Question about the F-22 and cost.

I thought congress put a cap on the program cost and basically said
"this is how much you get for the program, buy however many you can
with it". That being the case why is congress bitching and moaning
about it (not to mention the idiots at POGO) again? If they cost a
billion a pop for the airforce then they get fewer. If it costs $100
million they get more. From what I've read the USAF has a handle on
it and would just as soon have the politicians go earn their money
instead of chewing old fat.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
aircraft are bought.

There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
remains the same.

How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..

150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
the cost..
Its difficult isn't it...



I thought congress put a cap on the program cost and basically said
"this is how much you get for the program, buy however many you can
with it". That being the case why is congress bitching and moaning
about it (not to mention the idiots at POGO) again? If they cost a
billion a pop for the airforce then they get fewer. If it costs $100
million they get more. From what I've read the USAF has a handle on
it and would just as soon have the politicians go earn their money
instead of chewing old fat.

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
aircraft are bought.

There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
remains the same.

How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..

150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
the cost..
Its difficult isn't it...

Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training, and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of years
now.

Brooks

In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training, and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of years
now.

6 squadrons may or may not be enough, but the comparison to the F-117 is a
poor one. The F-117 is a very specialized a/c with narrow operational utility.
The F-22 is supposed to replace the most effective a/a platform in inventory.
A much broader role is(was) envisioned for the F-22.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would
allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply
airpower in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We
have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
years
now.

6 squadrons may or may not be enough, but the comparison to the F-117 is a
poor one. The F-117 is a very specialized a/c with narrow operational
utility.
The F-22 is supposed to replace the most effective a/a platform in
inventory.
A much broader role is(was) envisioned for the F-22.

But if you consider that the "super capabilities" of the F-22 will only be
*required* against a very few potential threats, then the analogy still
holds true IMO. Other platforms remain capable of dealing with the majority
of potential air threats. The move to relabel the F-22 as F/A-22 was born
from the desire to counter this kind of argument.

Brooks


--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks wrote:


Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training, and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of years
now.

I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
F-22s.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:20:53 +1100, John Cook wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
aircraft are bought.

There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
remains the same.

How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..

150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
the cost..
Its difficult isn't it...

I expect if they asked nicely, Eurofighter GmbH would sell them a
few Typhoons. A quick BOTE calculation suggests they'd get 619
Typhoons for what they're spending on manufacturing the Raptor. (i'm
not including development costs).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks
wrote:


Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower
in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
years
now.

I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
F-22s.

Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total US
buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC (the
Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured). Secondly,
the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who *can*,
however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter that
could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft. Dumping the F-22
entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when the
USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.

Brooks


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:20:53 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
aircraft are bought.

There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
remains the same.

How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..

150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
the cost..
Its difficult isn't it...


The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
to work the problem.

The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
to work the problem.


Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them will
probably be converted to ECM aircraft.