LmRaptorNo way the engines are purchased on 1-to-1 exchange ratio. If each Raptor needed two spare engines to be available at any time, then something would be seriously wrong with the reliability of the F119.
A typical fighter delivery for a mid-sized air force usually comprises one complete set of spare engine(s) for roughly 5-6 aircraft and one spare radar for roughly 10-12 aircraft. I have checked several deals including F-16s for Romania, Su-30MKMs for Malaysia or Super Hornets for RAAF and this ratio is more or less exactly maintained. I have no reason to believe that USAF maintains totally different replacement figures unless they work terribly inefficiently.
That would mean that if one F119 costs over $10mil and one APG-77 over $7mil ($3mil for the AESA antenna and $4mil for the rest), using the ratio they add up to a price of a Raptor by $4-5 mil. I was being terribly broadminded to you with my initial $12-13mil estimate, it is actually muich less and WAY to go to the $110mil figure. But, of course, I got no clue about economics, what can I know, pigeonracer will explain that missing $110mil much better than I could 😎
P.S. RAND Corporation study from 2007 clearly points out that the F-22As up to date were procured using three separate annual contracts – one for fighters, one for engines and one for spare parts. That means your ‘flyaway’ cost was actually for a glider version of the F-22? 🙂
One thing you must recongnise is 7 jets per year is hardly efficient – 20 jets per year is hardly efficient either but in 2007 the F-22s flyaway costs were 137M – Weapon systems cost was 177M – last year it was 146M flyaway and 152M Weapon systems cost – all this highlights is bigger orders mean you get more bang for buck… and that the F-22s spiraling costs are as much attributed to politics as to the engineering solution.
LmRaptorThis is a typical number wizardry. All those flyaway cost and FY dollar definitions are meant to make up the numbers and make them look better than they are. Claiming $140mil cost is nonsense if you need additional $110mil in order to fire up the systems, make the bird maintainable and operational. Makes me wonder what such immense sum is actually for if a spare radar and spare engine won’t make it together over $12-13mil. Maybe diamond-plated screwdrivers?
Regardless of your throwing around cheapishly-looking figures, you need $250mil for a single Raptor to do its job. And whether you decide to deceive a little and to shift a part of procurement cost into auxilliary equipment and support cost category makes zero difference on overall result, the money needs to be paid and Bangladesh or Namibia sure as hell won’t do that for you.
All this mess about F-22 and F-35 cost is only intended to make politicians, fanboys and their housewives happy about oh how cheap the Raptor actually is.. and guess what.. it works very well.. Taxpayers are paying their sweat and blood and they are even happy 🙂
Good luck paying that.. I will rather buy another Porsche instead..
A set of spare engines cost $20+ mil alone I hear… so your $12M-$13M figure is way out. The weapon systems cost includes the infrastructure required to support the jet.
LmRaptorwhat is shelf tech in gripen A/B? parts of the engine? ejector seat?
As you have said the engine, ejector seat – add to that list the radar which was based on the Blue Vixen. The concept of an unstable fly-by-wire wasn’t new for the Gripen – lending on BAE/LM for development of the system(something that can be very tricky and costly – look at Tejas) – whereas the F-16 was the first operational aircraft to deploy the technology. The HMS – is based on the Cobra.
LmRaptorSo one Raptor for every 3-4 (total lifecycle cost) F-35s os OK with you?
No thank you.
If there is a NEED for the F-22, it will be in the first weeks of a high-threat war. After that, the F-35s can finish it up. No need to wear out the F-22s in a protracted campain.
Where do you get the F-35s WLCC will be 3-4 times greater than an F-22?
With that argument surely buying an even cheaper F-16/Gripen NG would suffice?
LmRaptorThat’s because the high-threat scenarios were thoroughly unrealistic to begin with, such as a full-on war with Russia or a massed air campaign against China. The former won’t happen for obvious reasons, and the latter is a fallacy created in part by the idiots we keep electing in order to justify the latest gigantoid defense expenditure. As far as realistic type scenarios are concerned, while 183 may not be the preferred figure, it is sufficient. Just how many Raptors are necessary to eliminate logical enemies like Iran, Pakistan, Syria, or maybe even Venezuela? None of them possess or are buying anything that’ll rate, and certainly not in any sort of sufficient numbers. 183. Yeah, it’s a big blow to a good aircraft, but in this day and age it is what it is.
I generally agree with you SOC – the problem I have however, is using the logical enemies argument to justify the number, in 5 10 15 20 years the situation might change and unless the USAF accept new build F-15/F-16s – which they don’t want – and the F-35 goes smoothly – a big if at this point. The resulting fighter gap might well become a significant problem and also goes against the USAF philosophy of overwhelming victory without loss. Thus I think it prudent to keep the orders ticking slowly at the cost of something else. Especially with the low numbers and resulting overuse of airframes compounding the issue futher.
LmRaptor“Its the highest risk option the USAF is prepared to accept and still say yes. Preferences etc are not being challenged at all… if 187 is OK but high risk then that is the ‘bottom line’.. If they had thought 243 was the bottom line then that was to have been made clear…which from my viewing of the history of the programme is not the case…going on the record saying you would prefer 243 as a lower risk approach to getting the job done is just that.. a preference.”
187 comes with reduced capability… 381 was the requirement… and it’s not unreasonable to assume that both 187-243 were the best the USAF could get irrespective of what they wanted – therefore its believable that the new numbers aren’t actual requirements but rather compromises due to budget constraints forced it upon them. It doesn’t actually mean they will be able to meet the requirements and get the job done – it means the job will have to be easier for them to prevail – which is the low threat high risk approach – rather than it turning out to be much harder and the F-22s fail due to lack of numbers – that being the high threat the low risk where 381 would be required.
But by no means does it mean the USAF will get the job done with the numbers… they are taking a gamble that the low threat scenario comes up.. rather than the high threat scenario.
LmRaptorEric
“Roughly” 60 million US Dollars for a total “unit program cost”, that´s what the Swedes “roughly” payed for a “roughly” equivalent aircraft (the Jas-39) for “roughly” the same numbers (~200 airframes) on “roughly” the same time frame of the ATF program…
cheers
Sin you must remember though that the Gripen benefited from a lot off the shelf technology… that wasn’t the case for the F-16 at the time.
LmRaptorLm..
Many interesting points.. sadly you have however missed the only real point.
I don’t think I did… I’m pretty sure I understood it from the start! It’s the kind of logical simplicity that’s essential for engineering – understanding requirements and how to solve them. But one must also be careful of oversimplifying something to make it understandable.. I think thats what your doing here with a very messy procurement issue and I’m going to attempt to explain how I see it.
Can the USAF do the job being asked of it today with 187 airframes. The current USAF recorded view is yes.
Now this is the key line, and I implore you to take note without dismissing this out of hand.. Mosley and Jumper wanted 381 jets – a view that seemed to be deemed justified by a lot of the outspoken members of the airforce.. Mosley – a key F-22 advocate for 381 F-22s and an undoubted thorn in Gates’ side – gets sacked effectively and Norman is brought in to clean up the mess. Norman – a former airlift man – being appointed by Gates initially adopts a view that the USAF need more F-22s than 187 but not 381… a compromise for Gates who had put him in charge. He then says he wants 243 which is based on a study that claims 381 low risk.. etc as you know! It then turns out that he is prepared to accept 187 unlike Mosley! That being after a gagging order had been placed over the USAF because the USAF top brass were taking pot shots at Gates – which was embarrassing when they had to be disciplined! Now don’t you find it weird that views changed suddenly after Norman arrived… the skeptic in me thinks Norman was pressurised into this decision.
Its the highest risk option the USAF is prepared to accept and still say yes. Preferences etc are not being challenged at all… if 187 is OK but high risk then that is the ‘bottom line’.. If they had thought 243 was the bottom line then that was to have been made clear…which from my viewing of the history of the programme is not the case…going on the record saying you would prefer 243 as a lower risk approach to getting the job done is just that.. a preference.
This is where we disagree quite clearly… your view of the program has convinced you its a preference only. 381 was the requirement… then 243 which then withered – but why? Firstly though, one must understand that decisions like these have a degree of subjectivity and you can’t discount preference especially from experienced professionals – you can’t truely model the future mathematically and thus preference should have a big say. BUT 2ndly USAF studies claimed 381 was the requirement… THEN it was revealed that when the whole 381-243-187 thing came about, it was based on a USAF simulation which was updated by a threat library from the DoD… who suddenly changed their threat analysis during Norman’s early reign for the F-22 program – where initial anaylsis had showed 381 was the requirement – now it presented a lower number of jets required – but the threat library wasn’t updated for the other weapon systems analysis.. clearly a means to kill off support for the F-22… I think I read this on the Dewline or Ares some months back.
That difference is the key to this issue and from what you have written I am not certain its one whose importance you have understood. Preferences and opinions are not the same as stating for the record you can get the job done with 187.
The fact is 381 has been a requirement.. until recently because it was forced upon by the DoD… it was never a mere preference..
Bearing in mind what the ‘job is now’ then much of the F-35’s capability is gold plating. Sure the threat changes and the next war may well be more demanding and ideally the equipment to fight it is in place. However it is very debateable as to whether or not the challenge of integrating all of this is so great. None of the F-35’s envisaged roles are new, they are established.
There is no doubt that three versions and multi national participation makes it more difficult.. but none of those are new issues and in light of the time and money so far spent this reasoning is very very thin.It is the scale of the program – from the outset that makes it such a big challenge.. the advertised goals are really tremedous achievements – if they come to fruition – also the same roles in one form or another have existed since WWI – but the the degree of complexity has increased 100 fold in addition to being compliant with many new regulations and saftey demands. The projected sales and tech insertion and complete multi mission requirements at such an early stage dwarfs the F-16 in its youth. Even with the money invested – this is a tremedous challenge.
I agree that not investing in the future is out of the question.. but the issue is not one of what should be done… you say VLO.. others would disagree using the ‘what is needed now’…the USN are thinking of developing an armed Turcano to support its ops in ‘Stan…because the FJ/Legacy airframes are not suited. Who is correct? Your crystal ball or theirs?
They are reacting to the present… the F-22/35 are planning for the future. They are totally different arguments.
Do you see the irony here? An F-22/F-35 brings nothing right now to the table.. and many would argue (and perhaps rightly) that the reasonable foreseeable threats do not require VLO airframes. Its not to say there are not threats out there but are they ‘reasonable’? That is the question upon which it all hangs and that answer does NOT come from the ‘experts’…
The F-22 brings bundles of capability to the table right now… the “wars” however at this present time don’t require a jet that only rechieved FOC in late 2007 early 2008. Additionaly the answer does come from experts – the chaps who put in the requirements – else you would have a totally reactive policy toward defense – where you build equipment based on validated and verified results in warfare – which is not suitable to surviving top end threats… it definitely wouldn’t have been adequate against the Soviet Union.
The F-35 is unsuited to the current ‘internal’ financial wars….it ‘may’ bring in lots of cash to the US.. if it survives the internal US budget pressures which do not see a short term (election cycle time frame) benefit from this programme versus the benefits from other expenditure.
The ‘if ‘ makes the F-35 very vulnerable…its already late, its already facing massive issues with overseas partners…we could go on.. you have pointed out its inherent risks etc… For a politician fighting to balance books or get a country out of recession then all of this is utopian dreaming..which is perhaps easier to sweep aside ‘for the moment’.
You an even bigger F-35 skeptic than myself :)!
There is a huge difference in what is being procured now and what is needed in the current war…its a new situation and one which makes programmes like the F-22, F-35 very vulnerable and the USAF, mindful of its longer term obligations (as it sees them) needs to tread a very fine line.
Don’t let the sordid reality of political ambition and financial avarice however tarnish your obvious passion for the technical and military aspects… even if in truth these are at this stage of the programme but bit players in the procurement script.
Cheers
LmRaptorThe reality is that whilst they are there to get the job done and improvise and ‘imply’.. they have stated that 187 allows them to get ‘the job’ done. Yes the risk is high that they will not get it done as best they can.. but get it done they will.
The record reflects that and you know what.. the rest is rendered irrelevant..it is correct and maybe more accurate.. but it is not what has gone on record. The be clear…if those same highly ranked brass had felt strongly enough that the number insufficient (say 120 had been proposed) then their duty was to speak out…see Adm Tom Connolley re the F-111B…
However none felt strongly enough to say so formally and 187 is the record.Interesting view point… is the F-35A such a ‘high risk’…exceptionally ambitious programme? Certainly I’d say the step change to the F-16 was a greater change than from the F-15/F-16/F-117*/F-22 fleet to one that has the F-35A as a component.
Sure longer would deliver a better F-35…or a dead one.
Is the F-22 any better than the F-35 as an A2G airframe….I’m sure it could be made into one… but who funds it?It would appear that both the F-22 and F-35’s primary battle is being diminished here…they have to be purchased at all.
Currently there is zero demand for a VLO airframe in combat ops. Yes there is a ‘threat’ but there are real battles, both physical and financially speaking that are being fought and neither is suited to them. So I would ask again.. do you push for an increased number of F-22s and win that procurement battle and the F-35 gets axed…or do you say OK the 187 F-22 airframes are ‘just enough’ but we need the F-35 as well.The other option is of course that you get 187 F-22s and zero F-35s…
There is nothing about which is best or a technical risk profile here…that has been done and dusted..its about money and power.
The posts about the Typhie are illustrative of what this internal political battle is doing to the procurement of US arms overseas.
I’m not so sure how closely you have followed the F-22 program – but from what I have read over the years of closely following the program… numerous generals, airforce analysts, and pilots have spoken up on countless occassions. Look no futher than Michael Mosley and Michael Wynne. The point is they stated it formally to Gates… that they wanted more which implies that although 187 was the high risk… they much prefered higher numbers! Infact under Jumper and Mosley their requirement was 381… Mosley was forced to resign and Norman settled for 243 as his preference. Through this time the airforce was officially asked to keep quiet on the matter as it wasn’t good for the image of the administration if the USAF was loggerheads with the DoD.
As for: “Interesting view point… is the F-35A such a ‘high risk’…exceptionally ambitious programme? Certainly I’d say the step change to the F-16 was a greater change than from the F-15/F-16/F-117*/F-22 fleet to one that has the F-35A as a component.”
From a technical standpoint merging the F-22s capabilities into a single airframe was probably one of the most demanding challenges of any aerospace engineering project. But while its ambitions focused on uber capability with an uber budget to provide it – the F-35 will prove to be an equally ambitious project – if not more so – but for different reasons. The F-35 has to meet many more mission roles and therefore has to fufill many more requirements over 3 different airframes throughout the world. The JSF needs to be deliverd with a much smaller budget for the jets projected – ie a requirement affordablility unlike the F-22 – and within an ambitious timescale. The fact that the F-35 from the outset has been built for 3 services and with partner nations and their related requirement means it will be a challenge that surpasses the F-16.
Currently the US is fighting a war against rogue militants and insurgents. But that wasn’t the main requirement when bombing Iraq, Kosovo, Korea or Vietnam – and it doesn’t mean the more conventional wars won’t crop up again anytime soon. The problem with aircraft development – is – even maturing legacy airframes into modernised versions takes a long time – time means you need to invest for the future and invest now – and for America VLO is the next step. History shows you have to be prepared so not investing is out of the question.
You could make the argument you don’t need any FJ/legacy jet vs insurgents – you could do fine with a A-10 or even a modernised WWII CAS type.
I also wouldn’t descibe the F-35 as being unsuited to the financial wars – if things go to plan it’s going to make the US a lot of money.
LmRaptorI thought they were removed because they lost nuclear weapons (among other operational foul ups), and had alleged monitary/ethical problems (thundervision scandal among others).
Now you are alleging they were fired because they had the temerity to support the F-22?
It has been widely reported by a lot of journalists and defense correspondents that the F-22 was one of the big issue’s behind their removal.. Now it’s a fact that they were at odds with Gates on the issue of the F-22, and whether or not they fell because of this is obviously up to you to decide personally. But many insiders believe the other issues were a cover up or a sidenote to getting rid of their outspoken views for the F-22 – something Gates didn’t approve of. Remember that this is hard to assess as Gates could not officially remove them for opposing his views… but journalists with contacts and the like have reported this to be the case…
LmRaptorI’m sure they are – and with such a fine fighter they have a right to.
LmRaptorA good decision, because that 187 at hand are in need of rework and constant upgrade to be operational for the mission bought. Life-cycle cost is the second major bill coming with the F-22A. For some years to come the USAF does not face a threat, which does made a F-22A mandatory. Just nice to have. The USN does fulfill its needs with SH already. 😉
The problem is the non combat coded jets will likely be that way for a long time if not forever as the costs to rework them might be a problem. WLCC is an attribute of every fighter or piece of engineering for that matter.
LmRaptorso what the USAF has said is that
We all know its more complex than that and that the 187 figure is one that has taken countless rounds of analysis and ‘staffing’, both political and military, to arrive at and that in reality the USAF may feel 187 is too ‘high risk’…but that is not what has been said.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place and there may now be an element of….187 F-22s and a decent number of F-35s (like the F-15/F16 mix or…250 (ish F-22s) and no F-35s…
I think that is the overall picture that should inform the actual F-22 procurement…how many 22s and how many 35s…too many of the former may mean none of the later….
Just a thought.
With regard to your first paragraph – your point being the USAF/USAF related people have never stated that they won’t be able to get the job done with just 187. Firstly that is there job – no matter the hardware – they attempt to get the job done – so I believe they won’t claim it is a complete no-go, as its against their whole philosophy and outlook of adapting and improvising. But the point is they have implied through numerous top brass opinions that they feel 187 IS to high a risk to take – whether they have stated that outrightly or not.
With regard to your 2nd paragraph.. perhaps not rushing into an exceptionally ambitious program so quickly would be a more prudent approach – which would allow funding a larger and safer F-22 mix and perhaps a better F-35! How many F-35s will be resigned to the non combat coded lot if they don’t have enough time to iron out the kinks? Its happened with the Raptor.
LmRaptorWould you care to name these people who were fired? Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Michael_Moseley
and Michael Wynne
LmRaptorthey say f-22 is degraded and loosing its stelth carakteristics during time ,especialy now showing on first examples ,and even with super expencive maintaining its now visible to radars from 40 miles away.:eek:
Sign In
