F-22 production today is going to cost more than $200 million per aircraft, because the production line is gone so you need non-recurring start up cost. If F-22 production wasn't cut in 2009 then unit cost is under $150 million.

And this has nothing to do with your argument of F-22 taking money away from F-35. If all 381 F-22s were built then F-15C can be retired to save money because that's one less aircraft type to support which saves logistics. Not to mention they're for different roles, F-35 is better for strike and is overall less capable in air to air, and F-22 is replacing F-15C which is for air to air.

Also, you got yourself banned from Key Pubs, which is quite an accomplishment. :roll:



The "original" quote was
"Additional F-22s would have been a drop in the bucket (as far as cost goes)."


Sorry, to get additional F-22's you would have to restart production. Surely, not even a hard concept for you to understand??? The quote didn't say anything about continuing production back in 2009.....Yet, maybe that was the authors intent??? Yet, if so he wasn't clear with his remarks....

Nonetheless, today according to the Rand Report for the US Government. The cost of restarting F-22 Production would be ~$206 - $216 Million per aircraft for an order of 194. Which, is the only option today.

Finally, your sarcasm was hardly called for. If, you wanted to express your opinion. I was happy to hear it.

BTW I wasn't "banned" from Key Publishing! I found it full of "children" that had very little real knowledge of the subject matter. So, I left on my own accord.....

Clearly, you must be a member. Which, speaks volumes..... :wink:
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2193
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 07:31

Guys calm down.
I noticed that the admin has been locking down a lot of threads lately that has gone too far off topic.
I know I share some of the blame for that. So lets try to stay on track this time.

As much as I love to talk about restarting the Raptor line, which I admit is a wonderful pipe dream, Its going down the road of off topicness. lets stay the course shall we

vilters wrote:
To start a Gun Fight? You need a gun. LOL.


Fortunately all 5th gens have guns
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 751
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 08:50

YOUR original quote is this.

Corsair1963 wrote:As for creasing F-22 Production. That likely was the best outcome for the US Military and Western Alliance in the long term. Because if the US funded more F-22's. That very likely would have cut into the F-35 Program. Which, could have pushed up the price of the latter. Making the program unaffordable or at least far more expensive. (sound familiar)

In short canceling the F-22 made the F-35 "viable". Which, will allow us to produce it today in large numbers for us and our allies.


So you're saying that ending F-22 production is the best outcome. Ending production is EXACTLY why you now have the non-recurring costs for restarting production, which is why F-22 restart will cost more than $200 million unit cost per aircraft and pretty much dead. If production wasn't stopped in 2009, the unit cost was under $150 million. It still cost more than F-35, but if all 381 F-22s were built then you save money by retiring air to air F-15C for early and simplifying logistics. And how does ending F-22 make F-35 "viable"? If there was 381 F-22s, there still needs to be F-35 for strike role and to replace all the F-16s.

You want to talk about how ending F-22 production was right because it was costing $200 million unit cost per aircraft, when ending production is HOW you end up with $200 million unit cost because of non-recurring production restart cost. Do you not see your circular logic?

Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, you must be a member. Which, speaks volumes..... :wink:


Hilarious, it's almost like your world is so F-35 centric that your arguments are not taken seriously.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 10:39

disconnectedradical wrote:
So you're saying that ending F-22 production is the best outcome. Ending production is EXACTLY why you now have the non-recurring costs for restarting production, which is why F-22 restart will cost more than $200 million unit cost per aircraft and pretty much dead. If production wasn't stopped in 2009, the unit cost was under $150 million. It still cost more than F-35, but if all 381 F-22s were built then you save money by retiring air to air F-15C for early and simplifying logistics. And how does ending F-22 make F-35 "viable"? If there was 381 F-22s, there still needs to be F-35 for strike role and to replace all the F-16s.

You want to talk about how ending F-22 production was right because it was costing $200 million unit cost per aircraft, when ending production is HOW you end up with $200 million unit cost because of non-recurring production restart cost. Do you not see your circular logic?

Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, you must be a member. Which, speaks volumes..... :wink:


Hilarious, it's almost like your world is so F-35 centric that your arguments are not taken seriously.



Under the budget conditions of the time and the options yes. I remember the period well and spoke to a number of people from Congress about the issue at the time. Including the late Senator John McCain. (more than once) So, spare me what you think you know....
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5453
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 13:58

Corsair1963 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
So you're saying that ending F-22 production is the best outcome. Ending production is EXACTLY why you now have the non-recurring costs for restarting production, which is why F-22 restart will cost more than $200 million unit cost per aircraft and pretty much dead. If production wasn't stopped in 2009, the unit cost was under $150 million. It still cost more than F-35, but if all 381 F-22s were built then you save money by retiring air to air F-15C for early and simplifying logistics. And how does ending F-22 make F-35 "viable"? If there was 381 F-22s, there still needs to be F-35 for strike role and to replace all the F-16s.

You want to talk about how ending F-22 production was right because it was costing $200 million unit cost per aircraft, when ending production is HOW you end up with $200 million unit cost because of non-recurring production restart cost. Do you not see your circular logic?

Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, you must be a member. Which, speaks volumes..... :wink:


Hilarious, it's almost like your world is so F-35 centric that your arguments are not taken seriously.



Under the budget conditions of the time and the options yes. I remember the period well and spoke to a number of people from Congress about the issue at the time. Including the late Senator John McCain. (more than once) So, spare me what you think you know....



Had nothing to do with "budget constraints". Gates predicted it would be 20 years before anybody else rolled out a stealth fighter, and fired anybody who disagreed. It was hilariously ironic only a couple years later when China rolled out the J-20 during a state visit by Gates.

As for name-dropping, nobody cares who you interviewed. Most of Congress wouldn't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to today's fighter aircraft. (Including McCain.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 19:50

charlielima223 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
blain wrote:
Additional F-22s would have been a drop in the bucket (as far as cost goes). For some reasons there was a coalition that wanted to kill the F-22. There was discussion of foreign sales to Australia and Japan to keep the production line going, but Democrats in Congress passed an amendment to ban foreign sales. Do you think they were really concerned with securing American technology from the Japanese and the Australians?



Absurd.....a drop in the bucket at near $200 Million each! :doh:


Billions for a single USN ship and for overall US Army "Big 6" programs (estimated 57billion) . 200mil is A LOT for a single fighter aircraft but when taken into context of how large US Defense spending is... it ain't that much. Also wouldn't the price gradually drop with each production lot of a hypothetical reopened F-22 line due to economies of scale and advances in manufacturing techniques?


They are paying $200 million for Marine One. They had no problem paying that for the C-17A. They kept adding aircraft at the end. CRAF could have supplemented airlifters in a crisis. Where is the backstop for F-22. Combat coded aircraft are a drop in the bucket. You might be able to deploy a wing in a major war. If you needed more you would have to strip the OCA squadrons and leave the other areas bare.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 19:58

Corsair1963 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
Wow, your English understanding is terrible. You're comparing the cost of F-22 when restarting production today, not when F-22 production was ongoing in 2009. Do you not see the difference? Of course restarting F-22 production today is going to cost more than $200 million per aircraft, because the production line is gone so you need non-recurring start up cost. If F-22 production wasn't cut in 2009 then unit cost is under $150 million.

And this has nothing to do with your argument of F-22 taking money away from F-35. If all 381 F-22s were built then F-15C can be retired to save money because that's one less aircraft type to support which saves logistics. Not to mention they're for different roles, F-35 is better for strike and is overall less capable in air to air, and F-22 is replacing F-15C which is for air to air.

Also, you got yourself banned from Key Pubs, which is quite an accomplishment. :roll:


The "original" quote was
"Additional F-22s would have been a drop in the bucket (as far as cost goes)."


Sorry, to get additional F-22's you would have to restart production. Surely, not even a hard concept for you to understand??? The quote didn't say anything about continuing production back in 2009.....Yet, maybe that was the authors intent??? Yet, if so he wasn't clear with his remarks....

Nonetheless, today according to the Rand Report for the US Government. The cost of restarting F-22 Production would be ~$206 - $216 Million per aircraft for an order of 194. Which, is the only option today.

Finally, your sarcasm was hardly called for. If, you wanted to express your opinion. I was happy to hear it.

BTW I wasn't "banned" from Key Publishing! I found it full of "children" that had very little real knowledge of the subject matter. So, I left on my own accord.....

Clearly, you must be a member. Which, speaks volumes..... :wink:


I said "would have" not will be. The development cost was already paid for. The only cost was the fly away cost. If they produced the aircraft in efficient numbers they could have brought the fly away cost down further. Foreign sales to Japan and Australia also would have helped to reduce cost and keep the production line warm for when people figured out Gates was an idiot.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 20 guests