Forget Sequestration' Lockheed Scored Another $7 Billion To Get The Aging Raptor Into Service

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed-69-billion-raptor-contract-david-cenciotti-the-aviationist-2013-3



The US Air Force has awarded Lockheed Martin an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a ceiling of $6.9 billion to upgrade the service’s fleet of F-22 Raptor stealth fighters.

Lockheed said that ”The Air Force uses this to authorize the Incremental Modernization capability efforts such as Increment 3.1, Increment 3.2A and Increment 3.2B”

“F-22 modernization provides upgrades that ensures the Raptor maintains air dominance against an ever advancing threat – with capabilities such as advanced weapons, multi-spectral sensors, advanced networking technology and advanced anti-jamming technology.”

Under increment 3.1 upgrade the fleet of radar evading 5th generation planes will get synthetic aperture radar (SAR) with ground mapping capability as well as the ability to carry eight 113kg (250lb) Small diameter bombs, in 2014; the increment 3.2A will see additional electronic protection measures and upgrades to the Link-16 data link system and its ability to work with the jets sensor suite.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed-69-billion-raptor-contract-david-cenciotti-the-aviationist-2013-3#ixzz2MO8qdLYn

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. Welfare Queens.

[xchrom]

2. +1

[zbdent]

4. Cons scream about someone driving a (used?) cadillac

when the true welfare queens fly their own jets ...

[jsr]

6. Yep. It's all bullshit.

[RKP5637]

7. +2, n/t

[City Lights]

11. Indeed! eom

[Zax2me]

12. Welfare queens....

Just take the money.
In this case you get a little return.
National defense.
But, yes - both can be considered welfare to different extents.

[leveymg]

3. Unlike the F-35, at least it's effective, when it's flyable.

If you have to have an air dominance fighter, you could do worse. A lot worse.

[zbdent]

5. which was it that can't fly in the rain?

[leveymg]

13. Rain made the anti-radar coatings on the F-117 and B-2 less effective, and they had to be repainted

Last edited Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:55 PM - Edit history (2)

after a single flight through precipitation.

The same basic problem of a larger radar image in rain and high humidity persists (doppler radar can "see" the disturbance in the lower atmosphere caused by a moving airplane, just like a rotating thunderstorm, much more clearly when there is precipitation), but the current radar-absorption coatings on all US combat aircraft don't deteriorate as quickly as the first-generation stealth aircraft.

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. In the entire operational history of the F-14, F-15, F-16, & F-18, only one

U.S. operated aircraft has ever been lost in air-to-air combat. The current U.S. record in air-to-air combat is 186 - 1.

These aircraft cost about 1/10 as much as the F-22.

[sir pball]

14. They actually aren't nearly that cheap.

Flyaway cost, the actual manufacturing cost exclusive of R&D, for an F-15E (the closest in design purpose to the -22) was $108 million as of 2006 - for a totally mature platform with a relatively huge economy of scale. The Raptor costs $150 million...yes, it is more, but it's for a significantly improved aircraft that more significantly was never manufactured in quantity - 187 vs. 1,000+.

Yep, it was a boondoggle of a program that should have never been initiated in the first place and failing that should have been tightly overseen and run in a proper "develop THEN fly" as opposed to the "develop WHILE flying" mode that seems to be the (expensive, stupid, slow) fashion these days - but unlike the F-35, we have a finalized, usable aircraft system that I have a lot less trouble with investing in. IMO the 35 should be scrapped or hugely curtailed, left up to the non-US gov's that want them, and the -22 should be put back into production and be modified to serve naval roles as needed. At that point we'd probably have a ~20% price increase over 4th generation aircraft which is fine for me, especially if we sell the older ones to even further offset cost.

[Paulie]

15. Develop and fly should be develop and fly-off

Don't procure until two vendors perform a fly off. It's how we got the original F16. And of course the loser of that fly off became the F18 for the navy... Then they turned the F16 into an overweight multi role.

The A10 was another good project. Took a gun and ammo, built the plane around the mission then the Air Force said we don't want it because it was effective and took away from their high tech boondoggles.

[sir pball]

16. There was a prototype flyoff..

The YF-22 beat the YF-23 waaaay back in 1990 (which is why the 22 should have been the last fighter developed - it did have a mission at the time). The Navy apparently looked at the -23 as a Tomcat replacement but nothing ever came of it.

The Lightweight Fighter program that gave us the 16/18 was the first competitive prototype program; it worked well because the requirements weren't especially advanced so going from prototype to production was relatively fast and easy. The downside of this type of acquisition is where the system is overly technical (e.g. the 22); the so-called "prototypes" were more like technology demonstrators, one-off highly custom aircraft designed to showcase the capabilities but without any concern for mass-manufacturability.

Lockheed should have told the government to hang on a bit (especially since the USSR fell like three months after they won the contract) and spent a few years thoroughly thinking over the design of the damn thing with an eye to production, it would have probably put the plane into frontline service by 2000 at a reduced cost. The overruns and delays have nothing to do with any fundamental flaw with the design, it really is the last word in air superiority - the trouble is that the development process, the "teething problems", weren't done on real prototype test planes but rather in service with production aircraft which ends up with faulty oxygen systems killing men. That being said, with this program what's done is done and we do have something to show for it so let's cut our losses elsewhere. Hell, it would probably make a lot more jobs putting something into actual production rather than dicking around with cracked turbine blades and whatnot.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. Some are, here's numbers...

F-22 $150M

F-14 $38M
F-15 $28M - $30M
F-16 $14M - $19M
F-18 $67M

So, they range from 9.3% - 44.6%. Still, the point remains. We have the most effective force on earth by miles, and they cost a fraction of this dead-end corporate welfare program.

[sir pball]

23. The Lightning program absolutely needs to be scrapped, immediately

But IMO it would be a bigger waste to toss almost 200 F-22s from a completed program, when we could start up production again and modify the design to fill the naval role. Yes, the teen-series aircraft are very good, but the ones we use are just plain getting old (remember the F-15 grounding) and need to be replaced with something.

For the air-superiority/heavy multirole purpose at least, replacing the F-15, I'm fine with more 22s as the production cost should decrease a fair bit with some economy of scale and frankly, since we do have a product to show for the $67 billion R&D tag, I'd like to use it. And if we'd allow exports, well, those 3,000 F-35 orders should make a huge dent in the per-unit cost..

[Egalitarian Thug]

22. OK DU has decided it doesn't like links today. You'll have to find them on Wikipedia

if you're interested. Here's the text:

F-22 $150M
F-14 $38M
F-15 $28M - $30M
F-16 $14M - $19M
F-18 $67M

[sir pball]

24. The F-15 tag is for an old model, current cost is over $100mil

That's the C/D variant from 1996; the F-15E Strike Eagle, our current frontline model, is currently $108mil a pop - still about a third less than the Raptor but all things considered that doesn't seem as much a bargain. Seeing that number while doing my homework for this article settled me on restarting the 22 as a 35 replacement versus buying more 15s.

[Astrad]

9. "...that ensures the Raptor maintains air dominance against an ever advancing threat."

What threat?

[Volaris]

10. There ISN'T one, Astrad, due largely to the statistics listed in the post above yours.

We could STILL fly upgraded Tomcats and Strike Eagles off carriers, and destroy MOST of the Planets functional air force in probably less than 30 days, if we really needed to. NO ONE wants fly against our pilots anymore, its why our self-professed enemies turned to asymetric warfare, in that sense, its more effective.

[sir pball]

18. Ostensibly the latest Russian fighters

Which are indeed technically superior to our current "Teen Series" - but the massive numbers of Sukhois and Migs the analysts in the late 80s (when the 22 was developed) were predicting haven't materialized.

We ran the Russians into the ground economically....looks like they're doing it to us from beyond the grave.

[A HERETIC I AM]

17. Well, this is fun! The CEO of Lockheed made over $17,000,000 in 2011

Mr. Robert J. Stevens also holds 2,054,699 shares of LM or equivalents which at Friday's close of $88.17/share gives him a net worth in LM stock alone of $181,162,810.83.

One hundred eighty one million dollars!

ALL OF IT from the largesse of the American taxpayer.

But children can't have Head Start programs...no, no! Sorry. The heads of the largest Defense Contractors need their money first, you commoner!


Source;
Lockheed's 2012 Proxy Statement
Scroll down to page 36 for the "Total Compensation" figure.

Scroll down to page 75 for the table of "Security Ownership of Management"

[xchrom]

19. +1

[tammywammy]

26. As of 1 Jan Marilyn Hewson is CEO of Lockheed Martin. n/t

[L0oniX]

20. Nice job entitlement program ya got going there LockNEED assholes.

So nice to live in a country that depends on the war machine for jobs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. We need them to protect us from the mighty Taliban Air Force.