Vaguely interesting article in NYT today.

[Weta43]

 

 

The biggest program in the Pentagon pipeline is the Air Force’s replacement of its tactical aircraft fleet, primarily F-16’s, with F-22A’s and the Joint Strike Fighter. The combined price tag for the replacement plan is $320 billion, with $75 billion of that already appropriated. But problems are already cropping up from what critics say is a “conspiracy of hope” rather than hard-edged planning.

 

One consequence of rising costs is that about 4,500 F-16’s and other jets will be replaced by only 3,100 new jets. And as the Air Force waits for its new jets, it has stopped buying F-16’s. This means the newest models are flown by the United Arab Emirates and Poland, which have recently placed large orders.

 

When it was planned 19 years ago, the F-22A was an ambitious project by any measure. It was to fly invisibly, at supersonic speeds and with the latest in avionics and engines. All this was to counter Soviet threats in air-to-air combat. Initially, the Air Force had planned to spend $82 billion and buy 648 planes.

 

Since then, the Soviet threat ended and the F-22A encountered numerous cost overruns and schedule delays. The Air Force also added new requirements so the jet could also conduct bombing missions — even though some critics question the feasibility of using an expensive fighter jet that flies at nearly twice the speed of sound to attack ground targets.

 

In the end, the F-22A is costing nearly twice as much per plane as planned, and the Air Force is getting only one-quarter the number it had initially sought. The cost for each plane has soared to $361 million, making it the most expensive fighter jet ever. It is still not ready for combat.

 

Fewer Planes for More Money

 

 

The Air Force maintains it needs at least 381 F-22A’s to satisfy national security requirements. But the Pentagon has only enough money to buy 181, leaving a shortfall of about 200 aircraft. By contrast, the F-16 fighter jet began as a less ambitious program and was built in four years, using proven technology. It has been flying, with continual upgrades, for 30 years and is considered the most successful fighter jet in history.

 

Many in Congress are concerned that the replacement for the F-16, the Joint Strike Fighter being developed under a $257 billion program, may not be as cost-effective. Development costs have already risen by $23 billion, or 28 percent. This has caused the Pentagon to cut 400 planes from the program, which is now set for 2,443 planes.

 

Equally troublesome to critics is that the Pentagon has invested in manufacturing and producing the plane before it has been fully tested. The G.A.O. reports that when initial production of the Joint Strike Fighter begins next January, only 1 percent of its preflight testing will be completed. Longtime Pentagon watchers say that optimism about weapons and budgets is part of its inherent character. But the reality of limited funds and a growing chorus of critics may ultimately force the gap to close between what the Pentagon wants and what it can afford.

 

“We’ve always wanted to provide the best for our boys and we have been willing to pay for it,” said Mr. Gansler, the former acquisitions under secretary. “The belief has been that next year we will be richer and the budget will climb even more. But now, as the Pentagon has to be more-cost sensitive, you have to question the belief.”

[Pilotasso]

I have heard the Raptor unit costs has fluctuated between 99-150 Million dollars. 361 sounds way over the top.

[NEODARK]

But then again, our goverment has those $5000 toilets, or $500 toilet paper.

 

And let's not forget the $1000 spoons, and $2000 forks. :P

 

subsidize people, subsidize ;)

[Guest denneym1]

I would think that the high-low concept of the F-15/F-16 would still be valid. Yes, the F-22/F-35 will be a helluva combo, but why not retain F-16's, F-18's, and yes, maybe even A-10's in the mix? Not all strike packages go into heavily defended territory, especially in todays COIN type operations. The Falcon and Hornet are still very effective aircraft, and much less expensive.

[suntrace1]

Ooo, believe me, they will keep them - at this costs, they wont deliver on time, maybe not ever.

 

This was the second source to my knowledge that stated 350 mill price tag. Now that is a lot of money, even for USA, which couldn't even afford some decent shielding for their troops in Iraq.

[Dudikoff]

I would think that the high-low concept of the F-15/F-16 would still be valid. Yes, the F-22/F-35 will be a helluva combo, but why not retain F-16's, F-18's, and yes, maybe even A-10's in the mix? Not all strike packages go into heavily defended territory, especially in todays COIN type operations. The Falcon and Hornet are still very effective aircraft, and much less expensive.

 

Isn't the whole idea behind *JOINT* Strike Fighter the one that all US air forces have pretty much the same main combat airplane which would cut down the maintenance costs substantially? I guess the cost of maintaining the fleet of at least 4-5 different aircraft in one air force is enormous (USAF has a dozen of different aircraft, Navy some other 5-6 types (a decade and a half ago, it was probably a nightmare with F-14, A-6, A-7, etc. in the mix as well), then the USMC, SAC, TAC, etc.). That's why they're trying to make the F-18E/F to fit as many roles as possible (ASuW, EW, etc.). Wouldn't be surprised if they fit a big radar on its back in near future.. (just kidding; we know that thing can't stay in the air near as long as it is needed ;) )

[Dudikoff]

I have heard the Raptor unit costs has fluctuated between 99-150 Million dollars. 361 sounds way over the top.

 

Maybe 361 is the price which includes funds spent on development? Wait, 360 would be a bargain then.. ;)

[Ice]

But Wait!!!... there's more!! Buy 360 Strikefighters today and We Will throw in Another ABSOLUTLEY FREE!! Ring now !! To secure this absolute bargain of a lifetime.

 

Bring your Wife!.. Bring your Trailor!!

[D-Scythe]

Maybe 361 is the price which includes funds spent on development? Wait, 360 would be a bargain then.. ;)

 

Yup. Buying one less F-22 would not save $361 million and buying one more F-22 would not cost $361 million.

[Guest Cali]

I'm in the USAF and I have seen prices of some things that we buy. And let me tell you it made me sick :puke: My shop bought 40 chairs at $1200 a piece...you do the math that is $48,000 they spent on chairs!!! They could have went down town to the nearest office depot and paid $8,000. That extra $40,000 could have went into paying it's people more money.

[NEODARK]

^^ My point exactly :)

[wsoul2k]

I have read somewhere the congress is studding a proposal to sell it to friendly contries this can include JAPAN , UK and etc...

[Ukr_Alex]

Why so many?

 

I mean there is no great superpower left there to fight against.....

 

Can anyone enlighten me on why they need sooo many fighters?

 

If they wanna fight the Chinese they can still fly the F16/F15/F18

[britgliderpilot]

I have read somewhere the congress is studding a proposal to sell it to friendly contries this can include JAPAN , UK and etc...

 

Oi - the UK is the only non-US tier one team member on JSF. We're getting it already, tier two countries include existing European F-16 users and potential export sales have always been factored in.

 

 

By the looks of things the UK will be the only other country than the US that has access to the source code - but then few countries want to integrate as many of their own weapons onto the aircraft as we do.

[britgliderpilot]

Why so many?

 

I mean there is no great superpower left there to fight against.....

 

Can anyone enlighten me on why they need sooo many fighters?

 

If they wanna fight the Chinese they can still fly the F16/F15/F18

 

 

There is no major threat now, that's true.

 

However . . . . . it takes twenty years to design and build a new fighter. If you wait for the threat to emerge before you wake up and start preparing for it, then you're already too late ;)

 

If you can predict world politics 20 years ahead, let me know . . . . .

 

 

The newest variants of the Su27/Su30 are in fact extremely capable aircraft. AESA radar, glass cockpits, RVV-AE . . . the IAF has proved that the USAF doesn't have a monopoly on training, tactics, or flight hours it can give to the pilots.

 

If you put the most recent versions of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 up against an Su30MKI flown by a trained and integrated air force . . . . although they may win in the end, they would suffer significantly along the way. That scenario is a possibility.

 

 

Fighting with equipment on a par with your opponent is something you should always try to avoid.

 

The F-22A and JSF are designed to wipe the floor with any fighter currently in the air - make it not even a fair fight. They are designed to go out there and win the air war just like that - and have a little something left over for future threats as well.

[Ukr_Alex]

You see I have a different thought proccess.

 

 

To me if you build something as advanced as the F-22 you dont need many because they are already years ahead and more capable of the opposition.

 

It's only when you are on par with the enemy that you want to fight them with simply greater numbers of ammo and jets.

 

I mean why use 5 F-22s Vs. 5 Su-27s ? Might aswel just use 7 F15s and have a natural advantage that way...

 

 

See what I'm trying to say?

[wsoul2k]

Oi - the UK is the only non-US tier one team member on JSF. We're getting it already, tier two countries include existing European F-16 users and potential export sales have always been factored in.

 

 

By the looks of things the UK will be the only other country than the US that has access to the source code - but then few countries want to integrate as many of their own weapons onto the aircraft as we do.

 

I mean the F-22 Brit not the F-35...i will find the article and post it here

[britgliderpilot]

You see I have a different thought proccess.

 

 

To me if you build something as advanced as the F-22 you dont need many because they are already years ahead and more capable of the opposition.

 

It's only when you are on par with the enemy that you want to fight them with simply greater numbers of ammo and jets.

 

I mean why use 5 F-22s Vs. 5 Su-27s ? Might aswel just use 7 F15s and have a natural advantage that way...

 

 

See what I'm trying to say?

 

7 F-15s vs 5 Su27s, you can count on losing jets.

 

Losing a jet is just money - losing a pilot is worse.

 

The F-15 is an air superiority fighter - fine.

 

 

The F-22A is an air DOMINANCE fighter. It's not just an advantage, it allows you to OWN the enemy airspace - which in turn allows completely unmolested airspace for the real work to go on, which is the striking of military targets on the ground.

 

 

 

WSoul -

 

Export sales of the F-22A is an interesting question - I don't know of any country that would buy it, though.

 

Rafale, Gripen, and Typhoon offer 75% of the advantages at 50% or less of the price. Honestly and simply, it depends how future-proof the country want their aircraft and how much they'll pay for it.

 

Raptor is the daddy. But the other three offerings are significantly superior to any current Su/MiG variant that they are appealing (and potentially more cost-effective) in their own right.

[wsoul2k]

The article is from Washington Post..but unfortunely i have it only in portuguese sorry...but here it goes any way

 

Câmara vota para autorizar a venda do F-22 Raptor para os países aliados

 

 

 

A Câmara recomendou o fim da proibição das vendas internacionais do mais avançado caça da Nação, o F-22 “Raptor”, o que é uma grande oportunidade potencial para a Lockheed Martin Corp se aliados, como o Japão, começarem a comprar o caro avião para modernizar as suas forças aéreas.

 

Em uma votação após 11 minutos de debate, os membros da casa adicionaram ao projeto de lei de verbas destinadas à defesa uma emenda acabando com os 9 anos de proibição de vendas do avião ao exterior.

 

A proibição foi colocada para deixar os avançados sistemas do Raptor fora do alcance de governos estrangeiros. Mas com o número de pedidos dos militares americanos caindo, membros do Congresso e alguns oficiais da Força Aérea ficaram preocupados com a possibilidade de que a linha de produção do avião, baseada em Bethesda, possa ser fechada nos próximos anos.

 

O programa do caça, avaliado em $70 bilhões, é um dos maiores da Lockheed, empregando mais de 4.500 trabalhadores na Georgia e Texas e trazendo centenas de milhões de dólares em rendimento anual. O pentágono vem baixando regularmente o número de compras planejadas do F-22, de 750(que se achava necessário para enfrentar a União Soviética quase 20 anos atrás) para 183. Como o mais antigo F-16 – um caça da Lockheed que continua a ser produzido graças a vendas ao exterior – vendas externas poderiam manter o Raptor em produção.

 

A emenda autorizando vendas externas foi sugerida pelo republicando Kay Granger, cujo distrito em Fort Worth contém uma planta que fabrica a seção central da aeronave, com um total de 2.640 empregos associados ao Raptor.

 

“Eu acredito que a manutenção deste projeto(de proibição de vendas ao exterior) não é mais necessária para resguardar a nossa tecnologia”, Granger disse.

 

Executivos da Lockheed e oficiais da Força Aérea não comentaram o assunto.

 

O prospecto da passagem pelo Senado do projeto(fim da restrição de vendas ao exterior) votado na Câmara é incerto, apesar daquela casa sempre ter sido mais tolerante em permitir envolvimento internacional em programas militares.

 

O Senador John W. Warner, presidente do Senate Armed Services Committee, pareceu apoiar a venda ao exterior de uma versão modificada do Raptor.

 

“O meu conselho é que nos deveríamos considerar a fabricação de um modelo daquela aeronave que iria atender aos nossos requisitos com relação a transferência de tecnologia, um modelo que serviria apenas para exportação”, disse Warner em uma entrevista. “Aquele avião, mesmo modificado em uma versão de exportação, seria um avião fantástico.”

 

Ele mencionou que os militares já tiveram que fazer adptações similares para vendas ao exterior de outros aviões americanos, incluindo o F-16 e F-15.

 

Mesmo que a proibição acabe, qualquer venda a outros governos do caça teria que ser autorizada pelo Departamento de Defesa de acordo com o ato de Controle de Exportação de Armas.

 

A Lockheed e algumas pessoas na Força Aérea começaram analisar as possíveis vendas externas do caça no começo deste ano, enquanto o Pentágono diminuia o número de aviões que iria comprar para 183, visando economizar $10 bilhões nos próximos anos. Até aquele ponto, a Lockheed esperava vender cerca de 381 aviões ao governo americano. A redução levou a Lockheed a alertar que teria que fechar a linha de produção do F-22 por volta de 2011.

 

É provável que qualquer venda específica enfrente preocupações sobre a exportação de tecnologia que ainda é considerada sensível. O Congresso continuou pagando pelo avião, apesar de seus custos crescentes, em parte por que a tecnologia do Raptor era considerada valiosa para se sustentar. Enquanto o outro jato da Lockheed, o F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, foi desenvolvido para ser exportado, esse não era o caso do F-22.

 

A companhia já entregou 74 Raptors até agora, com um custo de $361 milhões cada um. O custo é mais ou menos 3 vezes maior que a estimativa original, de acordo com o governo. Os aviões estão sendo preparados para serem colocados em serviço de combate no começo do próximo ano, após vários anos de treinamento.

 

Durante o breve debate que votou pelo fim da restrição, o autor original do projeto de proibição externa do caça, o Republicando David R. Obey, disse que ele estava “significativamente desconfortável” com o fim da mesma.

 

“Certamente eu não estou convencido que já atingimos o ponto onde nós devemos remover estas restrições”, disse.

 

A venda do jato a outros países também acaba com uma das justificativas originais para a aeronave, dizem os céticos.

 

“A justificativa original para se criar o F-22 era que nós já haviamos vendido a nossa mais moderna tecnologia de caças a tantos países que precisavamos de uma capacidade de combate mais avançada. Agora nós estamos na mesma situação se vendermos o F-22 para fora”, disse Jennifer Porter-Gore, porta-voz do Project on Government Oversight, um grupo de vigília de ações do governo. “Essa situação(venda do F-22) é quando os nossos interesses de segurança nacional colidem com aqueles da indústria de defesa”.

 

Dado o seu preço, o caça deverá ter uma audiência limitada.“Este é um caça com uma performance extremamente alta. Poucas forças aéras ao redor do mundo irão precisar dele, menos ainda irão poder comprá-lo,” disse Gordon M. Adams, professor de prática de assuntos internacionais na Universidade George Washington.

 

A Lockheed e a Força Aéra vêem um mercado em potencial entre os aliados mais próximos dos Estados Unidos, incluindo o Japão, Austrália e Grã-Bretanha, de acordo com a indústria e analistas. Por exemplo, espera-se que o Japão começe a substituir logo a sua frota de cerca de 100 F-4. Excluindo-se os custos de desenvolvimento do programa, que o pentágono já pagou, o preço do avião cai para um valor entre $150 e $183 milhões, ou mesmo menos para um modelo piorado(para exportação), eles dizem.

 

Vendas externas também poderiam ajudar a diminuir um pouco do custo da aeronave para os militares americanos e manter a linha de produção funcionando enquanto a Força Aérea dos Estados Unidos e a Lockheed trazem suas justificativas para mais compras do caça na próxima administração, disse Loren Thompson, um consultor da Lockheed que também tem fortes ligações com a Força Aérea.

 

Fonte: Washington Post

 

[phantom_fly85]

I have heard the Raptor unit costs has fluctuated between 99-150 Million dollars. 361 sounds way over the top.

 

361 million is the price to include fuel to roll out the aircraft, it may only be 99 million to build. ;)