Real cost of an F-22?

[JWCook]

Good point,and point taken thanx

But these AWACS,Fighters and Jammers,will they have the LO capability of the F-22?

If no then is this not an advantage for the F-22.A LO Fighter that has the capability to do number of roles?

thanx in advance

LO has advantages, but do the awacs, growler and fighter all need LO all the time or even at all?.

A fighter is pretty useless as an awacs as flight time is poor by comparison, lacks the coverage, So the F-22 will have less capability than an AWACs for that role.

As a jammer the F-22 is not being stealthy, its emitting = very bad for stealth, for this role power generation, 360 degree emitters and loitre time are important.

As a fighter is really really good, unless you need numbers, in which case its not that good a fighter compared against cost/capability/coverage.

Its horses for courses, each aircraft is tailored for its mission, a broad range of different aircraft tailored to their missions will beat a fewer number of specialised aircraft no matter how good they are.

I'm surprised LM are not putting forward the F-22 for the upcoming tanker bids, after all it is a supercruising stealthy tanker.

Cheers

 

[localhost127]

on bbc news last night, they were talking about possible defense cuts upcoming ... talked about the high-figure projects (dd-1000, f-22, etc) and quoted f-22 at 500million a piece.

no sources or information to how they came to that figure.

 

[Gremlin29]

Nice job Feanor JWCook, don't forget those TV's need to be hardened against EMP, you might want to rethink your cost proposal. nfloorl:

There's two ways to view this or any other program.

1. Get upset over unit costs by dividing the fixed costs (all money spent to get the first production unit out the door) into the built to date units plus production cost per unit.

2. Understand that you've already spent/paid the fixed costs, further acquisitions and dollars spent per unit are, what they are.

If they want F-22 unit prices to be lower, all they need to do is double production.

 

[JWCook]

If they want F-22 unit prices to be lower, all they need to do is double production.

Or if they are worried about how much it actually costs rather than an arbitrary flyaway cost figure - then they should cut production...

When your broke - your broke!..

 

[Feanor]

Right. To evaluate the F-22 program at this point we have to ignore sunk costs. They've already been spent either way.

 

[Gremlin29]

When your broke - your broke!..

We are brokerer, luckily the Chinese are buying them for us. nfloorl:
I wasn't actually implying more "should" be made, I was just making a genarlized statement.

 

[SkolZkiy]

RAF ordered 3 f-35 for $700 millions - and estimated cost of F-35 now is something like 100-110 millions. May be it will be cheaper not to make 2400 F-35 but to make 1700 and 500 of F-22?? Any AirForce need something to take airsuperity - F-35 doubtfully could this job. if USAF will have only somtething like 200 F-22 - we here in Russia would be very pleased (minuce one headache=)))) )

 

[swerve]

While I doubt the predicted flyaway price will ever be met, I can't let this pass without comment.

USD700 million for 3 is because they are test & evaluation aircraft, very early in the production run. Pre-production, really. The price at full-rate production will be much lower. The price of F-22s at the same point in the development/production cycle would have been truly terrifying.

As for the estimated cost - firstly, I don't trust any of the estimates out there, & secondly, be very careful with the figures. Which cost is that? The overall unit cost including fixed costs (on that basis, an F-22 costs USD350 million), or the marginal cost of production (F-22 about USD140 million), or the average cost of procuring an F-35, including all the ancillary bits & pieces (F-22 about USD170 mn)?

 

[SkolZkiy]

I'm counting avarage cost of F-22 of 150-190 millions - because nobody says real price of them. 350 is with the development stage. (As I understood)

about F-35 It was said that US MD will buy 2400 AC and pay for them ~290 B$ = 120 M$ per unit - if I am wrong correct me and say in what?? Is 290 B$ summ with design stage or not?? If not, then - read my previous post.

 

[Grand Danois]

Your looking at it from only one angle...

How about a senario where you want an Awacs in one area, with a fighter in another, and a jammer in a third...

and you just blew all your money on something that can only be in one place.

Cheers

You could always buy the 4.5 gen Eurofighter at 50% additional cost over the JSF and which has nearly no money for upgrades...

So with the EF you have a 4.5 gen with no awacs, tankers and stand off jamming - at all.

congrats !

Talking about blowing money...

Geezuz christ the attempts at doing character assasination on the jsf - throwing stones from te inside of the green house.

 

[dragonfire]

IMHO the actual Unit cost of the F-22 can be derived after the maturity of its expected lifetime production cycle. At any given time the raptor or for that matter the unit cost of any product has to be the total amount of money actualy spent (not just allocated but spent) divided by no of units produced - simple. The costs will marginaly decrease with every additional unit produced. The cost for the current 184 will obviously be high as they are only the first lot (although over some years) am sure despite the recession there will be further orders for the Raptor over a period of the next 10 years (perhaps not immediately) to the extent that it is easily concievable that the current numbers of the raptor will be doubled and thereby the unit cost of fighter will be brought down, am sure it will still easily be 100 mill plus though

I mean didnt the UAE spend about 6 Billion USD on some 80 F-16 I (including 3 billion only on development - avg cost - 75 million apiece, if the order size would have been 160 - avg cost - 56.25 million - [total cost 6 biilion of the fighters plus 3 billion development cost - total - 9 billion])

Irrespective of the discussions fact is the capability although classified is still going to be the best the world has seen and therefore retains the No 1 slot for the USAF (there is another thread that discusses the best Air Force in 2025 - the USAF will retain that spot beacuse of its relatively big size of F-22s and F-35s in its inventory)

 

[swerve]

I'm counting avarage cost of F-22 of 150-190 millions - because nobody says real price of them. 350 is with the development stage. (As I understood)

about F-35 It was said that US MD will buy 2400 AC and pay for them ~290 B$ = 120 M$ per unit - if I am wrong correct me and say in what?? Is 290 B$ summ with design stage or not?? If not, then - read my previous post.

Try the sources -
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/SAR Acquisition Cost Table (2).pdf

$298 842.8 mn, total programme cost including all fixed costs (design, development, etc) for 2456 F-35s. It's in "then-year" dollars, which means that past expenditures are the actual amounts spent, & future expenditure is adjusted to take into account expected future inflation. You really should check what the parameters are first.

In 2002 dollars, $66,991.8 for 183 F-22 ($366 mn each) & $210,014.5 for 2456 F-35 ($85.5 mn each), including all fixed costs in both cases. If you do some digging, you should be able to find a breakdown into fixed & recurring costs.

 

[JWCook]

You could always buy the 4.5 gen Eurofighter at 50% additional cost over the JSF and which has nearly no money for upgrades...

That depends on what figures your using...
At present exchange rates and present estimated JSF costs (not a fixed variable you'll agree) I make the JSF ~20% more than a EF.

Pointless to argue about till the JSF has a real price, and that depends on orders. ie counting chickens etc...

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

That depends on what figures your using...
At present exchange rates and present estimated JSF costs (not a fixed variable you'll agree) I make the JSF ~20% more than a EF.

Pointless to argue about till the JSF has a real price, and that depends on orders. ie counting chickens etc...

Cheers

Yup, depends only on perspective and what figures you're using etc.

But the thinnest argument around is absolutely the doom and gloomers on JSF cost. And when I do the numbers, there's stil a healthy cost overrun for the JSF before it runs into fly-away figures of the EF...

And that's on [my] dimensionless metric. What resources it takes to build the jet. It takes a narrow view to argue the efficiency of the EF programme.

The EF is a product of a euro tech pipeline focused on specific mission - and the need to leverage what was in that pipeline. And being "cheap".

Anyhow, I'm not dissing euro tech or projects, but what we're on the road to do are the failures of the past: take kosovo 99... who had the all weather attack capability and why? Those findings of a decade past are only being implemented now (lols) and the yanks are moving on... and seriously we arent going to fight peer competition so the EF is legit until then...

so...

and btw, for general info: fuggedabout celldar/sentinel types of stealth detection: limited operational use* and is also screwed over on regional scale by the flick of a switch on a prowler/growler TODAY, so have fun devoloping expensive, complicated detection systems. Yup, we're going to see a lot of those around. Not !

Thats the beaty of information dominance: its assymmetric. (!) and stealth is a pivotal part of it

* the swedes have actually published stuff about on the net and they didn't pursue

And I'm not givning a shyte about the supporting measures, those costly extra systems needed to support 4.5 gens, that could alleviate things; they havent realised in the past and they wont now.

Because they cost money.

End of story.

 

[yoron]

So what is good with F-22 Raptor then?

"The F-22 is the only stealth air dominance fighter America is building. Lockheed Martin is leading its development, as well as that of the JSF. It is up to the Pentagon to decide if, when and how each of those aircraft should be developed, built, and delivered.

The Joint Strike Fighter is not an alternative to the F-22. It is meant to work in tandem with the F-22 as a multirole fighter, similarly to the synergistic team of the F-15 and F-16 today. Neither the Navy's Super Hornet nor the JSF can perform the F-22's air dominance mission. They are primarily air-to-ground attack aircraft with a secondary air-to-air combat capability.

Redesigning the JSF for an air dominance role would make it more difficult for the program to meet the Navy and Marine Corps' needs, and break the underlying premise of the JSF as an affordable, tri-service combat aircraft. Such a redesign will significantly increase the JSF Program's costs and technical risk, and disrupt its development, test and production schedules. To meet the Air Dominance Key Performance Parameters, the JSF would require redesign at substantial cost and time and would field no earlier than 2015." http://www.f22fighter.com/history.htm

So what about that outrageous F22 price then? Well, all planes are expensive, JSF will be no exception, even though the Norwegians seem to have gotten themselves quite some price reduction, $52M a 'piece' if I understood it right? The real price seems higher. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/103934/the-great-2009-jsf-cash-rebate?.html . And, perhaps it will rise for Norway too?

Naturally, F22 is still the best plane, but it's very expensive for the USA as they don't want to sell it, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idcsRSLw6_ppJCceAZXPgvBEfojgD97D5UDO1 The JSF designs Lockheed bought, as I understand it, by Yakovlev design bureau who worked worked together with Lockheed on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The yak-141 project started back in 1975 and the Yak-141 was among the world's first supersonic VTOL fighter. The Russians sold the engine principle and technology to Lockheed-Martin in mid 90s with the result that the F-35/JSF uses the same engine principles as Yak-141.

------

" During the summer of 1995, Lockheed Martin announced a teaming
arrangement with Yakovlev to assist in the former's bid for the JAST
(Joint Adanced Strike Technology) competition. Yakovlev's knowledge of
jet lift technology was to prove invaluable. Lockheed Martin was
subsequently selected to build a demonstrator aircraft, the X-35, which
went on to win the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) competition and will soon
become a production fighter as the F-35..... The swiveling rear exhaust is a licensed design from the Yakovlev design bureau in Russia, which tried it out on the Yak-141 STOVL fighter." http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-69759.html
--

 

[gf0012-aust]

That depends on what figures your using...
At present exchange rates and present estimated JSF costs (not a fixed variable you'll agree) I make the JSF ~20% more than a EF.

Pointless to argue about till the JSF has a real price, and that depends on orders. ie counting chickens etc...

Cheers

Let me give you one perspective.

I believe you were at the same session I was that was given by the RAF Typhoon pilot in R1 last year.

He stated point blank that the Typhoon cost 150m USD per plane. I've yet to see anyone come back and dismiss or challenge or clasp their hands to their face over that declaration.

If' he'd said it was 70m USD then it would have been all over the internet as an unstated truth about how cost effective it was.

nobody questioned the metrics as everyone gathered that as a through life cost it was getting close to the mark.

 

[moahunter]

I think to compare the "real cost" you need to include not just the upfront cost, but also on-going maintenance. The F-35 has been designed from the outset to be easily maintained, including "durable low-maintenance stealth technology" (whatever that is). Even the selection competition emphasized the importance of low cost manufacturing / restricted budgets.

Cost effective solution was never really a significant part of the F-22 design, no doubt if it was designed again today, lessons from the F-35 would be built in. A further factor that will result in far less cost for the F-35 over its lifetime, is the shear number of F-35s that are going to be produced - a whole industry will be built to supply parts for it. Also, thanks to the international nature of the project, various potential international suppliers will be around to keep costs under control / play suppliers off against one another.

They are different planes with slightly different missions, but having so many F-35's in the air operating in an integrated manner is going to be a very powerful force. The F-35 offers a lot more bang for the buck - the extra money assigned to it won't be wasted.

 

[StephenBierce]

When a similar discussion broke out on Usenet a couple years ago, I had seen a story on a fleet sale of CAC F-7s (improved MiG-21s) to Nigeria. The Nigerians were paying less than $20 million per fighter. My thinking ever since then was based around the likelihood of a single F-22, with no help from the outside world, being able to handle eight to ten F-7s (or their Western equivalent in avionics and performance--F-16Cs!) at once. Destroy them all or render them unable to fight back. If the F-22 can demonstrate the combination of performance, firepower and toughness to survive such a melee and get its mission complete, then I'll feel that the cost of the program is justifiable. Till then I see it as a gold brick at best.

 

[Feanor]

Stephen the F-7 is far behind an F-16C in capability and performance. It's a 3rd generation aircraft as is the MiG-21 from which it was derived. The F-16C is a mature 4th generation platform. The radar, avionics, BVR missiles, and even raw engine output of an F-16C are all higher.

And yes the F-22 can easily handle 10 MiG-21s or any derivative of with a single full combat load.

 

[Grand Danois]

That depends on what figures your using...
At present exchange rates and present estimated JSF costs (not a fixed variable you'll agree) I make the JSF ~20% more than a EF.

Pointless to argue about till the JSF has a real price, and that depends on orders. ie counting chickens etc...

Cheers

In a less acerbic tone...

You probably know that there should be a "not to exceed price" for the JSF "consortium buy" for 850-900 JSF cometh May this year and a "fixed firm price" March 2010, at which point there will either be a surprise for the JSF partners or a lot of disbelief from the skeptics.

Anyhow, this argument seems to go away soon enough.