| Warthog Territory Forums http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| F/A 18 E/F and F/A 22 costs http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3712 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | rickusn [ 27 Sep 2003, 08:59 ] |
| Post subject: | |
FY 2004 Defense Appropriations bill 20 F/A 22 3.5 Billion 175 Million per aircraft( originally 22 aircraft 3.7 billion 168 Million per aircraft) 42 F/A 18E/F 2.9 billion 69 Million per aircraft |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 27 Sep 2003, 10:49 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Low rate production is sure cost effective...<img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle> |
|
| Author: | rickusn [ 27 Sep 2003, 13:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Update: "Procurement is set at $74.7 billion in fiscal 2004. Among other items, this provides $3.6 billion for 22 F-22 Air Force fighter aircraft, $2.1 billion for 11 Air Force C-17 airlift aircraft, $228 million for 19 Army Black Hawk helicopters, $2.9 billion for 42 Navy F/A-18E/F fighter aircraft, $1.5 billion for 11 V-22 aircraft and $355 million for 350 Navy Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles." http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2003 ... 09264.html Interesting, the cost is now only about 164 million per aircraft. Going in the right direction at least. Edited by - rickusn on Sep 27 2003 12:42 PM |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 27 Sep 2003, 14:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was about to beat a dead hrose some more...but why bother. 69 million per airframe (if thats the flyaway cost) seems pretty damn high for something that is still needs to evolve. |
|
| Author: | rickusn [ 27 Sep 2003, 14:56 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Could be. But that could also be said of the F/A 22 at over twice the price. They may have changed the designation to claim attack capabilities. But it will cost alot more money to realisticly and practically live up to the claim. Also in the real world to be an effective attack aircraft it loses its stealth, which is the primary reason for its astronomical cost. Last I heard the total program cost was estimated to eventually be between 150-160 million per aircraft. No doubt its a wonderful aircraft and the cost has been decreasing from the 200 million plus cost per aircraft for the first 20 or so aircraft. If the Navy would have been allowed to spend as much money on a new fighter as the AF it is MHO that they could have come up with an aircraft as remarkable as the F/A 22 Raptor instead of the F/A 18 E/F. But after the A-12 fiasco it wasnt in the cards. It seems the AF has fixed the F/A 22 program glitches and reversed the upward spiral in costs. This has for at least the short-term saved the program and this is a good thing. The questions implied by the cost scenarios are obvious IMHO but the answers arent necessarily(at least for me!!) so obvious. |
|
| Author: | EzyJack [ 28 Sep 2003, 07:36 ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote] Could be. But that could also be said of the F/A 22 at over twice the price. They may have changed the designation to claim attack capabilities. But it will cost alot more money to realisticly and practically live up to the claim. ------ The failed to add in R&D in the costs. Think it's over 100 million per Raptor airframe now, assuming they build all 250 or whatever they are using now. Bad karma to go into production before they complete a full and accurate flight test. They still have beaucoup problems with the software. Jack |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 28 Sep 2003, 11:19 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The F-22 with its capabilities in my humble opinion is worth it. We are talking about an aircraft that will promise air domination for the next 30 years. The F-14 in 1972 was priced at 17 million per copy flyaway cost...In 1972 dollars that was a pile of money and the jet nearly broke Grumman. When I look at the Super Hornet price, I compare it to what Grumman was offering the ST-21 to the Navy for...Its sour grapes and ufair to pit a proposal to a developed airframe, but with the ST-21 it would seem that the Navy would be getting more bang for its buck. ST-21 offered a low radar signature, thrust vectoring. Super Hornet could still use a bigger powerplant, thought its avionics suite is impressive to say the least. Is the USAF still planning on using AWACS as part of its air superiority doctrine? or will stealth and the APG-77 radar enable the F-22 to work alone? Edited by - chadrewsky on Sep 28 2003 10:22 AM |
|
| Author: | rickusn [ 28 Sep 2003, 11:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought they got the software problems fixed? |
|
| Author: | EzyJack [ 28 Sep 2003, 14:19 ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote] I thought they got the software problems fixed? -------- Nope. Even came up with a new term, mean time between avionics anamolies. Might be off on the a part. Normally it's mean team between failure. Tis big hint, they have big problems. They brought in some hot shot spook satellite puter code writers this year to help solve the software problem. Their black boxes are a few generation old and they will probably have a problem finding a producer for them. Jack |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|