WT Forums

from last year:

F/A-22 “Raptor” Fighter Aircraft
FY’04 Authorization – $3,566.1 million for 22 aircraft
Recommendation -- Reduce procurement to 10 aircraft (@$108 per aircraft)
Savings -- $1.1 billion

The F/A-22 continues to be one of the Pentagon’s most troubled acquisition programs. In 1991, the Air Force planned to spend $96.4 billion dollars to develop the F-22 and produce 648 aircraft, a per-unit cost of $149 million. In 1993, the Pentagon’s “Bottom Up Review,” citing a declining threat as a result of the end of the Cold War, reduced the proposed purchase to 442 aircraft, increasing the per unit cost to $162 million. A further reduction recommended in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review reduced the number of aircraft to 341, which drove the per-unit cost up to $187 million. By 2001, the per-unit cost for 341 aircraft had risen to $204 million. According to the most recent DoD “Selected Acquisition Report,” at a total program cost of $71.7 billion, the per-unit cost for 279 aircraft is $257 million -- an increase of 73 percent since 1991.

How much were cigarettes in 1991?

Less than half what they are now.

Gas was about a dollar a gallon in 1991.

Inflation affects everything...not just grocerys.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

I agree entirely...And like the commercials. Cost of a F-22 Raptor 100 million dollars. The cost of air dominance...Priceless.

IMHO the F-22 is the most important defense priority right now today, not only does the USAF need it to replace aging fighters, but with the USN commited to the F-18E/F, martime air superiority is no longer a USN exclusive, we need the F-22 to dominate the skies for all of the collective armed services.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
from last year:

F/A-22 “Raptor” Fighter Aircraft
FY’04 Authorization – $3,566.1 million for 22 aircraft
Recommendation -- Reduce procurement to 10 aircraft (@$108 per aircraft)
Savings -- $1.1 billion

The F/A-22 continues to be one of the Pentagon’s most troubled acquisition programs. In 1991, the Air Force planned to spend $96.4 billion dollars to develop the F-22 and produce 648 aircraft, a per-unit cost of $149 million. In 1993, the Pentagon’s “Bottom Up Review,” citing a declining threat as a result of the end of the Cold War, reduced the proposed purchase to 442 aircraft, increasing the per unit cost to $162 million. A further reduction recommended in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review reduced the number of aircraft to 341, which drove the per-unit cost up to $187 million. By 2001, the per-unit cost for 341 aircraft had risen to $204 million. According to the most recent DoD “Selected Acquisition Report,” at a total program cost of $71.7 billion, the per-unit cost for 279 aircraft is $257 million -- an increase of 73 percent since 1991.



<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I agree with the declining threat sentiment based off of the cold war and 1 region of the world.

However I am a realist. The Policy has shut its eyes before re-evaluating the global situation. The only thing that has changed is in the competitive hardware from the Former Cold War threat has been spread out to 3rd and 2nd world nations with very big ambitions for capatilising on this new access of technology.

So instead of a singular Cold war perimetered threat, we now have more hoodlems on the block wanting to get their peice of the score. It doesnt take long for anyone to see that the stability created during the coldwar had 3 sides. The west, the east and those caught in the middle where much of these battles would be faught.

Now we have no front. IF anything has changed it is the fact that our expeditionary measure is more uneven in the campaign posture and will require more assets to to meet the flexibility required to deal with many diffrnt entities.

The forces now are going to be tasked with, More DCA, Blockade activities so that the Assets required to prosecute an offensive posture can do it unimpeded. This includes all of the Airway routes and positioning areas as well. The nature of the conflict can change in a matter of hours. When you dont have prepositioned forcesand solid foundations of cooperation with foriegn parties. It costs much more expense in maintaining that capability to prosecute expeditionary campaigns.


In my opinion, Congress and the DOD need to look at antiquated technology drawdown. Its time to start retireing the 16Blocks up to 30. Phase in the JSF to replace the 40-50. and the F22 to replace all the F15C in the FIS role. Those F15's can be passed down to the Guard ADF squadrons. Just the cutback alone in those early block 16 dinosaurs the guard is flying would pay for more f22's

The F15s have a A2G Capability. The Guard can start utilising the 15's to have a much broader mission profile and put their Technology investment into GPS munitions.

The New ATFLIRS are missionised pods. No need for proprietary gear like we had in the past. (IMHO this is where money is wasted "Propriatary technology suites")

Or We Buy X35's and F22's.

as each aircraft roles out of the factory the 16 that is replaced is sent to DM. And maintained as a backup capibility.. Utilise the Inactive reserve people that sperated after working with this aircraft to contribute to the preservation of these aircraft. When needed in a time of war these people then compose a very capable resource as non deployables to get these aircraft ready for service. In essence you have a very large Pool of SME's that have a Depot type capability.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader


Edited by - mrmudd on Aug 01 2004 04:54 AM

The cold war may be over, but Russia is selling Flankers cheap. I wouldn't bet on Russia's stability either.

Exactly my point. Every third and 2nd world cheese dick recieves a enhanced combat capability and are just stupid enough to test it out. Going to be as amusing as giving out Dryice to teenagers.

Goodbye to a peacefull nights sleep...

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

IF I hear one more time that the Raptor costs a $100m or even a $120m Ill be puking all over this board. I gurantee with the stuff I eat and drink that it wont be pretty. LOL

If we want to go that route then the SuperHornet only costs $40 or 50m. But you cant have it both ways. Or at least I wont let you. LOL

But most certainly the USAF need a new fighter aircraft. OTOH to make light of the cost escalation is tantamount to suicide.

As for the ANG if there arent a hundred or so F-15C left in the 15-20 year range they should just scrap them. I dont know how the ANG keeps the 25-30 year old ones they have now flying. Apparently the USAF are having a hard time keeping there 0-10? year old younger ones flying and it will be awhile before the active force gets enough Raptors to give up there relatively younger F-15Cs.

About the JSF if I hear again they only cost $30m or even $50m Ill be puking again. LOL I must admit you guys bring out the best(or is it worst?) in me. LOL

Hey despite the fact I used to Bend Airframes for a living. We did our best in hopes that the kids of today wont fly in yester years Puke in command ridden, Bitburger pils smuggling, Red X violating POS's of Cold War Vintage. I like a classic like the next guy, but these girls got way too many miles on their back. Its just not sporty pushing grandma daisey around the block anymore.

You can't blame the kids for wanting that New Jet smell. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Damn Rick and Bigvette are like the Yin and Yang of The NEW JET NAZI Order. <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle>

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Im not sure what you mean Mr. Mudd. I love the Raptor and other new jets. I just think people need to be honest when it comes to costs. Not that its easy to do with all the #s thrown about.

LOL To pair me up with BigVette IS cruel and unusual punishment. LOL

And I thougt I made it quite clear that the vast majority of the approx. 900 A/B/C/D F-15s built* are over-the-hill and certainly by the USAF own admission no longer cost effective to maintain. The USN has even worse problems with the F-14 although they have approx. 100 left that are between 12 and 17 years old. Im looking to find out when F-15C production stopped I think it was around 1987 as that is when the first E went into squadron service.** Apparently C/D production ended 1992.("As F-15C/D ended production in 1992")

* F-15A 373 initial USAF single seaters (including 18 "YF-15As")
F-15B 59 initial USAF tandem seaters (including 2 TF-15As)
F-15C 408 improved USAF single seaters
F-15D 62 improved USAF tandem seaters

**"The first production "F-15E" performed its first flight on 11 December 1986. It was painted overall charcoal gray, which would become the standard color scheme for the Strike Eagle. Initial delivery to the USAF was on 12 April 1988, leading to initial operational capability in 1989."

Here is some intersting commentary from FAS:

The F-15C has an air combat victory ratio of 95-0 making it one of the most effective air superiority aircraft ever developed. The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range. Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges. In long-range encounters, with its superiorr radar the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight. The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities. Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraft’s maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles. Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed.

I UNDERSTAND THE F-15 RATIO IS NOW 101-0.



The F-15 initial operational requirement was for a service life of 4,000 hours. Testing completed in 1973 demonstrated that the F-15 could sustain 16,000 hours of flight. Subsequently operational use was more severely stressful than the original design specification. With an average usage of 270 aircraft flight hours per year, by the early 1990s the F-15C fleet was approaching its service-design-life limit of 4,000 flight hours. Following successful airframe structural testing, the F-15C was extended to an 8,000-hour service life limit. An 8,000-hour service limit provides current levels of F-15Cs through 2010. The F-22 program was initially justified on the basis of an 8,000 flight hour life projection for the F-15. This was consistent with the projected lifespan of the most severely stressed F-15Cs, which have averaged 85% of flight hours in stressful air-to-air missions, versus the 48% in the original design specification.

Full-scale fatigue testing between 1988 and 1994 ended with a demonstration of over 7,600 flight hours for the most severely used aircraft, and in excess of 12,000 hours on the remainder of the fleet. A 10,000-hour service limit would provide F-15Cs to 2020, while a 12,000-hour service life extends the F-15Cs to the year 2030. The APG-63 radar, F100-PW-100 engines, and structure upgrades are mandatory. The USAF cannot expect to fly the F-15C to 2014, or beyond, without replacing these subsystems. The total cost of the three retrofits would be under $3 billion. The upgrades would dramatically reduce the 18 percent breakrate prevalent in the mid-1990s, and extend the F-15C service life well beyond 2014.

The F-15E structure is rated at 16,000 flight hours, double the lifetime of earlier F-15s.


Edited by - rickusn on Aug 01 2004 07:44 AM

And heres an article on the cost of a new f-15:

Boeing to get $120M in federal funds for two F-15s
The Boeing Co.'s F-15 production line in St. Louis will remain open through 2008 thanks to $120 million in federal funding to purchase two of the aircraft, said U.S. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.).


The funds were part of the fiscal year 2005 defense bill, approved Tuesday by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

"These funds will ensure that jobs stay in Missouri and the F-15 line remains open," Bond said, in a statement. "The Boeing St. Louis workers produce the best tactical fighter aircraft in the world, including the F-15 with its perfect combat record."

Also included in the dense authorization bill is an amendment allowing former Mallinckrodt workers to receive federal compensation to help pay for medical costs and other expenses related to exposure to radiation during manufacturing.

Chicago-based Boeing Co.'s (NYSE: BA) Integrated Defense Systems unit, its largest subsidiary, is based in St. Louis and is the area's second-largest employer.

Still $60M to build even after what is probably the longest production run of any aircraft ever. Think what the cost would be if they had to absorb any of the R&D, design, and testing costs.

OTOH a navalised version for up to $20M more a piece more may have been a better way to go than the SuperHornet. But then maybe not. What do you think? Of course it may also have been better to keep building F-14s thirteen years ago. But that hasnt been a viable option since the tooling was destroyed.


But Senator Mccain says this is "Advanced Procurement" funding. So is the total cost of these two aircraft actually more than $60M each?:

"$110 million for the Advanced Procurement of F-15s. The Air Force has decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15. Yet this earmark keeps the F-15 production line open, so I question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both"



Edited by - rickusn on Aug 01 2004 11:36 AM