F-22 Priced at $290 Million Each for Japan

[gambit]

True, but a bit of a misrepresentation, give credit where it is due:

"Ironically, given the Soviet Union's failure to exploit stealth technology, the key breakthrough in developing a stealth airplane came from theoretical studies by Pytor Ufimtsev, the chief scientist at the Moscow Institute of Radio Engineering. Ufimtsev's conclusions, published in the West, were studied by Lockheed engineer Denys Overholser, who recognized that they enabled the systematic analysis of an aircraft's shape to assess its radar reflectivity. Overholser discussed his findings with Ben R. Rich, the chief of Lockheed's famed “Skunk Works” advanced development team."

The soviets just didn't have the computer power available to run the algorithms to find the optimized shapes. Of course, even if they did, they didn't have the precision machining or material science expertise to make the plane they designed, so it is a bit of a moot point.

If that engineer had the computer time, and the soviets more money, things might have turned out differently.

Stealth Aircraft - History of Stealth Aircraft | Encyclopedia.com: Oxford Companion to American Military History

No 'misrepresentation' on my part. Elsewhere on this forum I have mention Ufimtsev and gave credit where it is due. What you misunderstood was that I said 'operationally deployed', which is a far cry from laboratory and wind tunnel testings. Ufimtsev's equations was not about 'stealth' but about predicting a radar signal's behavior upon a surface. If we can predict a behavior, we can shape a body to consistently create those behaviors.

 

[gambit]

Wrong.

F-22 was canned because the Pentagon could not justify the cost of acquiring an aircraft that had been utterly useless in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decision had ZIP to do with Russian technology.

The US military already has enough F-22 that it does not need any more of these expensive birds.

WRONG.

By your logic, the aircraft carrier should be canned because it was useless in Iraq and Afghanistan. The F-22 production line was cancelled simply because of cost, not because of utility. The F-22 was intended to keep the US in a superior position in the air in the event that a conflict would involve a military whose capabilities are beyond that of a 'guerrilla' or 'insurgency' status. Wars are not won through guerrilla warfare or insurgency tactics. In wars, territories are gained and defended by institutionalized and maintained militaries.

 

[Developereo]

WRONG.

By your logic, the aircraft carrier should be canned because it was useless in Iraq and Afghanistan. The F-22 production line was cancelled simply because of cost, not because of utility. The F-22 was intended to keep the US in a superior position in the air in the event that a conflict would involve a military whose capabilities are beyond that of a 'guerrilla' or 'insurgency' status. Wars are not won through guerrilla warfare or insurgency tactics. In wars, territories are gained and defended by institutionalized and maintained militaries.

You said Wrong and then just confirmed my point that the F22 was canned because the cost could not be justified.

 

[gambit]

You said Wrong and then just confirmed my point that the F22 was canned because the cost could not be justified.

Here is what you said...

...an aircraft that had been utterly useless in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Got it?

 

[aimarraul]

is it possible F-22 production line will be reopen under obama's first term?

 

[gambit]

is it possible F-22 production line will be reopen under obama's first term?

Not likely. Obama is too spineless. But the US have regular regiime changes. Carter cancelled the B-1. Raygun resurrected it. Yes, the B-1 is limited in numbers, but nevertheless, it prove that any weapon system development and manufacture can be resumed.

 

[Thomas]

It is amazing how many really fear the F-22. You can see it in all their posts against it. I think what really has them up in arms is the U.S. already has operational squadrons of them. And with the F-35 getting ready to ramp up full scale production. It leaves Americas traditional opposition scratching their heads wondering what they can do to counter them with the little money they have to budget. Already Russia seems to be scrapping the PAK-FA in favor of the Su-35. And they still are not close to full scale production of that.

 

[Developereo]

Here is what you said...Got it?

An accurate statement.

And I also said
<blockquote>F-22 was canned because the Pentagon could not justify the cost [...] US military already has enough F-22 that it does not need any more of these expensive birds.</blockquote>

F-22 was utterly useless in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Pentagon felt it already has enough of these aircract. That is why the Pentagon itself lobbied against the F-22. There was no point spending any more money on them.

Everything has a cost-benefit analysis. If an aircraft carrier cost a trillion dollars and the US already had enough, they would stop building any more.

 

[glomex]

Interesting writeup on F22...

Blog Archive Can&#8217;t Fly, Won&#8217;t Die

With a price tag above $350 million per plane, the F-22 fighter requires at least 30 hours of maintenance for every hour it flies. (Insider scuttlebutt insists it actually needs 60 hours of repairs for every hour it operates.)

That’s worse than the MG I had back in college.

Pilots call high-maintenance aircraft “hangar queens.” Well, the F-22’s a hangar empress. After three expensive decades in development, the plane meets fewer than one-third of its specified requirements.

But defense giant Lockheed Martin’s immense clout on the Hill threatens to force you, the taxpayer, to buy still more of these pieces of junk.

And wait — the details get worse. The fighter’s weapons don’t work as promised. The stealth coating can’t withstand rain or blowing sand. Even the cockpit canopy has failed repeatedly. On any given day, barely half of the planes already deployed are in shape to fly.

And that’s in peacetime, under ideal maintenance conditions. Imagine if this dodo bird had to go to war. An enemy could flood the skies with less-capable-but-cheaper aircraft while the F-22 was in therapy. And what would readiness rates be like after months of combat?

Anyway, an enemy wouldn’t have to down a single F-22 to defeat it. Just strike the hi-tech maintenance sites, and it’s game over. (In WWII, we didn’t shoot down every Japanese Zero; we just sank their carriers.) The F-22 isn’t going to operate off a dirt strip with a repair tent.

But this is all about lobbying, not about lobbing bombs. Cynically, Lockheed Martin distributed the F-22 workload to nearly every state, employing under-qualified sub-contractors to create local financial stakes in the program. Great politics — but the result has been a quality collapse.

So you, the taxpayer, get a $350 million aircraft that doesn’t work.

Lockheed’s sales pitch evolved over the years: First, it was “air dominance.” Then the F-22 was going to win the War on Terror with a magical ground-attack capability. Well, the plane hasn’t flown a single combat mission. It can’t do ground-attack runs, its electronics don’t work in “high-emissions environments” (i.e., anyplace our military operates), and that stealth coating gets leprosy if the weather isn’t perfect (the F-22 couldn’t be maintained at a single base in Iraq or Afghanistan).

Last year, Lockheed Martin started pitching the jobs issue. Well, for the price of one F-22, we could pay full unemployment to any displaced workers for eternity.

All those full-page ads in The New York Times and the TV commercials in which Lockheed Martin waves the flag? The costs are deducted as business expenses from the taxes Lockheed pays. Essentially, you give the contractor a huge rebate to persuade you to pay for a gilded piece of junk that doesn’t work. Legal, yes. But scummy.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to kill the F-22 program. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen wants to kill it. The Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force chief of staff both want it dead. Sen. John McCain — who knows something about air combat — is crusading to stop this massive boondoggle.

Even President Obama has threatened to veto any Defense appropriations bill that funds added F-22s above the 187 already programmed.

But guess who’s suddenly discovered the importance of a strong national defense? Congressional Democrats, led by the naval hero of Chappaquiddick, Sen. Ted Kennedy (guess which state enjoys especially lucrative F-22 sub-contracts?).

This is a disgrace beyond measure. Sure, a mere $350 million each for fighters that don’t work doesn’t sound like much these days — hardly enough for a Starbucks tip on Capitol Hill.

And yes, our troops deserve the best. But the F-22 isn’t the best, just the most expensive. The fundamental requirements for weapons should be that they work and fill a need. The F-22 flunks on both counts. This program is sheer theft.

For over a decade, I’ve warned in print that the F-22 was a scam. But whether or not the pen is mightier than the sword, it ain’t mightier than the pork barrel. You, the taxpayer, need to act. Contact your Congress member and tell him or her to support our troops and kill the F-22.

 

[gambit]

An accurate statement.

And I also said
<blockquote>F-22 was canned because the Pentagon could not justify the cost [...] US military already has enough F-22 that it does not need any more of these expensive birds.</blockquote>

F-22 was utterly useless in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Pentagon felt it already has enough of these aircract. That is why the Pentagon itself lobbied against the F-22. There was no point spending any more money on them.

If cost is not an issue and if there is a bullet that can turn corners and that the rifle cost one million each, have no doubts that every US Army and Marine general will want a rifle for each rifleman. The Pentagon is also an administrative body as well as the warmaking entity for the US military. It has to make balances in budget for different needs in different arenas of war. So the statement that the Pentagon lobbied 'against' the F-22 is a loaded one, wide open to intepretations, especially for any who are desperate to downplay US military might in any way. My ten-years in the USAF will attest that given a choice between the F-15 and the F-22, every pilot will pick the F-22, if cost is not an issue. So if you are going to make a claim against the F-22, leave Iraq and Afghanistan out of it. They are different war environments and would have different warmaking needs.

 

[gambit]

It is amazing how many really fear the F-22. You can see it in all their posts against it. I think what really has them up in arms is the U.S. already has operational squadrons of them. And with the F-35 getting ready to ramp up full scale production. It leaves Americas traditional opposition scratching their heads wondering what they can do to counter them with the little money they have to budget. Already Russia seems to be scrapping the PAK-FA in favor of the Su-35. And they still are not close to full scale production of that.

You got that right....Look at that drivel about what a failure the aircraft supposedly really is.

 

[aimarraul]

It is amazing how many really fear the F-22. You can see it in all their posts against it. I think what really has them up in arms is the U.S. already has operational squadrons of them. And with the F-35 getting ready to ramp up full scale production. It leaves Americas traditional opposition scratching their heads wondering what they can do to counter them with the little money they have to budget. Already Russia seems to be scrapping the PAK-FA in favor of the Su-35. And they still are not close to full scale production of that.

many countries fear the price more than itself.....it's the right call to close the line,there is no chance for any stealth aircraft to challenge f-22 in the next 20 years,US need to focus on the resession,you guys drag the world into hell, you should take the responsibility to heal the world.....

 

[gambit]

many countries fear the price more than itself.....it's the right call to close the line,there is no chance for any stealth aircraft to challenge f-22 in the next 20 years,US need to focus on the resession,you guys drag the world into hell, you should take the responsibility to heal the world.....

Typical victim mentality. Who put the gun to China's head to become our manufacturing lackey? Did Intel blackmailed China's Politburo so a multibillion fab could be built there?

 

[aimarraul]

Typical victim mentality. Who put the gun to China's head to become our manufacturing lackey? Did Intel blackmailed China's Politburo so a multibillion fab could be built there?

be careful with your words,china exports for our own interest instead of being someone's lackey,so does US,why is the host always come to china bugging for "more treasury" if your backbone is that straight&#65292;we also import 84B$ your products last year , should i call you the lackey of china's market?

 

[gambit]

be careful with your words,china exports for our own interest instead of being someone's lackey,so does US,why is the host always come to china bugging for "more treasury" if your backbone is that straight&#65292;we also import 84B$ your products last year , should i call you the lackey of china's market?

Here is a short lesson on trade...

Trade is a privilege, not a right. Trade is a right only in the context that I have a right to propose trade with you, but I do not have the right to compel you to accept my terms. Anything more and the trade agreement is an immoral one. The reciprocal applies.

At the turn of the 20th century, the US had an immigration policy that ended up with a large manpower pool. The US eventually displaced Great Britain as the world's manufacturing center with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. China is in a very similar situation to the US prior to the Great Depression also with a large manpower pool with nothing to do. So when China decided to commit economic perestroika the US offer ourselves as China's largest trading partner and also the quickest path to prosperity.

With every mutual agreement comes risks. US companies have no guarantees that China's corrupt and despotic communist government would not steal their investments, intellectual properties and rights, and assets built with their monies. China have no guarantees the American economy will remain stable as China have no controls over how we run our economy. No economy is static, except communist economies, which are perpetually depressed anyway. In every contract, the more involved the parties, greater the benefits, and naturally the greater the consequences of risks, should those risks are realized. The American and Chinese governments are fully aware of that principle. If we fall, so will China. You think China can export the same amount of goods to Somalia as can to the US?

The lesson for you whiners whose countries WILLINGLY deal with US is that the more you whine about your victimhood, the more thinking people will see your countries for what you are -- whiners.