Anshu Attri
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,218
- Likes
- 679
Actually, "cost performance" is a term used only for an end-of run production line. Which means, the cost per unit for F-35 (or any plane) will only be calculated once a significant number of them (say the first generation 200 planes) have been delivered. Once the production line moves onto the next model (gen 2 or B), then only you can look at the total cost and get a real number for the production run, per unit. Before that, everything is an "estimate". Obviously if it takes a $40 billion for R&D, $20 billion to setup production and $10 billion in material/ labor cost for the first 100 planes, then the cost/ unit may look like $700 million. However, since the first two are fixed costs and would not change (at least significantly), by the time the first 500 planes role out, the cost per plane will be $220 million. By the time the 1000th plane comes out, the cost per plane would be $160 million.@Badguy...
WTF.....do you know about the cost-performance ratio of the F-35 - it is barely starting its production with Flight testing still going on.
You guys really think that Lockheed is going to deliver a lemon to the USAF and the USN and the marines for over estimated $130 mil a piece.
And if Lockheed which has more stealth and 5th gen technologies experience than other fighter manufacturer in the world cant do it
- then who the hell is.
The Chinese with their clownish looking J-20 that looks like a front F-22 married to a transport plane(its freaking large) - are they going to create a 5th gen stealth plane for under 100 mil. These are the same guys who have been developing their own engine for 40 years now. but still somehow mysteriously have to buy Russian engines for the J-10.
Or are the Russians going to deliver a PAKFA at half the cost of the F-35. When PAKFA starts rolling off the assembly line, then lets talk about prices. Knowing the Russians - that number they quote today could change 3X by the time the plane rolls off the line.
We have no information to suggest the PAK-FA has better range than the F-22. Let alone "Twice" the range..........Sukhoi never quoted anything for the PAKFA. They have agreed that the airframe stealth for the PAKFA will be lesser than the F-22. But what if this mythical plasma stealth turns out to be true? Lot of ifs and buts until we see the final production model.
Are you serious???
The F-35's RCS is still more than the F-22s by a huge margin even if she has a better paint job. The F-35 isn't all aspect stealth either.
LOL Both are very close from the Frontal Aspect. While, the F-35 is somewhat less from the rear depending on the angle.
The F-22 and F-35 have a "lower" RCS than the PAK-FA.You have it the other way around. If the F-22 and F-35 have "superior" RCS, then the PAKFA is the better plane. RCS needs to be inferior.
LOL When has Russia ever been ahead of schedule or on cost!:pound:The MKI costs $45Million apiece and Su-35BM is expected to cost $60Million fly away. The PAKFA is expected to cost $100Million in today's prices which would be accurate considering the PAKFA program is ahead of schedule unlike the F-35 where final costs haven't even been decided.
Also, let's not forget the PAKFA and it's superior cousin FGFA will have full multirole capabilities at a far superior range(twice) which is currently lacking in the F-22As. So, more bang for the buck.
Actually, "cost performance" is a term used only for an end-of run production line. Which means, the cost per unit for F-35 (or any plane) will only be calculated once a significant number of them (say the first generation 200 planes) have been delivered. Once the production line moves onto the next model (gen 2 or B), then only you can look at the total cost and get a real number for the production run, per unit. Before that, everything is an "estimate". Obviously if it takes a $40 billion for R&D, $20 billion to setup production and $10 billion in material/ labor cost for the first 100 planes, then the cost/ unit may look like $700 million. However, since the first two are fixed costs and would not change (at least significantly), by the time the first 500 planes role out, the cost per plane will be $220 million. By the time the 1000th plane comes out, the cost per plane would be $160 million.
So, how may planes are on order is also a BIG factor for cost performance.
Really, Lockheed Martin is building the "best" fighter in the world bar none! As for cost it has little to do with LM and more with numbers. When the F-22 was in development over 600 Raptors were planned. Then the US Government cut the order to the 300's and finally "183". That said I believe the current price is around $133 Million Per Copy. On the otherhand Russia is already talking $100 Million for the PAK-FA. Which, they plan on constructing at least 500! So, by time the PAK-FA does enter service. It could easily be near the F-22.......(and more than the F-35)That will depended on many factors. Yet, it will easily be over 100 aircraft before we see a big impact.There are some 50 aircraft already built. The first full production version has been delivered. How many more need to be made before costs go down? 50 is more than a first lot for most other aircraft.
There isn't anything special about LockMart except a bloated bureaucracy that can't keep costs down.
who says that F-16 was built in thousands but its still fvcking expensive when it comes with the avionicsThe PAK-FA and J-20 are larger twin engined Fighters. That will be constructed in the hundreds. While, the F-35 is single engined and likely to be built in the thousands.........
In short the odds are the F-35 will be cheaper to produce and maintain than either the PAK-FA or J-20.
The F-22 is 10 times as stealthy as the F-35, USAF and LM officials have openly admitted the F-35 will not be as stealthy as the F-22. They want a cheap fighter which can be mass produced easily.LOL Both are very close from the Frontal Aspect. While, the F-35 is somewhat less from the rear depending on the angle.
The F-22, yes. The F-35, not necessary. The PAKFA is built for all aspect stealth with massive aerodynamic advantages.The F-22 and F-35 have a "lower" RCS than the PAK-FA.
Many times. And that's what they have announced with what is planned for the PAKFA including the engines.LOL When has Russia ever been ahead of schedule or on cost!
The F-22 carries 8.2 tons of fuel internally. The PAKFA T-50-1 the prototype carries 10.5 tons of fuel internally. Also the F-22 is draggy, quite a bit more than the Eagle. The PAKFA isn't meant to be a draggy airframe as told by Sukhoi engineers with it's higher focus on performance.We have no information to suggest the PAK-FA has better range than the F-22. Let alone "Twice" the range..........
Like I already said, the PAKFA will come with a lot of capability as compared to the F-22. This includes air to ground capability and net centric ops. The F-22 has little or no A2G capability and no net centric ops capability. By the time you get all that installed on the F-22 in the F-22MLU that's coming up, say hello to a meaningless budget.Really, Lockheed Martin is building the "best" fighter in the world bar none! As for cost it has little to do with LM and more with numbers. When the F-22 was in development over 600 Raptors were planned. Then the US Government cut the order to the 300's and finally "183". That said I believe the current price is around $133 Million Per Copy. On the otherhand Russia is already talking $100 Million for the PAK-FA. Which, they plan on constructing at least 500! So, by time the PAK-FA does enter service. It could easily be near the F-22.......(and more than the F-35)
I believe Lcokheed Martin has built over 4400 F-16's of all makes. Also, the price depends the model and options.who says that F-16 was built in thousands but its still fvcking expensive when it comes with the avionics
Your stretching the truth.........The F-22 is 10 times as stealthy as the F-35, USAF and LM officials have openly admitted the F-35 will not be as stealthy as the F-22. They want a cheap fighter which can be mass produced easily.
Quote:
"According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2."
Source:Global Security
Your dreaming.................The F-22, yes. The F-35, not necessary. The PAKFA is built for all aspect stealth with massive aerodynamic advantages.
Many times. And that's what they have announced with what is planned for the PAKFA including the engines.
LOL Now the PAK-FA has All Aspect Stealth! The F-22 and F-35 are VLO and the PAK-FA is LO....
The F-22 is draggy! LOL Man you need to go do some research and quit with such wild claims.The F-22 carries 8.2 tons of fuel internally. The PAKFA T-50-1 the prototype carries 10.5 tons of fuel internally. Also the F-22 is draggy, quite a bit more than the Eagle. The PAKFA isn't meant to be a draggy airframe as told by Sukhoi engineers with it's higher focus on performance.
It is true the PAK-FA will be more of a Multi Role Fighter than the F-22. Which, is primarily design for Air Superiority. Yet, it doesn't have to becuse that's the role of the F-35 is USAF Service.Like I already said, the PAKFA will come with a lot of capability as compared to the F-22. This includes air to ground capability and net centric ops. The F-22 has little or no A2G capability and no net centric ops capability. By the time you get all that installed on the F-22 in the F-22MLU that's coming up, say hello to a meaningless budget.
What makes you think that the F-35 with a single engine that was design to be cheaper to build, maintain, and operate than the F-22. Would have a price anything close to the F-22. Espcially, considering the Raptor will be built under 200 aircraft (i.e. 183). While, the F-35 will be made in the "thousands".......PLEASEThe F-16 and SH with AESA are over $100Million. What makes you think the F-35 will be any cheaper? The Raptor at $133Million is comparatively cheaper because of it's lack of multirole capability. You will be lucky to upgrade the F-22 with a $60Million budget per aircraft. Heck it is costing us $40Million/jet just to get our old Mirages to 2005 standards.
Looking at the way costs are shooting up for F-35, from $60Million as of 2001 to $110Million as of 2009 and to $xxxMillion as of 2011 to $XXXMillion as of 2014, well......best of luck.
Do you really want me to open up the cost escalation of Indian Military Programs! That said, the cost increases for the F-35 are way below many US Defense Programs. The critics just like to try to spin in their favor...
Sorry to dash your hopes, but that is not going to happen. Vadodra is a non-fighter base and IAF has no plans in near future of deploy any fighters there as well.^^^ That would be great, as i live in Vadodara, i hope to get lucky sometime down the line to have seen the FGFA and the AMCA carrying out their routine sorties over the skies of Gujarat in future.
The F-35 has to be hand finished and cost $220million for the Naval version plus $100million for the development cost.The F-22 is 10 times as stealthy as the F-35, USAF and LM officials have openly admitted the F-35 will not be as stealthy as the F-22. They want a cheap fighter which can be mass produced easily.
At present there are MiG-21s stationed at Vadodara, so you can't call it a non-fighter base, and regarding the excitement about able to spot a FGFA somewhere down the timeline, i was just responding to the post above my post which stated that Gujarat was going to get 5th Gen fighters at its bases, just that.Sorry to dash your hopes, but that is not going to happen. Vadodra is a non-fighter base and IAF has no plans in near future of deploy any fighters there as well.
Cheers
Shivendra