Another F-22 down

How much do they cost each???








I don't think they expressed that enough

 

Actually the one that crashed cost less than quoted, since the value stated is a life cycle cost based on X (20?) yrs of service. They saved a bunch on spares and maintenance by crashing it.

POS, F-23 was a better airplane. Northrop and his namesake company designed some great airplanes, but always got shafted by the government.

 

Jim- Incorrect, there was a fly-off and the F-22 was the better aircraft. The F-23 was too compromised towards stealth and the difference in dynamics was way too much for the small improvement in stealth. I worked on the program for the AF in the early 90s at AFOTEC.

 

Stupid Govt. mistake to have curtailed F-22 production. The per-unit costs would have come down dramatically and the production program was an excellent fiscal stimulus and jobs program.


Terry

 

There is a problem with the way the pricing is told to the public on any of these programs. These numbers have the amoritization put in although it was paid separately. Then every time the government decides to reduce the quanity built the price is recalculated. In my opinion it would be more honest to the public to use $X as the development then $Y for the per unit.

Jeff

 

Has Lockheed frozen the design yet? lol

The YF120 was a better engine than the YF119 as well. Politicing won out for both engine and airframe.

 

Jim- Wrong again.

 

From what I read, the f23 is stealthier and faster than the f22 but the f22 is more agile and has thrust vectoring while the f23 does not.

 

Ric- All the fourth and fifth generation fighters with aluminum airframes have about the same top speed capability, limited by heat generated, of around mach 2.5. To go faster you need a different structure or leading/forward edges on wings, appendages, etc of titanium, stainless steel (Mig 25), or fitted with themal protection systems ala the shuttle. The SR-71 is an example of what it takes to get up around mach 3.

Supercruise on the F-22 and F-23 would have been about the same.

 

Question: Can I cuss on here without getting banned forever?

Every time I see some jackassed journalist quote the fictitious cost of the F-22, and it's always 2-3 times the actual cost on the DD250 which is 120's to 130's million, I just want to choke the living sh## out of them.

Sorry, I had to vent because I'd still be building them if it weren't for arsewipes like that, at least they are part of the reason for the demise of the program; especially in the minds of the uninformed public.

 

Yeah, flyaway cost vs. unit cost...

BTW, that ^^^ was in 2011. Now the same website says...

Another Day, Another $678 Million Stealth Jet Wrecked

 

I used to keep copies of the DD-250 years ago and I remember one of them being less than 125,000,000 and the fluctuation between that lower number and the average 130 mil is due to variances during the build process...

Developmental costs of ANY aircraft has always been high and one can take those costs, along with that of the testing, validating phases etc... and apply that number to the entire lot and come up with an average number but is just isn't that simple.

I can't begin to explain all this in detail but I can say that the media has enjoyed making this jet sound as expensive as possible more so than any other I can think of.

Rant over.

 

Not really any different than was reported on the B-1 and B-2. It doesn't help matters when it takes 12-15 yrs to go from beginning of ATF Dem Val to fielding the first squadron. Even more so when the entire philosophy for such an aircraft type disappears.

 

When I was still on the program (2010), the last number I heard was $154 million, which sounded reasonable.

 

The 154 million doesn't take into account all the costs of development, which will never be recovered. Excluding development costs, the cost of an F-22 in 1995 dollars was 105 million dollars each, with development costs divided among aircraft built, is over 600 million per airframe.

Here is a shot of the remains of the Nov 15 accident;

 

We were supposed to build over 700 F-22s until they became a whipping boy for congress and the administration. Especially so with ex-Navy McCain, who really hurt the program. We were supposed to build 132 B-2s, too, until the same thing happened. Fly-away cost decreases as the learning curve improves during production and parts costs decrease by volume buying. AF was never allowed to get anywhere near that point on either aircraft.

AF is currently screwed. Bet the farm on 5th generation aircraft only to have the programs politically killed. Now stuck with an aging fleet and no way to catch up on newer aircraft. Navy bought a stop-gap in the F/A-18E/F, so is in better shape.

 

Terry,

I'm curious why you say the F-119 is a better engine than the F-120 (besides the fact it was picked). To me it seems similar to the F-136 - F-136 battle. In the end it boils down to who its for: if the Navy makes the decision they go with GE; if the AF picks, then its P&W; if it's a joint program then...

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Art S.

 

i hope they somehow find new funding to build more. i own lockheed stock and love what the company does. china just landed one of their fighters on a carrier for the first time today. they are coming up fast we need to maintain our lead and not let them catch up.

 

Very true, not just on the fighter numbers but also bombers and tankers (NKAWTG).

 

While I agree that cutting the programs was a mistake, mostly due to their economic benefits as stimulus/jobs programs... tha AF will be fine. Drones are the future. Any plane with a pilot on board is on its way to being obsolete.


Terry

 

I agree. Cheaper, smaller, lighter, and more plentiful will be the name of the game. Smaller planes equal a smaller runway that can be set up more readily in the field. Once squadrons of drones are flown together into combat with success, the manned plane will be done for. I don't see the advantage of a manned plane when a drone can be equipped with multiple cameras that zoom, infrared, radar, weapons etc. all that can be controlled on a number of monitors safely in the US or some other area while being stealthy at the same time.


Mark

 

Exactly. A pilot sitting in a virtual reality cockpit on the ground can be FAR more effective. His situational awareness would be multiples better than the in-cockpit pilot. He faces no environmental factors. A 20G turn is no sweat for him. The pilot no longer limits the maneuvering capability of the airframe.

You also can always have your hottest pilots at the right place. If the fighter he is flying is low on fuel and has to exit a combat zone to refuel or rearm, just switch the hot stick to the next fresh plane. Same if he is "shot down".

Planes can be smaller, simpler and designed with a more mission specific focus. No need to sustain life aboard eliminates massive design problems. Then there is the huge increase in mission capabilities offered by not having to worry about pilot loss. A "suicide mission" isnt such a big deal when the pilot is safely flying the plane for a distance.

Remote piloting is both the present and the future. The pilots gaining the greatest combat experience TODAY are the drone pilots.


Terry

 

The current generation of drones have not experienced any real combat, and would be severely marginalized if the enemy was actively hunting and gunning for them. However I'm sure there are on-going black programs developing the next-gen that have enhanced combat effectiveness, e.g. air-to-air offensive and defensive capabilities.

 

To say that the F-120 was less mature is being kind. The engine had some serious issues. The variable cycle concept was great on paper, and the output from the performance deck said it should have worked, but it was going to take a lot more development to get it to work correctly. No question that the F-119 was the right choice.

One of my friends was on the flight line when the F-23 came in and landed after a sortie. On final approach the engine speed was osciallating up and down like crazy. Being engine guys he remarked to his GE counterpart that was standing beside him that it really sounded bad.. The GE guys remark back was "oh, no, this is great now, you should have heard it before we made the latest changes"....

And OBTW the F-136 should have been killed long before it was finally put out of its misery. There was no rationale to keep the program once the pricing was set, and that was done before a lot of money was spent developing the final product. I had a unique insight into the entire program and there was really no reason for it to be continued past 2003. The fact that it dragged on for a long time and spent a ton more money is more a function of the power political nature of these things than the merits of the program.