…..so a new bomber could live” So says Retired Air Force Cheif of Staff General Norton Schwartz-
Retired Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz has stated in his new memoir that F-22 production was idiotically axed after building less than half the required number so that the flying force could get then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to approve building a new stealth bomber.
This was typical democrat sponsored bait and switch tactics at play here.The Research and Developement cost of a new system like the F-22 is fixed.It doesn’t matter if we are building 10 or 10,000 the R&D costs are the same.However the larger the number of units produced is,the lower the cost per unit will be because the R&D buy in is spread out over a larger total.
What the dems do when they get in power,is reduce the total number of units,then complain bitterly about the new higher cost per unit before canceling the whole program.However the R&D cost is money already spent regardless of how few of something we buy.
I think we should restart the F-22 production with an eye on a 20% increase over the original 381 ship number.
Agreed.
Bump the quantities to between 500-600 units. That should be a precipitous drop in unit cost.
Yes,and another factor is lifespan once in service,the more aircraft of a given type in service the longer the fleet can be kept flying through attrition.A good example of this is the B-52 Bomber ,one reason we still have them flying today is because we had a large source of operational parts from the mothball yard because we made so many originally.
The C30 that went down was 50 years old. You don’t get that sort of longevity without plenty of spare parts.
Every now and then a design comes along that is just right at the time and gets built in big numbers – the F4 Phantom comes to mind, but they are rare today because costs are so high and development times have become many rather than a few years.
While the F22 is a clever bit of kit I struggle to see where the money goes in these military programs. The B52, magnificent design though it is, only remains in use because of the types of wars the US fights – you’d never fly it over anything with modern air defence in place.
Planes like the 22 are on the bleeding edge of technology.There are many things done on it,that were never attempted in the F-15/16/18 platforms.So a simple component upgrade means hashing out the details with the vendor for that componet which can take months,sometimes even years by the time it’s in the pipeline and approved for man rated flight.All of that R&D work costs and it all adds up.
The B-52 would not last very long over a defended area,but since it’s has been outfitted with standoff weapons systems it doesn’t necessarily have to be over target anymore either.The rotary cruise missile launchers are a good example of this,they provide an amount of firepower close to that of a modern Naval destroyer,but in a platfrom that can be on station in a matter of a few hours.
The B-52 when it first rolled off the line in 1956 cost $14.5million a copy,that would be $135million per copy today and we built 744 of them.
Personally I think we should make a major investment in space based weapons systems and make everything else,including nukes instantly obsolete.
Maybe big wars will become so expensive we will stop doing it.
I have always had the thought that at some point the human race will grow up and stop all the fighting.
Then the following week,ET will show up and by Friday we will be in mankinds first interstellar war LOL.
Trump’s Space Force?
“Personally I think we should make a major investment in space based weapons systems and make everything else,including nukes instantly obsolete.”
Although the clock could have already have run out on that one.
Somebody once said that “quantity has it’s own quality” and when it comes to weapons of war I agree with that.
American production won WW2 and it’s possible that Western production could win WW3.
Whatever we use needs to be relatively cheap and quick to manufacture in huge quantities.
The loss of a single F35 would be a significant blow, the loss of a 100 drones not so much.
Same for maritime defence. Carriers are now nothing more than a big fat target, the loss of just one would be a huge blow to morale.
“relatively cheap and quick to manufacture in huge quantities”
especially on bog standard machinery without specialist tooling, and from materials readily available in the country of manufacture (eg forget rare earth stuff that is only available from China).
Japan has just discovered huge reserves of rare earths, Yokel.
And “rare” earths aren’t rare at all,just cheaper to mine in China.
The US,Canada,Australia and some parts of western Europe all have significant deposits,we just don’t allow mining spoil to choke our rivers like the Chinese do…well unless it’s the EPA that does the choking that is.
“Do you care about freedom? Dreams may have inspired it, and wishes prompted it, but only war and weapons have made it yours.”
Robert Ardrey