Well, they probably don't cost that in actual variable costs. The F-22 is still carrying the cost load of a massive R&D effort in development. Not all of which is wasted, btw. The things learned in the F-22 program will support other future designs as well.
But this is not the time to shorten this program. The time to do that is when we have something even better on the drawing board.
“I cannot believe they can’t get the costs below this. Wow.”
$140 million is a bunch but the F-22 is no ordinary Fighter. It cannot be compared to ANY fighter before it. If you “cannot believe” the cost - you should get more informed about it’s capabilities and weapons delivery advancements.
Another key point is the fewer produced - obviously the more each one costs. IMO - we should have more F-22’s than any bird in the fleet. But that’s just my silly opinion.
Oboy the Kenyan doesn’t care about my opinion, now does he?
I cannot believe they can't get the costs below this. Wow.”
Yes on a production run no less What the hell do they make it out of ? OR the ugly “U” word is heavily involved.
The cost per unit includes all development costs divided by the number of aircraft produced. Each incremental aircraft reduces the cost per unit.
Imagine how much a car would cost if an entirely new system was developed for 183 units.
They should be able to. Usually the “cost” of an airplane includes a portion of the development costs, thus the more planes one buys means the development costs are spread over a larger number of items, thus lowering the “total” cost of the program.
An example is the cost to produce the 1st B-1 bomber was X dollars, as the cost included all of the money spent to design and develop the plane, as the numbers went up, the cost per plane went down. The same applied in WWII, the first B-17 cost a lot, by the time 20,000+ were built, the per plane cost was a heck of a lot lower because the development dollars were spread over 20,000+ instead of a few dozen.
But, it was developed originally with an ROI for 600-700 planes...which have now been cut back to 183. If the US had ordered as many as were originally slated...the cost would be much lower.
Development costs are built in to the cost of the aircraft. Buy more airframes and the price per unit goes down.
Look at it this way: we are giving two F22's in bonuses to the diseased criminals from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and nobody in Washington so much as lifts an eyelid. 140 million in a 3.5 trillion dollar budget is nothing. Buy 100 more, it still is nothing.
R&D costs for the development and fly off the YF22 and YF23 were originally to be spread over 760 aircraft. The current unit price reflects this amount spread over 1/5 of the planned production. If they had made the order for 300 aircraft they could have gotten 300 for the money already spent. Congress wouldn’t fund full production. I visited the assembly line in 1992 in Marietta Georgia.( before it was moved to Texas) It was sitting idle then. 17 years or 1 plane a month of production from an automated assembly process that could have made 1 plane every 3 days. And they are also killing the ABL - Laser boost interception... Gates - you’re selling out the future defense of our country.
The point I’d make is that one F-22 costs less than the bonuses for AIG employees, but it is a successful investment and its returns pay AFTER the investment.
“I cannot believe they can’t get the costs below this. Wow.”
The less you make of something, the more it costs.
That’s why a Ford costs $15,000 while a Ferarri costs $500,000+.