Raptor in RAF service
- Thread starter abc123
- Start date
Zero probability event.
The Typhoon deal was made to prop up the aerospace industries of the four participating countries. No single country can even build the aircraft since major sub assemblies are only made in one of the four partners. They need to get 3/4 of the aircraft from the other partners so final assembly can be completed in the eventual home country. Sort of brilliant, if less than cost effective, since if one country decides it need more aircraft everyone get a bite of the apple.
Congress would never have allowed that. Not in a million years.
The Typhoon deal was made to prop up the aerospace industries of the four participating countries. No single country can even build the aircraft since major sub assemblies are only made in one of the four partners. They need to get 3/4 of the aircraft from the other partners so final assembly can be completed in the eventual home country. Sort of brilliant, if less than cost effective, since if one country decides it need more aircraft everyone get a bite of the apple.
Congress would never have allowed that. Not in a million years.
I was going to say if Israel, Australia and Japan who had all voiced at least interest in the F22 at some point (I think anyway) didn't get it why would the UK? Not too mention the core point that Calbear brought up, ie supporting BAE, it's not like the US would have allowed assembly work in the UK...
Look at all the blocks Lockheed-Martin tried to impose on technology transfer for the F35 and we are official partners in that programme (albeit initially with Boeing ). No way would the UK be allowed to produce ANY of the F22 (and the MOD would insist on that)!
Saphroneth
Banned
Hm... what about if the USAF goes with the F-23 instead of the -22, and the EU decides to buy the losing design? Is that even doable?
The EU? The EU doesn't have any joined up procurement, certainly not up to that level, and even if they did the US still wouldn't allow such high end tech being built in the EU. Hell I'd bet the EU defence companies would be demanding that any such 5th gen fighter be EU based.
Buying the F-22 kills the UK's aerospace industry (the military side of it at least) and, given the eye watering price of the F-22, probably leaves the UK with a very small number of high end air superiority fighters when what it needs is a decent number of multi-role fighters (not that I think we have enough Typhoon either, but we've got more of them than we'd ever have had of F-22).
With the budgets the UK's MOD has had over the last 20 years there just isn't a chance of the UK ever getting F-22.
With the budgets the UK's MOD has had over the last 20 years there just isn't a chance of the UK ever getting F-22.
The cost of the F-22 was/is rather steep.
However, I think the major problem is the technology within the project.
I have always seen the F-22 as more of a 'technology demonstrator' rather than a viable option. I do know it is flying and doing a great job, but it still loks too much of a once-off. Like the Bugatti - it is possible to build a car with 1,000 horsepower. And now for the family car.
The technology (parts of it) can be seen in the F-35, which at least is a platform and can attract sale.
According to Wiki the fly-away costs are:
F-22: $150
Typhoon: Euro 90
F-35: $150.
HOWEVER, the final tally for F-35 is not in yet.
I believe that F-35 will be so expensive that UK will only be able to one which will alternate between the two carriers and Denmark and Norway will share one on a six-month rotating basis.
Ivan
However, I think the major problem is the technology within the project.
I have always seen the F-22 as more of a 'technology demonstrator' rather than a viable option. I do know it is flying and doing a great job, but it still loks too much of a once-off. Like the Bugatti - it is possible to build a car with 1,000 horsepower. And now for the family car.
The technology (parts of it) can be seen in the F-35, which at least is a platform and can attract sale.
According to Wiki the fly-away costs are:
F-22: $150
Typhoon: Euro 90
F-35: $150.
HOWEVER, the final tally for F-35 is not in yet.
I believe that F-35 will be so expensive that UK will only be able to one which will alternate between the two carriers and Denmark and Norway will share one on a six-month rotating basis.
Ivan
Interesting isn't it.
The F22 is the finest Jet fighter built to date and the worst managed project and worst example of protectionism that I think we will ever see in out life times.
I mean construction was spread over 48 states or some thing like that to ensure that every one in Congress could point to it with pride.
No wonder costs rocketed
This from the same nation that produced the F15 and F16!!
Ann Rand would turn in her grave - what ever happened to capitalism eh?
As for the F35 given the numbers built cost is going to be high but its the cost over lifetime of the fleet that should be looked at - leave the Cost per unit nonsense to newspapers and opposition politicians .
The F35 has a lot of issues, it is not a really a fighter more of a light bomber with self-protection capability. It is only stealthy from the front and only marginally so from other directions, it has a very limited G envelope with 5g for the A and 4.5g for the B. It can't supercruise and has only a 2000 lb internal bomb load, its range keeps going down and its weight keep going up.
Personally I think an appropriate name for it in RAF service would be the Battle as it is likely to have similar loss rates and survivability to it's predecessor.
Personally I think an appropriate name for it in RAF service would be the Battle as it is likely to have similar loss rates and survivability to it's predecessor.
An associate of mine used to fly F-22. According to her, it is the most fantastic experience but not so easy a jet to master. It is crammed with technology.
Did F-22 become more of a 'technology demonstrator' than a viable option?
I can easily see why Congress were reluctant to export it. If Japan had got into the F-22 programme (together with Israel?), it could have been the saving grace.
The F-35 project (in my humble opinion) is a disaster.
Badly managed and badly executed.
The software (written in ADA) is problematic.
The cost goes up and fewer and fewer countries can actually afford it.
Britain building two carriers in the hope that the carrier version is ready is just great. The closest alternative is to 'lease' some Rafale from France.
One wonders how a proud nation of F-15/F-16/F-18 can get into this?
The Boeing contender (F-32 the sailor inhalor) must have been designed to ensure that the enemy would die laughing rather than be blotted out of the sky.
The entire F-35 project shows (IMO) confusion in terms of the future of military aviation.
How many conventional jets are needed?
Who can afford to have the optimum number
what is the role of the drone in the future
who is to control and fly drones
are bombing missions to be undertaken
the role of the carrier (and carrier aviation)
The role of the USMC aviation
I am sure there are many other questions, but these seem not to be answered by the intentions of F-35.
The problem is also that the build-time is rather long.
How to build anything based on technology and requirements right now which can only be operational in 10-15 years? Not so easy
The same goes for Airbus A-380: Try to predict air travel 10 years into the future and put pen to paper now.
In a world where product development cycles are going down, we could be shooting ourselves in the foot with prolonging development cycles on key components in our society.
Maybe if we see Open Source software, use of standard components throughout, less 'one-off' engineering and design?
A world where development cycles can be reduced to 2-3 years (ASB?) by using more modern technology?
After all, ADA is a bit dated despite all its advantages. It was even around when I did Computer Science some many moons ago.
... But this is side-tracking the discussion for which I apologise.
Ivan
Did F-22 become more of a 'technology demonstrator' than a viable option?
I can easily see why Congress were reluctant to export it. If Japan had got into the F-22 programme (together with Israel?), it could have been the saving grace.
The F-35 project (in my humble opinion) is a disaster.
Badly managed and badly executed.
The software (written in ADA) is problematic.
The cost goes up and fewer and fewer countries can actually afford it.
Britain building two carriers in the hope that the carrier version is ready is just great. The closest alternative is to 'lease' some Rafale from France.
One wonders how a proud nation of F-15/F-16/F-18 can get into this?
The Boeing contender (F-32 the sailor inhalor) must have been designed to ensure that the enemy would die laughing rather than be blotted out of the sky.
The entire F-35 project shows (IMO) confusion in terms of the future of military aviation.
How many conventional jets are needed?
Who can afford to have the optimum number
what is the role of the drone in the future
who is to control and fly drones
are bombing missions to be undertaken
the role of the carrier (and carrier aviation)
The role of the USMC aviation
I am sure there are many other questions, but these seem not to be answered by the intentions of F-35.
The problem is also that the build-time is rather long.
How to build anything based on technology and requirements right now which can only be operational in 10-15 years? Not so easy
The same goes for Airbus A-380: Try to predict air travel 10 years into the future and put pen to paper now.
In a world where product development cycles are going down, we could be shooting ourselves in the foot with prolonging development cycles on key components in our society.
Maybe if we see Open Source software, use of standard components throughout, less 'one-off' engineering and design?
A world where development cycles can be reduced to 2-3 years (ASB?) by using more modern technology?
After all, ADA is a bit dated despite all its advantages. It was even around when I did Computer Science some many moons ago.
... But this is side-tracking the discussion for which I apologise.
Ivan
deathscompanion1
Banned
If Israel gets it Russia and China gets the good parts within a year because the Israelis are only too happy to sell on any know how the Americans give them to the highest bidder so that's out.
The Japanese don't really have a need for the F-22 and the RAF probably can't afford the F-22 and its inherent focus on air superiority given that as it is the treasury insists on a smaller and smaller aircraft fleet.
The Japanese don't really have a need for the F-22 and the RAF probably can't afford the F-22 and its inherent focus on air superiority given that as it is the treasury insists on a smaller and smaller aircraft fleet.
abc123
Banned
I heard somewhere that the UK WAS offered by the USA ( somewhere in early 90s ) to take F-22 instead of Typhoon.
Would it be so hard to accept that BAE could take the role of Boeing and cooperate with LM in production of British planes. After all, if the price per unit is say 180 mil. USD, and if Britain is obliged to pay significant part of development costs ( say 20% instead 5% as in F-35 project ), that would still give somewhere about 120 F-22 for the RAF for the same price ( about 32 bln. USD ) that went into EF project. Even if BAE isn't allowed to actualy produce some parts of the aircraft, it could assemble LM/Boeing produced parts...
Would it be so hard to accept that BAE could take the role of Boeing and cooperate with LM in production of British planes. After all, if the price per unit is say 180 mil. USD, and if Britain is obliged to pay significant part of development costs ( say 20% instead 5% as in F-35 project ), that would still give somewhere about 120 F-22 for the RAF for the same price ( about 32 bln. USD ) that went into EF project. Even if BAE isn't allowed to actualy produce some parts of the aircraft, it could assemble LM/Boeing produced parts...
I don't believe for a second that the MOD has had enough cash to buy 120 Raptors at any point in the last thirty years (unless they agree not to buy any other equipment at all). Especially not if we were paying into the development as well.
I believe £20bn is the total cost to the UK MOD for the entire project (ie through life costs like maintenance as well as buying the actual aircraft). Given that the same cost for a Raptor is anything up to $700m each depending which figures you believe that doesn't give the RAF anything like 120 F-22.
I believe £20bn is the total cost to the UK MOD for the entire project (ie through life costs like maintenance as well as buying the actual aircraft). Given that the same cost for a Raptor is anything up to $700m each depending which figures you believe that doesn't give the RAF anything like 120 F-22.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/860/860.pdf - link to the Parliamentary report on the Typhoon project
The total cost to the UK is £37bn of which £20bn comes from the MOD. Even if the entire £37bn was available to spend (and that's not guaranteed if it's not supporting UK industry) it's still only 50-ish F-22 and leaves the RAF with just the ageing Tornado fleet available for ground attack until the F-35 enters service at some point in the next millennium and possibly not enough fighters to fulfil the UK's defence needs.
abc123
Banned
So what, how long it took for Typhoon to get any meaningful air-to-ground capabilities? For now, only Paveway IV and it's 10+ years in service... ( SDB for Raptor suddenly seems a pretty good deal.
Ahn how only 50-ish when the cost is about 180 mil. USD per plane, you don't think that the UK would have to pay full price of development?
What hurt the F-22 was that the order kept getting cut. That spread the development costs over fewer and fewer aircraft. Had the original full order of 750 aircraft been procured the R&D cost per aircraft would have been ~$33M, with the entirely inadequate 183 final order the R&D cost is ~$153M per aircraft. The actual cost of building the aircraft is $138M, which isn't that far out of line when compared to the cost of the F-15K (essentially the current version of the F-15E) coming in at $100M or the Typhoon at $115M (at current exchange rate Euro
ollar of 1:1.27). Compared with the ever increasing cost of the F-35 $120M+ for the USAF version and climbing), the Raptor is a dead bargain. 750 F-22 vs 862 F-35 isn't even a question worth asking. The F-35 is this Generation's F/B-111, an aircraft designed to be a Swiss Army knife, when the USAF needs a Bowie Knife or a K-Bar. A Swiss Army knife is a more versatile tool, handy as all hell, but it isn't a K-Bar.
The cost of the plane is great, so long as you never plan on starting the engines, having them take off and fly anywhere, that kind of thing.
The real cost in an aircraft is in the maintenance and upgrades. The numbers I've seen for F-22 get as high as $700m through life cost each.
abc123
Banned
What hurt the F-22 was that the order kept getting cut. That spread the development costs over fewer and fewer aircraft. Had the original full order of 750 aircraft been procured the R&D cost per aircraft would have been ~$33M, with the entirely inadequate 183 final order the R&D cost is ~$153M per aircraft. The actual cost of building the aircraft is $138M, which isn't that far out of line when compared to the cost of the F-15K (essentially the current version of the F-15E) coming in at $100M or the Typhoon at $115M (at current exchange rate Euro
Compared with the ever increasing cost of the F-35 $120M+ for the USAF version and climbing), the Raptor is a dead bargain. 750 F-22 vs 862 F-35 isn't even a question worth asking. The F-35 is this Generation's F/B-111, an aircraft designed to be a Swiss Army knife, when the USAF needs a Bowie Knife or a K-Bar. A Swiss Army knife is a more versatile tool, handy as all hell, but it isn't a K-Bar.
Agreed.......