F-22 Raptor: Nimble Air Superiority Combat Fighter Jet

[CanOWorms]

Hopefully they won't be sold to our "friends" in Europe.

 

[halik]

Just about any jet with thrust vectoring can do that... f22 main advantage is the avionics

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
From Wiki:

By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft.

IF we would have purchased more of them, the cost per unit would have gone down significantly. There is a large amount of RnD that went into building this thing, so when purchased fewer of them the cost per unit skyrocketed.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: chucky2
Yikes.

Does it say after we spend the $62B what the per unit cost will be then??? Please tell me it's going to be less than 30% of that....

Chuck

Roughly $140 million per unit afterward, but we'll have to order $xxx billion worth of jets to see the total per unit cost down to that level. Taxpayers foot the R&D costs too, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be included in the cost equation.

Defense spending is an amazing thing to observe in the United States. The military industrial complex is so embedded into our government that it is near impossible to turn off the spigot now, even though we know our defense spending levels are unsustainable.

It's like watching a 700lb man sitting on the couch, eating himself to death.

The military industrial complex is about 4% of GDP. Eisenhower who warned of the military industrial complex was spending 8-10% of GDP on the military.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
The Raptor is an incredible piece of hardware. For those wanting to understand a little more about how America can justify the money they spend on defense, take a look at THIS.

Excellent movie, will have to buy it. I'm actually surprised how sane McCain sounds in it, but I guess he's a politician so he is used to lying, especially after that tidbit about public investigation.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: charrison
IF we would have purchased more of them, the cost per unit would have gone down significantly. There is a large amount of RnD that went into building this thing, so when purchased fewer of them the cost per unit skyrocketed.

Ah yes, the old "save more by spending more" argument. I see that it's not just limited to retail advertising.

The military industrial complex is about 4% of GDP. Eisenhower who warned of the military industrial complex was spending 8-10% of GDP on the military.

Including the war on terror and other related expenses, military spending was 64% of our discretionary budget in 2007, and will be 65% in 2008. That's shameful shit considering we're passing-the-buck on our record deficits to our children.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
When is the last time we lost a fighter jet in air to air combat?

The F15 has a perfect operation record, and has a $30 million/unit cost; 10 times cheaper per unit than the Raptor. Asking our government to do a simple cost/benefit analysis and be fiscally responsible isn't too much to ask.

I don't think the importance and value of air superiority in any conflict can be underestimated.

To battle the al-Qaeda Air Force?

That's why a carrier had to get moved out of the gulf to provide afghan air cover when the f15s were grounded. And the listed cost of a F22 is about $160 mil, about the same as a specter or c-5. Not to mention the f-16 is even cheaper so lets scrap everything and just fly those.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: charrison
IF we would have purchased more of them, the cost per unit would have gone down significantly. There is a large amount of RnD that went into building this thing, so when purchased fewer of them the cost per unit skyrocketed.

Ah yes, the old "save more by spending more" argument. I see that it's not just limited to retail advertising.

The military industrial complex is about 4% of GDP. Eisenhower who warned of the military industrial complex was spending 8-10% of GDP on the military.

Including the war on terror and other related expenses, military spending was 64% of our discretionary budget in 2007, and will be 65% in 2008. That's shameful shit considering we're passing-the-buck on our record deficits to our children.

That only sounds bad till you realize that discretionary spending is a small fraction of fed spending. THe budgets are large in dollars, but have been fairly average in relation to GDP. The picture is not nearly as bad as you want to paint it.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: charrison
That only sounds bad till you realize that discretionary spending is a small fraction of fed spending.

It's about one-third of total federal spending; not a small fraction.

THe budgets are large in dollars, but have been fairly average in relation to GDP. The picture is not nearly as bad as you want to paint it.

I'll admit military spending isn't the only area where we can cut spending, but it is the biggest source of overspending in the discretionary budget. We need to start somewhere right?

The picture is definitely as bad as I'm painting it.

From 2001 through 2007, our GDP has jumped 37% from $10.1 trillion to $13.5 trillion. By comparison, out GDP jumped 46% during the Clinton era.

From 2001 through 2007, our national debt has jumped 56% from $5.9 trillion to $9.2 trillion. By comparison, the national debt jumped 27% during the Clinton era.

When we're spending $260 billion on interest payments alone, while producing budget deficits and refusing to pay down our debt, I think it's a problem. You don't?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
The Raptor is an incredible piece of hardware. For those wanting to understand a little more about how America can justify the money they spend on defense, take a look at THIS.

Excellent movie, will have to buy it. I'm actually surprised how sane McCain sounds in it, but I guess he's a politician so he is used to lying, especially after that tidbit about public investigation.

Double dip on that. Excellent. I now see a faction that has more control than I thought previously. The MIC.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: chucky2

Yeah, something is just not right there. I wonder just how much of this $62B is R&D and figuring the systems as parts and the whole out, vs. actual production cost. Once everything has been figured out, the cost I'd hope to roll one of these off the line better be far far less than $339M. If not, then this program should have been axed long long ago...

Chuck

It's TOTAL cost of the program from day 1 (which started in the mid 80s). It's certainly not just the production costs. But the more we buy the cheaper the per unit cost... we should get a few more.

I laughed out loud at that. Clearly the answer to an insanely expensive plane is buy more.

"Honey, I'm spending the kids' college funds for $60,000 on a three day holiday in Paris, with a chartered jet and luxury. That's $20,000 per night."

"What!?!? That's insane!"

"You're right, since we're paying for the charter let's add more nights. 14 day vacation is $70,000 or only $5,000 per night! We can't afford not to!"

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
When is the last time we lost a fighter jet in air to air combat?

The F15 has a perfect operation record, and has a $30 million/unit cost; 10 times cheaper per unit than the Raptor. Asking our government to do a simple cost/benefit analysis and be fiscally responsible isn't too much to ask.

I don't think the importance and value of air superiority in any conflict can be underestimated.

To battle the al-Qaeda Air Force?

Just a guess, but I think our military planners are more worried about China and Russia.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Just a guess, but I think our military planners are more worried about China and Russia.

With the state of modern weapons, full scale war between major superpowers isn't a realistic scenario anymore. Certainly not between China, Russia, US, France, or UK.

There are 'doomsday' scenarios, but an edge in air superiority would be the least of our worries if those came to pass.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: charrison
That only sounds bad till you realize that discretionary spending is a small fraction of fed spending.

It's about one-third of total federal spending; not a small fraction.

THe budgets are large in dollars, but have been fairly average in relation to GDP. The picture is not nearly as bad as you want to paint it.

I'll admit military spending isn't the only area where we can cut spending, but it is the biggest source of overspending in the discretionary budget. We need to start somewhere right?

The picture is definitely as bad as I'm painting it.

From 2001 through 2007, our GDP has jumped 37% from $10.1 trillion to $13.5 trillion. By comparison, out GDP jumped 46% during the Clinton era.

From 2001 through 2007, our national debt has jumped 56% from $5.9 trillion to $9.2 trillion. By comparison, the national debt jumped 27% during the Clinton era.

When we're spending $260 billion on interest payments alone, while producing budget deficits and refusing to pay down our debt, I think it's a problem. You don't?

Since you use the current debt numbers, let also use the current estimated GDP numbers, which is 14.2T. Which makes the jump in GDP about 40% and we still have another 8 months left. So GDP has seen similar growth.

And as far as debt payments go, adjusted to gdp/inflation, debt payments are similar to the clinton era.

Things are not nearly as bad as you state.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: charrison
That only sounds bad till you realize that discretionary spending is a small fraction of fed spending.

It's about one-third of total federal spending; not a small fraction.

THe budgets are large in dollars, but have been fairly average in relation to GDP. The picture is not nearly as bad as you want to paint it.

I'll admit military spending isn't the only area where we can cut spending, but it is the biggest source of overspending in the discretionary budget. We need to start somewhere right?

The picture is definitely as bad as I'm painting it.

From 2001 through 2007, our GDP has jumped 37% from $10.1 trillion to $13.5 trillion. By comparison, out GDP jumped 46% during the Clinton era.

From 2001 through 2007, our national debt has jumped 56% from $5.9 trillion to $9.2 trillion. By comparison, the national debt jumped 27% during the Clinton era.

When we're spending $260 billion on interest payments alone, while producing budget deficits and refusing to pay down our debt, I think it's a problem. You don't?

Since you use the current debt numbers, let also use the current estimated GDP numbers, which is 14.2T. Which makes the jump in GDP about 40% and we still have another 8 months left. So GDP has seen similar growth.

And as far as debt payments go, adjusted to gdp/inflation, debt payments are similar to the clinton era.

Things are not nearly as bad as you state.

Feel free to promote your 'fiscal responsibility' in the upcoming election

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
When is the last time we lost a fighter jet in air to air combat?

The F15 has a perfect operation record, and has a $30 million/unit cost; 10 times cheaper per unit than the Raptor. Asking our government to do a simple cost/benefit analysis and be fiscally responsible isn't too much to ask.

:thumbsup:

The Raptor has not been tested in combat and is very vulnerable to shrapnel.
Simulated combat is great for training pilots, but the airframe itself has to prove itself.

When a power glitch can crash the plane before it even rotates off the runway.....

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Dainas

Yeah that seems about right. The problem is companies like Lockheed Martin are such money sinks. The government just needs to reform how it awards bids to contractors because the method now can hardly be called a method. Contractors should pay for working demos out of their own pockets, as well with the first shipment of working endproducts. The government should not have to pay until the company proves it can actually manufacture it properly. You think not being able to roll in governmental funds would kill their ability, but hardly. It would teach them how to do it without insane per unit cost and decade long delays. If the government ups it weapons and avionic requirements just install such upgrades after delivery, as they undoubtedly would do every 10 years anyways.

Yea no, it doesn't work that way. I do agree that it's kind of silly to award multiple companies the contract during the R&D process - both Boeing and Lockheed were paid for a long time for F22 models - but to say the government shouldn't pay ANY R&D or even the first shipment as absolutely absurd...unless you want Lockheed selling these things to other countries too. If you want it to be a government-owned, secret craft....and I'd think with something so much more advanced than anyone else's you do....this is the process you have to follow.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jpeyton
To battle the al-Qaeda Air Force?

No to battle the Iranians, or did you forget all those threads you started about us attacking them any day now?

The Israelis do just fine dominating the Middle East with their F15s.

And they'll do even better with the F35's we're giving them :laugh:

The point is to stay a step ahead of the opposition. Maybe there was nothing wrong with the F15 - but if you think competing nations aren't constantly trying to improve their weapons of war, you're out of your mind. I'd rather always have the best fighter, than wait to build that fighter until someone else has something better.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
F22 might be an impressive piece of stealth/technology, but it's not super maneuverable. It just wasn't designed to be.

Su37 on the other hand is.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GDXm9bt0s1Y

Watch piece from 1:39. But then of course Su37 isn't packed with technology like F22 is.

It's also a huge, heavy pig, just like the SU-27 on which it's based. I would pit one F-22 against 3 or more of these with no reservations about the F-22 coming out on top.

 

[wwswimming]

i worked on that for about 2 years, and on related craft for
another 6. glad you like it.

wish i was more at liberty to comment !

 

[NikolaeVarius]

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

According to this Website, A Raptor casts $159.9 million per unit.

Not bad considering a Raptor took out Five F-15's in a combat simulation before the F-15's even saw it.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

According to this Website, A Raptor casts $159.9 million per unit.

Not bad considering a Raptor took out Five F-15's in a combat simulation before the F-15's even saw it.

Now you stop trying to use reason. Next thing you'll say is that much of the tech behind the F15 is now old enough that other nations can now attempt similar designs of their own or are better able at countering it through defensive measures.

 

[lupi]

According to the theorems in this thread, the first M-16s off the line probably cost a couple hundred million dollars.

Thanks god we made more than one.

 

[maddogchen]

i heard the australians want to buy it too.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Hopefully they won't be sold to our "friends" in Europe.

wtf is wrong with you?


you should be banned for your euro-trolling in every friggin thread