| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| F-22 Has A Fatal Skin Disease | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 25 2009, 06:04 AM (266 Views) | |
| George K | Jul 25 2009, 06:04 AM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/F-22-Has-A-Fatal-Skin-Disease-7-25-2009.asp F-22 Has A Fatal Skin Disease by James Dunnigan July 25, 2009 Congressional hearings over building more F-22s has led to the release of data about how much it costs, per flight hour, to maintain the aircraft. It's $44,000 per flight hour, compared to $30,000 per hour for the older F-15 that the F-22 is replacing. The F-22 per-hour cost is nearly twice what it is for the F-16. While it requires 19 man hours of maintenance for each F-16 flight hour, the F-22 requires 34 hours. The manufacturer originally said it would be less than ten hours. Most of this additional F-22 expense (and man hours) is for special materials and labor needed to keep the aircraft invisible to radar. The main problem is the radar absorbent material used on the aircraft. The B-2 had a similar problem, which was eventually brought under control. But even then, the B-2 cost more than twice as much to operate than the half century old B-52. The B-2 and F-22 use different types of radar absorbent materials, so many of the B-2 solutions will not work for the F-22. Some of the F-22 electronics are still not as reliable as the air force would like. The F-35 uses a different approach to defeating radar signals, and the manufacturer insists that F-35 maintenance costs will be closer to that for the F-15, than for the F-22. But Lockheed Martin has been saying, for years, that its F-22 would be cheaper to maintain than existing aircraft. The air force never challenged this, at least not in public. Instead, the air force tried to keep the high operating costs a secret. In addition, the F-22 costs more than three times as much as the aircraft it was to replace. The air force wants to build more than 187, and has allies in Congress who want the jobs (and votes) continued production will generate. But the Department of Defense is reluctant to spend that kind of money, especially when there so many other programs seeking funds (like electronic warfare aircraft, UAVs and upgrades for F-15s and F-16s). Thus, earlier this year, the Department of Defense decided to terminate F-22 production at 187 aircraft. This resulted in each aircraft costing (including development and production spending), $332 million. Just the production costs of the last F-22s built was $153.2 million. Added to the cost of the last few aircraft was a $147 million fee the Department of Defense agreed to pay if the production line was shut down. This goes to pay for shutting down facilities and terminating contracts with hundreds of supplies. The F-22 is a superb aircraft, probably the most capable fighter in the world. But the development and manufacturing costs kept rising until it became too expensive for the media, voters and politicians. The air force was able to build it, but they couldn't sell it to the people who paid the bills. A decade ago, the F-22 was a $62 billion program, of which development accounted for $18.9 billion (this was a spending cap imposed by Congress). A decade before that, the air force was planning to buy 750 F-22s. Costs kept going up for two decades, and Congress refused to provide more money. So, for $62 billion, the air force ended up getting fewer aircraft. The air force ran into a similar problem with the B-2 bomber, which became so expensive they were only allowed to build 21, and these cost $2.1 billion each. . About half of that was development expense. Actual construction costs for each of those aircraft was about $933 million each. Still pretty high, mainly because a lot of special machinery and factories had to be built to manufacture the many custom components. The air force likes to point out that if the original (1986) plan had been followed, each B-2 would have cost $438 million each. But then the entire program would have cost $58.2 billion, versus $44.3 billion for the 21 plane program (which included $10 billion more R&D expense). New technology gives a weapon, especially an aircraft, an edge in combat. But since World War II, most military technology has been developed in peacetime conditions. This means it is more than twice as expensive, as there is no wartime urgency to overcome bureaucratic inertia (and emphasis on covering your ass, which is very time consuming and expensive) and hesitation (because you don't have a war going on to settle disputes over what will work best). Developing this new technology takes longer in peacetime, which also raises the cost, and fewer units of a new weapon are produced (driving up the amount of development cost each weapon will have to carry.) If several hundred B-2s were produced under wartime conditions, each aircraft would have probably cost $200 million, or less. In other words, a tenth of what it actually cost. Same deal with the mythical $35 million F-22, or any other high tech weapon. Other nations have adapted more effectively to peacetime development conditions. But the United States has the largest amount of peacetime military research and development, and this has created a unique military/industry/media/political atmosphere that drives costs up to the point where voters, politicians and the media will no longer support them. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jul 25 2009, 06:26 AM Post #2 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Very, very interesting article. But I would also add we cannot afford to fall behind either. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jul 25 2009, 06:32 AM Post #3 |
|
Finally
|
Chinese Stealth Chinese Stealth Fighter J-XX Beats USA Fighter F-35 Some people think that the United States of America is the only nation with Stealth Fighters, Surveillance UAVs and Bombers that the enemy cannot see. But you might be surprised to learn that the British now have stealthy Unmanned Aerial Vehicles UAVs and the Chinese also have a Fighter Aircraft, which is largely believed to be heavy on the side of Russian Technology. Chinese spies have also gotten a hold of many of the United States Military Stealth Technology such as the Bombay doors on the B-2 Stealth Bomber. What do the Chinese call their stealth fighter aircraft? The JX and the J-XX and although you do not hear a lot about it in the mainstream media, they have them and they are almost impossible to see on modern day radars. In fact some of the Russian Technology for Bomber Aircraft is so good right now that a flight of bombers penetrated Canadian airspace over the North Pole without detection for the first time and now some military observers are thinking that maybe there is a “Stealth Technology Aircraft Gap” coming soon. Apparently what is even worse is that the J-XX Chinese Fighter can be built for a lot less money than the US F-35 Fighter and thus they may end up with many more of these aircraft than the US Congress is willing to build using US Technology. Now some are saying that our technology is being stolen faster than we can make it and that the Russian-Chinese Technology for Stealth Aircraft really is all our technology anyway? So much for Black Projects, meanwhile all top military nations chase new technologies into the future and we must all consider this in 2006. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jul 25 2009, 06:58 AM Post #4 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
We've sent all the engineering and manufacturing jobs overseas to increase profits. Hey, I know. Let's have the Chinese build all our military hardware. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 25 2009, 07:06 AM Post #5 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Seriously? Somebody who confuses a bomb bay door with either (1) the antiquated name of an Indian city, or (2) a brand of gin, I'm supposed to take seriously? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 25 2009, 07:10 AM Post #6 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I caught that too. Reminded me of reading a friend's english assignment in high school and his gruesome description of gang green.
|
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jul 25 2009, 07:12 AM Post #7 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
A typo does not invalidate the article. That could well have been done by a spellchecker. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jul 25 2009, 07:12 AM Post #8 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
A group of tree hugging hippies? |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jul 25 2009, 07:16 AM Post #9 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Nope. Powerpuff Girl enemies. ![]() |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jul 25 2009, 07:19 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
They already do. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jul 25 2009, 07:38 AM Post #11 |
|
MAMIL
|
What always amuses me about any debate regarding defence is that politicians, particularly those on the right but pretty much of all hues, will argue vociferously that they can't afford to cancel very expensive contracts such as this one due to their constituents losing their jobs. In the next sentence they will also argue very vociferously that it isn't the job of the government to provide financial help to anybody at all. I grew up in Preston, one of the major homes for British Aerospace - now BAE Systems, where they developed the Tornado and the British part of the Eurofighter. Our local economy was largely reliant on our good friends in Saudi Arabia buying jets and weaponry from us, no doubt with the intent of defending democracy and freedom for all. One day we may live to regret this, but I guess it's not today. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








6:45 AM Jul 11