Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USAF re-assessing 5th generation fighter numbers
Flightglobal ^ | February 28, 2012 | Stephen Trimble

Posted on 02/29/2012 4:44:28 AM PST by EnjoyingLife

The US Air Force is re-assessing its numbers of so-called fifth-generation fighters, although it is still not backing off its commitment to buy 1,763 Lockheed Martin F-35As over the next 35 years.

The USAF now plans to operate about 185 Lockheed F-22As along with the F-35A fleet, amounting to a combined force of nearly 1,950 fighters with the stealth, manouevrability and advanced sensors that meet the service's definition for fifth-generation capability.

However, as cost increases and the budget reductions lowered planned orders of F-22As from 750 to less than 200 over the last 20 years, some have rasised questions about the USAF's ability to afford the full F-35A fleet size.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace

1 posted on 02/29/2012 4:44:35 AM PST by EnjoyingLife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

I’d be surprised if the USAF ends up buying more than 500 F-35As.


2 posted on 02/29/2012 4:53:50 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Look for the total number of aircraft in all services to slowly approach zero. All defense $$ will slowly be sucked away by entitlement program and interest costs.


3 posted on 02/29/2012 5:03:16 AM PST by rbg81 (scillian's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife; sukhoi-30mki; Shadow44; SZonian; MeganC; A.A. Cunningham; Yo-Yo; Megan
(Ping to some folks from the Aussies’ modest proposal: Sell us F-22s, mate thread.

All the F-22 bashers around here should reflect a long time on the following quote from USAF Lieutenant General Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, deputy chief of operations, plans and requirements:

Despite the cost increases and technical glitches expereinced by both F-22 and F-35 programmed, the USAF expects to operate the most capable fighters in the world. While the F-22 is an air-to-air specialist and the F-35 is designed for ground attack, Carlisle said both fighters still have no equal.

"The F-22 does better air-to-groud than anybody than the F-35," Carlisle said, "and the F-35 does air-to-air better than anything in the world except the F-22."

F-22 production clearly should be restarted as soon as practical, with exports allowed to Japan and Australia. We should also replace some F-35 orders with F-22 orders, since the F-22 is now the less expensive alternative. That cost would continue to drop as more planes are manufactured.

Not to mention that the F-22 is already mission-capable!

Also note that the USAF sees a strong air-to-ground role for the F-22.

4 posted on 02/29/2012 5:20:36 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

This surprizes who?

We’re sending our industry and money to China.

What else can happen?

We are becoming a non-nation, no industry, no jobs and no money.

Of course we are going to collapse. How’s that “free trade” thing working America?


5 posted on 02/29/2012 5:23:07 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network ("The door is open" PALIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

I’d be surprised if America survives long enough to build 500 Tonka Trucks if this communist clown is re-elected..


6 posted on 02/29/2012 5:23:40 AM PST by G Larry (We are NOT obliged to carry the snake in our pocket and then dismiss the bites as natural behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
Wow, I guess I should have fixed the various typos and grammar errors in that quote I pasted - terrible editing job by the source site!

Sorry.

7 posted on 02/29/2012 5:41:46 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
F-22 is now the less expensive alternative

The F-22 is NOT the less expensive alternative. Unit flyaway costs for the last F-22 was around $180 million, but that did not include the development costs. Adding the development costs over 187 airframes averages out to around $350 million per aircraft average procurement cost.

8 posted on 02/29/2012 6:03:55 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
There was a humorous, at least I hope it was a humorous, story about a Congressional push during the “Great Depression” when the cost of maintaining our military became too expensive.

The core of the story was Congress proposed buying just one airplane and let the Army fly it on even number days and the Navy to fly it on odd number days.

Will the AF buy the F-35 in numbers it wants to? Based on the most recent aircraft buys that ain't going to happen. The F-22 buy was greatly cut. The B-2 buy was cut even more. The future bomber program has been around as a study program for 5 years now and its employment dates have slipped every year.

Why?

The AF wants to buy aircraft with no immediate operational need. Can you see the F-35 and B-2 using even a small percentage of their “combat capabilities” in Africa or Latin America? I mention Africa because that is where the war on terrorism has moved and Latin America stands an excellent probably of following Africa.

Yet, the AF is anxious to spend billions upon billions of dollars to fight a future war (like World War III in Central Europe) and nothing to fight the current fight in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.

9 posted on 02/29/2012 6:25:42 AM PST by Nip (TANSTAAFL and BOHICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

Need mo money fo food stamps.


10 posted on 02/29/2012 6:32:15 AM PST by jrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

I find the fly-away cost at $152.5M per copy, with the total weapons system cost per jet at $188M (FY2012 proposed budget, http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110211-038.pdf). While we stopped producing the jet, FY12 budget numbers are included in the budget docs as accounting details become more specific.

Regardless, selling the F-22 overseas would literally take an act of congress beyond the usual FMS approval processes. The Boland Amendment, passed when the F-22 was authorized, stipulated the F-22 was to be internal to the US, only, and therefore prohibited from foreign sales.

As a complicating factor for foreign military sales (FMS), the F-22 was not designed with FMS protections and limitations. Cost estimates to modify the source-code to allow export run to $500m and up (total cost, not cost per jet).

This lug, added to the total weapons system cost truly make it unaffordable to most all allies. . .even the US.

From an original purchase plan of over 700 jets, we only acquired 187 jets-—and that number includes 6 jets to be used as test aircraft and 2 jets for RDT&E.

Sad thing, too, as the F-22 is a spectacular jet.


11 posted on 02/29/2012 6:52:36 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Oh, forgot to add the F-35 unit flyaway cost is estimated at roughly $89M per jet with total weapons system cost at $95M per jet. . .if you believe the cost estimates and if we hold to the current acquisition number of jets. Currently, FY12, unit flyaway cost is listed as $151M and total weapons system cost is $192.

So. . .yes, if we base the numbers on today’s cost, the F-35 is more expensive than the F-22. . .but that is an accounting trick, only, and not a true representation of the cost.

The F-35 is less expensive if we look at the total cost per jet after the buy is complete, not at today’s cost spread over few jets.


12 posted on 02/29/2012 7:00:54 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
From an original purchase plan of over 700 jets, we only acquired 187 jets-—and that number includes 6 jets to be used as test aircraft and 2 jets for RDT&E.

It's worse than that. Only that last 91 aircraft are fully capable of receiving the newest air-to-air and air-to-ground software.

The F-22 Can't Do What???

13 posted on 02/29/2012 7:10:46 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
"The F-22 is NOT the less expensive alternative."

That entirely remains to be seen. Actually the flyaway cost for the last buy of F-22s was about $140 million per plane.

The current flyaway cost of the various F-35 models is running $122 million, $150 million, and $139.5 million for the A, B and C variants respectively. Note that these are not the final production costs, because the F-35 is still under development, and the cost will almost certainly rise from there.

It's silly to worry about the cost of the F-22 program, that is a sunk cost. On the other hand, the F-35 program is still ongoing, and has an extensive history of delays and rising costs.

But fine, I'll amend my statement - for about the same price as the F-35, we could be buying far more capable aircraft which are operational now. In a sane world, we'd buy a few hundred more F-22s and a few hundred less F-35s.

14 posted on 02/29/2012 8:20:38 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
It's worth reading one of the responses to your linked article:
Stephen you left out some information about your highlights. For point number two Dave specifically mentions that while the block 30 (increment 3.1) jets do not have the ESMS that enable AIM-9X and -120D capability, they *are* looking at other solutions for adding those weapons; so never is a bit disingenuous. For point number three JROC did not asses HMCS as a core capability for the F-22 mission. On the F-16 boards Dave said that from his interviews it’s fiscal rather than a technical hurdle and in his article he mentions that HMCS may be added later.

Personally I think adding SDB, -120D and -9X is more important than a HMCS but the F-22 probably should get it in increment 3.3 or 4. I also think the USAF will eventually have to bite the bullet and move towards a common hardware configuration that enables all F-22 capabilities for the entire fleet; something along the lines of the F-15C MSIP program. This is particularly important with future weapons coming down the line such as JDRADM, LCMCM, SDB II etc. where the older block 30 jets won’t be able to employ them with out upgrade.


15 posted on 02/29/2012 8:30:08 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
1) Roto-Reuters story: Last 4 F-22 fighters to cost nearly $200 million each

2) It is disingenuous to compare low rate initial production unit costs with mature full rate production unit costs.

3) The Rand Corporation did a study to estimate how much it would cost to reconstitute the F-22 line and build 75 more F-22s. Their conclusion? $227 million per copy in FY '08 dollars.

16 posted on 02/29/2012 8:36:16 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
I also think the USAF will eventually have to bite the bullet and move towards a common hardware configuration that enables all F-22 capabilities for the entire fleet

Which will probably happen, but not for another decade at least.

What could have been done, and IMHO should have been done, is if we were going to settle on 187 as the final number, then we build 187 aircraft to the newest hardware and wiring standard, and sell off the earlier block aircraft to allies who wanted F-22s such as Japan and Australia.

17 posted on 02/29/2012 8:42:03 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
It's worth reading one of the responses to your linked article:

Speaking of reading links, I just got around to reading your link in your statement: That entirely remains to be seen. Actually the flyaway cost for the last buy of F-22s was about $140 million per plane.

Here's a quote from further down in that article:

"F-22s are costing these days a little over $200 million each. Period."

18 posted on 02/29/2012 8:52:20 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
""F-22s are costing these days a little over $200 million each. Period."

Which includes program dollars, as opposed to just the cost of the airplane itself - which is the apples-to-apples comparison with the F-35 numbers I provided.

Again, from the article:

In the "Joint Explanatory Statement" accompanying the bill, the House and Senate appropriators specified that $2.907 billion was to be appropriated for 20 F-22s in 2009. The math comes to just about what the Air Force said, $145 million per copy.

19 posted on 02/29/2012 9:23:44 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

“What could have been done, and IMHO should have been done, is if we were going to settle on 187 as the final number, then we build 187 aircraft to the newest hardware and wiring standard, and sell off the earlier block aircraft to allies who wanted F-22s such as Japan and Australia. “

I’m in full agreement!


20 posted on 02/29/2012 9:33:18 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

“What could have been done, and IMHO should have been done, is if we were going to settle on 187 as the final number, then we build 187 aircraft to the newest hardware and wiring standard, and sell off the earlier block aircraft to allies who wanted F-22s such as Japan and Australia. “

I’m in full agreement!


21 posted on 02/29/2012 9:33:31 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

Uhm, are you implying that I’m an F22 “basher”? Because if you are, you couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

I am simply tired of the persistent and ignorant comparisons between the 2 aircraft and how the F22 is so much better than the F35 “overall”.

Simply, the F35 is the next generation tactical bomb truck with LG and stores capabilities the F22 doesn’t have. The F22 is the top dawg in the air, hands down.

They each have their part to play.


22 posted on 02/29/2012 9:37:22 AM PST by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Unit flyaway costs for the last F-22 was around $180 million

WAS. And if you have to start the line back up again then you have to do a good bit of development. Some of the electronics are probably obsolete. Yes, already, things change fast. Obsolete does not mean they are not still effective but it does mean you might not be able to buy more. So you buy something similar.... but first you have to pay engineers to test or update software to make sure the new stuff works. On a plane as complicated as the F-22 all that adds up very very fast.
23 posted on 02/29/2012 9:58:33 AM PST by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

That is all true for the US and I have made that argument myself many times. But things change slightly with forign sales. If they are trying to decide on just one plane to buy they have to decide based on all the factors. For their needs one might make sense over the other. And that is all but impossible for us to debate anyway because only they know what their needs are and what tradeoffs they are willing to make. What is better, more planes or faster planes? Longer range or shorter runways. and ninezillion other tiny tradeoffs.


24 posted on 02/29/2012 10:02:20 AM PST by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
Again, from the article:

In the "Joint Explanatory Statement" accompanying the bill, the House and Senate appropriators specified that $2.907 billion was to be appropriated for 20 F-22s in 2009. The math comes to just about what the Air Force said, $145 million per copy.
And again, from later down in the same article:

So, what's the problem?

There's more; plenty more. Flipping down to the section on "modification of aircraft" we find another $327 million for the F-22 program.

Switching over to the Research and Development section, we find another $607 million for the F-22 under the title "Operational System Development."

Some will further know it is typical for DOD to provide "advance procurement" money in previous appropriations bills to support the subsequent year's purchase of major equipment. In the case of the 2009 buy of 20 F-22's, the previous 2008 appropriations bill provided "advance procurement" for "long lead" items needed to be purchased in advance to enable the 2009 buy. The amount provided was $427 million.

Here's the arithmetic: $2.907 + $.327 + $.607 + $.427 = $4.268 billion for 20 aircraft. That's $213 million each.

Please do not think these data represent an exceptional year. If you check any of the last few annual buys of F-22s, you will find the same pattern: in addition to the annual "procurement" amount, there is additional "modification," "operational system development," and advance procurement.

F-22s are costing these days a little over $200 million each. Period.


25 posted on 02/29/2012 10:57:45 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nip

“The AF wants to buy aircraft with no immediate operational need.”

That is a good thing. Fighting the last war is the error. We need to prepare for a possible future conflict with China, possibly a Russian/China/Iran Alliance.

“Can you see the F-35 and B-2 using even a small percentage of their “combat capabilities” in Africa or Latin America?”

Yes. But that isn’t their role. Most of the future Terrorism contingencies are going to be standoff attacks with both UAVs and Deep Strike Missions launched from the US - in conjunction with selective Special Operations missions.

“Yet, the AF is anxious to spend billions upon billions of dollars to fight a future war (like World War III in Central Europe.”

Peace through Strength.


26 posted on 02/29/2012 11:06:44 AM PST by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EnjoyingLife

They know future generations of UAVs will kill off any manned fighter with ease. Even the Military/Industrial Complex realizes a bad bet when it sees one. A paradigm shift has arrived, like when Billy Mitchell rendered the battleship obsolete.


27 posted on 02/29/2012 11:35:59 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
"F-22s are costing these days a little over $200 million each. Period."

Fine, and by the same metric F-35s are far more expensive. Again, I was interested in apples-to-apples comparisons. From the F-35 article I linked:

In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included.
We'll see if the cost of F-35s comes down over time. I'm betting not.
28 posted on 02/29/2012 1:38:14 PM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

“They know future generations of UAVs will kill off any manned fighter with ease. “

Really? Even if said UAV can’t detect the target? Even with auto-pointed beam weapons (anti-missile/anti-UAV) in play?

We’ll see.


29 posted on 02/29/2012 1:52:34 PM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SZonian
Meant to respond to this yesterday, sorry...

"Uhm, are you implying that I’m an F22 “basher”? "

Not at all, just thought I'd ping over some folks who might be interested from the other thread.

I figured the F-22 bashers would know who they are... ;-)

30 posted on 03/01/2012 2:19:54 PM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson