Question about the F-22 and cost.

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)

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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".

Well, I call that a couple, not "several"; Websters defines several as being
"greater than 2 or 3".


(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.

Gripen is good, and affordable--but it is not demonstrably better than the
latest F-16 blocks; some claim it is even inferior in some ways to the block
52/60 F-16's. I don't see Typhoon going to any likely foes. Flanker is big
on hype, not so big on proof, and the avionics are the key. So I still don't
see any world-beaters in the hands of likely foes in the forseeable future.


It's likely that future such aiorcraft will be developed in the
future.

Then we can deal with that in the future. Based upon the pace of progress on
recent Chinese and Russian programs, there is not that much to be concerned
over.

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.

Nobody (no one nation) is going to field that many advanced fighters of the
Typhoon classs. And you are right in that the nations that *could* pose a
quality threat are not the ones that are in our "likely foe" category (China
excepted, and I doubt, based upon the J-10 experience, they can manage it in
the forseeable future).


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).

And fixed wing land fighter aircraft would be the least usable platforms
against the PRC threat; lack of basing being a biggie.


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.

Last I heard the authorized (by Congress) total was 339, with the USAF
thinking it might be able to stretch that into a 400 aircraft total by using
some economies (which is looking increasingly less likely). The 180 figure
was being bandied about by the DoD procurement gurus as a possible "reduce
to" figure.


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.

Which would also require three more pilots (an increasingly stretched
commodity), and leave us without that "silver bullet" as insurance.


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.

You are missing the avionics advantage; F-22 was optimized as an anti-air
platform, so it will indeed be much more capable than the F-35, which is
optimized in the strike role, in that air dominance role.


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.

I'd wager it will NEVER be completely cut--too much investment to date, both
capital and moral. The cut back to the 180-200 range is more likely by far.

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..


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.


Last I heard the authorized (by Congress) total was 339, with the USAF
thinking it might be able to stretch that into a 400 aircraft total by using
some economies (which is looking increasingly less likely). The 180 figure
was being bandied about by the DoD procurement gurus as a possible "reduce
to" figure.



A source for the 276 figu

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../f-22-cost.htm

From that (Last paragraph):

"Air Force officials announced 07 November 2002 a potential cost overrun
of up to $690 million in the engineering, manufacturing and development
phase of the F/A-22 program. The potential overrun appeared to be
related to achieving cost and schedule in the developmental phase of the
program, officials said. It is not related to its technology or
performance. The aircraft remains on schedule for first aircraft
delivery in 2004 and initial operational capability in 2005 as planned.
The projected overrun is about 3.3 percent of the program's $20 billion
development phase and about 1 percent of the program's $69.7 billion
estimated total pricetag. The Pentagon approved an $876 million
restructure to finance the extended development effort. The restructure
sliced $763 million from the procurement profile, cutting 49 airframes
from years 2004 to 2009. This decision brought the procurement profile
from 325 to 276 through FY-09. "

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

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.


Last I heard the authorized (by Congress) total was 339, with the USAF
thinking it might be able to stretch that into a 400 aircraft total by using
some economies (which is looking increasingly less likely). The 180 figure
was being bandied about by the DoD procurement gurus as a possible "reduce
to" figure.




A source for the 276 figu

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../f-22-cost.htm

From that (Last paragraph - the second-to-last paragraph discusses the
180 figure):

"Air Force officials announced 07 November 2002 a potential cost overrun
of up to $690 million in the engineering, manufacturing and development
phase of the F/A-22 program. The potential overrun appeared to be
related to achieving cost and schedule in the developmental phase of the
program, officials said. It is not related to its technology or
performance. The aircraft remains on schedule for first aircraft
delivery in 2004 and initial operational capability in 2005 as planned.
The projected overrun is about 3.3 percent of the program's $20 billion
development phase and about 1 percent of the program's $69.7 billion
estimated total pricetag. The Pentagon approved an $876 million
restructure to finance the extended development effort. The restructure
sliced $763 million from the procurement profile, cutting 49 airframes
from years 2004 to 2009. This decision brought the procurement profile
from 325 to 276 through FY-09. "

"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...


Kevin Brooks wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

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.


Last I heard the authorized (by Congress) total was 339, with the USAF
thinking it might be able to stretch that into a 400 aircraft total by
using
some economies (which is looking increasingly less likely). The 180
figure
was being bandied about by the DoD procurement gurus as a possible
"reduce
to" figure.




A source for the 276 figu

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../f-22-cost.htm

From that (Last paragraph - the second-to-last paragraph discusses the
180 figure):

"Air Force officials announced 07 November 2002 a potential cost overrun
of up to $690 million in the engineering, manufacturing and development
phase of the F/A-22 program. The potential overrun appeared to be
related to achieving cost and schedule in the developmental phase of the
program, officials said. It is not related to its technology or
performance. The aircraft remains on schedule for first aircraft
delivery in 2004 and initial operational capability in 2005 as planned.
The projected overrun is about 3.3 percent of the program's $20 billion
development phase and about 1 percent of the program's $69.7 billion
estimated total pricetag. The Pentagon approved an $876 million
restructure to finance the extended development effort. The restructure
sliced $763 million from the procurement profile, cutting 49 airframes
from years 2004 to 2009. This decision brought the procurement profile
from 325 to 276 through FY-09. "

Different sources use differing verbage; from an anylist's report on the
2004 budget request: "The minimum purchase quantity was cut to 276 from
295."

www.trianglesecurities.com/files/AERO020403.pdf

Note the "minimum".

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:

Different sources use differing verbage; from an anylist's report on the
2004 budget request: "The minimum purchase quantity was cut to 276 from
295."

www.trianglesecurities.com/files/AERO020403.pdf

Note the "minimum".

Brooks



I remember when that 276 number first came out. I think that the deal
was, "The project will be capped money to buy 276 at present cost
estimates; if you can make 'em cheaper, you can buy more with the
remainder."

Kevin Brooks wrote:


Different sources use differing verbage; from an anylist's report on the
2004 budget request: "The minimum purchase quantity was cut to 276 from
295."

www.trianglesecurities.com/files/AERO020403.pdf

Note the "minimum".

Brooks



I remember when that 276 number first came out. I think that the deal
was, "The project will be capped money to buy 276 at present cost
estimates; if you can make 'em cheaper, you can buy more with the
remainder."

Anyway, it looks like the military is going to have a hard time
purchasing even 276 under the existing cost cap, and the Air Force is
trying to seek "relief" from this cost cap.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/sea...Ffa04033 .xml

"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...


Kevin Brooks wrote:


Different sources use differing verbage; from an anylist's report on the
2004 budget request: "The minimum purchase quantity was cut to 276 from
295."

www.trianglesecurities.com/files/AERO020403.pdf

Note the "minimum".

Brooks



I remember when that 276 number first came out. I think that the deal
was, "The project will be capped money to buy 276 at present cost
estimates; if you can make 'em cheaper, you can buy more with the
remainder."

And in 2003 the number of airframes available under the cap was 180 and has
dropped with the current slip in delivery.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:45:06 -0500, Kevin Brooks wrote:

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".

Well, I call that a couple, not "several"; Websters defines several as being
"greater than 2 or 3".

I meant it as greater than 2.

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.

Nobody (no one nation) is going to field that many advanced fighters of the
Typhoon classs. And you are right in that the nations that *could* pose a
quality threat are not the ones that are in our "likely foe" category (China
excepted, and I doubt, based upon the J-10 experience, they can manage it in
the forseeable future).

You're probably right there, in the short and medium term. In the
long term, China is very interested in modern technologies, and has
a largish and rapidly growing economy, so they are bound to catch up
in aeronautical engineering.

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).

And fixed wing land fighter aircraft would be the least usable platforms
against the PRC threat; lack of basing being a biggie.

If China attacked one of its neighbours, that country would very
likely allow the USAF to base there.

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.

Which would also require three more pilots (an increasingly stretched
commodity), and leave us without that "silver bullet" as insurance.

That's true -- over its lifetime, the F-35 may not be that much
cheaper than the F-22. (Having said that, I expect simulators could
make it cheaper to train good pilots).

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.

You are missing the avionics advantage; F-22 was optimized as an anti-air
platform, so it will indeed be much more capable than the F-35, which is
optimized in the strike role, in that air dominance role.

So in the air-to-air role, how many F-35s is one F-22 worth, IYO?

--
"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 Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:45:06 -0500, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

snip

Nobody (no one nation) is going to field that many advanced fighters of
the
Typhoon classs. And you are right in that the nations that *could* pose a
quality threat are not the ones that are in our "likely foe" category
(China
excepted, and I doubt, based upon the J-10 experience, they can manage it
in
the forseeable future).

You're probably right there, in the short and medium term. In the
long term, China is very interested in modern technologies, and has
a largish and rapidly growing economy, so they are bound to catch up
in aeronautical engineering.

But it appears likely that the cost of "catching up" may well be their
continued embracing of capitalism, and with it the usual attendant move
towards democracy--so by the time they get there, move them out of the
threat category.


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).

And fixed wing land fighter aircraft would be the least usable platforms
against the PRC threat; lack of basing being a biggie.

If China attacked one of its neighbours, that country would very
likely allow the USAF to base there.

If the PRC attacked one of its neighbors, none of which have exactly a lot
of geographic space to trade for the time to get US landbased tactical
airpower into the fray, so I'd be surprised to see US ground based aircraft
move into the nation in question. The only way the landbased tactical
airpower comes into play is from the periphery (i.e., Okinawa and ROK), and
then it is going to be limited mostly to the coastal region. In the end you
are going to confront a basing problem, so a six or seven squadron force of
F-22's would likely be capable of supporting the deployment of the two to
four squadrons you'd be squeezing into the available bases as your silver
bullet force.


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.

Which would also require three more pilots (an increasingly stretched
commodity), and leave us without that "silver bullet" as insurance.

That's true -- over its lifetime, the F-35 may not be that much
cheaper than the F-22. (Having said that, I expect simulators could
make it cheaper to train good pilots).

Simulators will indoubtedly continue to help in such training, and grow in
terms of that capability. But you are still postulating a three-for-one
increase in pilots just to replace the "missing" F-22's. If you assume that
the F-22 is three times as good as the F-35 in the air-to-air role, you now
need another 600 F-35's *and* pilots, and you have to keep them proficient,
which means 150-200 hours of airtime per year per pilot, more O&M costs,
etc. So the replacement of those 200 F-22's would likely not be the massive
savings you might originally think it to be.


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.

You are missing the avionics advantage; F-22 was optimized as an anti-air
platform, so it will indeed be much more capable than the F-35, which is
optimized in the strike role, in that air dominance role.

So in the air-to-air role, how many F-35s is one F-22 worth, IYO?

I can't say, and I doubt anyone else could definitively answer that
question. But the key to the problem is this--if you are fielding the
reduced-force of F-22's as an insurance policy against the likelihood of any
potential threat fielding an aircraft that could defeat our capability of
acheiving air dominance over a chosen piece of real estate, and you instead
decided to merely field *more* less capable F-35's, you are still left with
the problem of not being able to acheive that air dominance, especially
since the USAF is NOT going to assume an attritionary stance and try to win
it at the cost of the hundreds of F-35 airframes (and pilots) that it might
take to win by numbers advantage alone.

I personally like the idea of reducing the F-22 force to that 200 ballpark.
It gives us that silver bullet capability and frees up some funding for
other vital requirements (i.e., tankers, ISR platforms, improved precision
strike capabilites, airlift, UCAV's, etc.). Military planners are used to
having to deal with two threat scenario categories--the most likely enemy
course of action, and the most dangerous enemy course of action. Minimizing
the F-22 buy makes more funds available to take care of the kind of
contingencies that fall into the former category, while still maintaining a
force of them large enough to handle forseeable threats that require the use
of the 24-karet solution means you have also addressed the latter categry.

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)