Lockheed Cuts Price of Raptor.

Originally posted by Seekerof
The F-22 is not nor will it be available as an export item for quite a very long time.

Very few allies would even be considered to get it, fewer will be able to afford it.
Strictly a USAF aircraft for now.

True, but I see Israel and Japan at the front of the line when it becomes available.


Mod edit to remove Big-Quote violation

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by soulforge
True, but I see Israel and Japan at the front of the line when it becomes available.

Yeah right...US congress is still pissed at Isreal for there continual exporting American tech to China...Hence why they have been kicked out of the JSF program.

Mod edit to remove Big-Quote violation and there is no need to quote the entire post of one that is directly above yours.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Good point about the leaking tech that isreal has been caught doing as of late. you can count them out if things stay the same as they are now and no dire need arises. also this is a long shot but what if the US been talkin to canada to defend the airspace over the cap? i heard that they will be basing a group of 22's on a base in alaska but will the rest of the airspace be left to the CF's? if thats the case i can see that in either the 35's or in the far right field 22's being bought or put on to bases.

I doubt F-22's will be placed in Canada, unless the US was expecting a war with Russia...which isn't on this decades drawing board.

Whats your (Canadian) opinion about the Ballistic Missile Shield...since Canada wont put any on there country anymore.?

Originally posted by Seekerof
FredT, American Mad Man, and Astronomer68....

I can certainly understand that some may be taken back by the "price tag" of the Raptor at this current stage or block series, but lets put this in simple and realistic terms here for a moment, k? Bear with me.

Seek, I for one have never been surprised by the cost of the Raptor and remian one of its supporters despite its unit cost. Given all of its inherent advantages, it is really needed in the USAF inventory.

Originally posted by longbow

To the export possibilities - I think that Australia and Japan are the most likely candidates for Raptors, especially Australia needs plan with better range than JSF. Concerning the Raptor limited payload - well it's true it can carry only 2 1000lbs bombs internally, but there are also stealth underwing stores being developed (each can carry 5000lbs and Raptor has 4 of them). That means the Raptor could end being more versatile than JSF with "clean" internall load only configuration for AA combat and dangerous ground attack misions or be equipped with stealthy external stores for missions where more bombs are necessary and supercruise is not needed.

Australia would certainly like the "RAPTOR" because range,speed,two engines,weapons load.
Hopefully the FB-22 is created it would be a perfect replacement for the much loved F-111's.

I disagree

The FB-23 would be a better replacement for the good old `vark

Originally posted by Harlequin
I disagree

The FB-23 would be a better replacement for the good old `vark

I think that is what he said. Actually the F-35 would be a better replacement for the F-111's. I doubt that Aus. defnece budget could procure them in large numbers to satisfy both the strike role and Air Superiority role. A mixed F-35 and F/A-22 fleet would be better suited.

Originally posted by Murcielago
Whats your (Canadian) opinion about the Ballistic Missile Shield...since Canada wont put any on there country anymore.?

Well I personally think that the goverments desion to not support the defense shield was a lil stupid considering that now instead of shoting missiles down over the caps alantic or pacific they will eb dropping on canada soil. i persoanlly think that the could have instald a couple stations in the artic at least. so for paying for the actual testing i dont blame my goverment for saying no seeing as how it could take money away from already starving forces.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Harlequin
I disagree

The FB-23 would be a better replacement for the good old `vark

I think that is what he said. Actually the F-35 would be a better replacement for the F-111's.

Actually a point that was brought up in another forum is that the 35 lacks the ablity to loiter or patrol over the large about of coastal region that surrounds aus. oh and as for the 22's im not sure aus will get them i havent heard a good reason why they would yet unless i missed it.

As far as Isreal selling F-16 tech to china, do you think that maybe US let Isreal do that Cause then that would grab chinas attention on a plane that is pushing 25 to 30 yrs old, then the US can continue to develop stuff beyond the F-15, F-16

.
At that price i better run and buy a couple while they are on sale.

"Now where did i put that pocket change?"
.

Wait till after Christmas and the after-Christmas sales, slank, better deals to be had.

Seriously though, with each suceeding Block, slank, the price on the Raptor's price per unit will continue to drop.




seekerof

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Seekerof]

So just so i understand. With the way the price has been dropping on the 22's is it safe to say they are now closer to being a plane that can be put into further production then its slated for right now? Thats the idea that i get from all of this.

I can understand the Wiring electrical compartments earlier in the developement and the Rudder installment, and purchasing the landing gear pre built, but why would they use Cheaper sealent to hold the Body of the Plane together, wouldnt the sealent be just as important as making sure the Ejection seat works?

Just as long as Lockheed doesn't end up like de Havilland.

DH aeroplanes were brilliantly designed but got a reputation for coming unglued in the sky, which is unforgiveable.

nothing better then your brand new F/A-22 falling apart around you leaving you floating in your seat. I dont think that we will have to worry about the 22's coming unglued but i do think that lockheed can only cut a couple more corners otherwise we could see problems looming.

The price per unit reduction has nothing to do with cutting corners being made in the design or production of the Raptor, Canada_EH.




seekerof

k thats what i was originally asking when no one answered. from what i originally gathered its the fact of the more planes produced the lower the production cost. is that correct or am i still off here?

The more planes produced, then the faster R&D costs are recouped. Once the R&D costs are made up, then it's all profit so they can bring the costs down on the production models and still make a nice profit.