Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor

28

Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor

offline
  • sebab 
  • Legendarni građanin
  • Pridružio: 19 Dec 2007
  • Poruke: 4327

mean_machine ::_Rade ::Jedan zanimljiv tekst u vezi Raptora
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/obama-t.....f-funding/

Citat:But the F-22 requires 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time and costs the taxpayer about $44,000 an hour to fly, according to confidential Pentagon test results.


Shocked

Pa to je preskupo.

Doduse kada se pogleda koliko problema avion ima nije toliko cudno.


ma sasvim je moguce - f22 je kako bi ameri rekli "mold breaker" odnosno avion koji donosi nesto sasvim novo, nije ni cudo sto mnogo kosta i mnogo kosta letenje. mozda je pre visok cas leta razlog sto vise nece da ga proizvode i da se koncentrisu na f35. logistika dobija ratove, a ne tehnika.



Registruj se da bi učestvovao u diskusiji. Registrovanim korisnicima se NE prikazuju reklame unutar poruka.
offline
  • Pridružio: 01 Jun 2006
  • Poruke: 2091
  • Gde živiš: Malo tamo malo vamo

Nije to nista...evo malo podrobnije koliko kosta...ima se moze se...

F-22 Has A Fatal Skin Disease


July 12, 2009: Congressional hearings over building more F-22s has led to the release of data about how much it costs, per flight hour, to maintain the aircraft. It's $44,000 per flight hour, compared to $30,000 per hour for the older F-15 that the F-22 is replacing. The F-22 per-hour cost is nearly twice what it is for the F-16. While it requires 19 man hours of maintenance for each F-16 flight hour, the F-22 requires 34 hours. The manufacturer originally said it would be less than ten hours. Most of this additional F-22 expense (and man hours) is for special materials and labor needed to keep the aircraft invisible to radar.

The main problem is the radar absorbent material used on the aircraft. The B-2 had a similar problem, which was eventually brought under control. But even then, the B-2 cost more than twice as much to operate than the half century old B-52. The B-2 and F-22 use different types of radar absorbent materials, so many of the B-2 solutions will not work for the F-22.

Some of the F-22 electronics are still not as reliable as the air force would like. The F-35 uses a different approach to defeating radar signals, and the manufacturer insists that F-35 maintenance costs will be closer to that for the F-15, than for the F-22. But Lockheed Martin has been saying, for years, that its F-22 would be cheaper to maintain than existing aircraft. The air force never challenged this, at least not in public. Instead, the air force tried to keep the high operating costs a secret.

In addition, the F-22 costs more than three times as much as the aircraft it was to replace. The air force wants to build more than 187, and has allies in Congress who want the jobs (and votes) continued production will generate. But the Department of Defense is reluctant to spend that kind of money, especially when there so many other programs seeking funds (like electronic warfare aircraft, UAVs and upgrades for F-15s and F-16s). Thus, earlier this year, the Department of Defense decided to terminate F-22 production at 187 aircraft. This resulted in each aircraft costing (including development and production spending), $332 million. Just the production costs of the last F-22s built was $153.2 million. Added to the cost of the last few aircraft was a $147 million fee the Department of Defense agreed to pay if the production line was shut down. This goes to pay for shutting down facilities and terminating contracts with hundreds of supplies.

The F-22 is a superb aircraft, probably the most capable fighter in the world. But the development and manufacturing costs kept rising until it became too expensive for the media, voters and politicians. The air force was able to build it, but they couldn't sell it to the people who paid the bills.

A decade ago, the F-22 was a $62 billion program, of which development accounted for $18.9 billion (this was a spending cap imposed by Congress). A decade before that, the air force was planning to buy 750 F-22s. Costs kept going up for two decades, and Congress refused to provide more money. So, for $62 billion, the air force ended up getting fewer aircraft.

The air force ran into a similar problem with the B-2 bomber, which became so expensive they were only allowed to build 21, and these cost $2.1 billion each. . About half of that was development expense. Actual construction costs for each of those aircraft was about $933 million each. Still pretty high, mainly because a lot of special machinery and factories had to be built to manufacture the many custom components.

The air force likes to point out that if the original (1986) plan had been followed, each B-2 would have cost $438 million each. But then the entire program would have cost $58.2 billion, versus $44.3 billion for the 21 plane program (which included $10 billion more R&D expense).

New technology gives a weapon, especially an aircraft, an edge in combat. But since World War II, most military technology has been developed in peacetime conditions. This means it is more than twice as expensive, as there is no wartime urgency to overcome bureaucratic inertia (and emphasis on covering your ass, which is very time consuming and expensive) and hesitation (because you don't have a war going on to settle disputes over what will work best). Developing this new technology takes longer in peacetime, which also raises the cost, and fewer units of a new weapon are produced (driving up the amount of development cost each weapon will have to carry.) If several hundred B-2s were produced under wartime conditions, each aircraft would have probably cost $200 million, or less. In other words, a tenth of what it actually cost. Same deal with the mythical $35 million F-22, or any other high tech weapon.

Other nations have adapted more effectively to peacetime development conditions. But the United States has the largest amount of peacetime military research and development, and this has created a unique military/industry/media/political atmosphere that drives costs up to the point where voters, politicians and the media will no longer support them.



offline
  • sebab 
  • Legendarni građanin
  • Pridružio: 19 Dec 2007
  • Poruke: 4327

e, sad za f-15 30000$? ovo jeste prenaduvano, jer jednomotorni f-16 ima oko 3700 $. ovde bi se moglo ocekivati najvise da f-15 ima mozda oko 9000$. novinari...

sa 30000 na 44000 nije nikakvo povecanje s obzirom na mogucnosti f22.

offline
  • Daktilograf 21. veka
  • Pridružio: 17 Maj 2007
  • Poruke: 13811
  • Gde živiš: Apsurdistan

sebab ::e, sad za f-15 30000$? ovo jeste prenaduvano, jer jednomotorni f-16 ima oko 3700 $. ovde bi se moglo ocekivati najvise da f-15 ima mozda oko 9000$. novinari...

sa 30000 na 44000 nije nikakvo povecanje s obzirom na mogucnosti f22.

To sto ti navodis je cena casa leta, ali ne i cena odrzavanja za taj jedan cas leta.

offline
  • sebab 
  • Legendarni građanin
  • Pridružio: 19 Dec 2007
  • Poruke: 4327

koja je razlika? plata za mehanicare?

offline
  • Pridružio: 29 Feb 2008
  • Poruke: 1443

sebab ::koja je razlika? plata za mehanicare?

Neki kažu da u održavanje aviona spadaju i rezervni delovi za njega. Ali...to samo neki kažu... Very Happy

offline
  • Pridružio: 23 Dec 2006
  • Poruke: 12484

Kada su trebali da zamene one zardjale panele na F-22 cena panela nije bila nesto velika (valjda 50.000$) ali je zato ukupna cena rada bila 500.000$. Ocigledno da likovi koji odrzavaju stelt imaju lepe plate.

offline
  • sebab 
  • Legendarni građanin
  • Pridružio: 19 Dec 2007
  • Poruke: 4327

@mean machine

moguce je, moguce, ipak je ta tehnologija jedinstvena u svetu u operativnoj upotrebi. treba dobro da ih podmazu.

offline
  • sebab 
  • Legendarni građanin
  • Pridružio: 19 Dec 2007
  • Poruke: 4327

ili npr. bude vrbovan od neke obavestajne sluzbe... m, svi su oni "obradjeni" na svaki nacin - sigurno nece dati taj posao svezem imigrantu iz jemena.

offline
  • Daktilograf 21. veka
  • Pridružio: 17 Maj 2007
  • Poruke: 13811
  • Gde živiš: Apsurdistan

@sebab
Koliko sam ja razumeo cas leta je gorivo koje potrosi avion. Mozda gresim.

A ovu cenu od 30 000 $ za F-15 po satu leta verovatno formiraju na osnovu cene goriva i utrosenog rada da bi avion ostalo operativan. Znaci svi troskove odrzavanja aviona i naravno plata mehanicara ulazi u proracun, a mozda je uracunat i remont. Pa se ta cela suma podeli sa brojem sati i dobijes koliko izadje cas.

Drugacije ne mogu objasniti toliku razliku izmedju recimo 3700 i 20 000 $ za F-16.



vlada78 ::Leonard odlican avatar.
Moj predlog logotipa za MC forum u velicini avatara Very Happy .
http://www.mycity-military.com/Obavestenja-predloz.....tml#763982

Ko je trenutno na forumu
 

Ukupno su 760 korisnika na forumu :: 45 registrovanih, 5 sakrivenih i 710 gosta   ::   [ Administrator ] [ Supermoderator ] [ Moderator ] :: Detaljnije

Najviše korisnika na forumu ikad bilo je 2918 - dana 22 Nov 2019 07:48

Korisnici koji su trenutno na forumu:
Korisnici trenutno na forumu: Altay, altec.gs, amstel2, Arhiv, awathorn, Bane san, bankulen, Battlehammer, Botovac, cira357, crnitrn, darkstar101, djo97, dule clio, GreenMan, ILGromovnik, Kibice, louderick, mane123, Marko Marković, Markoni29, Milan A. Nikolic, mushroom, Nebo_M, nemkea71, Outis, Pavac, pein, Regrut Boskica, rovac, sabros, shone34, Snorks, srecko81, Srki98, Terplederp, Toni, Username1000, Van, wolf431, wolverined4, z.milosh, zixmix, zlaya011, Živković