Question about the F-22 and cost.

I thought congress put a cap on the program cost and basically said
"this is how much you get for the program, buy however many you can
with it". That being the case why is congress bitching and moaning
about it (not to mention the idiots at POGO) again? If they cost a
billion a pop for the airforce then they get fewer. If it costs $100
million they get more. From what I've read the USAF has a handle on
it and would just as soon have the politicians go earn their money
instead of chewing old fat.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
aircraft are bought.

There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
remains the same.

How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..

150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
the cost..
Its difficult isn't it...



I thought congress put a cap on the program cost and basically said
"this is how much you get for the program, buy however many you can
with it". That being the case why is congress bitching and moaning
about it (not to mention the idiots at POGO) again? If they cost a
billion a pop for the airforce then they get fewer. If it costs $100
million they get more. From what I've read the USAF has a handle on
it and would just as soon have the politicians go earn their money
instead of chewing old fat.

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
aircraft are bought.

There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
remains the same.

How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..

150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
the cost..
Its difficult isn't it...

Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training, and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of years
now.

Brooks

In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training, and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of years
now.

6 squadrons may or may not be enough, but the comparison to the F-117 is a
poor one. The F-117 is a very specialized a/c with narrow operational utility.
The F-22 is supposed to replace the most effective a/a platform in inventory.
A much broader role is(was) envisioned for the F-22.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would
allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply
airpower in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We
have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
years
now.

6 squadrons may or may not be enough, but the comparison to the F-117 is a
poor one. The F-117 is a very specialized a/c with narrow operational
utility.
The F-22 is supposed to replace the most effective a/a platform in
inventory.
A much broader role is(was) envisioned for the F-22.

But if you consider that the "super capabilities" of the F-22 will only be
*required* against a very few potential threats, then the analogy still
holds true IMO. Other platforms remain capable of dealing with the majority
of potential air threats. The move to relabel the F-22 as F/A-22 was born
from the desire to counter this kind of argument.

Brooks


--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks wrote:


Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training, and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of years
now.

I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
F-22s.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks
wrote:


Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower
in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
years
now.

I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
F-22s.

Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total US
buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC (the
Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured). Secondly,
the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who *can*,
however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter that
could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft. Dumping the F-22
entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when the
USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.

Brooks


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:58:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks
wrote:


Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower
in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
years
now.

How many aircraft do you have now (F15/F16) Your present rate of
replacement will not be 1 to 1 at the price thats being quoted..

The idea was that the f-22 was the silver bullet force that would
make up for t he JSF's shortcomings.

The JSF was to have used off board sensors to fulfill its missions.

But the cuts to the F-22 buy and pressure from the non US partner in
the JSF mean its capability has grown to start encroaching on the
F-22.

This is where the US has to be very careful, If the JSF get to
look too good then the F-22 dies a death.

If the JSF isn't made to be a pretty good autonomous fighter (read
as 'the JSF must have a sensor suite that's as good as the present
F15's') then the Partner nations won't be very happy (Note how the
Netherlands are keeping in with the Typhoon program), and may shop
elsewhere.

The nasty part of this is then the price of the JSF skyrockets!!
(it started out at around $25M USD), you'll find it will be well over
double that now, and possible treble come production time.

Which means the USA will not have an 'F16' replacement ie a Light
Weight Fighter in the $30-40M USD bracket.

So what's it to be??? cut the number of wings, cut the number of
aircraft in a wing, to make it look like there are no cuts while
cutting the number of aircraft to be purchased or the very slight
chance of doubling/trebling the amount spent of fighter
procurement in the next decade or two.

Some thing has to give - I still think the F-22 is vulnerable.
I just cannot imaging the present fiscal bloat continuing.

Cheers






I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
F-22s.

Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total US
buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC (the
Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured). Secondly,
the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who *can*,
however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter that
could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft. Dumping the F-22
entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when the
USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.

Brooks


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:58:48 -0500, Kevin Brooks wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks
wrote:


Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower
in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
years
now.

I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
F-22s.

Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total US
buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC

Yes, that's "several thousand".

(the
Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured). Secondly,
the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who *can*,
however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter that
could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft.

There are planes around today which are as good, or better, than the
USAF's and USN's current aircraft. The Typhoon and Gripen, for
example. Flanker varients with good avionics would probably qualify
too.

It's likely that future such aiorcraft will be developed in the
future. China and Russia are both keen to develop more modern
aircraft. But, any future aircraft will be developed in a timescale
where the F-35 will already be in service. So a potential enemy will
have to deal with that too. The sort of hypothetical force we're
talking about, then, would consist of large numbers (1000+) of
Typhoon-class aircraft. The only people who could field such as
force are Europe, Japan, and China. Europe and Japan aren't going to
fight the USA unless the USA starts behaving like Nazi Germany or
the USSR.

China is unlikely to seek confrontation with the USA, but
a war between the two could break out by accident (as happened the
last time those countries fought each other), and in any case the
USA has an economy 10 times bigger so would always be able to
afford more planes (and other military cabability).

Dumping the F-22
entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when the
USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.

I was under the impression that the current build number was 276,
and congress is considering reducing it to around 180. In any case,
there seems no likelihood that 400 will be built unlress the present
political climate changes a lot.

The F-35 is a cheaper plane than the F-22, and having just one
fighter would provide savings on training, spare parts, etc, so it's
likely that for every F-22 not built the USA could afford 3 or so
F-35s.

Now, it's certainly true that the F-22 is a omre capably fighter
than the F-35: it has a better power-to-weight ratio and lower wing
loadinmg, which means it will be more manouvrable. It's also got
room for more missiles. (It's proasbly less stealthy, since it's
alrager aircraft, thus probably has larhger radar and IR
signatures). Is one F-22 better than the 2-3 F-35s one could buy in
its place? I don't know.

I expect the F-22 program will contine, in the short run. But I
think if in future cost savings are looked for, it's likely to be
one program that is looked at very closely.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:20:53 +1100, John Cook wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
aircraft are bought.

There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
remains the same.

How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..

150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
the cost..
Its difficult isn't it...

I expect if they asked nicely, Eurofighter GmbH would sell them a
few Typhoons. A quick BOTE calculation suggests they'd get 619
Typhoons for what they're spending on manufacturing the Raptor. (i'm
not including development costs).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)