F/A-22 cost falls to LCS levels.

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 06:24:16 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Yama wrote:
Yes, it's less than 2.5 times more pricy than next most expensive
fighter...

I hope Carlo Kopp reads this. He ensured me that there is absolutely no
reason to think that F-22 will cost more than $70M, and export version
is
likely to be much cheaper.

Export?

Who would buy it?

-HJC

No, who *could* buy it?

F-22s are $200 million each now and headed for $300 million.

Why would anyone subsidize this rip-off of the American taxpayer?

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Yama wrote:
Yes, it's less than 2.5 times more pricy than next most expensive
fighter...

I hope Carlo Kopp reads this. He ensured me that there is absolutely no
reason to think that F-22 will cost more than $70M, and export version
is
likely to be much cheaper.

Export?

Who would buy it?

According to Carlo, air forces of the world would be tripping to each other
when rushing to buy F-22; namely Saudi-Arabia, Japan, Taiwan, ROK, Israel
and Australia.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:42:43 +0200, "Yama" wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Yama wrote:
Yes, it's less than 2.5 times more pricy than next most expensive
fighter...

I hope Carlo Kopp reads this. He ensured me that there is absolutely no
reason to think that F-22 will cost more than $70M, and export version
is
likely to be much cheaper.

Export?

Who would buy it?

According to Carlo, air forces of the world would be tripping to each other
when rushing to buy F-22; namely Saudi-Arabia, Japan, Taiwan, ROK, Israel
and Australia.

We would not sell it to them. The only possible exception would be Australia.

Al Minyard

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:29:20 +0200, "Yama" wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsA...toryID=4638813
The U.S. Air Force has agreed to buy 22 more F/A-22 fighter jets from
Lockheed Martin Corp. for less than $110 million per plane, Air Force
acquisition chief Marvin Sambur told Reuters on Tuesday.

Looks like I was wrong and they've managed to get the F/A-22 costs under
control after all.

Yes, it's less than 2.5 times more pricy than next most expensive fighter...

I hope Carlo Kopp reads this. He ensured me that there is absolutely no
reason to think that F-22 will cost more than $70M, and export version is
likely to be much cheaper.

I don't think there will be an "export version". The only country that I believe
we would entrust the tech with would be the UK, and they are not in the
market (at least for now).

Al Minyard

Looks like I was wrong and they've managed to get the F/A-22 costs under
control after all.

My bad.

Key U.S. senator vows to save Lockheed F/A-22 jet
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1310900.html
The Air Force has agreed to buy 22 more F/A-22 fighters from Lockheed
for less than $110 million per airframe, not including the engines,
Sambur said.

So it isn't $110 million for a complete airplane after all, unless it's
some sort of stealth glider.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Looks like I was wrong and they've managed to get the F/A-22 costs under
control after all.

My bad.

Key U.S. senator vows to save Lockheed F/A-22 jet
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1310900.html
The Air Force has agreed to buy 22 more F/A-22 fighters from Lockheed
for less than $110 million per airframe, not including the engines,
Sambur said.

So it isn't $110 million for a complete airplane after all,

"Yet". You need to add that. As the order volume increases, the unit cost
decreases. Simple concept--even you should be able to grasp it.

Brooks

unless it's
some sort of stealth glider.

-HJC

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Looks like I was wrong and they've managed to get the F/A-22 costs
under
control after all.

My bad.

Key U.S. senator vows to save Lockheed F/A-22 jet
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1310900.html
The Air Force has agreed to buy 22 more F/A-22 fighters from Lockheed
for less than $110 million per airframe, not including the engines,
Sambur said.

So it isn't $110 million for a complete airplane after all,

"Yet". You need to add that. As the order volume increases, the unit cost
decreases. Simple concept--even you should be able to grasp it.

No Kevin, the $110 million does not include any amortization; therefore
there is no decrease in price for volume under "each" accounting. These
airplanes are costing about $220 million per airframe under current buy
numbers and will probably reach $300 million per airframe when all the
reductions in the buy are done. (160 pieces)

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:23:35 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Yet". You need to add that. As the order volume increases, the unit cost
decreases. Simple concept--even you should be able to grasp it.

No Kevin, the $110 million does not include any amortization; therefore
there is no decrease in price for volume under "each" accounting. These
airplanes are costing about $220 million per airframe under current buy
numbers and will probably reach $300 million per airframe when all the
reductions in the buy are done. (160 pieces)


Costing of aircraft is never a simple exercise and it is increasingly
driven not by accounting, but by political posturing. If one wants a
contract, the pricing is based on unit fly-away cost. If one opposes
the purchase, then the cost is fully amortized, life-cycle cost with
spares and support equipment---OMIGOD, we can't afford it!

When ATF was first put out for proposal the $$$/weight criteria were
$30M per airplane and 50K pounds max. Clearly the weight is an
objective measurement, but the dollar cost was releated to a purchase
of 600+ and was going to be unit fly-away cost. As the buy numbers
have reduced (a not unreasonable reaction to a considerably changed
threat), the cost per unit has risen. Costs of $220M per aircraft are
clearly loaded numbers with full R&D incorporated.

Once you've amortized R&D costs, however--and that's been done already
in the long term contract numbers--then the cost per unit for
additional purchases can be expressed in a fairly straightforward
number. Want to buy fifty more? Then that will cost you XXX dollars.
The factory is built, the tools are in place, the R&D has been already
incurred and all that is going to be added is material and labor.

Throughout the process you can revisit and for political argument's
sake recalculate the total cost of the program. That doesn't relate to
contracts, but it does relate to an averaging of unit cost. Buy more
units and lo, the cost per unit goes down. Cut the buy and, surprise,
the cost per unit goes up.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:23:35 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Yet". You need to add that. As the order volume increases, the unit
cost
decreases. Simple concept--even you should be able to grasp it.

No Kevin, the $110 million does not include any amortization; therefore
there is no decrease in price for volume under "each" accounting. These
airplanes are costing about $220 million per airframe under current buy
numbers and will probably reach $300 million per airframe when all the
reductions in the buy are done. (160 pieces)


Costing of aircraft is never a simple exercise and it is increasingly
driven not by accounting, but by political posturing. If one wants a
contract, the pricing is based on unit fly-away cost. If one opposes
the purchase, then the cost is fully amortized, life-cycle cost with
spares and support equipment---OMIGOD, we can't afford it!

That is true, but is non-responsive to the fact that there is no reduction
in cost for more units unless the amortization is included in the accounting
method.

When ATF was first put out for proposal the $$$/weight criteria were
$30M per airplane and 50K pounds max. Clearly the weight is an
objective measurement, but the dollar cost was releated to a purchase
of 600+ and was going to be unit fly-away cost.

800.

As the buy numbers
have reduced (a not unreasonable reaction to a considerably changed
threat), the cost per unit has risen. Costs of $220M per aircraft are
clearly loaded numbers with full R&D incorporated.

The $220 million price is only valid for the 220 airframe purchase. As that
number approaches 160 actual the price is higher.

Once you've amortized R&D costs, however--and that's been done already
in the long term contract numbers--then the cost per unit for
additional purchases can be expressed in a fairly straightforward
number. Want to buy fifty more? Then that will cost you XXX dollars.
The factory is built, the tools are in place, the R&D has been already
incurred and all that is going to be added is material and labor.

I agree that the money is already spent and the Gerogia line needs the work,
but I don't see an add before the line is shut and the tools destroyed.

Throughout the process you can revisit and for political argument's
sake recalculate the total cost of the program. That doesn't relate to
contracts, but it does relate to an averaging of unit cost. Buy more
units and lo, the cost per unit goes down. Cut the buy and, surprise,
the cost per unit goes up.

Can't transfer F-22 technology to the F-35 and the F-35 goes up too. The
F-22 program has been a fiasco, but my hat is off to the new managemnt that
froze the F-22's configuration last Summer. Finally a baseline.