RIP F-22

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

200 mil.$ for one SuperHornet?!?!?!?!?

 

Where did you get that figure from? I can't see any reference to it in that article...

[+Brain32 265]

Divide 7 bilion with number of planes so it's 7bil$/36 aircrafts you get 194 444 444 $ per plane

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Divide 7 bilion with number of planes so it's 7bil$/36 aircrafts you get 194 444 444 $ per plane

 

Yeah, but don't forget the weapons, weapons systems, targeting pods, countermeasures and electronic warfare package too. Not to mention training systems and hardware. That's gonna take a huge chunk out of the overall cost too. The RAAF paid around AUD $6 Billion (US $4.6 Billion) for a similar package, with a smaller weapons package and fewer aircraft.

[+Jarhead1 27]

BUT thats u also have to think about in that package all the weapons and pods and related equipment for the aircraft. So that doesnt mean that its that much per aircraft Brain.

 

It said Raytheon and Boeing are also including munitions as part of the deal.

 

 

Damn u Saywhat, u beat me to it

Edited August 11, 2009 by Private.

[+Brain32 265]

Raytheon would supply an initial 28 each of its AIM-120C7 AMRAAM and AIM-9M Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, plus 36 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons and 10 AGM-88B HARM anti-radiation missiles, and Boeing 60 GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, according to the notice.

 

Other equipment to be supplied would include 36 Raytheon ASQ-228 advanced targeting forward-looking infrared targeting pods and an extensive suite of countermeasures, electronic warfare and self-protection equipment, the DSCA says.

 

Only the initial 28 Hornet E's will get AIM-120 and AIM-9;

36 JSOWs that's like what - one per plane

10 HARMS? - I can't even comment on that

60 JDAM's that's not even two per plane guys and they are dirt cheap compering with other stuff

36 ASQ's is ok

Training and logistics are not mentioned btw.

 

According to wikipedia 2009 flyaway cost for Superhornet is 54,7mil$ so what exactly justifies the extra 140 mil$ per plane in this package?

Czeh's paid 68mil$ per plane for their Gripen package, that ofcourse included all necessary equipment to introduce the airplane into their airforce, sure F-18E is a better solution for a big country like Brazil because of the range needed to cover that vast airspace...

 

...but overall that's insanely expensive, unless the competition is fixed, there's no way in the world Boeing will win it...especially in conditions of global economical crisis!

 

The industry always worked the same regardless of the product if you are selling rifles or modern combat aircrafts, the more you sell the cheaper the price for your own forces.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Brain32

[JediMaster 451]

Wait, so you're actually assuming that a media report of a gov't deal is 100% accurate?

 

Usually these packages include training and logistics for the life of the plane (which is usually 30 yrs), including several spare engines which cost a good amount. Just because the article doesn't say it does you can't assume it doesn't.

 

To put it another way, that article is 8 paragraphs and the actual proposal is likely more than 8" THICK.

 

Flyaway cost is NEVER the price when planes are bought because they're never bought by themselves. The only time in recent memory I can recall is there was a line item in the budget a couple of years ago for a single replacement F-22 that was listed as $141.9m or something, which was literally its flyaway cost. The rest of the time they include all this other stuff in the total price but the news always just says "for XXX planes".

[+Brain32 265]

I know what is flyaway cost, I also know how to add, and I see nearly 4 times the flyway cost per plane here.

Anyway there's nothing in it for me, so no point in arguing, I just think that with smarter export policies USAF and USN could prosper much better.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Not meaning to go a different direction with this thread, but I was looking online on global security and the unit cost of the RAH-66 Commanche was $32.2 million. Why not revive that program and replace both the Army's AH-64s and USMC's AH-1s and AV-8s and only produce two variants of the F-35 (A and C), thus saving more money to build more F-22s? Am I missing something here or got my facts confused?

[+Jarhead1 27]

Sooo. let me get this straight, u want to replace our AV-8s with a Helicopter?? WHY??

 

If u want to get technical, then get rid of the F-35 completely, cause we need it just as bad if not more then the USAF or USN. Our harriers are almost as old as the F-16s if not older. The Super Hornets are good as is since the Navy wants to invest in one airframe, we are keeping our D model hornets from what I have heard and the F-35B is a NEEDED replacement for our Harriers.

 

Hell, we are still using helos from Vietnam, the only exception being the Osprey. Why shouldnt we get a new plane finally? AF and Navy get new stuff, we are stuck with Crap from before I was born, and I am 28*. We get all the hand me downs and we dont wants that no one else takes. We need the F-35, like I said above. AV-8s are called flying coffins for a reason. My friend in Yuma has seen 8 crash in 2 years. At the rate we are going, we wont have any left for the F-35 too replace.

 

 

 

*This is just my opinion and from what I have seen in the last few yrs.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Private.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Sooo. let me get this straight, u want to replace our AV-8s with a Helicopter?? WHY??

 

I just thought of it as one idea. Didn't necessarily say it was a good one. I was only thinking that a helicopter is more versitile than a jump jet, going into places and performing in ways in which a jet can not. Didn't see any immediate cons to the idea.

[+Jarhead1 27]

I see what u mean and where ur coming from, I dont agree though. VTOL jets are alot better then a helo. The whole reason we have Harriers is for CAS, as it is a good platform for covering grunts.

[serverandenforcer 33]

I see what u mean and where ur coming from, I dont agree though. VTOL jets are alot better then a helo. The whole reason we have Harriers is for CAS, as it is a good platform for covering grunts.

 

Can't a helo provide the same level of CAS, if not better? I would think that would be a role in which a helo would highly succeed in?

[+Julhelm 266]

Why do the marines require VTOL to begin with? They sure as hell managed well without it in WW2 and Vietnam...

[serverandenforcer 33]

Why do the marines require VTOL to begin with? They sure as hell managed well without it in WW2 and Vietnam...

 

For the 21st century battlefield, the USMC need an air support platform. I think the reason why jump jets are such an attractive platform is because 1.) They can get from the carrier to the fight fast and 2.) They can carry a heavier payload than helos. However, my position on using the Commanche is because 1.) It can carry a respectab le payload for a helo, 2.) It's stealthy, 3.) It's more versitile/maneuverable than a jump jet, 4.) It has a turret where it can track and follow targets - that's operated by a 2nd crewman - without the aircraft needing to be pointing at it. So as I said before, the Marines need advanced air support, but I'm not sure if it really needs to be from a jump jet.

[Giorgio262 1]

Reading this thread I get the feeling our American friends are planning to export a lot more democracy in the future. Is that so?

Keeping the military force in good shape with good equipment is ok, but you may want to refrein from spending too much especially in areas of marginal importance, since it's all taxpayers' money taken away form other uses. Think about what's wrong or inadequate in the USA and could use a bit more investing from the Government.

I believe for too long certain lobbies fed the fear for their own economical advatage. Arming up during the cold war era to face what was presented as a terrible enemy always ready to start a fight armed up to its teeth, while, probably, the USSR was pretty much dragged into this escalation, never able to touch the US in terms of technological progress. In the end the US ended up selling its military products to a lot of countries. War as an industry and fear as a way to keep it going.

[JediMaster 451]

Any student of history can see that whoever is on top is a target for those who wish to be because jealously is a universal constant.

 

I agree we do far too much outside of our borders, and I for one am sick of paying for it, but I'm sick of paying for other stuff too and I get no say in that either. Before WWII there was no gov't babysitting that we have now and the country was better for it.

 

WWI both strengthened this country by turning it into a world player and ruined it by introducing the income tax. Now we have loser politicians who think people WANT to pay taxes to help out other people who aren't carrying their weight and want to be carried?

We have so many homeless now because we don't keep enough of what we make to let people keep their homes! Why? So we can then give money to those same people who wind up not working after losing their home?

 

Why doesn't the gov't look to reduce the cost of healthcare instead of just hand it to those who can't afford it while taking MORE money from those who can until THEY can't afford it either? Oh, that's right, they know that means the lawyers wouldn't be able to sue for 7 figures for every mistake a doctor makes and they're not going to TOUCH that. So malpractice insurance rates soar and costs for everything else soar to enable them to pay the premiums.

 

Personally, I think we should pull back every US troop in the globe and to hell with sticking our noses into other countries. If they want our help, well too bad. If a country attacks us, forget sending troops, just nuke them.

[Giorgio262 1]

...Before WWII there was no gov't babysitting that we have now and the country was better for it. 

 

Why doesn't the gov't look to reduce the cost of healthcare instead of just hand it to those who can't afford it while taking MORE money from those who can until THEY can't afford it either?

 

 

 

 

I whish I'm not going too off topic here, but as for the opinion you expressed, and I feel is well compressed in the first phrase I quoted, I'd like to say that just because a system seems to work for some time, it doesn't mean it works just as well in the long term. It's easier to get oportunities for those who got rich before, so there's the risk of serious monopoly and concentration of wealth on the hands of a very small elite, which is seriously unhealthy for any nation. No need to talk about socialism or anything here, but public insitutions are there (or, rather, should be there) for the people, to help to set fair rules, to help a nation develop in a sustainable and fair way. Doesn't mean the Government should feed freeloaders, or encourage people to become freeloaders, but a civilized country, a truly civilized country makes sure that a minimum standard is available for all its citizens.

 

As far as I know private healthcare is just a way for Health Insurances to make money by scaring people and then doing their best not to give their customers what they've been paying their good money for when they really need their service. I suspect private healthcare was never a system introduced to benefit people.

 

Selfishness is an extremely expensive commodity. Definitely having the best people to be politicians would be the best, unfortunately in most cases, the game of politics makes the worst emerge.

[eraser_tr 29]

No, we're not planning on "exporting" democracy. The thing is economic downturns always lead to conflict, even if things were normal and stable, we'd still be talking about replacing military hardware because the current stuff is so old. Imagine driving a car from 30 years ago still, it's doable, but unless it's a timeless classic and it's your passion to keep it at top performance, a new car is cheaper and will give you better performance.

 

Going off topic, it's simply wrong to assume everyone getting help from various social programs are a bunch of freeloaders or that people losing their homes are because of taxes, or those who are unemployed can find jobs but they either don't want to work or are expecting too much from a job. Maybe you've been lucky enough to have been isolated from the reality of it, but despite the stereotypes of welfare, the overwhelming majority of people are honest and really need the help.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

For the 21st century battlefield, the USMC need an air support platform. I think the reason why jump jets are such an attractive platform is because 1.) They can get from the carrier to the fight fast and 2.) They can carry a heavier payload than helos. However, my position on using the Commanche is because 1.) It can carry a respectab le payload for a helo, 2.) It's stealthy, 3.) It's more versitile/maneuverable than a jump jet, 4.) It has a turret where it can track and follow targets - that's operated by a 2nd crewman - without the aircraft needing to be pointing at it. So as I said before, the Marines need advanced air support, but I'm not sure if it really needs to be from a jump jet.

 

 

Another thing I read about it was that there were specialised ISR drones/UAVs that were in development that could be deployed from the Commanche's internal bays. I think it could carry something like six of the things and they were supposed to have a duration of around 10-12 hours. That kind of ISR asset would be a big hand to those on the ground!

 

The USD $113 million price tag per Commanche would have been a massive drawback though. I'm wondering if Stealth is the critical concept of the future that everyone needs to chase after all when conventional aircraft do the job more cost effectively. K, not the exact jobs that stealth aircraft do, but with the right weapons...

 

I mean, what would be so wrong about having a mix of conventional aircraft along with stealth aircraft in a similar way to having tactical aircraft serving along side strategic ones. And I'm not talking about the specific roles here. I think the idea of having an all stealth AF at the pointy end of the service, at least now, is a pipe dream.

[eraser_tr 29]

I get the feeling as everyone is racing for stealth aircraft, as more people get them we may actually see air to air combat going backwards.

 

The proliferation of stealth will eventually negate much of radar's and long range missile's usefulness. As countermeasures advance (who knows what's already on the F-35 or 22 that those without the clearance don't) that may easily limit the advanced performance of IRM missiles like the aim-9x -> we may actually see a return to a more 'pure' air to air combat where dogfighting with guns is the norm and missiles have only limited effectiveness.

[FastCargo 412]

Okay, I've had to start deleting posts because the insults are coming out.

 

This one's done.

 

FC