In the video you can clearly see that the thrust of the turbines is being vectored, enabling the aircraft to perform some interesting aerial manoeuvres. Something to keep in mind at a time when almost all the F-15 fleet is grounded due to issues with structural integrity.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
The body armor (and Hummer armour upgrade)situation was caused by bad planning, not lack of money. The military cannot magically poop something once they decide they need something. Once they figured out what they needed, eventually the supply chanels caught up to what they decided they needed.
If the threat situation dictated they needed 10,000 Raptors, the US Military would procure 10,000 of the damn things. The cost would not figure into their planning. If this country wanted to survive, we would find a way to buy 10,000 of the damn things. Now, grant me this. 10,000 Raptors would cost alot less per plane than a few hundred.
We do not need 10,000 of the stupid planes to survive todays threat.
But, we must remain somewhat current at todays (well, 5-10 years ago) technology, so we will buy a few hundred at ridiculous cost to keep our production facilities current.
When the Raptor program is complete, we will begin throwing billions of dollars at it’s replacement, because we must.
If the shit hit’s the fan, we must be ready to ramp up production of current technology to defend ourselves. That will not be possible if all of our designs are from the end of the cold war when our last MAJOR foe died.
Just look at WWII to see the results of bad planning and lack of forsight. We sent millions of GI’s to war with lots of inferior equipment because that’s what we knew how to build at the time. We did win, but the human cost was much higher than it could have been.
Don
I’m making the assumption that only ~183 aircraft will be produced, so I’m going with the total program cost/total number of aircraft. This assumption is due to assumption that procurement was quickly moving towards unmanned aircraft rather than manned. I have no “inside information”, but believe that there is not enough money to support manned and unmanned development at the same time.
Where I’m sort of cheating is with the SU-30. I’m quoting fly-away unit cost because: we aren’t going to fight the Russians in the air (I can’t think of a situation where this would come about), and we can expect to encounter SU-30 type aircraft from counties that purchased them from Russia. There are quotes on the internet for <<$40M for each SU-30.
I have had difficulty finding cost estimates that independently verify the data in Wiki… but generally the Wiki estimates seem to hold up.
The only change I would make is to say that SU-30MKK may cost ~$53M (unit fly away cost), and I can’t find costs for the SU-37 (1 crew).
J –
Flyaway cost is irrelevant… it is just used as an excuse to hide the real cost of an item.
The truth:
Program acquisition unit cost has doubled, from $149 million in $345 million in 2005. Program acquisition unit cost includes funding for development, procurement, related military construction, and initial modernization divided by total production quantity. It does not include later stage modernization costs and certain support costs.
Average unit flyaway cost includes the costs associated with procuring one aircraft, including the airframe, engines, avionics, other mission equipment, and certain nonrecurring production costs. It does not include “sunk” costs for development and test and other costs to the whole system, including logistical support and construction. With the program will be truncated in 2008, the less expensive aircraft in 2009 and beyond will not be bought and unit costs are projected at $135 million in 2007 and $149 million in 2008 (increases associated with close-out of production).
So what is the real cost to the US taxpayer for each aircraft when REAL expenses are included? About $350 million each. Or, in other terms, a $50,000 no-repayment scholarship for 7000 students for the cost of each airplane. But 10 airplanes less and we can send 70,000 people to engineering school.
Cancel the program and we can send a million people to engineering school.
And that is just for one military program.
Those are the true costs of our military expenditures. 14 billion for an aircraft carrier group = 280,000 full college scholarships. Think about it… 280,000 scholarships for the price of one ship.
Don,
I would love to know where you get your ideas.
#33 Awake
When copying from a source(in your example GlobalSecurity.org) you should list it.
“Flyaway cost is irrelevant”
It is very relevant considering the $44 million that Dorksters posted for the Su-30 is the fly away cost for that aircraft
Using Program acquisition unit cost is unfair or dishonest at best for a comparison. It includes research and development cost. A more fair value would be Total Fly Away Cost.
This is comprised not only the flyaway cost, but also delivery cost, peculiar support equipment, technical data packages, training equipment, and contractor services required for initial support for the airplanes.
Don’t get me wrong I think we a waiting way too much money on these planes and on military expenditures as a whole and I agree that the money would be much better spent on education in this country
Some fancy flight!
🙂
It seems that it will be difficult to shoot this bird from the sky.
It can definitely kick the shit out of an F15/16/18.
And I bet it costs a fraction then an F22/35…
With enough numerical advantage and birds like the Su30 I am not sure the west will have superiority in the Battlefield.
Lockheed Martin (LMCO) has had several canard designs, but IMS LMCO could not get them to work. There existed an LMCO Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) concept that pre-existed the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) (http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/cddr/lockheed/cddr_loc_006.jpg), and also a canarded Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Tactical_Fighter).
Some press people, Bill Sweetman, may have stated that the Air Force will not buy an unconventional looking aircraft. Hence, no canards on flying ATF and JAST->JSF.
It may very well be the case that the Raptor costs more than the Sukhoi (3 to 8 times more depending one what we’re looking for). People point to that figure to act as though the F22s would be swarmed.
If you look back on the Korean War and Nam the USAF had a crazy kill:loss ratio. Higher than 8 to 1 in both of those conflicts, I believe.
The USAF gets to train their pilots more than pretty much any other country. I don’t think looking at the price tags is a great assessment for a number of reasons. US military budget is greater than the next 8 countries combined on the CIA world factbook, so we may have superior numbers of a superior fighter being flown by pilots with superior training.
Even if the Raptor doesn’t have a numeric advantage it wouldn’t be a single mission where all of the Raptors are fighting all of the other country’s Sukhois.
And finally, isn’t India the leading purchaser of the Sukhoi? Aren’t they completely allied with us?
#39, Mister Stephen,
And finally, isn’t India the leading purchaser of the Sukhoi? Aren’t they completely allied with us?
Only when it comes to off-shore tech support. After that, they are independent minded.
China is buying Su-30MKKs. I may be wrong, but since Tiananmen, I’ve felt there is a possibility of a (very) limited war with them. Obviously war with them would be bad for business, but Oil is a new factor that could destabilizes our working relationship.
Good points overall. We would more likely see the F-35 and F-18E/F deployed against Su-30/37 and Mig-29.
The F-22A may be too expensive to risk, and be produced in too few numbers, to provide much global air dominance. I’m taking this stand because a well organized enemy, equipped with an effective overall anti-air capability(ground and air based), could cost the US a couple $1B pretty quickly.
I don’t like to underestimate the training and doctrine of the enemy. My general experience is that every country has exceptionally smart people that can be dangerous in the right position.
The question isnt whether the thrust can be vectored – but can it be vectored in such a way that rams the jet into a building, kamakazi style?
vector based durka durka jihad