| Author |
Message |
|
geogen
|
 Posted: Mar 09, 2010 - 10:52 AM
|
 
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2815
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
|
cywolf32 wrote:
I don't get it really. The tooling is paid for. So for outside some storage cost, what is the problem? It can't be that difficulte to decide that you want to keep this in storage just in case. The money involved would be pennies on the dollar.
Without trying to sound like a smart alec; I think the dizzying factor truly impacting USAF's Procurement budgets going forward is the de facto, all-cannibalizing F-35A budget reality (via both increased development and accelerated LRIP procurement).
Unfortunately, almost nothing will survive this rapidly entailing, absolute cannibalism soon to be witnessed (perhaps soon to be realized by Congress and AF, not sure). |
_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Jun 19, 2013 - 8:05 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beazz
|
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2010 - 08:21 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Sep 15, 2007 - 08:19 PM
Posts: 465
Status: Offline
|
|
cywolf32 wrote:
I don't get it really. The tooling is paid for. So for outside some storage cost, what is the problem? It can't be that difficulte to decide that you want to keep this in storage just in case. The money involved would be pennies on the dollar.
and it's just a 1 time cost. You build a huge secure warehouse on a military installation and you only need to keep the tooling till the replacement for it comes online. Then you destroy it and have the storage space for the next set of tooling and on and on. Seems for the most part, the only recurring cost would be a minimum amount of electricity.
Beazz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arl8733
|
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2010 - 09:07 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 16, 2009 - 07:05 PM
Posts: 27
Status: Offline
|
| Afraid Mr. Gates would see retaining tooling as a possible threat to the F-35. Some folks will say (and rightly so) in the future when the F-35 gets to be almost as expensive as the F-22 with much less capability, why not just make more F-22s. That is what happened with the CX which later became the C-17. Lockheed offered to use the C-5A tooling which they had retained for 10 years and re-start the line to make 50 more C-5Bs thus delaying C-17 production almost 10 years. By the way, the re-start of the C-5B line after 10 years with tooling not being maintained went extremely smoothly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prinz_Eugn
|
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 12:31 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 03, 2008 - 04:35 AM
Posts: 864
Status: Offline
|
I wouldn't compare the F-22 to a C-5. A big plane that moves things is actually less complicated than a smaller plane with all sorts of crazy electronics and materials goin' on...
I don't think saving the tooling will be as cheap as everyone says, but that doesn't mean it won't be worth it to have it around. Crazier things have happened than wanting to build more fighter jets. |
_________________
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
