F-22 Priced at $290 Million Each for Japan

[Thomas]

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，we also import 84B$ your products last year , should i call you the lackey of china's market?

there is a saying "it is always better to use someone else's rather then your own money" China buys U.S. bonds becuase it see's an opportunity to make money. Hmm, that should have Marx, Lenin, and Mao rolling in their graves. European banks bought U.S. derivative loans becuase it saw a way to make big money. China's investments in U.S. bonds which is around 772 billion dollars is a very large chunk of China's GDP. But consider that China's GDP of 4.3 trillion dollars is a little less then 25% of the U.S. GDP of 18 trillion.

Personally I think the world is heading for a even bigger economic melt down in the future. all that's being done right now is simply putting a bandage on the economic problems of the world. That wont stop Military spending though. Since so many countries strive to have parity with the U.S. on the battlefield. But hey that's just my opinion.

 

[aimarraul]

give me a break ,you two,you are using your grandson' money,when is your GDP jump to 18 trillion........you should check how much debt behind US’s back,stop fooling yourself,china's GDP is 4.3trillion because CPC is still controlling the exchange rate,and you can't force us to screw our economic like you did to Japan in the 1990s , our exchange rate will give you a surprise when you lost your technology position

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

give me a break ,you two,you are using your grandson' money,when is your GDP jump to 18 trillion........you should check how much debt behind US’s back,stop fooling yourself,china's GDP is 4.3trillion because CPC is still controlling the exchange rate,and you can't force us to screw our economic like you did to Japan in the 1990s , our exchange rate will give you a surprise when you lost your technological position

".........screw out economic like you did to Japan in the 1990s........." Not many people are aware of this truth, even Japanese who believed America 'helped' them (but in reality HURT them).

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

Deleted by SIF

 

[Thomas]

give me a break ,you two,you are using your grandson' money,when is your GDP jump to 18 trillion........you should check how much debt behind US’s back,stop fooling yourself,china's GDP is 4.3trillion because CPC is still controlling the exchange rate,and you can't force us to screw our economic like you did to Japan in the 1990s , our exchange rate will give you a surprise when you lost your technology position

China deliberately undervalues its currency to keep the value artificially low so it can boost exports and discourage imports. If the U.S. did the same thing can you imagine the screaming that would be taking place from China or Europe? And dream on if you think you will over take the U.S. in the technology sector. So far China's main reputation around the world in this area is of software piracy, stolen trade secrets, and reverse engineered aircraft. Very little of it's own technical ingenuity.

 

[Patriot]

Clearly some people here are underestimating F-22.If you people think USAF will actually tell real truth about the performance and capabilities of F22 then you are kidding yourself.I am pretty sure USAF Is keeping some secrets.After all they spent well over 40 billion on R&D OF F22.It will dominate the skys for at least next 30-40 year.No plane will be able to match it.Keep in mind by the time other countries will get 5th Generation Fighter..F22 will be getting MLU.

 

[dbc]

".........screw out economic like you did to Japan in the 1990s........." Not many people are aware of this truth, even Japanese who believed America 'helped' them (but in reality HURT them).

@SinoIndusFriendship
Care to elaborate? Please do so by creating a new thread, I do not wish to derail this one.
Thank you.

 

[Tang0]

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.

Although ancillary to the conversation at hand, I would like to point out a few things:

XM29 OICW - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Land Warrior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both programs that showcased promising technologies, that both went nowhere. (Although LandWarrior is not officially dead yet, it is getting there mighty fast) The M16 hasn't changed much since the A1 days outside of optics. The Army and particularly the Marines are very reluctant to accept "High Tech" solutions to problems unless they bear fruit very quickly.

To make my point about the Marines:
AAVP7A1

Cranky diesel engine beasts designed in the early 80's utilizing primarily 70's Vietnam era technology. (No offense intended to the F-111 tech )

If tomorrow a rifle came out that shot bullets that could turn corners and cost $50,000, I think you might have a lot of convincing to do before the Army or Marines adopted it for every soldier, given the current budget and a grunts well evolved distrust for anything vulnerable to dust or that requires batteries.

It is a cultural difference, Air Force generals are generally former pilots, who are used to cushy seats and devoted ground crews. Army and Marine generals are generally from the ground combat arms, used to unheated MRE's and fleas. They are less likely to have degrees in science and engineering than in the humanities and business. What a grunt gets, he has to be able to maintain himself, and haul around himself. The Army and Marines don't like to use their battle-space as a place for technology to mature. No grunt on the ground is going to devote time to mastering a new unproven technique if he knows the old ones work well enough.

The Army's New Land Warrior Gear: Why Soldiers Don't Like It - Popular Mechanics

The Marines still use cobras and hueys.

Given the history of the Air Force, they recognize the necessity of using the battle space as a technological proving ground. They also recognize that many technologies are built on the bodies of dead test pilots. The Army and Marines are much more technologically risk adverse.

 

[Thomas]

Although ancillary to the conversation at hand, I would like to point out a few things:

XM29 OICW - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Land Warrior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both programs that showcased promising technologies, that both went nowhere. (Although LandWarrior is not officially dead yet, it is getting there mighty fast) The M16 hasn't changed much since the A1 days outside of optics. The Army and particularly the Marines are very reluctant to accept "High Tech" solutions to problems unless they bear fruit very quickly.

To make my point about the Marines:
AAVP7A1

Cranky diesel engine beasts designed in the early 80's utilizing primarily 70's Vietnam era technology. (No offense intended to the F-111 tech )

If tomorrow a rifle came out that shot bullets that could turn corners and cost $50,000, I think you might have a lot of convincing to do before the Army or Marines adopted it for every soldier, given the current budget and a grunts well evolved distrust for anything vulnerable to dust or that requires batteries.

It is a cultural difference, Air Force generals are generally former pilots, who are used to cushy seats and devoted ground crews. Army and Marine generals are generally from the ground combat arms, used to unheated MRE's and fleas. They are less likely to have degrees in science and engineering than in the humanities and business. What a grunt gets, he has to be able to maintain himself, and haul around himself. The Army and Marines don't like to use their battle-space as a place for technology to mature. No grunt on the ground is going to devote time to mastering a new unproven technique if he knows the old ones work well enough.

The Army's New Land Warrior Gear: Why Soldiers Don't Like It - Popular Mechanics

The Marines still use cobras and hueys.

Given the history of the Air Force, they recognize the necessity of using the battle space as a technological proving ground. They also recognize that many technologies are built on the bodies of dead test pilots. The Army and Marines are much more technologically risk adverse.

the grenade launcher of the XM-29 was redesigned as an stand alone weapon XM-25 and changed to 25mm. It is now being given to several units for field testing.

as far as the marines are concerned their newest cobra version does bear more resemblance to the Apache in the technological area. Though outside it bears some resemblance to the original Cobra.

The AH-1Z incorporates new rotor technology with upgraded military avionics, weapons systems, and electro-optical sensors in an integrated weapons platform. It has improved survivability and can find targets at longer ranges and attack them with precision weapons.
An AH-1Z at an air show displaying four-blade rotors and longer stub wings.

The AH-1Z's new bearingless, hingeless rotor system has 75% fewer parts than that of four-bladed articulated systems. The blades are made of composites, which have an increased ballistic survivability, and there is a semiautomatic folding system for stowage aboard Amphibious assault ships. Its two redesigned wing stubs are longer, with each adding a wing-tip station for a missile such as the AIM-9 Sidewinder. Each wing has two other stations for 2.75-inch (70 mm) Hydra 70 rocket pods, or AGM-114 Hellfire quad missile launchers. The Longbow radar can also be mounted on a wing tip station.

The Z-model's integrated avionics system (IAS) has been developed by Northrop Grumman. The system include two mission computers and an automatic flight control system. Each crew station has two 8x6-inch multifunction liquid crystal displays (LCD) and one 4.2x4.2-inch dual function LCD display. The communications suite combines a US Navy RT-1824 integrated radio, UHF/VHF, COMSEC and modem in a single unit. The navigation suite includes an embedded GPS inertial navigation system (EGI), a digital map system and a low-airspeed air data subsystem, which allows weapons delivery when hovering.

The crew are equipped with the Thales "Top Owl" helmet-mounted sight and display system. The Top Owl has a 24-hour day/night capability and a binocular display with a 40° field of view. Its visor projection provides forward looking infrared (FLIR) or video imagery. The AH-1Z has survivability equipment including the Hover Infared Suppression System (HIRSS) to cover engine exhausts, countermeasure dispensers, radar warning, incoming/on-way missile warning and on-fuselage laserspot warning systems.

The Lockheed Martin target sight system (TSS) incorporates a third-generation FLIR sensor. The TSS provides target sighting in day, night or adverse weather conditions. The system has various view modes and can track with FLIR or by TV.

The marines harrier will be replaced shortly with the

The marine H-1 Huey is being upgraded as well

as far as the AAVP7A1 if something works and gets the job done....don't change it. there isn't a huge need to upgrade it. the money can be put to other places.

 

[HK-47]

While promulgating the point that the Arabs might go for nukes if Israel got the Raptor - you are forgetting the fact that the Arab countries neither have the capability or the technological know how to build a simple bomb let alone a nuke.

they don't build do they???They buy.and Oil won't be running out soon will it?
Edit~

Are you kidding?
The Arabs can't even design a simple building, let alone nukes.
They need to bring in Western architects, Korean builders, and Bangladeshi labor to build their skyscrapers.

The only thing the Arabs can do is to sign the paychecks.

the meaning of the post was how the balance of power(already in favour of Israel) would further tilt once the Raptors are introduced in the IDF.

Is it true the aircraft requires high maintenance hours?
30 hrs for every 1 hr of flight?

 

[gambit]

Is it true the aircraft requires high maintenance hours?
30 hrs for every 1 hr of flight?

Every new piece of machinary, military or civilian, require extraordinary attention in its initial deployment. The F-117 was no different. But once airborne, there is no doubt the F-117 made its mark in military aviation and compelled new thinking in trying to counter the new American technology. The F-22 is not the F-117. It is one generation of improvement and advances in technology. How much damage do you think the F-22 can do to the enemy's air force in that one hour of flight? Who today can churn out replacement aircrafts the way the US did back in WW II? No one. Losing a war is far costlier for the enemy than for US spending a lot of maintenance time on the aircraft that helped in the defeat of said enemy.