French planes are crap

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:11:09 -0000, "killfile" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message

My facts are straight, the orders are from the US Air Force, Navy,
and Marines. The other countries have options to buy, and
several, including the Brits and Canadians have made verbal
commitments. There are always (in the US, at any rate) fall back
scenarios in the event of major program glitches. There is
no serious talk of canceling the F-35, as no other aircraft
can perform its mission. You do realize it has a STOL
variant? And we can quite easily afford them. You do
not seem to have any idea of the size of US budgets.

Al Minyard

So what you're saying is ... there's no export sales.

You are, in fact, admitting you were wrong. Amazing.

Matt

No, I am saying that there have been no payments. Several
countries are *planning* to purchase the F-35, as it is a
unique and extremely capable aircraft.

Al Minyard

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

No, your F-22 price is very far off.

No, you failed to amortize the costs of the F-22.

No, not even close.

You are kidding yourself, Irby.

Note the complete lack of actual information in the above replies...

All in the spirit of your zero referenced numbers, Irby.

It's like the "Argument Sketch" from Monty Python.

Most any post can be made to look that way with editing.

Here is some data:
When the F-22 departed controlled flight this year and nearly fell out of
the sky, the program tried to cover up the incident. Much as the F-22's
tail cracks, that apeared immediately after the tail boom was stiffened and
were hidden for months. Congress has stated that if the F-22 does not "get
it's problem fixed" during FY04, it will be cancelled.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Irby is misrepresenting the airframe costs either way. The $170 million
a
copy F-22 price is for 336 pieces.

Nope. For 336 pieces, the price would be $90 million each. At the
current buy rate, it's $170 million.

You are looking at way old data. All these delays have driven up costs for
the F-22 program markedly. The smart thing to do would have been to kill
this luster **** in FY99, the first time congress realized they were being
taken for a ride. I am glad they didn't, for the sake of keeping edwards
running, but the program has been a monumental waste of money.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Note the complete lack of actual information in the above replies...

All in the spirit of your zero referenced numbers, Irby.

Except that I actually *had* some numbers, which are commonly available.
Your "$300 million" price tage, in another post, is just silly.

The only way you could get $300 million each for the F-22 is if they
cancelled the program, *today*, and took no more deilveries other than
the ones they already have on hand.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Irby is misrepresenting the airframe costs either way. The $170 million
a
copy F-22 price is for 336 pieces.

Nope. For 336 pieces, the price would be $90 million each. At the
current buy rate, it's $170 million.

You are looking at way old data. All these delays have driven up costs for
the F-22 program markedly.

My numbers are from last year. There have been no real changes in
costs since then. $170 million is the current price, according to
current planned buys.

Where did you get your guesswork from?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Note the complete lack of actual information in the above replies...

All in the spirit of your zero referenced numbers, Irby.

Except that I actually *had* some numbers, which are commonly available.
Your "$300 million" price tage, in another post, is just silly.

The costs are already abve $200 million a copy for the F-22 in the current
trimmed down to 220 airframes buy. Amortizing this 20 year program over
less airframes drives the price up rapidly.

The only way you could get $300 million each for the F-22 is if they
cancelled the program, *today*, and took no more deilveries other than
the ones they already have on hand.

No, if the program were cancelled today, each delivered production model
would be over a $billion a copy. As the program is still attemptig to hide
deficiencies, I find it doubtful the program will turn around tis year.

Either way, all the flying the F-22 is doing is a big help for Edwards.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Irby is misrepresenting the airframe costs either way. The $170
million
a
copy F-22 price is for 336 pieces.

Nope. For 336 pieces, the price would be $90 million each. At the
current buy rate, it's $170 million.

You are looking at way old data. All these delays have driven up costs
for
the F-22 program markedly.

My numbers are from last year. There have been no real changes in
costs since then. $170 million is the current price, according to
current planned buys.

Not for seventy pieces and not for the additional delays.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own base
and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor means
it'll be seriously stretched.

That's only if you plan on using only one type of fighter, in small
numbers, for everything.

So, you plan to consign US pilots to agonised fiery deaths as their
antiquated deathtraps are blasted from the skies by newer, deadlier
enemies?

Or are these upgraded aircraft thoroughly capable against the current
and projected threat, making the F-22 an expensive luxury?


Either your existing platforms are obsolete and need replacement, or
they aren't...

For *offense*, though, the new-generation European fighters are going to
have a much more difficult time.

I'm interested in the scenario where this is the case.

There's not going to be that many of
them, either, at the rate they're cutting procurement.

"Not many" being around 150 Typhoons for the RAF _if_ Tranche 3 bites
the dust (which is by no means a given - serious contractual and
workshare issues to resolve before it's doable).




--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Are these in French service or exported? Very different accounting
systems used (one of the reasons people joke about "Shock Horror News
From France - GIAT Makes Profit!")

Those "very different accounting systems" are why the Rafale and
Eurofighter are *much* more expensive than the lowball numbers some
people have been expecting. $85 million each, for the British, and the
German version is about the same price.

How much of development cost is factored into each airframe, and exactly
what support is included?

(You might have noted I singled out the French for criticism for opaque
accounting)

Hey, how much do you get for the cost of a F-22? Not much in terms of
maintenance, crew training, or flying hours... you get the aircraft and
the rest is all extra, same as the competition.

Wrong.

When you see those sub-$30 million numbers for the European planes, it's
for airframe alone. Which is why the British version of the Eurofighter
is pricing out at $80 to $85 million a pop for the full buy.

So, how much support, training, infrastructure, et cetera comes with
each F-22? What is the "real cost" of one F-22?


I know this for a fact: for the price the US was willing to sell and
sustain, you could buy and fly two Eurofighters for one F-22. And while
the Raptor was certainly better one-for-one, it wasn't better enough
against the threat to overcome the fundamental problem: divide airframes
by two and Red raids are much less likely to be intercepted.

The F-22 (or is it really now the F/A-22?) shows every sign of being a
lethal aircraft; and an extraordinarily expensive one. Trouble is, to be
lethal you have to get into weapons range of the enemy.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The costs are already abve $200 million a copy for the F-22 in the current
trimmed down to 220 airframes buy.

Nope. $170 million, for the *current* schedule. If they go as high as
200 planes, the price drops down to $120 million or so.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.