Boo-urns! U.S. Senate Votes to End Production of F-22 Fighter

This is going to be a big mistake down the line. What will also be a mistake is cutting this weapons program.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxJLUZWPEb8[/YOUTUBE]

I have to keep laughing at what the government is doing or I would be in my car in the garage (damn low emissions).
 
Last edited:
Another issue at hand aside from how well suited the F-22 is for near-future conflicts is unit cost of the F-22 and -35 versus unit cost of fighters from a previous generation (F-15, 16, 18).

The 15, 16, and 18 airframes are wearing out. As more begin to fail in flight, the DoD will lose lives, assets, and money, not to mention decreased defense capabilities as airframes are grounded for inspection. These temporary setbacks will only become magnified as pilots lose the combat edge in planes they are no longer allowed to push to the limit for fear of them breaking.

Some of these fourth-generation fighters are still in production for foreign defense entities. In the 20-teens, with the cancellation of the F-22 and time lost while F-35 production ramps up and expenses soar, the DoD and congress may decide it prudent to order brand new F-16s and F-15s as a cheap supplement or alternative. The re-establishment of the tooling and production capacity for those older, less-capable aircraft will drive their unit cost up, to a point where it will surpass what an F-22 or F-35 costs the United States to build in 2009 money.

So along that path, the United States will be spending more money for outdated technology and inferior capabilities. Will there be cold war-esque dogfights over the skies of the next battlefield? Will the enemy have technology formidable enough to require use of an F-35 or an F-22? Who knows, but it seems to me that when the lives and continued existence of any country are threatened, erring on the side of ostensible financial responsibility could toll the knell for countless people, cultures, and democracies.
 
WillDAQ said:
Interestingly the F35 is not VTOL, it's STOVL. Which is because it's worse at vertical take offs than the harrier.
Click to expand...

That's a hard point to argue. Technically the Harrier has been operated as STOVL for years, since with a full load of fuel and payload it has a fat chance of lifting off vertically.

Also, the F35 is fully capable of VTOL, it just isn't practical to use it in most operational situations.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIsIzjVi7j4[/YOUTUBE]
 
eltoro507 said:
Maybe you could ask the french for some dassault rafales :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah... no.. I don't think I want to buy any military hardware from people stupid enough to shell their own cities in peace time. From today's news:

Suburbs in flames after military exercise

* From correspondents in Marseille, France


Bombing exercise 'caused fires' Dozens of homes destroyed Authorities angry at military

MILITARY bombing practice has caused one of France's worst fires for three years which continues to rage on the eastern outskirts of Marseille.

The fire has burnt dozens of homes but claimed no victims.

The wildfire was caused by military practice shelling which hit the eastern Trois-Ponts suburb of the southern city forcing the evacuation of scores of residents.

"There are a few dozen houses burnt in the Trois-Ponts district but there are no victims," fire brigade spokesman Samuel Champon said.

"There are more homes threatened than vehicles mobilised."

The fire moved down a hill outside the city and threatened the Trois-Ponts district where residents sprayed water on the outside of their houses before they moved out.

876286-marseille.jpg


People in neighbouring La Barasse also left, although local authorities said no evacuation order had been given.

About 1200ha of brush was razed by the blaze.

"We are in a defensive mission for the moment," Mr Champon, pointing to "problems with the lie of the land" and difficulties in accessing water points.

A thick black smoke swirled around the district and many residents angrily criticised the French army which had staged artillery training at its Carpiagne camp just before the fire started.

Regional prefect Michel Sappin confirmed that the blaze had been started by the shelling, lashing out at the "imbecilic" action that had led to "an annoying and serious" situation in a zone close to a city and saying he was "exasperated".

In such weather conditions, with high winds, the army should refrain from carrying out shelling practice, he said.
Click to expand...
 
h-p said:
Well, russians did that too, and they build decent fighters.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but according to users' reports, the current crop of stuff isn't very good. And their high tech test have been mostly failing massively of late - see the recent Bulava missile launch failure.
 
I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not. Have to think unless the Taliban buy some MIG-29s the F-22 is not going to see a lot of combat but then again America has to protect itself and it allies (Cheers!) from them evil-doers! And as many people point out, the F-15 is getting old.

But you guys could always buy some Eurofighters ;)
 
I'm ok with this. The planes can always be put back into production later and there's no nation out there that can compete with the F-22s we already have. The F-35 Lightning II is cheaper and more than capable enough to handle the job of air dominance while having the added capability of greater payload delivery and strike options.

I love the F-22 for what it is, but we just don't need a fleet of them. They are already working on a new F-15 platform that will be much cheaper, incorporate some stealth features and still be effective for years to come. Between the new Eagle, the F-16, the F-35 and the F-22s that were already produced, I think we have enough airpower to take on anyone in the world.

Besides, with the way conflicts are going, it's going to be Naval airpower that is the most important, since we can project it around the world without the need for expensive land-bases in other countries.
 
The planes can always be put back into production later
Click to expand...

Actually that is substantially more difficult then you make it sound. They ditch the tooling, which they have done before, you have to start from the ground up. As for the new F-15 variant, the F-15SE, a model with internal weapon storage, it is only useful if the Airforce would actually buy any and there are no indications of that. The United States needs an good interceptor, 187 is far from enough for a country of our size.
 
Blind_Io said:
I'm ok with this. The planes can always be put back into production later and there's no nation out there that can compete with the F-22s we already have. The F-35 Lightning II is cheaper and more than capable enough to handle the job of air dominance while having the added capability of greater payload delivery and strike options.
Click to expand...


Um, got news for you.

The F-35 is going to cost $200 MILLION per copy, which is more than the F-22. Oh, and it's been delayed two more years.

Report: F-35 Work Falls Behind Two More Years
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

An internal Pentagon oversight board has reported that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is two years behind schedule, according to multiple congressional aides familiar with the findings.

Talk of the program?s problems comes amid intense debate over the future of another fighter plane, the F-22. Defenders of the F-22 argue that continued production is vital to national security.

The White House and some lawmakers who favor halting the production of any new F-22 warplanes say the F-35 will fill the gap and meet the nation?s combat aircraft needs.

Senators and aides now lament that the Pentagon oversight panel?s more pessimistic view on the F-35 program was not publicly released during the F-22 debate. They are calling for more open disclosure of the problems with the development of the F-35.

The Pentagon?s Joint Estimate Team (JET), which was established to independently evaluate the F-35 program, is at odds with the Joint Program Office, which runs the F-35 program, the aides said. The oversight panel?s calculations determined that the fighter won?t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production until 2016, rather than 2014, as the program office has said.

That?s assuming there are no further problems with the program, which has already faced cost overruns and schedule delays. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the delay could cost as much as $7.4 billion. The discrepancy between the Joint Estimate Team and the Joint Program Office was noted in a March report by the GAO, but it received little attention at the time.

?In every parameter and in every respect, the Joint Program Office?s projections were always a hell of a lot rosier than what the Joint Estimate Team found,? said one Senate aide who was briefed on the findings.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., who has often criticized the F-35 program and has called it the ?Joint Strike Failure,? said his attempts to get internal Pentagon data on the program have often been rebuffed.

?They are wrapped so tight on that F?35,? said Bond, who added that the Pentagon is so invested in the program that it is loath to release negative information, especially during a debate over Air Force funding.

?They bet too much on the F-35. It?s too big to fail,? Bond said. ?It?s like Citigroup.?

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said there is no delay in the completion of the first production aircraft, which is due next year, but he said more testing is needed to determine whether full production would be able to begin on schedule.

?The JET is not the gospel. It is but one view, albeit an important one, of our testing program,? Morrell said. ?The program office has a very different view. The truth is that we don?t know which will prove to be correct, but there?s no reason to believe our testing regime will result in the kind of delays the JET is predicting.?

The Joint Estimate Team?s report was given to congressional committees last year and was not hidden or suppressed by the Pentagon, Morrell said. He said it is now being dredged up by F-22 supporters.
Click to expand...


The F-22 is already operational and most of the bugs have been worked out; the first production F-35 has yet to fly, let alone reach initial operational capability. Right now, the F-35 isn't scheduled to go into full production until 2014 at the earliest. So we'll be defending the country with old airplanes that fall out of the sky until then, if not longer, instead of new planes that we can make now.
 
Last edited:
Ok, the F-15s that have been having structural problems are not our front-line fighters, they are part of the reserve fleet.

Yes, I know the F-22 will be difficult to put back into production, but there will be parts available for some time since the current fleet will need replacement parts and there are no bone-yard Raptors to pick over.

I don't know where you are getting your figure of $200 Million per F-35. The whole point of the program was to make a sub-$100 million/unit fighter-bomber that can be used across all services. The more aircraft that are produced then the lower the cost per aircraft. The Lightning II is supposed to be the Humvee of the air, a common platform that can be configured for different roles. This lowers costs of purchase and operation and streamlines logistical support. It also means a Marine can fix a USAF bird with parts on hand. The cost for the F-35 is estimated to be between $80 and $90 million, not the $200 you indicated.

Yes, the program is behind, but we have more than enough F-15s and F-16s to defend our country. That doesn't include the F-18s at naval air stations on on carriers. The question is: defend us against what? North Korea doesn't have a chance in an air war and their missiles can't be intercepted by aircraft. China doesn't want to bomb us because they are too busy taking our manufacturing jobs and selling us cheap crap. We are out of range of our enemies in the Middle East and Russia is too busy with their own problems. The only people who have the will do bomb us don't have the means.

EDIT: I remember the WARGARBLE that happened with the B-1 program was cut; people went nuts criticizing the move but no one knew that we had the B-2 Spirit waiting in the wings. At the time, the B-2 was far better equipped to deal with the threats we were facing. It turned out to be a smart move. It makes me wonder what technology we have out there that will take over the job of the F-22, but do it better and cheaper (and possibly without a pilot).
 
Last edited:
Blind_Io said:
I don't know where you are getting your figure of $200 Million per F-35. The whole point of the program was to make a sub-$100 million/unit fighter-bomber that can be used across all services. The more aircraft that are produced then the lower the cost per aircraft. The Lightning II is supposed to be the Humvee of the air, a common platform that can be configured for different roles. This lowers costs of purchase and operation and streamlines logistical support. It also means a Marine can fix a USAF bird with parts on hand. The cost for the F-35 is estimated to be between $80 and $90 million, not the $200 you indicated.
Click to expand...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s-02381/

Unfortunately, Israel?s September 2008 request for its first 75 F-35s would end up costing them an estimated $15 billion ? or about $200 million per plane.
Click to expand...

Via FAS: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs June 18, 2009

The 10 F-35As requested for FY2010 in the Air Force budget have an estimated procurement cost of $2,220.3 million, or an average of $222.0 million each.

The 16 F-35Bs and four F-35Cs requested for FY2010 in the Department of the Navy budget have a combined estimated procurement cost of $4,212.1 million, or an average of $210.6 million each.
Click to expand...

You were saying?

EDIT: I remember the WARGARBLE that happened with the B-1 program was cut; people went nuts criticizing the move but no one knew that we had the B-2 Spirit waiting in the wings. At the time, the B-2 was far better equipped to deal with the threats we were facing. It turned out to be a smart move. It makes me wonder what technology we have out there that will take over the job of the F-22, but do it better and cheaper (and possibly without a pilot)
Click to expand...

Nothing, because we just defunded them to pay for the DOA stimulus and the $4.7 trillion bailout of Wall Street.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for those links. I had not realized that the Lightning II was that over budget. I have not had a chance to read through that whole PDF, but I'll tell you what I'm looking for (maybe you already found it): In estimating the cost of aircraft, or any other production unit, the cost per unit frequently includes the R&D, tooling and other expenses divided over the number of units produced. So the first 10 units will cost more than the first 100, which cost more than the first 1,000. The more you make the more those initial costs are spread out and the cost per unit drops. I'm not sure how they calculated the cost per unit, but because they are talking about the firs 75 aircraft, it makes me wonder.
 
9th July 2009, Jerusalem Post about F-35 (link from Spectres link)

final price of the plane - estimated at around $100 million -
Click to expand...

The price of $200 million was from 10th November 2008
 
Last edited:
Well that's a great deal closer to the $80-$90 million mark that was originally quoted.
 
That $100M price was estimated by the author of the article and is the number being tossed around by Congress. The $200M price is the current correct one.

As for the concept of the more you buy the less you pay - if they had gone ahead and done the full complement of F-22s that we had originally thought to buy, the price of those would probably also have come down below $100M apiece. At $142M each with only the current number of birds produced, that's not bad at all.
 
Last edited:
Um, I just read that article and I don't get the impression that it was the author's estimate of cost. Also, will that be the cost the US pays for the planes or are we upping the price for overseas sales?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top