Will USA sell India F/A-22 or JSF?

Yeah it is supoose to be a good replacement for alot of aircraft in all of the branches. I heard it may replace some of the Harriers because the fact they are like the deadliest aircraft we own.
 
egoz said:
the unit cost of the F-35 is $28mil, compared to the F/A-18 E/F at $57 mil. so in theory the F-35 is a lot cheaper. they designed the plane to be low maintenance anyway.

If true, that's TOO cheap.

A SU-30MKK costs 50 milloin USD, PRC has about 70.
A Su-27MK costs about 30 million USD, PRC got about 200.
J-10 costs about 30 million USD.

I heard F/A-22 and JSF costs about 100 million USD.
 
FlyingFrog said:
egoz said:
the unit cost of the F-35 is $28mil, compared to the F/A-18 E/F at $57 mil. so in theory the F-35 is a lot cheaper. they designed the plane to be low maintenance anyway.

If true, that's TOO cheap.

A SU-30MKK costs 50 milloin USD, PRC has about 70.
A Su-27MK costs about 30 million USD, PRC got about 200.
J-10 costs about 30 million USD.

I heard F/A-22 and JSF costs about 100 million USD.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/x-35_jsf.pl
there seems to be a discrepency in the prices, but they are still both pretty low, one site shows $28 and the other $37.
but the cost depends on the version. AF version is $37, Marine version (V/STOL) $46, and Navy $48.
 
FlyingFrog said:
The other part is that, at a cost of about $260m (£142m) each, the Raptor is designed to fight a potential Soviet enemy that no longer exists...
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=62692
The Congress and military has realized that which is why they've cut production numbers by more than 50% since the beginning of the program. Which is also why the unit cost has sky rocketed. If you're going to produce something in smaller numbers it's obviously going to cost more.
 
Yeah, unit costs mean total costs to produce all the planes divided by the number of planes built, hence why the B-2 was so expensive per plane, it was supposed to be mass produced but that never happened. So if we built alot of JSF's the costs will go down, and it is supposed to replace tens of thousands of aircraft currently in use. Plus the fact that we built one plane for all these roles made it cheaper also.
 
If F-22 is mass produced, the price would go down to around $40M, I believe that.

Just FYI:

Unit cost:
F-16A/B , $14.6 million
F-16C/D, $18.8 million
 
Xion said:
Can the price drop from $ 253 million per piece to a mere $ 40 million ?, I doubt it.

$253 million each? I think your numbers are way off. The highest I have ever seen is $180 million each, and if we start mass producing them the cost will plummet becuase then the denomenator in the equation will be growing faster than the numerator, which means a lower costs per.
 
I can very explicitly remember it was 253 million dollars per piece, the most expensive fighter aircraft ever made.It was in the newspapers here.Even if they start producing it in mass, I don't think it will plummet down to 40 million dollars.It will still be very expensive.
 
Wha.....?

If we are talking of the JSF then it was created to be a cheap, yet very good, replacement for a ton of old aircraft included in the list are Americas deadliest aircraft the Harriers VTOL.

The F-22 is known for being an exspensive aircraft however.
 
For the F-22 they've gone from a planned 750 planes in 1985 to the current 180 (as of 2002).
this link has the current cost estimates per aircraft at anywhere from $142mil-$200mil per aircraft.
 
well it isn't neccessarily unwise to spend their money this way. I think it's stupid that they delayed the program so much and cut back the numbers so much that the cost has sky rocketed and gone well above what they wanted. That's what happens when politics get involved.
 
Yeah it is a little crazy that they cut the numbers back that much. They spend so much money trying to create a super fighter than just cut the numbers completly back.
 
from what i heard, their train of thought went like this. if these fighters are so great why do we need so many of them? since the f15 was practically untouched, then the plane replacing it will be that much more amazing. it's one way to see things, but that many planes can only be deployed over so much of the globe. it's like in korea when they released the Mig 15 on us and we didn't have the F86 there to quickly respond to that threat. Part of me is saying that we're running into trouble. But on the other hand we've built 54 F117s and they've performed flawlessly, well ok, minus 2. It has shown me that we can use a very limited number of aircraft effectively in a theatre of war. But at the same time, they flew A LOT of sorties and I'm sure it was a strain on the ground and air crews.
 
Yeah but when you get into it the F-117 realy havn't aw that much war time exsperiance, all the nations it has fought in have not been truly advanced nations.


I do say that I would have built around 500 F-22.


Another thing is the F-22 is not Carrier Capable is it.
 
The F22 is going to be stictly for the AF. The stealth aircraft of the Navy is the F-35 and F-18 E/F. I say the F18 only because it has a reduced radar signature compared to earlier models.

That's true that the Nighthawk hasn't seen combat against really advanced nations. But it has seen combat in nations that held some of the latest Russian radar technology. I don't think the point is to be fighting a nation with advanced weapons, at least compared to ours. We should always have the technological advantage over our enemy. I can't really see a full on airwar starting with any advanced enemy threat anyway. If anything the F22 will be deployed ahead of standard aircraft to possibly clear SAM threats or the like, along with other stealth aircraft. Then will also participate in early stages of any possibly air war. Which, in theory, would be short and simple because they won't see it coming.
 
Back
Top