Question about the F-22 and cost.

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

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:01:18 +1100, John Cook wrote:

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')

I've not heard that before. Is it likely the F-35 sensors will be
that cut-down?

then the Partner nations won't be very happy (Note how the
Netherlands are keeping in with the Typhoon program), and may shop
elsewhere.

I expect in that instance Britain would consider having its F-35s
contain the same sensor set as the Typhoon.

You may be surprised at the capabilities of the so-called "cut down"
sensor system. Typhoon currently has a mechanically scanned
radar. It does not have the capabilities of even the cut down JSF
system.


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.

All military aircraft increase in price over time. In part this is a
deliberate ploy by defence contractors, some of whom have admitted
as much.

I've never heard such a confession and I've been in the industry for
25+ years. Can you provide a source please?
IME the cost growth over time have been the result of a steady
increase in performance at the request of the customer.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"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.

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...


I've never heard such a confession and I've been in the industry for
25+ years. Can you provide a source please?
IME the cost growth over time have been the result of a steady
increase in performance at the request of the customer.

The schedule slippage is the cause of the steadily decreasing number of
F-22s for delivery. The schedule slip is a direct rsult of performance
issues.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:16:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Denyav" wrote in message
...
The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
to work the problem.


Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them
will
probably be converted to ECM aircraft.

Now now Denyav, little stinky Ferrin is just catching up with the 180 I
posted a year ago. You can't expect him to convert to reality so soon.


Strakes.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:16:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Denyav" wrote in message
...
The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
to work the problem.


Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them
will
probably be converted to ECM aircraft.

Now now Denyav, little stinky Ferrin is just catching up with the 180 I
posted a year ago. You can't expect him to convert to reality so soon.

Strakes.

Yes little stinky, Lockmart tried to use 8 inch strakes to correct their
tail problems. do try and keep up.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:59:34 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:16:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Denyav" wrote in message
...
The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
to work the problem.


Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them
will
probably be converted to ECM aircraft.

Now now Denyav, little stinky Ferrin is just catching up with the 180 I
posted a year ago. You can't expect him to convert to reality so soon.

Strakes.

Yes little stinky, Lockmart tried to use 8 inch strakes to correct their
tail problems. do try and keep up.



You're getting more and more respectable all the time. Still just as
full of **** as ever though.