Real cost of an F-22?

[djpav]

Below is an article by WINSLOW T. WHEELER, a guy who knows his stuff and has written numerous articles on defense matters especially armament costs. I've been trying to get an *actual*, real, down-to-earth estimate on how much each F-22 costs, and to me he seems to be in the right ballpark. Any one has other opinions on this matter?


--------------------------------------
What Does an F-22 Cost?
By WINSLOW T. WHEELER

On Wednesday, March 25, an F-22 crashed near Edwards Air Force Base, CA. Very sadly, the pilot was killed. The news articles surrounding this event contained some strange assertions about the cost of the F-22. The tragic event was apparently used to disseminate some booster-baloney.

Possibly based on the price asserted in the Air Force's "fact" sheet on the F-22 that was linked to a Pentagon "news" story on the crash, the cost per aircraft was typically described in many media articles as about $140 million.

What utter hogwash.

The latest "Selected Acquisition Report" from the Defense Department is the most definitive data available on the costs for the F-22. The SAR shows a "Current Estimate" for the F-22 program in "Then-Year" dollars of $64.540 billion, which includes both R&D and procurement. That $64.5 billion has bought a grand total of 184 aircraft.

Do the arithmetic: $64.540/184 = $350.1. Total program unit price for one F-22, what approximates the "sticker price," is $350 million per copy.

So, where does the bogus $143 million per copy come from? Most will recognize that as the "flyaway" cost: the amount we pay today, just for the current production costs of an F-22. (Note, however, the "flyaway" cost does not include the gas, pilot, et cetera needed to fly the aircraft away.)

Advocates of buying more F-22s assert they can be had for this "bargain basement" $143 price in their lobbying - now rather intense - to buy more F-22s above and beyond the 184 currently contracted for. That is, they argue, the "cost to go" for buying new models, which do not require a calculation to amortize the early R&D and other initially high production costs across the fleet. It's what we're paying now for F-22s in annual appropriations bills. Right?

Hopefully, it will neither surprise nor offend you to say that assertion is pure bovine scatology.

Congressional appropriations bills and their accompanying reports are not user-friendly documents, but having wadded through them for the past 30 years, I know their hiding holes. The F-22 program has many. Let's check through the 2009 congressional appropriations for the F-22. Most - but not all - of the required information is contained in HR 2638.

In the "Joint Explanatory Statement" accompanying the bill, the House and Senate appropriators specified that $2.907 billion was to be appropriated for 20 F-22s in 2009. The math comes to just about what the Air Force said, $145 million per copy. So, what's the problem?

There's more; plenty more. Flipping down to the section on "modification of aircraft" we find another $327 million for the F-22 program.

Switching over to the Research and Development section, we find another $607 million for the F-22 under the title "Operational System Development."

Some will further know it is typical for DOD to provide "advance procurement" money in previous appropriations bills to support the subsequent year's purchase of major equipment. In the case of the 2009 buy of 20 F-22's, the previous 2008 appropriations bill provided "advance procurement" for "long lead" items needed to be purchased in advance to enable the 2009 buy. The amount provided was $427 million.

Here's the arithmetic: $2.907 + $.327 + $.607 + $.427 = $4.268 billion for 20 aircraft. That's $213 million each.

Please do not think these data represent an exceptional year. If you check any of the last few annual buys of F-22s, you will find the same pattern: in addition to the annual "procurement" amount, there is additional "modification," "operational system development," and advance procurement.

F-22s are costing these days a little over $200 million each. Period.

Well, actually, there's more. Last November, Acquisition Czar John Young told the press that the first 100 F-22's built need an additional $8 billion in R&D and procurement costs to bring them all up to their originally mandated requirements. Ergo, the total program unit cost is not $350 million each, it's $394 million, assuming Young is correct. The annual purchase, "cost to go" ("flyaway"), price will also go up, but just how much is not calculable right now.

For those sticklers who also want to know how much it will cost to maintain and operate the F-22, you can forget all those promises that it would be cheaper than the aging F-15 it is supposed to replace. Data released by the Pentagon shows that for 2008 each aging F-15 C in the inventory cost, on average, $607,072.92 to maintain and operate. Pricey, but to be expected for such an old airplane.

The F-22's care and feeding is a little more. In 2008, each cost $3,190,454.72 to maintain and operate: that's more than five time the cost to run a decrepit F-15.

OK, so the F-22 is really pricey and the Air Force and its boosters are full of baloney on the cost, but it's a great airplane, a real war winner, right?

Oh, please. Consider the source. More on that later.

------------------------------------
Winslow T. Wheeler spent 31 years working on Capitol Hill with senators from both political parties and the Government Accountability Office, specializing in national security affairs. Currently, he directs the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. He is author of The Wastrels of Defense and the editor of a new anthology: ‘America’s Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress’.

[cobzz]

A pilot dies. And what does this loon (Wheeler) do? Push his agenda. Might be nice setting this guy against Carlo Kopp, or ELP, atleast. Good article though, I don't think anything was factually incorrect.

[Gremlin29]

While his raw data may be factual, he's putting it together in way that gives him the "slant" that he wants it to have. Here's an example of how you can perceive shortage/overage due to faulty math:

3 men enter a hotel, the innkeeper states that their room is $30. Each man has one $10 bill (and no other money), they each give the innkeeper their $10 bill.

2 hours later the innkeeper discovers he has erred, the room should have been $25. He hands five, $1 dollar bills to the bell hop and tells him to go to room 20 and give the 3 men the $5 due.

On his way to the room, the bellhop reallizes that the 3 men can't split $5 evenly and he has no change. The bellhop decides he will keep $2, and give three $1 bills to the 3 men. The bellhop knocks on the door, one of the 3 men answer and the bellhop explains the hotel overcharged for the room and he was giving the men $3.

Each of the 3 men now have a $1 bill. Since each man started with $10, and now has $1, that means they each paid $9 for their room. If each man paid $9, that's $27 right? If the bellhop only kept $2, $27+$2 is $29. Where did the other $1 go? :confused:

Anyway, I believe he has forgotten to deduct the long lead acquisition dollars from the base contract. Awarding a contract value, and then approving a portion of that value on long lead items is not unusual in the government contracting world.

I am a DoD contractor, the procurement process is VERY complicated and takes years of everyday hands on experience to develop a practical level of expertise. Unless this guy has been able to review the daily activities of the contractor and contracting officer and his/her staff he is only looking at raw data that does not tell a story, other than dollars spent to date and that data isn't even 100% accurate. Fact.

For Raptor total costs to date divided by delivered aircraft gives the actual "per copy" cost. There's alot of R&D funds, general conditions etc that are front loaded that are now fixed but none the less are included in the total program cost. "If" $100M is spent in the entire process to develop, produce and field 100 units of something, the unit cost is $1M. $50M may have been on the front end so the "actual" production cost of said unit is only $500k. If you buy 101 units (1 more unit that the original contract and contract value call for), take that $50M for front end costs, add $500k x 101 units and you have a total unit cost of $995k ($500k x101 + $50M / 101). The more you buy, the cheaper they get and that, is a fact as well. But it misrepresents something, the actual out the door price for 1 additional unit is still only $500k, not $995k as it would first appear.

[F-15 Eagle]

I hate that guy WINSLOW T. WHEELER he has no clue what he is talking about. He rather have the air force use 30 year old F-15s than replace them with F-22s that are badly needed for air superiority in the 21st century.

Yes an F-22 crashed and a pilot is dead, but accidents do happen in the military, military aircraft do crash in fact there is not one single military aircraft that has not crashed. Crashes are just a fact of life in the air force. And if you think just one crash is enough to have a solid argument against buying more F-22s is laughable.

What about all the F-15s that broke apart or crashed due to age? No no one says a god damn word but when one F-22 crashed people lose their F******* minds and rant on about how the F-22 is an "out dated cold war weapon" and how its unsafe and that the Taliban is the only the threat that the U.S. faces as if Russia, China and Iran and so on does not even exist.

[f-22fan12]

I hate that guy WINSLOW T. WHEELER he has no clue what he is talking about. He rather have the air force use 30 year old F-15s than replace them with F-22s that are badly needed for air superiority in the 21st century.

Yes an F-22 crashed and a pilot is dead, but accidents do happen in the military, military aircraft do crash in fact there is not one single military aircraft that has not crashed. Crashes are just a fact of life in the air force. And if you think just one crash is enough to have a solid argument against buying more F-22s is laughable.

What about all the F-15s that broke apart or crashed due to age? No no one says a god damn word but when one F-22 crashed people lose their F******* minds and rant on about how the F-22 is an "out dated cold war weapon" and how its unsafe and that the Taliban is the only the threat that the U.S. faces as if Russia, China and Iran and so on does not even exist.

I couldn't agree with you more. It is amazing that people think nothing of an F-15 simply falling apart in the air. The frontline fighter plane for the most powerful air force in the world simply falling apart in midair. The F-22 is needed.

[rossfrb_1]

I couldn't agree with you more. It is amazing that people think nothing of an F-15 simply falling apart in the air. The frontline fighter plane for the most powerful air force in the world simply falling apart in midair. The F-22 is needed.

Why is the F-22 needed?
The F-22 is needed at ANY cost?
What about new build F-15 s?
I'm sure Boeing would happily sell the USAF as many F-15SEs as they can
The guy is arguing economics - specifically the cost of the F-22. He may be right or he may be wrong.
U add nothing to that discussion.


rb

[F-15 Eagle]

Why is the F-22 needed?
The F-22 is needed at ANY cost?
What about new build F-15 s?
I'm sure Boeing would happily sell the USAF as many F-15SEs as they can
The guy is arguing economics - specifically the cost of the F-22. He may be right or he may be wrong.
U add nothing to that discussion.


rb

Because Russia is selling new SU-30s and SA-400 SAMs to Iran as well to other nations and the F-15 is an out dated 40 year old design. It can not survive in the 21st century conflicts and stealth and supercruse is a must have. By the way although the F-15SE is a cool looking bird it is not a true stealth aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 are.

[F-15 Eagle]

I couldn't agree with you more. It is amazing that people think nothing of an F-15 simply falling apart in the air. The frontline fighter plane for the most powerful air force in the world simply falling apart in midair. The F-22 is needed.

Yep the F-22 is needed and the F-35 is not even in service yet. So no one knows how good the F-35 will really be. I'm sure it will be great at ATA but its not in service yet, not for several more years so no one knows for sure and the F-15s need to be replace now not tomorrow.

[StevoJH]

Yep the F-22 is needed and the F-35 is not even in service yet. So no one knows how good the F-35 will really be. I'm sure it will be great at ATA but its not in service yet, not for several more years so no one knows for sure and the F-15s need to be replace now not tomorrow.

F-35 is in production now, though only at low rates, i suppose it might be worth it to keep the F-22 in production until such time as the F35 enters full scale production and is in squadron service.

[macman]

Because Russia is selling new SU-30s and SA-400 SAMs to Iran ????

Where the hell do people pull this stuff out of?
There are no sales of either system to Iran, & SA-400's are not exported at all (atleast at present).

Also, the SU-30 is from a design almost as old as the F-15...

[Feanor]

Because Russia is selling new SU-30s and SA-400 SAMs to Iran as well to other nations and the F-15 is an out dated 40 year old design. It can not survive in the 21st century conflicts and stealth and supercruse is a must have. By the way although the F-15SE is a cool looking bird it is not a true stealth aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 are.

I agree. Check your facts F-15 Eagle. This is the second time I run across you mentioning some Su-30 sale to Iran. No such sale ever took place. Unless you're referencing the ridiculous Jerusalem post article from a while back, I have no idea where you're getting your info. The S-400 isn't even hypothetically available for export. The Russian MoD bought up the production line for several years. Belarus and Kazakhstan are asking for early sales because they're CSTO members, and are entitled to certain benefits, but so far even they have gotten nothign. Iran is certainly not getting the system.

Morever the current F-15s are more then capable of dealing with the exported Su-30s. There is currently no other airforce that even has a chance of standing up to the USAF provided that the US is willing to do what it takes to win. The notion that the F-15 is somehow completely outdated and no longer useful is silly at best. If it were so useless, why would the RoK and Singapore still be buying them?

[rjmaz1]

What about all the F-15s that broke apart or crashed due to age?

No one cares that F-15's are falling out of the air as they are still incredibly valuable for the money they cost each year operate. You could operate them until they all fell out of the sky and they would be more cost effective than the F-22.

Buying a single F-22 and operating it for a year costs more than operating over 200 F-15 eagles for that single year.

No one here would be stupid enough to take a single F-22 over 200 F-15 Eagles.

The USAF is facing a HUGE reduction in aircraft numbers if it continues F-22 production. Continuing F-22 production could potentially destroy the only solution to the aircraft number problem, and that is the success of the F-35 program. The USAF is concerned about its aircraft numbers so new cheap aircraft is what is required. That means no F-22's.

If the funds for 20 additional F-22's were used for advanced F-35 procurement you'd get more aircraft far sooner and have greater overall capability. The F-35 is a far more advanced aircraft.

The F-22 to the F-35 is like comparing a MIG-31 to an SU-27. There are so many similarities between such comparisons. The SU-27 is only a few years never, but is cheaper and far more versatile. Like the F-22, the Mig-31's only advantage is its speed and slightly more powerful radar.

No country is buying Mig-31's as its mission is gone, much like the F-22's. Everyone is buying versatile SU-27/30's which is similar to the F-35.

[OPSSG]

Yep the F-22 is needed...

Few even try to dispute the capabilities of the F-22, even though much of its true abilities is still classified.

...the F-35 is not even in service yet. So no one knows how good the F-35 will really be. I'm sure it will be great at ATA but its not in service yet, not for several more years so no one knows for sure...

It's almost here. The F-35 platform has the potential to be even more successful that the F-16 platform.

...the F-15s need to be replace now not tomorrow.

I'll be a little disappointed, as Singapore bought the F-15SG on the assurance that the F-15 platform will stay in USAF service till... 2035?!

The notion that the F-15 is somehow completely outdated and no longer useful is silly at best. If it were so useless, why would the RoK and Singapore still be buying them?

Do you steal my line? :onfloorl:

[StingrayOZ]

The F-15 while good is not the light year advantage the F-22 is. The F-22 is what the US has to assert total dominance and to fund development of technologies (governments only fund pure theoetical research so far..). The F-22 is what you use to shoot down alien aircraft or other countries all new aircraft.

F-15 is still a fine frontline multirole fighter. But its entirely possible that there will be better planes in the air by 2020-2030. That doesn't make it useless but, means its no longer the first option for A2A and A2G. The F-35 is going to make up the numbers and be a fine aircraft complimenting the f-22.

F-35 verse F-15? Come on. F-35 is going to be cheaper to operate (less than 1/2 the cost), more reliable (more avalible airframes more of the time), VLO, while keeping very respectable speed and agility and the most advanced computer system and sensors. Its a whole rethink on aircraft and aircraft design.

[Feanor]

While his raw data may be factual, he's putting it together in way that gives him the "slant" that he wants it to have. Here's an example of how you can perceive shortage/overage due to faulty math:

3 men enter a hotel, the innkeeper states that their room is $30. Each man has one $10 bill (and no other money), they each give the innkeeper their $10 bill.

2 hours later the innkeeper discovers he has erred, the room should have been $25. He hands five, $1 dollar bills to the bell hop and tells him to go to room 20 and give the 3 men the $5 due.

On his way to the room, the bellhop reallizes that the 3 men can't split $5 evenly and he has no change. The bellhop decides he will keep $2, and give three $1 bills to the 3 men. The bellhop knocks on the door, one of the 3 men answer and the bellhop explains the hotel overcharged for the room and he was giving the men $3.

Each of the 3 men now have a $1 bill. Since each man started with $10, and now has $1, that means they each paid $9 for their room. If each man paid $9, that's $27 right? If the bellhop only kept $2, $27+$2 is $29. Where did the other $1 go? :confused:


Clever but wrong. The 27 dollars includes 25 dollars for the barkeeper, and 2 dollars for the bellhop. So when you add 2+27, you're counting the bellhoppers money twice. You're also excluding the money that they got back. The real breakdown is simple. The barkeeper got 25, the bellhop got 2, and they got 3. That's how you get the original 30. ;) It took me a little while of thinking about it to realize where your calculation went wrong.

[JWCook]

Re the faulty math...

The problem with the F-22 is in the accounting, Keeping to the theme -

LM will tell you that the hotel rooms are $9 each per night but if you do a multiyear purchase of 365 nights they will sell it to you at $7.50 thus saving taxpayers $547.50.

Then charging you $2 for the bed, $2 TV x 365 from last years budget, and buying beer nuts from long lead items, plus reinvesting some of that capital into cost efficiencies which may save 2 for every 1 invested but there's no real guarantees of that.



So instead of buying a 3 rooms for $27 you can get a room for $8.75 provided you pay $4000 up front.:onfloorl:, and you'll pay gladly because soon the Russians might develop rooms that have beds and TV's for $5.

Voila you've ended up with a "sub prime mortgage" of a fighter.

Put simply - the math isn't dodgy but the accounting is.

[the road runner]

How much would it cost to fly a package of AWACS,ISR,Fighter(F-),Bombers(B-),Attack(A-),Jamming aircraft into an adversarys battle space?
Im thinking alot of $$$$$$$.


An article from DefenceToday Volume 7 number 4,March 2009(page 42-44)
Lieutenant General David A Deptula,Deputy chief of staff for ISR,USAF.

Lieutenant General David A Deptula is a strong advocate of acquring platforms based on there combat effect rather than the price tag. He says that buying on price, not combat effectis false economy,as the cost of replicating the combat effect of a true multi role platform-one that combines air superiority,ISR and offensive strike capabilities -would be many times that of a seemingly high cost single platfrom.His argument is central to the current debate whether the F-22 is indeed an expensive option when considered against effects based warefare

Question=To what extent dose the US Air force run the risk of overcommiting its F-22 fleet across air dominance,strike,defence supression and ISR roles?

LtGen Delupa This is an intresting point that highlights the fact that traditional nonmenclature,constraints understanding of capability.Take, for example,the F-22 which is not really and air to air platform; its an F-,A-,B-,E-,EA-,RC-,AWACS........22;and its a flying ISR sensor that will allow us to conduct network centric warefare inside an adversarys battlespace from the first moments of any conflict in addition to its array of combat capabilities......

Well when he puts it like that i think the USAF,F-22 dose cost alot of money per unit..Lets say $300 million US.

Now if you want to replicate the same capability that the F-22 can bring to the battlespace,how much will that cost?Im thinking alot more than $300 million for the same package.Lets say F18F($90 mil,for fighter and Attack mission),F18G($100 mil for jamming)AWACS(at least $80 million??)Ok well ive already spent a bit of coin and i still have no RC capability and its not a full LO aircraft.

I am starting to see where Lt General David A Deptula is comming from.:p:

[Feanor]

Re the faulty math...

The problem with the F-22 is in the accounting, Keeping to the theme -

Voila you've ended up with a "sub prime mortgage" of a fighter.

Put simply - the math isn't dodgy but the accounting is.

Hehe. Oh I wasn't responding to the F-22 math. I was responding specifically to the hotel room example which at first left me somewhat dumbfounded. :D I don't know enough about the F-22 math to comment. :(

[JWCook]

Now if you want to replicate the same capability that the F-22 can bring to the battlespace,how much will that cost?Im thinking alot more than $300 million for the same package.Lets say F18F($90 mil,for fighter and Attack mission),F18G($100 mil for jamming)AWACS(at least $80 million??)Ok well ive already spent a bit of coin and i still have no RC capability and its not a full LO aircraft.

I am starting to see where Lt General David A Deptula is comming from.:p:

Your looking at it from only one angle...

How about a senario where you want an Awacs in one area, with a fighter in another, and a jammer in a third...

and you just blew all your money on something that can only be in one place.

Cheers

[the road runner]

Your looking at it from only one angle...

How about a senario where you want an Awacs in one area, with a fighter in another, and a jammer in a third...

and you just blew all your money on something that can only be in one place.

Cheers

Good point,and point taken thanx:)

But these AWACS,Fighters and Jammers,will they have the LO capability of the F-22?

If no then is this not an advantage for the F-22.A LO Fighter that has the capability to do number of roles?

thanx in advance

[JWCook]

Good point,and point taken thanx:)

But these AWACS,Fighters and Jammers,will they have the LO capability of the F-22?

If no then is this not an advantage for the F-22.A LO Fighter that has the capability to do number of roles?

thanx in advance

LO has advantages, but do the awacs, growler and fighter all need LO all the time or even at all?.

A fighter is pretty useless as an awacs as flight time is poor by comparison, lacks the coverage, So the F-22 will have less capability than an AWACs for that role.

As a jammer the F-22 is not being stealthy, its emitting = very bad for stealth, for this role power generation, 360 degree emitters and loitre time are important.

As a fighter is really really good, unless you need numbers, in which case its not that good a fighter compared against cost/capability/coverage.

Its horses for courses, each aircraft is tailored for its mission, a broad range of different aircraft tailored to their missions will beat a fewer number of specialised aircraft no matter how good they are.

I'm surprised LM are not putting forward the F-22 for the upcoming tanker bids, after all it is a supercruising stealthy tanker.:)

Cheers

[localhost127]

on bbc news last night, they were talking about possible defense cuts upcoming ... talked about the high-figure projects (dd-1000, f-22, etc) and quoted f-22 at 500million a piece.

no sources or information to how they came to that figure.

[Gremlin29]

Nice job Feanor :) JWCook, don't forget those TV's need to be hardened against EMP, you might want to rethink your cost proposal. :onfloorl:

There's two ways to view this or any other program.

1. Get upset over unit costs by dividing the fixed costs (all money spent to get the first production unit out the door) into the built to date units plus production cost per unit.

2. Understand that you've already spent/paid the fixed costs, further acquisitions and dollars spent per unit are, what they are.

If they want F-22 unit prices to be lower, all they need to do is double production.

[JWCook]

If they want F-22 unit prices to be lower, all they need to do is double production.

Or if they are worried about how much it actually costs rather than an arbitrary flyaway cost figure - then they should cut production...

When your broke - your broke!..

[Feanor]

Right. To evaluate the F-22 program at this point we have to ignore sunk costs. They've already been spent either way.

[Gremlin29]

When your broke - your broke!..

We are brokerer, luckily the Chinese are buying them for us. :onfloorl:
I wasn't actually implying more "should" be made, I was just making a genarlized statement.

[SkolZkiy]

RAF ordered 3 f-35 for $700 millions - and estimated cost of F-35 now is something like 100-110 millions. May be it will be cheaper not to make 2400 F-35 but to make 1700 and 500 of F-22?? Any AirForce need something to take airsuperity - F-35 doubtfully could this job. if USAF will have only somtething like 200 F-22 - we here in Russia would be very pleased (minuce one headache=)))) )

[swerve]

While I doubt the predicted flyaway price will ever be met, I can't let this pass without comment.

USD700 million for 3 is because they are test & evaluation aircraft, very early in the production run. Pre-production, really. The price at full-rate production will be much lower. The price of F-22s at the same point in the development/production cycle would have been truly terrifying.

As for the estimated cost - firstly, I don't trust any of the estimates out there, & secondly, be very careful with the figures. Which cost is that? The overall unit cost including fixed costs (on that basis, an F-22 costs USD350 million), or the marginal cost of production (F-22 about USD140 million), or the average cost of procuring an F-35, including all the ancillary bits & pieces (F-22 about USD170 mn)?

[SkolZkiy]

I'm counting avarage cost of F-22 of 150-190 millions - because nobody says real price of them. 350 is with the development stage. (As I understood)

about F-35 It was said that US MD will buy 2400 AC and pay for them ~290 B$ = 120 M$ per unit - if I am wrong correct me and say in what?? Is 290 B$ summ with design stage or not?? If not, then - read my previous post.

[Grand Danois]

Your looking at it from only one angle...

How about a senario where you want an Awacs in one area, with a fighter in another, and a jammer in a third...

and you just blew all your money on something that can only be in one place.

Cheers

You could always buy the 4.5 gen Eurofighter at 50% additional cost over the JSF and which has nearly no money for upgrades...

So with the EF you have a 4.5 gen with no awacs, tankers and stand off jamming - at all.

congrats !

Talking about blowing money...

Geezuz christ the attempts at doing character assasination on the jsf - throwing stones from te inside of the green house.

[dragonfire]

IMHO the actual Unit cost of the F-22 can be derived after the maturity of its expected lifetime production cycle. At any given time the raptor or for that matter the unit cost of any product has to be the total amount of money actualy spent (not just allocated but spent) divided by no of units produced - simple. The costs will marginaly decrease with every additional unit produced. The cost for the current 184 will obviously be high as they are only the first lot (although over some years) am sure despite the recession there will be further orders for the Raptor over a period of the next 10 years (perhaps not immediately) to the extent that it is easily concievable that the current numbers of the raptor will be doubled and thereby the unit cost of fighter will be brought down, am sure it will still easily be 100 mill plus though

I mean didnt the UAE spend about 6 Billion USD on some 80 F-16 I (including 3 billion only on development - avg cost - 75 million apiece, if the order size would have been 160 - avg cost - 56.25 million - [total cost 6 biilion of the fighters plus 3 billion development cost - total - 9 billion])

Irrespective of the discussions fact is the capability although classified is still going to be the best the world has seen and therefore retains the No 1 slot for the USAF (there is another thread that discusses the best Air Force in 2025 - the USAF will retain that spot beacuse of its relatively big size of F-22s and F-35s in its inventory)

[swerve]

I'm counting avarage cost of F-22 of 150-190 millions - because nobody says real price of them. 350 is with the development stage. (As I understood)

about F-35 It was said that US MD will buy 2400 AC and pay for them ~290 B$ = 120 M$ per unit - if I am wrong correct me and say in what?? Is 290 B$ summ with design stage or not?? If not, then - read my previous post.


Try the sources -
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/SAR%20Acquisition%20Cost%20Table%20(2).pdf

$298 842.8 mn, total programme cost including all fixed costs (design, development, etc) for 2456 F-35s. It's in "then-year" dollars, which means that past expenditures are the actual amounts spent, & future expenditure is adjusted to take into account expected future inflation. You really should check what the parameters are first.

In 2002 dollars, $66,991.8 for 183 F-22 ($366 mn each) & $210,014.5 for 2456 F-35 ($85.5 mn each), including all fixed costs in both cases. If you do some digging, you should be able to find a breakdown into fixed & recurring costs.

[JWCook]

You could always buy the 4.5 gen Eurofighter at 50% additional cost over the JSF and which has nearly no money for upgrades...


That depends on what figures your using...
At present exchange rates and present estimated JSF costs (not a fixed variable you'll agree) I make the JSF ~20% more than a EF.

Pointless to argue about till the JSF has a real price, and that depends on orders. ie counting chickens etc...

Cheers

[Grand Danois]

That depends on what figures your using...
At present exchange rates and present estimated JSF costs (not a fixed variable you'll agree) I make the JSF ~20% more than a EF.

Pointless to argue about till the JSF has a real price, and that depends on orders. ie counting chickens etc...

Cheers

Yup, depends only on perspective and what figures you're using etc.

But the thinnest argument around is absolutely the doom and gloomers on JSF cost. And when I do the numbers, there's stil a healthy cost overrun for the JSF before it runs into fly-away figures of the EF...

And that's on [my] dimensionless metric. What resources it takes to build the jet. It takes a narrow view to argue the efficiency of the EF programme.

The EF is a product of a euro tech pipeline focused on specific mission - and the need to leverage what was in that pipeline. And being "cheap".

Anyhow, I'm not dissing euro tech or projects, but what we're on the road to do are the failures of the past: take kosovo 99... who had the all weather attack capability and why? Those findings of a decade past are only being implemented now (lols) and the yanks are moving on... and seriously we arent going to fight peer competition so the EF is legit until then...

so...

and btw, for general info: fuggedabout celldar/sentinel types of stealth detection: limited operational use* and is also screwed over on regional scale by the flick of a switch on a prowler/growler TODAY, so have fun devoloping expensive, complicated detection systems. Yup, we're going to see a lot of those around. ;) Not !

Thats the beaty of information dominance: its assymmetric. (!) and stealth is a pivotal part of it

* the swedes have actually published stuff about on the net and they didn't pursue :D

And I'm not givning a shyte about the supporting measures, those costly extra systems needed to support 4.5 gens, that could alleviate things; they havent realised in the past and they wont now.

Because they cost money.

End of story.

[yoron]

So what is good with F-22 Raptor then?

"The F-22 is the only stealth air dominance fighter America is building. Lockheed Martin is leading its development, as well as that of the JSF. It is up to the Pentagon to decide if, when and how each of those aircraft should be developed, built, and delivered.

The Joint Strike Fighter is not an alternative to the F-22. It is meant to work in tandem with the F-22 as a multirole fighter, similarly to the synergistic team of the F-15 and F-16 today. Neither the Navy's Super Hornet nor the JSF can perform the F-22's air dominance mission. They are primarily air-to-ground attack aircraft with a secondary air-to-air combat capability.

Redesigning the JSF for an air dominance role would make it more difficult for the program to meet the Navy and Marine Corps' needs, and break the underlying premise of the JSF as an affordable, tri-service combat aircraft. Such a redesign will significantly increase the JSF Program's costs and technical risk, and disrupt its development, test and production schedules. To meet the Air Dominance Key Performance Parameters, the JSF would require redesign at substantial cost and time and would field no earlier than 2015." http://www.f22fighter.com/history.htm

So what about that outrageous F22 price then? Well, all planes are expensive, JSF will be no exception, even though the Norwegians seem to have gotten themselves quite some price reduction, $52M a 'piece' if I understood it right? The real price seems higher. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/103934/the-great-2009-jsf-cash-rebate%3F.html . And, perhaps it will rise for Norway too?

Naturally, F22 is still the best plane, but it's very expensive for the USA as they don't want to sell it, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idcsRSLw6_ppJCceAZXPgvBEfojgD97D5UDO1 The JSF designs Lockheed bought, as I understand it, by Yakovlev design bureau who worked worked together with Lockheed on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The yak-141 project started back in 1975 and the Yak-141 was among the world's first supersonic VTOL fighter. The Russians sold the engine principle and technology to Lockheed-Martin in mid 90s with the result that the F-35/JSF uses the same engine principles as Yak-141.

------

" During the summer of 1995, Lockheed Martin announced a teaming
arrangement with Yakovlev to assist in the former's bid for the JAST
(Joint Adanced Strike Technology) competition. Yakovlev's knowledge of
jet lift technology was to prove invaluable. Lockheed Martin was
subsequently selected to build a demonstrator aircraft, the X-35, which
went on to win the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) competition and will soon
become a production fighter as the F-35..... The swiveling rear exhaust is a licensed design from the Yakovlev design bureau in Russia, which tried it out on the Yak-141 STOVL fighter." http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-69759.html
--

[gf0012-aust]

That depends on what figures your using...
At present exchange rates and present estimated JSF costs (not a fixed variable you'll agree) I make the JSF ~20% more than a EF.

Pointless to argue about till the JSF has a real price, and that depends on orders. ie counting chickens etc...

Cheers

Let me give you one perspective.

I believe you were at the same session I was that was given by the RAF Typhoon pilot in R1 last year.

He stated point blank that the Typhoon cost 150m USD per plane. I've yet to see anyone come back and dismiss or challenge or clasp their hands to their face over that declaration.

If' he'd said it was 70m USD then it would have been all over the internet as an unstated truth about how cost effective it was.

nobody questioned the metrics as everyone gathered that as a through life cost it was getting close to the mark.

[moahunter]

I think to compare the "real cost" you need to include not just the upfront cost, but also on-going maintenance. The F-35 has been designed from the outset to be easily maintained, including "durable low-maintenance stealth technology" (whatever that is). Even the selection competition emphasized the importance of low cost manufacturing / restricted budgets.

Cost effective solution was never really a significant part of the F-22 design, no doubt if it was designed again today, lessons from the F-35 would be built in. A further factor that will result in far less cost for the F-35 over its lifetime, is the shear number of F-35s that are going to be produced - a whole industry will be built to supply parts for it. Also, thanks to the international nature of the project, various potential international suppliers will be around to keep costs under control / play suppliers off against one another.

They are different planes with slightly different missions, but having so many F-35's in the air operating in an integrated manner is going to be a very powerful force. The F-35 offers a lot more bang for the buck - the extra money assigned to it won't be wasted.

[StephenBierce]

When a similar discussion broke out on Usenet a couple years ago, I had seen a story on a fleet sale of CAC F-7s (improved MiG-21s) to Nigeria. The Nigerians were paying less than $20 million per fighter. My thinking ever since then was based around the likelihood of a single F-22, with no help from the outside world, being able to handle eight to ten F-7s (or their Western equivalent in avionics and performance--F-16Cs!) at once. Destroy them all or render them unable to fight back. If the F-22 can demonstrate the combination of performance, firepower and toughness to survive such a melee and get its mission complete, then I'll feel that the cost of the program is justifiable. Till then I see it as a gold brick at best.

[Feanor]

Stephen the F-7 is far behind an F-16C in capability and performance. It's a 3rd generation aircraft as is the MiG-21 from which it was derived. The F-16C is a mature 4th generation platform. The radar, avionics, BVR missiles, and even raw engine output of an F-16C are all higher.

And yes the F-22 can easily handle 10 MiG-21s or any derivative of with a single full combat load.

[Grand Danois]

That depends on what figures your using...
At present exchange rates and present estimated JSF costs (not a fixed variable you'll agree) I make the JSF ~20% more than a EF.

Pointless to argue about till the JSF has a real price, and that depends on orders. ie counting chickens etc...

Cheers

In a less acerbic tone...

You probably know that there should be a "not to exceed price" for the JSF "consortium buy" for 850-900 JSF cometh May this year and a "fixed firm price" March 2010, at which point there will either be a surprise for the JSF partners or a lot of disbelief from the skeptics.

Anyhow, this argument seems to go away soon enough.

[SkolZkiy]

Try the sources -
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/SAR%20Acquisition%20Cost%20Table%20(2).pdf

$298 842.8 mn, total programme cost including all fixed costs (design, development, etc) for 2456 F-35s. It's in "then-year" dollars, which means that past expenditures are the actual amounts spent, & future expenditure is adjusted to take into account expected future inflation. You really should check what the parameters are first.

In 2002 dollars, $66,991.8 for 183 F-22 ($366 mn each) & $210,014.5 for 2456 F-35 ($85.5 mn each), including all fixed costs in both cases. If you do some digging, you should be able to find a breakdown into fixed & recurring costs.

I've read attentively. Then explain why do you count price 210 billions but not 299?? why do you use the price on 2002 year but not current price??

[swerve]

I've read attentively. Then explain why do you count price 210 billions but not 299?? why do you use the price on 2002 year but not current price??
Because it isn't a current price, it's a "then year" price. That is, each dollar spent is at the prices of the year in which it is spent. For past years, it's actual money spent. For future years, it's a prediction, calculated by predicting
1) how many JSFs will be bought each year
2) what the constant-price cost of each one will be for each year (that is predicted to change over time)
3) what the general price level will be each year
and combining the predictions.
If inflation is not exactly as forecast, or the pattern of purchases changes (e.g. 100 are bought in year X & 200 in year Y, instead of 150 in each year), so will the "then year" price, even if the cost in constant dollars remains unchanged. It's therefore an artificial number, dependent on three predictions any or all of which may be wrong.

The constant dollar costs are not fixed, only the denominator in which they are expressed. If general inflation is 5%, & JSF costs go up by 10%, the constant price JSF cost goes up by 110/105.

Because of the way it's calculated, one can't apply a simple conversion ratio to the "then year" price to turn it into, e.g., 2008 prices, but one can apply a simple conversion ratio to the 2002 price. The conversion ratios are online in the US budget, & the latest ratios are at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/hist.html - section 10, click on the link. Excel spreadsheet.

[JWCook]

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/04/first_jsf_fighter_jet_will_cos.php

Re jsf cost the test planes are apparently 110m Euros = US$142m...

[Gremlin29]

With these programs running so many years the "final" cost is impossible to determine until all the deliverables are handed over to the Air Force. Even a firm fixed price contract isn't firm fixed price if the contractor can show they are entitled to equitable adjustments. They will have extensive line item costs with supporting documentation so if there is a cost escalation for anything unforseen (like the rise in cost for materials or labor) they have but to ask for renumeration.

A simple example of how this works is that the contractor will have pricing for titanium widgets. They will have allocated X dollars for the materials (titanium) based on pricing secured through a vendor. If the cost of titanium on the market increases and the vendor is forced to pass that cost escalation on to the manufacturer they are entitled to an equitable adjustment as long as they can provide documentation of increased costs. This happens every day in the government contracting world, and it happens in the commercial world as well. It's more pronounced in the acquistion of systems like aircraft due to the length of time involved, more time equals more risk for cost escalations. There are rules and limitations in the general and special conditions of the contract but this is an everyday occurrance that isn't limited to the US.