Raptor Rolls Out at Lockheed Martin




Reported By: Elaine Reyes
Web Editor: Tracey Christensen
Last Modified: 10/27/2004 3:55:14 PM


The Raptor 4041 fighter aircraft rolled off the production line to the cheers of onlookers and employees at Lockheed Martin in Marietta, Ga. Wednesday.

The aircraft cost the U.S. government $130 million each. A total of $3.6 billion has been approved for the purchase of the Raptor in the 2005 fiscal year.

Pilots at Lockheed plan to test the jet before sending it off to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. It will spend a year at Langley before moving to help the war effort in Iraq.

Military officials say the F/A 22 Raptor is the most technically-advanced aircraft in the world with an emphasis on stealth, speed, and precision.

"It can fly higher, faster and greater in stealth than any other aircraft," announced Col. Nicole Plourde.

For the workers at Lockheed, the aircraft means future job stability for the 7,800 local workers.

"Jobs for one and then for, in case we ever do have to go to war, we have a fighter jet that can knock anything out of the sky," said worker Ben Fowler.

The military's purchase plans for the F/A-22 include 276 Raptors and extends through 2013.
http://www.11alive.com/money/money_article...x?storyid=53886

If I ever saw it coming out me I would cry, but then it is so beautiful.

Money well spent. We have the best equiped military in the world.

I can't help wondering if John Kerry voted against this one too.

Well, John kerry had a conversion after 9-11 and now sees the importance of protecting Americans, which is why he supported the Iraq war (prior to Howard Dean)

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Dont worry he did.

Method
I did not get a chance to research this, is it accurate.

Amen to that!

$130 million...imagine how many people that money could have helped. Instead it was spent on a single aircraft.

A single aircraft that could:
1) be discovered with problematic operational characteristics and "too expensive" to operate in great numbers (Call me B-2 or B-1B)
2) Due to some "new study" or "change of deployment strategy" only 20-30 of them will be built, with enormous cost in development and designing in production being wasted. (B-2 again)
3) some few years later it will be decided that, to put it simply, "We need something else, we need something different, this is no good for us anymore".

or..
4) all of the above..

The day the F/A22 Raptor rolled out of the hanger at Lockheed was another glorious day in American Military history. We shall continue to rule the skies, the seas and the air for freedom.

The Pacifist, Pessimist Response:



The Realist, Optimist Response:

1. We don't need this fighter in large numbers. That's the whole point.

2. Developmental and designing costs are never wasted....the technology always filters down to the private sector to enrich our everyday lives.

3. That is called Progress!

...and please if you say Kerry voted For something in question....provide a link to it....of course you have one, otherwise how would you know what he voted for!

I'm not a pessimist or a "pacifist" (with the meaning you intended anyway. Although I do like peace, I admit..) for the simple reason that the whole thing is entirely indifferent to me. I'm just stating some simple facts and conclusions drawn by history-a rather recent history.


I won't ask "how do you know how many planes the US air force needs, are you commander in chief?", I'll just point the obvious, meaning that if *they* need 50 but it turns out that it's not economically viable to maintain more than, say, 30, then...


Now you lost me. What's that suppose to mean? If you spend, let's say, 4 bill. $ for something that will turn out to be a flop (well, anyway, a much less success than expected), then this money is lost. Isn't that the case with B-1B (and less but substantially also with the B-2)? If you go to the Pentagon and spell "B-1B", people are gonna hide behind corners..


Progress means when you develope something, use it as planned (and for as long as it was expected, perhaps even bit more) and then you start on something else. When you develope something, use it for 1/10 (or 1/5, I don't care about numbers) of the time expected, then it's not progress. It's admitting a failure (Call it a lesser success if you want ) and you go on.

You know which planes were succesful designs? To name few.. B-52. Original design was 1950's, and they still fly. C-130 Hercules. Design of 60's, still fly in many places around the world, in many operational characteristics proven to be 40-60% better than expected. F-4, still flying around the world in many countries. F-16, for the same reasons.

http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/web/040430-F-0000S-015.jpg
http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/web/web_04...F-7777D-001.jpg
http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/web/040405-F-0000S-007.jpg

Awsome Machine!!!!

Nobody says it isn't

Btw, you seem to be quite fond of it. Is a friend or relative working in the production team or something?

Maybe not this exact thing, but he voted aganist better equiping our military about three-hundred times.

the "raptor" otherwise known as the F/A-22

it is a pretty good aircraft, but it is not all it was hoped to be and it is way overbudget. it was supposed to come in at $78M per copy not $120+

at $120M i can't say it is a bargin. the raptor program has had lots of problems and the airframe is allready 16 years old ! at one time they were so overbudget the cost per unit was pushing $260M per copy!

the raptor is known by another name --"the hanger queen !" the cost per flight hour is very steep. i am certainly not against the raptor program--but they need to get the cost and the weight down.

the jsf-35 series is much cheaper --can do 98% of what the 22 can do and cost less than half as much per flight hour to operate. and in some cases the 35 benifits from 10+years newer technology. the 35 cost $28 to 45M give or take a few mill.

the raptor is a pretty good aircraft but it was developed in an overblown/overbudget/haphazerd kind of way. the sad thing is after costing so much and takeing so long--by the time it is fully deployed most of its technology advantages will be lost.--the thing should have been operational in the 1990s.

Yes, but imagine how many people the billions just spent in the Bush and Kerry polictical campaigns could have helped? Imo campaigns are a bigger waste of money then fighter aircraft meant to help make our military stronger.

No I have no relative or friends working at Lockheed

i'd still rather have three F-35b's than one F/A-22

but i ain't the one writing the check--lol