News Is the F-22 Raptor Worth the Cost Amid Modern Military Challenges?

[FredGarvin]

IMO, the production run for the F-22 should be equal to the current level we have of F-15's. If 1 F-22 = 2 F-15's we cut it in half. With that large price tag we do get some monetary operating benefits that we don't see in other aircraft, i.e. non-afterburning supersonic flight, etc...

I do not agree with the Air Force's mantra that any new aircraft has to have some form of stealth capacity.

 

[mheslep]

IMO, the production run for the F-22 should be equal to the current level we have of F-15's. If 1 F-22 = 2 F-15's we cut it in half. With that large price tag we do get some monetary operating benefits that we don't see in other aircraft, i.e. non-afterburning supersonic flight, etc...

I do not agree with the Air Force's mantra that any new aircraft has to have some form of stealth capacity.

Then why do we need F-22s at $143M each? Why not just buy replacement 16s/18s/15s for much less? Non-afterburning supersonic is great but its largely just a range extender, which we can do w/ in-flight refuelling as always, and still be ahead on cost.

The two F-15's for one F-22 argument is cold war type engagement force multiplier, large air force vs large air force. IMO it doesn't hold up applied to today's reality. If the mission is a one F-15 out and back bombing of some Taliban, it also takes one F-22. If we need one F-16/F-15 each on station in North, South, East, and Western Afghanistan to handle ground support, then we still need one each in those disparate places with F-22s; one-for-two deals don't help.

 

[Topher925]

Does the F-22 have a much larger payload capacity than the F-16/F-15?

 

[mheslep]

Does the F-22 have a much larger payload capacity than the F-16/F-15?

Would depend on configuration, but max takeoff weight gives you an idea:
F-15 (E): 81,000 pounds (36,450 kilograms)
F-15 (C/D): 68,000 pounds (30,844 kilograms)
F-22: 83,500 pounds (38,000 kilograms)
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199
F-16 is a much smaller aircraft.

This conflicting cost info is interesting:
F-15 from FAS website:
Unit cost $FY98
[Total Program] $43 million.

USAF website:
Unit Cost: A/B models - $27.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars);C/D models - $29.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

FAS/GAO website on F-22, unit cost:
qty 76: $142.6m
qty 362: $102.8m

Or per FAS, F-22 unit cost is 3x to 2x F-15 unit cost,
per USAF, 3x to 5x

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Agreed, no more planes.

I didn't actually say "no more planes". I don't have enough information to have a definitive opinion, but I think we see eye to eye on this more than not.

Far and away the biggest champions of increasing the F-22 order are Boeing's blue state legislators such as Washington's Sen. Patty Murray(D). The 'Boeing' congressional delegation is second only to Michigan's 'GM/Chrysler/Ford' Dingle led delegation for screaming how loudly the rest of the country owes jobs to their industries. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga), of the Marietta, Ga Lockheed delegation, is also near the front of the line for defense jobs.
Contrast Congress with with DoD leadership - in particular Sec. Gates and his predecessors who have consistently resisted more F-22s.

My point was that there is a dichotomy in the logic of Republicans who oppose "big government" but want "big government that builds planes in their States". However, I'm not defending the Democrats who want weapons as welfare. As soon as someone cites jobs as a reason for defense spending, they have lost my confidence.

Maybe the government should take some of that Raptor money and pay the folks at Boeing to go outside with shovels and repair the holes in the main road servicing their complex.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't actually say "no more planes". I don't have enough information to have a definitive opinion, but I think we see eye to eye on this more than not.

Yes I meant stay w/ the low number of F-22s already on order (~100) vs a big number (~300).

 

[Cyrus]

If I may: we do, 183 F-22s worth so far. The question is how much should the US outspend the rest of the world, combined.

No, that's not a correct evaluation. The reason why they are so expensive is because the order number went down significantly. The R&D costs are high, so to get your money back to need to order enough of them to make it a good deal. Cutting orders down to 183 from what it was originally is exactly the problem. You would spend less money per aircraft by ordering more.

 

[Cyrus]

We already have large investments in stealth technology by itself in the form of the F-17 and B-2, if understanding detection of stealthy aircraft is your point. The F-22 is expensive because it combines a full featured fighter/attack capability with stealth. I argue that we don't need both, at least not a full fleet of them, and not at that price. Its a cold war idea, sold with 'force multiplier' massive air combat arguments.

The F-117 is now retired, and the B-2 is another classic example of low order numbers diving the cost of each B-2 to an insane amount.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes I meant stay w/ the low number of F-22s already on order (~100) vs a big number (~300).

It [addtional orders] appears to be a case of unnecessary spending, but I could see the need for more Raptors if there was a serious threat emerging in Asia. While it is my hope that the US and China will remain great friends, China has been flexing its muscles as a military power. And I'm not ready to assume that mankind has moved beyond the capacity to engage in yet another World War. Any of economic collapse, oil shortages or seizures, natural disasters, or public hysteria due to acts of terror, could eventually result in serious conflicts on a global scale. So I guess this comes down to the questions: Do we need to prepare for WWIII, and if so, what level of prepareness is required?

Or, have we moved beyond the possibility of a global war? Does a McDonald's in every city and an internet connection in every home help to ensure that there won't be a next World War?

 

[Cyrus]

Then why do we need F-22s at $143M each? Why not just buy replacement 16s/18s/15s for much less? Non-afterburning supersonic is great but its largely just a range extender, which we can do w/ in-flight refuelling as always, and still be ahead on cost.

The two F-15's for one F-22 argument is cold war type engagement force multiplier, large air force vs large air force. IMO it doesn't hold up applied to today's reality. If the mission is a one F-15 out and back bombing of some Taliban, it also takes one F-22. If we need one F-16/F-15 each on station in North, South, East, and Western Afghanistan to handle ground support, then we still need one each in those disparate places with F-22s; one-for-two deals don't help.

The largest government user of fuels is, surprise: The Airforce. In fact, a very large portion of their spending goes just to fuel alone. So, no. You don't want to mid-air refuel if you can avoid it.

The purchace of military hardware belongs to the GAO. Let the people in the army decide what they need. They know the requirements. Arguing about Iraq and Afghanistan does not paint a complete picture. If you think that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only areas that our US aircraft will ever be used, haha...well....

Sure, right now they are being deployed over there. That doesn't mean in the future they won't be deployed some where else.

 

[mheslep]

The largest government user of fuels is, surprise: The Airforce. In fact, a very large portion of their spending goes just to fuel alone. So, no. You don't want to mid-air refuel if you can avoid it.

Mid-air refueling is not going away w/ the F-22, it can simply stretch a tank of gas a little further. So the meaningful question is, during the lifetime flight hours of an aircraft, how much money does it save in fuel costs compared to its price premium over the F-15C/D: $102.8^* - $30 = $70m. The F-22 will not use $70m less in fuel.

^*$102 is the high quantity buy unit price, $143m is the current unit price

 

[Cyrus]

Mid-air refueling is not going away w/ the F-22, it can simply stretch a tank of gas a little further. So the meaningful question is, during the lifetime flight hours of an aircraft, how much money does it save in fuel costs compared to its price premium over the F-15C/D: $102.8^* - $30 = $70m. The F-22 will not use $70m less in fuel.

^*$102 is the high quantity buy unit price, $143m is the current unit price

Originially, the price was not $102 million.

How can we afford to have the F-22?
A The F-22 will require only half the F-15's support personnel, because it can fly twice as long as the Eagle between maintenance periods and be made ready for combat in 1/3 less time than the F-15.

With an average aircraft "sticker price" of less than $84 million – not $200 million as is often quoted in the F-22 -- the F-22’s average annual program costs will be less than 1.5% of the DOD budget during its production period. In addition, 2/3 of fighter life-cycle costs are incurred after production in the form of maintenance, munitions and other support costs - and the F-22 is expected to be significantly less expensive to operate than the F-15.

Many of the media stories to date focus on the cost issues around the F-22 here and now. Politics are a staple of news coverage and one of the most significant factors to judge newsworthiness is the degree of controversy involved. The media tend to focus here and do not judge it to be within their purview to address the strategic necessity of having the F-22 – the importance of having an asymmetric advantage against all would-be adversaries. By 2005, over 21 countries will maintain arsenals formidably challenging to the F-15. The balance of world power will tip accordingly.

But perhaps the best answer is: How can we afford not to have it? The F-22 provides "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" capability. It can see the enemy first while avoiding detection itself. When we meet the enemy, we want to win 100-0, not 51-49. Why? Simple. American lives. The F-22’s effectiveness minimizes the loss of American lives. What price will you put on these?

http://www.f22fighter.com/history.htm

 

[mheslep]

The purchace of military hardware belongs to the GAO.

No, the GAO doesn't purchase anything for the military.

Let the people in the army decide what they need. They know the requirements.

Arguing about Iraq and Afghanistan does not paint a complete picture. If you think that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only areas that our US aircraft will ever be used, haha...well....

Sure, right now they are being deployed over there. That doesn't mean in the future they won't be deployed some where else.

That's not my point at all. I was addressing the one F-22 = two F-15's multiplier (mentioned by Fred Garvin) and often used by proponents of the F-22. My point is that as you suggest aircraft do indeed need to be distributed far and wide, but if you need one you need one and can't chop it in half to send to two places.

 

[mheslep]

Originially, the price was not $102 million.

The source, if you bother, was the GAO via the FAS website as I linked above. The USAF website itself shows the $143m figure for 383 planes. You know its different how?

 

[mheslep]

The F-117 is now retired,

Yes as of this year, because the 22s are coming out. So?

 

[Cyrus]

No, the GAO doesn't purchase anything for the military.

You're right. My bad.

That's not my point at all. I was addressing the one F-22 = two F-15's multiplier (mentioned by Fred Garvin) and often used by proponents of the F-22. My point is that as you suggest aircraft do indeed need to be distributed far and wide, but if you need one you need one and can't chop it in half to send to two places.

I think the point is that if you need two F-15s, you can just use one F-22. Not chop one in half...

 

[Cyrus]

The source, if you bother, was the GAO via the FAS website as I linked above. The USAF website itself shows the $143m figure for 383 planes. You know its different how?

I read the book skunkworks, written by the head engineer of Lockheed Martin in the early 90's where he specifically said the price of the F-22 was well below $100 million but predicted (quite accurately) that it would jump to above $100million thanks to government intervention everywhere possible.

This is exactly the same reason why our B-2s cost a BILLION dollars each.

 

[mheslep]

Originially, the price was not $102 million.

http://www.f22fighter.com/history.htm

That's an enthusiast website. Catchy top gun theme on the home page though.

This latter part is particularly annoying:

But perhaps the best answer is: How can we afford not to have it? The F-22 provides "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" capability. It can see the enemy first while avoiding detection itself. When we meet the enemy, we want to win 100-0, not 51-49. Why? Simple. American lives. The F-22’s effectiveness minimizes the loss of American lives. What price will you put on these?

This is the worst kind self-serving sophistry the contractors put out all the time. (And I've worked for them, built some gear). It's used to justify the most ridiculous statements, as if costs don't matter. They do. It means this money doesn't get spent somewhere else, such as on up-armoured HMMVs, or IED resistant vehicles like MRAPs, or more training for guys on the ground, all so some contractor can sell colossally pricey system that the country may not need.

 

[Cyrus]

That's an enthusiast website. Catchy top gun theme on the home page though.

This latter part is particularly annoying:
This is the worst kind self-serving sophistry the contractors put out all the time. (And I've worked for them, built some gear). It's used to justify the most ridiculous statements, as if costs don't matter. They do. It means this money doesn't get spent somewhere else, such as on up-armoured HMMVs, or IED resistant vehicles like MRAPs, or more training for guys on the ground, all so some contractor can sell colossally pricey system that the country may not need.

That's true enough.

 

[Alfi]

I think it's time the whole of 'Military Spending' needs to be looked at.

Of all the companies I've worked with, every single one had a whole different pricing system for anything to do with the DoD.

 

[FredGarvin]

Then why do we need F-22s at $143M each? Why not just buy replacement 16s/18s/15s for much less? Non-afterburning supersonic is great but its largely just a range extender, which we can do w/ in-flight refuelling as always, and still be ahead on cost.

Because those aircraft would never stand up to a Sukhoi SU-35 with vectored thrust or the like in the future. They are losing their grasp of air superiority very slowly, but it will happen. There are times when recycling 1960's technology is well worth it, i.e. the B-52. However, this is not one of those times.

The two F-15's for one F-22 argument is cold war type engagement force multiplier, large air force vs large air force. IMO it doesn't hold up applied to today's reality. If the mission is a one F-15 out and back bombing of some Taliban, it also takes one F-22. If we need one F-16/F-15 each on station in North, South, East, and Western Afghanistan to handle ground support, then we still need one each in those disparate places with F-22s; one-for-two deals don't help.

When have you EVER seen a strike package with one aircraft? NEVER. Aircraft do not fly in combat zones by themselves. Even the F-17s didn't in Gulf War 1. You are always sending out aircraft in at least groups of 2.

 

[FredGarvin]

Of all the companies I've worked with, every single one had a whole different pricing system for anything to do with the DoD.

That's right because when it comes down to it, it is still a business. I work on DoD programs all the time. Of any programs we get hammered on cost and schedule hardest by the government IMO.

 

[misgfool]

That's right because when it comes down to it, it is still a business. I work on DoD programs all the time. Of any programs we get hammered on cost and schedule hardest by the government IMO.

I always thought the costly ingredient was the green paint.

 

[Phrak]

I think it's time the whole of 'Military Spending' needs to be looked at.

Of all the companies I've worked with, every single one had a whole different pricing system for anything to do with the DoD.

Of course. There are a host of added costs in making the same product for defense.

The sequence runs Commercial, Industrial, FAA, Defense, Space. Space is far and above the greatest, where retorquing a screw may require scheduling a technician, an inspector, a witness. and a pretorque review of procedures. Wanna buy a space hammer?

 

[mheslep]

Of course. There are a host of added costs in making the same product for defense.

The sequence runs Commercial, Industrial, FAA, Defense, Space. Space is far and above the greatest, where retorquing a screw may require scheduling a technician, an inspector, a witness. and a pretorque review of procedures. Wanna buy a space hammer?

The higher costs are driven by issues other than the extremes of the product environment. The paperwork and staffing required to step through government hoops, many of them having absolutely nothing to do with the product at hand, is a big, big part of it. Case in point: the spending/stimulus bill that just passed has some Buy American clauses in it. So a contractor is going to have to submit paperwork demonstrating they did so. The people submitting that paperwork should be specialists since the consequences for fouling it up can be severe. The contractor building, say, your home doesn't have those costs.

 

[Phrak]

The higher costs are driven by issues other than the extremes of the product environment. The paperwork and staffing required to step through government hoops, many of them having absolutely nothing to do with the product at hand, is a big, big part of it. Case in point: the spending/stimulus bill that just passed has some Buy American clauses in it. So a contractor is going to have to submit paperwork demonstrating they did so. The people submitting that paperwork should be specialists since the consequences for fouling it up can be severe. The contractor building, say, your home doesn't have those costs.

Not the physical environment, per se, but the demands on performance.

I've had experience in both Industrial and Aerospace. The difference is a shock. For every person adding hands-on value, there are a dozen others pushing paper and computer files, often doing unfathomable support tasks. Those actually adding physical value, can themselves, be devoting a good chunk of their time to jumping other hoops.

 

[Supercritical]

If a small-government Republican becomes a hypocrite for promoting government spending to create jobs, then a big-government Democrat is a hypocrite for criticizing him. Crying hypocrisy when politicians cross the aisle tends to discourage the practice. One of the premises of this thread, that there is a "dichotomy in the logic of [some] Republicans," sounds like a Yogi Berra scenario:

"We're in perfect agreement. I pledged to cross the aisle, and they did too."

Ivan, if you are assured of the logical consistency of your politics, entailing criticism of a part of the opposition when it has reversed positions (at least on this issue), then you are letting one position dominate your perspective: that you must oppose them no matter what stance they take on the issue.

It is true that they have blemished the highly-sought quality of logical consistency, but it appears that emphasizing that fact is a higher priority to you than consolidating their support (although in this case you have written that you would oppose defense spending on the grounds of jobs).

Much hinges on what definition of "compromise" one prefers. Did a politician fulfill his ideals by making concessions to reach a compromise? Or did he compromise his ideals by making concessions?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If a small-government Republican becomes a hypocrite for promoting government spending to create jobs, then a big-government Democrat is a hypocrite for criticizing him. Crying hypocrisy when politicians cross the aisle tends to discourage the practice. One of the premises of this thread, that there is a "dichotomy in the logic of [some] Republicans," sounds like a Yogi Berra scenario:

There is no one crossing the aisle here. This isn't about being non-partisan. This is just pushing pork and throwing one's political philosphy out the window. If the argument is that we need more Raptors to provide for the national defense, I can respect that. But pushing weapons as welfare is hypocritical for Republicans in particular.

I do find it interesting that you wish to make a major point out of a minor one. I already stated that I don't support Democrats who do this either.

 

[Cyrus]

The higher costs are driven by issues other than the extremes of the product environment. The paperwork and staffing required to step through government hoops, many of them having absolutely nothing to do with the product at hand, is a big, big part of it. Case in point: the spending/stimulus bill that just passed has some Buy American clauses in it. So a contractor is going to have to submit paperwork demonstrating they did so. The people submitting that paperwork should be specialists since the consequences for fouling it up can be severe. The contractor building, say, your home doesn't have those costs.

Yes.

 

[Supercritical]

It just appears to me that you've recently had an interest in painting Republicans as hypocrites (if politician X supports policy Y, then how can he/she oppose legislation Z?).

And regarding the military-industrial complex (another topic for another time), I still posit that it's mostly hype. It's not that waste and fraud don't happen, but it's not like the industry has hijacked the federal budget as some would claim. For instance, the film "Why we Fight" (the subject of a somewhat lengthy thread in this forum) invokes Eisenhower's speech extensively and would have you believe that the defense industry has a stranglehold on the budget:

[about 33 minutes into the film] Today, the United States spends more on defense than all other discretionary parts of the federal budget combined.

Keyword: discretionary. For 2006 it was 53% of the discretionary budget, but about 20% of the total budget (33% if you use the $750 billion figure which correctly includes intelligence, atomic energy, supplemental spending, etc.)

The defense industry is one of mergers and buyouts. In aerospace alone, the names Bell, Northrop, McDonnell Douglas, North American, Convair, Rockwell, General Dynamics, Vought, Fairchild and Martin have either ceased to exist, having been absorbed by another company, or have sold off sizable divisions in order to stay afloat. This has created giants like Lockheed and Boeing which scoop up most of the big contracts nowadays. There have been other factors at work that drove that, but gone are the days of large numbers of spendy procurement programs. It got to the point that if you missed the boat on a large contract, you might not survive to see the next one. As I noted earlier, defense spending simply has not scaled along with the budget.

But $750 billion sounds like an absurdly big number, and selective facts look really cool and serious when they're shown as white text against a black background.