Should The F-22 be cancelled?

26-nov,2004 | Me

[Haro_546]

Yes. This type of aircraft has no place in the modern battlefield and Foreseeable conflicts. The money could be put into more usefull sistems (each unit cost about $235 million for 239 planes) Whats your opinion?

[Quix]

You are amazingly perceptive, smart, erudite, urbane, . . . sweet . . .

Oh dear . . . there I go again.

[StoneFury]

OK Haro546, I don't have time to read 550+ responses to see if this was answered already, but here goes: the $239 million per plane you quoted, assuming it is correct, is not just for parts and labor. A whole hell of a lot of R&D goes into it too, years before the first plane ever leaves the assembly line. And guess what, most of that R&D money has already been spent.

At least 50% of the price tag is R&D, probably more, so if the [ahem] 'sistem' were cancelled now, all that R&D money is lost, with zero return on the investment. You would have us scrap years and years of research, engineering, design, software coding, testing, and prototype trials, paid for with money that has already been spent, just to save a few million on the actual construction of the plane. And leave us without a next-generation fighter to boot. Sounds to me like the half-assed DUmmie way of doing business.

And it ain't gonna happen.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Interesting observation. I dunno if the $239M/copy is the amortized cost or the unit cost, or life cycle cost (including amortized development costs). I haven't been following this thread that closely, anyway. I just objected to the extremely vague initial problem statement.

In the U.S. defense industry there is what Sir Robert Watson-Watt, developer of the British Chain-Home radar system just prior to WW-II, called "the cult of third best." The best possible system can never be realized. The second best system costs too much and takes too long to develop. Any system that is delivered on time and on budget is preferable to something that never gets off the drawing board. The Chain-Home radar system had many deficiencies, but it was just good enough and came on line just soon enough to prove decisive in the Battle of Britain.

[Gunrunner2]

Yeah. . .the standards have been ruined. . .sad.

[StoneFury]

I used to row crew in college, in an 8-man racing shell (aka a boat). The hulls of our shells were basically thin pieces of fiberglass, about 1/8 inch or so, with seats and outriggings for the oars, and a small rudder. That was it. They cost about $30,000 each, more than most cars. I thought that was insane, it looked like a couple hundred dollars of materials max. It all made sense later when I learned that there is a pretty limited market for the things, but someone still has to engineer them for speed, durability, and weight. If it weren't for the engineers who designed them in the first place, there wouldn't be any racing shells at all (well maybe some really crappy ones).

It's the same thing on a massive scale for the F-22 or any new defense system. Imagine what could have happened if Haro546 were in charge of UK radar development. What a disaster that would have been.

For him to imply -- if not outright state -- that we would save $239 million for every F-22 we don't buy is pure uninformed BS, plain and simple.

[Gunrunner2]

That is soooo cool. . .a real talent.

Good on ya.

[Gunrunner2]

You have a firm grip an the realities of procurement. . .and what gets me is congress (and other DUmmines) when they cry about the high cost per jet and then cut the number of jets again and again and then are surprised that the cost per jet went up some more and they whine some more, never really realizing it is the R&D cost that remains fixed and a major portion of the cost.

[Gunrunner2]

Oh. . .no worries. . .we will joke about the "hostitutes" for you.

;-)

[Long Cut]

Sadly, basic intelligence and an understanding of economic laws are NOT a requirement for public office.

[Red6]

Sure,

Boeing managed to bring out the F18 on time, the C17 was on time and is now UNDER original anticipated cost. Both had larger issues this far out before production. Flying prototypes of the F35 flew a long time ago. We still have YEARS before initial operational dates arrive (The P51 went from blue print to production in 6 months). The F35 has borrowed technology from its bigger brother the F22. Not everything is like reinventing the wheel. Ejection seat already exists. A lot of design is lifted from the F22 or is off the shelf some other way.

Actually yes. I don't see the F35 really having any big issues. The story that sells is "controversial" and "uncovers" some "scandal". However, the firms working on the F35 and F22 have more experience and know-how than nearly any one out there. I don't even see myself as being an optimist when I say that the F35 will go operational on time unless monies are diverted because of other pressing issues (Iraq, Afghanistan GWT so on) or if the political climate somehow dramatically changes.

The concept of the F35 and F22 working together like the F16 and F15 did, sounds very good to me. Both are true 5th generation aircraft with much more growth potential than current airframes. The F35 will provide the sufficient volume in aircraft while the F22 will be the 300 pound gorilla in limited qualities since they’re cost prohibitive. But not all missions require the ability of a F22 and this machine while necessary is not required even in large volumes. In support of maneuver in the CAS role the JSF/F35 will do just fine. If I see it right, I think this will be a good concept as it was in the past.

Red6

[TomasUSMC]

Lets tell the world we are going to build 800 of them and then only build 80. By the time our enemy is building a counter to them we will build a much better one. Maybe a little scramjet fighter with 7000 mph speed, yeah baby. Maybe remote controlled scramjets, yeah yeah baby.

In other words keep R&D going hot. Air superiority will be done by smaller and faster and much more lethal aircraft. We will have pilots controlling many other craft. Laser type weaponry will be coming on line also.

So yeah, we can cut the number of aircraft but don't tell anyone.

But keep the R and D going strong, whatever you decide.

[quadrant]

I understand the capabilities and the missions of the F22, but I consider the JSF a more prudent investment.

[BIGLOOK]

Does the Su 30mk FLANKER have thrust vectoring like the variant Su 35? If so, the F-15c was at a disadvantage.

No EWACS was the smart choice; Don't want no peeking!

[Pukin Dog]

Boeing managed to bring out the F18 on time,

I was going to stop reading right there, but I decided to add that I probably should not be commenting on this subject, because I really don't know crap about it. Someday, I am going to learn to keep my comments about fighter aircraft to myself, and just defer to those more knowledgeable than myself in this area.

LC, do you think this wise?

[John Lenin]

My short answer, hell no. We have to keep the Russians and Chinese honest and advanced weaponry is the only way.

[endthematrix]

Spin offs.

The most realistic answer for questioning modern military procurement program costs.

[endthematrix]

My post was #596 to your #31. I think I'll pass reading on.

[Rokke]

This is quite a thread. I've heard more cogent discussions in a fighter bar at 2am surrounded by about 20 empty bottles of Jeremiah Weed.

As far as the F-22 is concerned...as one of the few folks on this thread who still actually flies fighters for a living...you do NOT want to know my opinion.

[al baby]

I do

[rlmorel]

I agree with that analysis. My tinfoil hat is not too tight...:)