Posted on 11/25/2004 6:44:38 PM PST by 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?
Thank you for the appreciation. We all do what we can for what is right.
Heh, we were runnin away from that transvestite with the knife, I was only 19 at the time, and the 1st class with me was laughin all the way while we were running...when we finally stopped, he looked at me with a big grin and said "She looked like grandma, but talked like grandpa!" Well, I about fell out when he said that!
Hmmmmmm. How did you mean this?
What I said in a nutshell:
1. We have built things before that where we were on time and under cost.
2. The JSF still has quite a bit of time.
3. Those working on it are good at what they do and the JSF is not built in a vacuum. A lot of stuff already exists or the technology does not really need developed since it's from the F22.
4. The concept in force structure of the JSF/Raptor seems to be similar to the Viper/Eagle. This seems like a good mix in capabilities.
Does that seem far out to you?
Red6
Interesting analogy, the shells and all. I still can't tell what anyone is talking about, amortized cost, unit cost at sell or life cycle cost. I can't tell what the descriminants are - how I would chose among alternatives.
Your story about the racing shells brings up another important consideration. There is a famous story of an Israeli general in the early 1970's who was being shown a new American tank cannon site. The site was expensive and required a great deal of field maintenance. He was asked if the Israeli Army would find it was worth the expense and trouble. His answer was telling.
If the site significantly improved the probability of achieving a first round kill, the Israeli Army would find a way to acquire and field it, if it merely reduced the first round miss distance, it was worthless. Israeli tank gunners generally hit their targets on the second round, so if all the new site did was improve miss distance it was worthless.
What the general did was identify a performance threshold - incremental improvements in performance are nice, but only worth the cost if they provide a decisive edge in combat. Your shell was something like that. A Sears-Roebuck aluminum canoe might have looked a lot like a racing shell, but the extra money spent produced a decisive edge in competition.
Bobby Riggs won a lot of proposition bets by challenging opponents to a contest in which he would use a broom instead of tennis racket. Skill counts, too. American forces are generally better trained and displined than their adversaries and the difference is telling.
OK. Day three here. I've obviously got caught up in this "far out" thread,(if for no other reason than it's a curiosity) so I'll bite.
What's your opinion?
Bring it on, AF.
NAAAAHHHHhhh, why? That doesn't stop anybody ELSE!
$239,000,000 for a systern....that's outragious!
1981
When development of the F-22 began in 1981, the Air Force intended to purchase 648 aircraft at an estimated total program cost of $99.1 billion -- making it the most expensive weapons system in history. The program began to meet what was perceived as a growing threat of Soviet air power and to replace the F-15 fighter.
1991
The Air Force announces the F-22 as the winner in the next generation fighter contest.
Two contracts totaling $10.91 billion ($9.55 billion for the airframe and $1.36 billion for engines) were awarded for [the F-22 and F-119]
1993
In 1993, the Air Force planned to purchase 648 F-22s at a per plane cost of $84 million in 1995 dollars.
In 1993, the Department of Defense identified seven countries -- China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea and Cuba -- that pose potential threats to the United States. Estimates vary as to the quantity and quality of these countries' respective air forces. The General Accounting Office estimated that these potential adversaries, with the exception of China, possess air forces ranging from a low of 188 to a high 460 aircraft.
1994
In 1994, procurement was reduced to 442 aircraft, with an estimated cost of $73.5 billion in fiscal year 1995 dollars. This raised the per plane cost to $91 million.
As of December 31, 1994, $11.9 billion had been spent on the F-22 program.
1995
The Congressional Budget Office report entitled "Reducing the Deficit" concluded in February 1995 that cancellation of the F-22 program would result in a five-year savings of $14.5 billion dollars.
1996
The anticipated total program cost of the F-22 is $73.5 billion for 442 aircraft.
1998
The Air Force plans to procure 438 production F-22s, and production is scheduled to run through 2013.
The site has only sparse info after 1999, but it should give you a general idea of what's going on. You can extrapolate for current procurement plans.
COMPLETELY agree. Plus...we need more big lifters soon.
"One F-22 is superior to at least 7 F-15s "
pointer to this info, please.
stuning
IMHO, that's one of the values of FR...the experts in most every field that one can call on for answers to questions. That's important to counter the crazies and uninformed mouth-shooters.
"You will just have to wait for it."
Your list was pretty good until that part. Tell ya what - we'll just have to consider that one item opinion until such time as your sources can be revealed.
You have so many fawning fans on here it makes me wanna, well... puke! Someone has to keep you honest.......
I'd love to see that data.
Instead of cutting the budget of weapons systems (in a time of war), why don't you look at and advocate cutting some of that bloated social spending the federal government hands out. Have you looked at the federal budget lately?
But to answer your question. Absolutely not. I've personally seen the F-22 fly and it can out turn a F-16 (which is much smaller). We (the U.S.) must keep the industrial capability to produce advanced systems for our defense. The engineers and manufacturing base would simply move on to other industries due to lack of jobs. In other words, you can not halt defense technology and assume you can get it back when you need it.
Besides, do you think Russia, China and others are just sitting around on their hands?
Thanks, sounds like the acquistion cost is about $75M/aircraft, the development money spent so it *shouldn't* factor in. Life cycle costs and preformance thresholds are TBD...
The funny thing about development costs - in both business and government - is that prudent management theory says you should never look back, decisions should be made based on present alternatives. It's like a poker player becoming emotionally attached to the money he's put in the pot. Once you ante, or pay a development cost, it's not "your" money anymore. Chasing good money after bad to justify previous poor decisions is all too common in both government and business. And a lot of guys named Slim out in Vegas make a living off that kind of decision making and a lot of contractors in Crystal City keep the wheel spinning with the same kind of logic.
Give aviators superior advantage and they'll pay us back by destroying enemy assets and sending them into an irrecoverable flat spin. Splat and Splash.
Air superiority.....Priceless!
(Besides, I felt better knowing that CAP was there to back up our dozen .38s and a couple .45 ACPs.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.