F-22 will see no more orders, VH-71 cancelled

[KrazyHorse]

What does the cost have to do with the capabilities?

What doesn't it?

How do you measure the scale of capabilities? It's by asking what else you could have gotten for that money. If it fills a niche that's critical then you buy it. If it doesn't then you buy more of something else. The higher the fixed cost per unit compared relative to marginal cost per-unit the more special the thing needs to be.

Right now, 180 planes looks like a penis-measuring competition. If they were awesome enough that buying 180 planes at 400 million dollars a pop is a good idea then I'm pretty sure that buying some more of them at 200 million dollars each would also be a good idea.

[KrazyHorse]

Couldn't they have just not predicted the future right?

They were originally planning to build 740 of them. We no longer need that many, so they are building less.

I would actually agree that we probably could just produce more F-35s (we can build 2 for every 1 F-22 at the cost they are talking about) rather than have built any F-22s. However, since we have them we should use them.

JM

And if they'd never started the F22 program at all then they could have built 4 F35s for every F22 they're going to get.

While some of the money of the F22 program was already in by 1991 (say), most of the development money came afterward. My guess is that the procurement process has a life of its own. Once the money is approved for development it never gets taken away.

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, that is true in science as well.

JM

[Patroklos]

What doesn't it?

How do you measure the scale of capabilities? It's by asking what else you could have gotten for that money. If it fills a niche that's critical then you buy it. If it doesn't then you buy more of something else. The higher the fixed cost per unit compared relative to marginal cost per-unit the more special the thing needs to be.

Hind sight is 20/20.

Thats all well and good, but that does not justify the comment that they "are not that different." They are wildly different, some simply do not think the need justifies the cost.

As it is we do need air superiority fighters, and the only one available for purchase (domestically at least) is the F22. Is that perhaps a ****ty choice given todays theats? Maybe.

If we could go back in time and do an upgrade of the F-15D or maybe just scale back the F-22 I'd be all about it. As it is I am pretty sure that designing any replacement from scratch or even redesigning the F-15D at theis point will cost far more than just purchasing F-22s.

Right now, 180 planes looks like a penis-measuring competition. If they were awesome enough that buying 180 planes at 400 million dollars a pop is a good idea then I'm pretty sure that buying some more of them at 200 million dollars each would also be a good idea.

You and I both know that whether it is a good idea cost to capability wise is not the whole story as far as funding this program goes. It has been a symbol of government spending for the better part of two decades, and it is obviously being sacrificed in part in order to grand stand.

I would actually agree that we probably could just produce more F-35s (we can build 2 for every 1 F-22 at the cost they are talking about) rather than have built any F-22s. However, since we have them we should use them.

Which isn't a cost savings, F-22s will eat F-35s for lunch. Typhoons are more than a match against the F-35. The F-35 is simply designed to do something else.

And if they'd never started the F22 program at all then they could have built 4 F35s for every F22 they're going to get.

While some of the money of the F22 program was already in by 1991 (say), most of the development money came afterward. My guess is that the procurement process has a life of its own. Once the money is approved for development it never gets taken away.

What does that have to do with whether or not we procure it now? Those dollars are spent, we are not going to get them back. We have the F-22 developed, we can't undevelope it for a refund. If I thought the F-22 didn't fullfill a needed role I would say drop it regardless of the sunk cost, but it does and buying them now is cheaper the alternatives.

[KrazyHorse]

Hind sight is 20/20.

Dude, if you can't apply forward sight in 1991 when the USSR is belly up and the US is roaming the globe as an unfettered hyperpower then you're blind

Thats all well and good, but that does not justify the comment that they "are not that different." They are wildly different, some simply do not think the need justifies the cost.

There is no absolute scale of how "different" their capabilities are. That's a cognitive error. The only scale you can use is the benefit compared to the benefit of simply buying more of other things. To know what this scale is you have to know the relative costs of things.

As it is we do need air superiority fighters

Really? What threats are countered by having 180 F22s which would not be countered by having 700 (or more!) more F35s? If you can point to such a threat, would this threat be countered better by having x more F22s and 2x less F35s? There's a giant gap between the average and the marginal cost per unit right now. That gap is indicative of a procurement process gone horribly wrong.

As it is I am pretty sure that designing any replacement from scratch or even redesigning the F-15D at theis point will cost far more than just purchasing F-22s.

This is the point! The marginal cost per unit is LOW (compared to development cost), yet they're cutting off production at 180 planes? What a joke. Either the US needed an F22 or it did not. Right now what it got was most of the cost of the F22 with small benefits (due to the small number of planes)

You and I both know that whether it is a good idea cost to capability wise is not the whole story as far as funding this program goes. It has been a symbol of government spending for the better part of two decades, and it is obviously being sacrificed in part in order to grand stand.

?

Which isn't a cost savings, F-22s will eat F-35s for lunch.

Planning the next US Civil War?

Typhoons are more than a match against the F-35. The F-35 is simply designed to do something else.

Then the US is in trouble (assuming it wants to go to war against Europe). Because Typhoons are going to outnumber F22s by a large multiple. Which is my point. If 2400 F35s isn't an air superiority force then 180 F22s isn't either. **** or get off the pot.

What does that have to do with whether or not we procure it now? Those dollars are spent, we are not going to get them back.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding my point. The real stupidity lay in having two different fighters. Paying development costs twice is DUMB.

[Patroklos]

Dude, if you can't apply forward sight in 1991 when the USSR is belly up and the US is roaming the globe as an unfettered hyperpower then you're blind

It doesn't matter KH, the fact is they did fund it and we can only affect what is going to happen from this point on. I personally find the money funnelled into the F-22 to be wasteful (primarily because I think the contractors could have done it cheaper, but thats my own private war) but as of right now we do in fact have a production F-22.

There is no absolute scale of how "different" their capabilities are. That's a cognitive error. The only scale you can use is the benefit compared to the benefit of simply buying more of other things. To know what this scale is you have to know the relative costs of things.

KH, no matter what the costs are an F-22 can't carry a JDAM, and an F-35 will never have super cruise. We can argue the cost effectivness of paying for those capabilities based on expected threats, but the aircraft are, as a matter of physical reality, radically different designs.

Really? What threats are countered by having 180 F22s which would not be countered by having 700 (or more!) more F35s? If you can point to such a threat, would this threat be countered better by having x more F22s and 2x less F35s? There's a giant gap between the average and the marginal cost per unit right now. That gap is indicative of a procurement process gone horribly wrong.

China and Russia for one, our F-15 fleet is already at retirement age and the F-22 is the only air superiority aircraft available to us for replacements.

The current F-35 order is based on replacing specific legacy aircraft, increasing the number of F22s will not in any way lead to have 2x less F-35s. That is of course a result of the airframes in fact having radically different capabilities

Your cost analysis also doesn't take into acount training and maintaining 700 more pilots/ground crews and housing/maintaining 700 more airframes. Those are costs AFTER the mear unit purchase price. One of the basic tenent of the F-22 program was to build a plane easier to maintain than the legacy craft and effective enough to not require maintaining as many.

The F-35 is not and never will be a replacement for the F-22. No matter how many F-35s you buy there will be some sort capability shortfall. Brute numbers (a "capability" in and of itself) may negate that capability shortfall after a point but the original capability shortfall still exists, and god knows where that point is. I am also not sure why you think 3.8 JSFs is the same as one F22 in your cost analysis given the F-22 has shown itself capable of taking out a squadron of F-15s (purpose build air superiority fighters) by itself.

This is the point! The marginal cost per unit is LOW (compared to development cost), yet they're cutting off production at 180 planes? What a joke. Either the US needed an F22 or it did not. Right now what it got was most of the cost of the F22 with small benefits (due to the small number of planes)

I think we are misunderstanding each other, I WANT more F-22s, or rather whatever is the right number from a military perspective.

?

Every time anyone gets on their soap box about government spending the F-22 is always brought up (for good reason in some regards). People with no understanding of the military requirements one way of the other will applaud this as cutting "waste."

Planning the next US Civil War?

Just as a budgeting exercise. We are trying to figure out how many F-35s you need to equal and F-22 and decide if that is more cost effective, No? Its not really a fair comparison though, they are designed to do different things.

Then the US is in trouble (assuming it wants to go to war against Europe). Because Typhoons are going to outnumber F22s by a large multiple. Which is my point. If 2400 F35s isn't an air superiority force then 180 F22s isn't either. **** or get off the pot.

That depends on how many Typhoons they build. In any case, the F-35 is a multirole fighter so obviously it has robust air to air capabilities compared to legacy aircraft, just not all of them or as good of ones as the F-22 or Typhoon.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding my point. The real stupidity lay in having two different fighters. Paying development costs twice is DUMB.

You can't have air to air capabilities like the F-22 in the same airframe as a bomb truck like the F-35. The only way we are ever going to have a one airframe force is if we decide one of those types of missions does not require us to worry about it too much.

It would be nice if we could, sure, but the way public opinion works and how spoiled our politians/military is we will never make that choice. It will always go with the best of everything that is the best at everything until a grownup tells us no. Hell, that Rumsfeld comment and the outcry about it surely proved that.

In any case, we are argueing about nothing. It appears we both agree that the F-22 is cost effective just from this point forward.

[Asher]

Avro Arrow > F-22. Fact.

[KrazyHorse]

You can't have air to air capabilities like the F-22 in the same airframe as a bomb truck like the F-35.

My suspicion is that you can have ENOUGH of the F22's qualities that having MORE AIRFRAMES CARRYING THEM will make up the difference.

The cost in having two separate airframes is starting to get ludicrous. The point of your air superiority fighter should be to GAIN AIR SUPERIORITY. Whether you do this by having smaller numbers of more capable aircraft or larger numbers of less capable aircraft doesn't matter. I see no reason why the US couldn't have ended up with a single plane here. They went with the last generation's philosophy (F15/F16 split) without thinking how much bigger the development costs were going to be relative to the marginal unit cost than they were last time.

[Patroklos]

My suspicion is that you can have ENOUGH of the F22's qualities that having MORE AIRFRAMES CARRYING THEM will make up the difference.

Well sure, but that depends on your evaluation of the threats of course. I see what your saying, in a perfect world and all. Unfortunetly we only have the F-22 and the F-35 to work with.

The cost in having two separate airframes is starting to get ludicrous. The point of your air superiority fighter should be to GAIN AIR SUPERIORITY. Whether you do this by having smaller numbers of more capable aircraft or larger numbers of less capable aircraft doesn't matter. I see no reason why the US couldn't have ended up with a single plane here. They went with the last generation's philosophy (F15/F16 split) without thinking how much bigger the development costs were going to be relative to the marginal unit cost than they were last time.

Two airfames is actually a very large improvement. The F-22/F-35 is replacing A-10/F-4/F-111/F-16/F-15/AV-8B/F-18. Thats pretty significant, especially since we are experiancing somewhat of a capability gap right now as some of those are already retired and all of them are no longer being constucted.

You also have to factor in that in an age where a ambushed patrol and two deaths in Afghanistan is a worldwide reported event (usually as a massacre or significant defeat) the US doesn't have the luxury of having numerous less capable aircraft and just sucking up the casualties. I as a military member understand the gold plating problem, but it won't get fixed at the Pentegon until its fixed in Congress/White House/every citizens living room.

[Whoha]

KH, no matter what the costs are an F-22 can't carry a JDAM

I believe it can carry 2.

https://www.strategyworld.com/military_photos/military_photos_200572622.aspx

[Jon Miller]

I preferred our strategy in World War 2, where we built good tanks and lots of them... but they were cheap and the common strategy against a King Tiger was to use 5 of them.

JM

[Patroklos]

I preferred our strategy in World War 2, where we built good tanks and lots of them... but they were cheap and the common strategy against a King Tiger was to use 5 of them.

Our tanks were considered death traps in WWII until the Pershing. The reason we had to use five of them wasn't some novel strategy, it was a desperate attempt to overwhelm superior armor. Do you honestly see such a thing being a viable stategy in today's age?

I believe it can carry 2.

Let me correct myself. JDAM is just a navegation package you can attach to many bombs, more acruately the F-22 can only carry small diameter JDAM equiped bombs.

[Dr Strangelove]

Just our of curiosity, how difficult would it be to jam a Predator or Raptor drone? How difficult would it be for aircraft to shoot them down? IIRC they're not very fast. Even WW2 era planes could knock them out of the sky, and I don't think that currently they're equipped with defensive wepaons.

[Whoha]

Predators been shot down by small arms fire, I don't know about Reapers. Aircraft wouldn't have any trouble other than maybe overshooting them.

[Krill]

Q: How hard would it be to fit an AI into the drone?