USAF warms to the idea of an upgraded F-22 line.

a reply to: crazyewok

We're not talking about anywhere near the same costs though. The first 14 F-35s cost around $180M, with all the associated costs that come with them. The later orders will drop significantly as costs come down. Even if they allow foreign sales, you're probably still looking at over $200M per airframe, unless they build them in huge numbers. It will probably be higher than that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Expensive yes. But I’m sure we could afford a squadron or two at a push. The RAF is and for the last 100 years been the most vital part in UK defence. It should have the best.
If we spend less time with pointless military adventurism we could spend that money on our actual defence.
Iraq and Afganiastan between them may have cost the UK £29 Billion, That could have brought a few more type 45 destroyers (rather than the measly 6) and had change left over to equip the RAF with the very best in aircraft.
God only knows what money the UK wasted screwing up Libya too......

a reply to: crazyewok


I still wouldn't discount the F-35 and EF package. F-35 brings the numbers way down BVR and the EF is a match for Russian platforms WVR. (With F-35s assisting the EFs.)

I'd say that's the second best package anywhere in the world...

a reply to: nwtrucker
O dont worry I dont.

Zaph and a few other have made it very clear there are classified roles its designed for that it excels beyond even the F-22.

It will be a invaluable part of the Royal Navy and RAF im sure.

But in my opinion the RAF need to be versatile and that means not putting all its eggs in one basket
Id rather see it have a selection of the best tools rather than one best tool.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You do know that they make Cadillacs in more places than America, right? GM Europe? OPEL, Germany? Ford is the same way. There's no reason to believe that the taxpayer "wouldn't stand for two 6th gens." The overall opinion of the American public is very favorable towards the military. Surprisingly people love the Army the most. Either way there is no reason to believe that the military-industrial complex would slow down, the global climate isn't peace and love 1994 anymore.


So you think that they'll(taxpayers, congress) pony up for once space borne weapon but not aircraft that are tangible and more reliable? The same people that won't let the A-10 die because it's so loved by troops and the masses? You've got to spend money to make money. I agree with Zaphod on the space borne weapons as well. There is a reason that they're not already overhead, they're easy to track and would be relatively easy for China or Russia to take down. You don't even have to be accurate to kill a satellite, just put enough trash in its path.


I honestly don't think the F-22 coming back would hurt really any future programs. Congress is very committed on both sides of the aisle to the military and national defense. They have to be, the climate is not good globally.

a reply to: Caughtlurking


Yes, that's true there are plants outside the U.S.. The continuance of it and the further drain is the point. Less revenue, less taxes. OPEL? Please! When have you seen an OPEL built outside the U.S. IN the U.S.? Fords Likewise, built for a European market. A Mexican plant would have the intended market the U.S.. That would be a first! Likewise the Cadillac plant in China, intended delivery to the U.S. market....A first.

The economy is shrinking. Fact. Military spending, shrinking, Fact.

Multi-Trillion dollar dual 6th gen development? It more than crosses the line. It is a political time bomb.


Yet, you may be right. In that case, might as well do the F-22 line AND the two 6th Gens...why screw around?......

a reply to: nwtrucker

How did you come up with "multi-trillion dollar development"? No program has ever even come close to a $1T development, let alone multiple, and this won't be the first.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Really? how much has been spent of the F-35....so far, both development and bugs? Then add in the actually production costs. The total spent will approach the Trillion dollar amount before it's done.

Now a 6th gen? No reason to believe, it won't be a significant jump in cost over the F-35 as well, following the trend. Then add in a second 6th gen development concurrently?

In the 'area code' of trillions is more than reasonable....

a reply to: nwtrucker

The total cost of the F-35, counting 60 years of operations will be $1.124T. Current acquisition costs stand at $379B in 2014 dollars. Total costs for the acquisition and development are dropping every year, even with the problems that have occurred.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The economy is shrinking. Fact.

cite? The economy is on target to grow 2.5% in the US this year. The economy is significantly bigger than it was during the Reagan build up.

Additionally, we are about to go through an economic transformation over the next 5 years that will given you whiplash. And it favors the US over China in a huge way.

Military spending, shrinking, Fact.

This is artificially and politically driven. As soon as we wanted to, we could increase military spending.

a reply to: anzha


If you believe this economy is growing by a 2.5% rate, you must live in a military environment! Bull! I can't be bothered searching for all the job cuts in the last six months to a year, from the oil industry, from retail outlets-the lousy jobs-, Boeing announcing a 10% cut in jobs....after announcing building a plant in China. On and on.

You are already aware of these 'items' or you need to take a long hard look at who is supplying these 'rosy' growth numbers. About as believable as the unemployment numbers...

Economic transformation is already occurring...Nothing favoring the U.S. in any way. YOU cite, thank you very much.( unless your talking a major war, that is....)

Of course, the shrinking of military expenditures
is political, nothing artificial about it...that implies the opposite exists...'natural'?? Yeah right.

No, economics has nothing to do with it whatsoever.....REALLY? Then why is Zaphod58 concerned that the support platforms won't be addressed if 'economics' isn't a consideration?


No, go ahead, build 'em both....or not...whatever.

Thing is will they redesign the F22 to use todays tech (silky smooth stealth skins),updated aerodynamics (SCAMP),newer engines (SABRE dirirative) newer cockpit and advanced avionics?
With the cost cutting they did on the F35 program in part redesign and remanufacturing I could see it as a win.
With the Jigs for airframe layup still existing and forms for frame pressings and deep drawing plus spares in stock well things will go smoother this time around..

a reply to: nwtrucker


You should research the bloodline of the Cadillac ATS. It may have some former plane-maker in it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

First off, breathe.

Secondly, you are subscribing motivations and whatnot to me that I do not have. I am not trying to work you up. We obviously work in different parts of the economy since when someone in my line of work asks for a cite it means they don't believe but can be convinced if the data is there. I don't believe you about the economy, but I can be convinced. What you are giving me is anecdotal evidence, not a cite.

Thirdly, I work in Silicon Valley. I am a member of the tech-set, so, yeah, to me the economy is humming along quite well: we're near the peak of another cycle here, but we're not yet popping. On the macro level it seems to be as well. However, I live in one part and I do not get a chance to walk the ground, so to speak, elsewhere. So. Here's your chance. Prove it, but not just by stating things. Show me the data.

Fourth, the economic transformation coming is what I call the Robopocalypse. Those self driving vehicles, the automated restaurants, etc, all benefit nations that have wealth already. Not the rising nations. And that includes China. That ESPECIALLY hits China hard. We won't need them for the manufacturing any more. Period. Think about that. This is happening over the next 5 years. AND China is getting old. Boom.

Finally, Zaph is rightly worried because Congress and the services are screwing up. I have bemoaned this as well. Its less about money than everyone keeps screwing around with what they have. While I deeply appreciate the F-35, do we really need a *2500* person program office? That's ~$200M per year as a guessimate (how far am I off, Zaph?). To be honest, that's an order of magnitude more than *I* think it needs. How much was and is wasted on ridiculous development? These absurd programs that get going and get, frankly insane. The army's FCS anyone? There are also tons of silly and absurd non development expenses as well. Had Rumsfeld decided he was going to transform the army by using self driving trucks for logistics, he'd have suceeded and radically changed how personnel are allocated. Or let's point out the Guard vs Regular forces stupid bun fights that cause more expenses.

As a percentage of the economy, the military is far less than during the Cold War. We probably will not return to that level, but we could. If we so chose. Then god help the world if we did.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: nwtrucker
While I deeply appreciate the F-35, do we really need a *2500* person program office? That's ~$200M per year as a guessimate (how far am I off, Zaph?). To be honest, that's an order of magnitude more than *I* think it needs. How much was and is wasted on ridiculous development?

It's at 2600 and $70M for the program office for the current FY.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Much less than I thought. I stand corrected.

a reply to: anzha

It's well over what you said total, that's just the current FY, after they've solved a lot of the problems. So you weren't far off.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was thinking annually. That number is a bit odd, if there are 2600 people that means they are making an average of $27k each? uh.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

The total cost of the F-35, counting 60 years of operations will be $1.124T. Current acquisition costs stand at $379B in 2014 dollars. Total costs for the acquisition and development are dropping every year, even with the problems that have occurred.

I also want to point out that this figure is in then-year dollars, not todays dollars.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: nwtrucker

Finally, Zaph is rightly worried because Congress and the services are screwing up. I have bemoaned this as well. Its less about money than everyone keeps screwing around with what they have. While I deeply appreciate the F-35, do we really need a *2500* person program office? That's ~$200M per year as a guessimate (how far am I off, Zaph?). To be honest, that's an order of magnitude more than *I* think it needs. How much was and is wasted on ridiculous development? These absurd programs that get going and get, frankly insane.

An honest question.

Do you know what a Project Office entails?

a reply to: anzha

Thank you for your reply. It helps a lot....

What you call anecdotal, I label empirical with a touch of intuitive. I am 65 years old. I have a hard time with a keyboard, never mind computer acumen. (What I can spell cursively without a second thought draws a complete blank when addressing the 'evil' keys.. It's as if the program via muscle memory/cursive is a completely different 'language' than the 'program' for keyboards.

The data is out there. As you cite the percentile of the GPD spent on the military has dropped. Over 10% during the Eisenhower era to around 3.5% with the current cut-backs.

The data I refer to is manufacturing percentiles. High water mark 50% of the world's manufacturing by 2% of it's population. I don't know the current numbers, off the top.

I 'suspect' it's your rosy future you see from the 'silicon valley' frame of reference that gives you no particular motivation to look a bit deeper into the overall picture.

For example, you cite 'robopocalypse' and automated vehicles and the like. (I'd like Zaphod's input on this as he is also, currently, driving truck). When it comes to vehicles, I have deep, DEEP reservations as to this working-unless the processing abilities far, far beyond anything that I know about- as there are just too many variables involved.

Your Rumsfeld comment is even worse. Add in the variables of combat on top of the norm and there was no way that would have worked in his era. Or likely even now.


(I am currently working on a training course for drivers of cars, etc. that makes anything current look like 'middle ages' technology, this has been ongoing for years, so I have delved deeper into the subject than anyone I know or have heard about). In an ad-hoc, broad-stroke response, driving by the current population is a combination of 'auto-pilot' and intuitive/instinct. This is combined with a gradual increase of 'experience' offset by a equally gradual decrease in mental and physical ability.

Having said that, let's assume this works. My first and immediate rebuttal is where are these vehicles and other manufactured 'robots' going to be made?? The answer is NOT the U.S. if the plants for making them are already out of the country.....or current U.S. manufacturers, like Ford or G.M. move current plants outside the U.S....or Boeing...the BASTARDS...all of them.

So your projected boom is restricted to 'silicon valley'. You have your comfort zone. Totally understandable. The average guy out here has had their comfort zones eroded, if not completely wiped-out. The 'big picture' is hitting them in the face.

To be utterly frank, neither the 6th gen nor the restart of the F-22 line is even going to occur. Both are far enough down the road that unless there is massive changes where this country is going there may not even be anything remotely left to call an economy, never mind the finances required for either.