Article

2006-08-08 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-08-08 14:05|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hear that China? Wanna continue to piss and moan over Tiawan? You have been put on notice.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-08-08 15:16|| 2006-08-08 15:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Just how far is that route from Israel to Tehran?

Posted by Sherry 2006-08-08 15:24|| 2006-08-08 15:24|| Front Page Top

#3 2000km from ISrael to Teheran. Refuel over Iraq.

mmmmm...... F-22

Posted by j. D. Lux 2006-08-08 15:26|| 2006-08-08 15:26|| Front Page Top

#4 Let's build many hundreds to drive the unit cost down!

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2006-08-08 18:05|| 2006-08-08 18:05|| Front Page Top

#5 Unit cost is a big deal. Note the price on the initial buy is $360 million because it absorbs NRE, R&D, etc. Next buy is $137 million. At volume could go to $115-120 M per unit. I hope they can keep the line open long enough to find out if the UCAVs are good enough to fully replace manned aircraft.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-08 18:30|| 2006-08-08 18:30|| Front Page Top

#6 makes sense to me - I'd replace all manned flying units

Posted by SkyNet">SkyNet 2006-08-08 18:34|| 2006-08-08 18:34|| Front Page Top

#7 NS, you in the industry, kind of sounds like it.

Note, the first buy is usually SRIP, short range initial production (not range in the plane, but range in terms of length of mgf activities).

Then there will be LRIP, long range, which indeed drops production cost significantly.

A second or even third round of NRE will be included for LRIP as well as design and ME refinements.

Finally spares and repair will enter into the picture and much of the cost will be recouped.

Too bad most don't understand this as it makes unit cost much cheaper and even generative to the companies involved due to the long term maint and spares required.

We can build many, many of the plane and should!

But SRIP to LRIP gap allows the decision you point to, do UCAVs give us enough.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-08-08 21:01|| 2006-08-08 21:01|| Front Page Top

#8 "fraid the end is nigh for flyboys. Do (heart) F-22s though.

2020 fly force is bots in space...sorry flyboys

Posted by Captain America 2006-08-08 21:06|| 2006-08-08 21:06|| Front Page Top

#9 My father was. I'm in consumer electronics. It's not that much different, just faster cycles and less BS.

I doubt the AF will let go of manned aircraft until UCAVs are proven in combat. One reason is that the cost differential is not that great yet. Remember that the Army still had a horse cavalry unit in 1943 and in 1944 was planning on how to use horse cavalry in the invasion of Japan. The B-52 is now 54 years old and the last one was built 44 years ago. Given procurement cycles I should not be surprised to see the F-22 still flying in 2030 or 2040.

Still wish the F-23 had won.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-08 21:33|| 2006-08-08 21:33|| Front Page Top

03:17 T
00:01 JosephMendiola
23:59 CrazyFool
23:47 trailing wife
23:45 trailing wife
23:43 CrazyFool
23:43 trailing wife
23:43 gromgoru
23:36 SamAdamsky
23:32 anonymous2u
23:31 Fred
23:31 Spavigum Glinens9851
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:21 anonymous2u
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:18 SamAdamsky
23:18 trailing wife
23:05 J. D. Lux
23:03 SamAdamsky
23:02 Dreadnought
22:56 J. D. Lux
22:55 twobyfour
22:45 trailing wife
22:36 CrazyFool