Question about the F-22 and cost.

"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.
Right now there is still a possibility of 160 airframes;180 minus the twenty
FSD airframes. A fantastic waste of money for so small a force.

As much as I hate to say it, America would be btter off making a buy from
the UK.

There is however, that sweet Georgia pork to consider.

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)

"John Cook" 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.

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..

It does not have to be. The F-22 is lauded as being so much more effective
than both its contemporaries and forseeable opponents, a one-for-one
replacement is not required. Same goes for the F-35 versus F-16. And recall
that in the case of the latter, the later block F-16's will be serving long
after the F-35 enters into service.


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

Actually, I think you have that sort of backwards. The ATF program was well
underway before the JSF program even coalesced into its current form. The
JSF enables the F-22 to be bought in lower numbers than would be the case
without the JSF. Under the evolving views, your statement becomes more true
today--the F-22 can be a silver bullet that can enhance the abilities of the
F-35 (and other aircraft) to do their missions. The old days' philosophy of
"not a pound for air-to-ground" just does not really cut it in the modern
threat environment; hence the belated "F/A-22" wordsmithing to try and
portray it as *really* being a platform that was equally intended to serve
in the strike role.


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

Programs evolve and change--that has always been the case with major weapons
sytems like these.


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.

I mmay have misunderstood your earlier comments. I believe the F-22 buy will
in all likelihood never exceed the 180-200 aircraft figure. The F-35 will
indeed have more capabilities than may have originally been envisioned for
it. Improved PGM's, improved C4ISR, advances in UAV (to the point of
UCAV)...all of these point eventually to a smaller force structure
footprint, IMO. The F-22 will be a silver bullet asset, while the F-35 will
be capable of dealing with all but the most advanced opposition systems.
Actually, I think the case for the F-22 would have been much stronger had
the USAF committed early to developing a somewhat modified strike version
(not necessarily having to go as far as the FB-22 proposal put forth by
LMCO) to eventually replace the F-15E.

Brooks


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 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.

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.

--
"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 Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:58:07 -0500, Kevin Brooks wrote:

The old days' philosophy of
"not a pound for air-to-ground" just does not really cut it in the modern
threat environment; hence the belated "F/A-22" wordsmithing to try and
portray it as *really* being a platform that was equally intended to serve
in the strike role.

Indeed.

The F-22 is suffering from the same root cause that's affected the
Typhoon program -- the enemy against which it was envisaged, the
USSR, no longer exists.

I mmay have misunderstood your earlier comments. I believe the F-22 buy will
in all likelihood never exceed the 180-200 aircraft figure.

That seems probable.

The F-35 will
indeed have more capabilities than may have originally been envisioned for
it. Improved PGM's, improved C4ISR, advances in UAV (to the point of
UCAV)...


And that.

--
"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

"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.

You are mistaken, the number of F-22s to be produced was 180 a year ago.
The funding for the f-22 is dollar capped and each slide in time reduces the
number of airframes delivered. The 276 number is only a fantasy some ram
participant pulled out of their ass.

The likely maximum operational F-22 airframes has fallen further over the
past year, as another year has been ****ed away.

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.

Shutting down the line in Gerogia will not be cheap, as that was the main
thrust for going into production so prematurely. The money is pretty much
spent, whether the US builds F-22s, or not.

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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?

The F-35 was late enough to get some COTS relief, so it is likely to have
superior sensors and integration when compared to the F-22. Letting
engineers buy parts saves a lot of heartache, if the program follows a few
simple rules.

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. "