So just how much does one F-22 cost per plane?

[zulchzulu]

$135 Million per plane

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf

There are already 140+ F-22s produced.

[lindisfarne]

1. See Barney Franks comments in #2 here (monopoly money; Pentagon lowballing; weaponized Keynesianism)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8529635&mesg_id=8529713

[Cali_Democrat]

6. It's interesting how some politicians are supposedly opposed to Keynesianism

when it comes to building and improving our nation's infrastructure. Of course money for bridges, roads, and things like green energy is BAD!! It's too beneficial to ordinary Americans, and we just can't have that now can we.

But when it comes to spending billions on useless weapons of war, they're all for it because it creates jobs.

YEEEEE HAAAWWWW!!!!!

[lindisfarne]

7. More importantly, it creates massive corporate profits.n/t

[redqueen]

2. Glad Obama's let everyone know it will be vetoed if they try to fund that crap.

[Phoonzang]

3. But...it's so cool looking.....

Oh well. 140 is enough. I think. I want one. Now.

[TheWraith]

4. I'd rather take the few more F-22s in exchange for killing the Joint Strike Fighter.

Now THAT thing is a waste of money.

[fujiyama]

16. You're talking about the F-35 right?

I thought that's what the administration and Gates would prefer. It's considerably cheaper at $35M as opposed to $120-200M+

Granted the capabilities of the F-22 are superior, but air-air combat seems to be a real remote possibility which is where the F-22 seems to have an advantage.

[TheWraith]

21. Yeah, but the F-22s are improved over the previous generation. The F-35 isn't really.

The main "improvements" in the F-35 over the F-16 and F/A-18 birds we currently use have to do with reduced radar observability. However, that's only a really useful trait for close-air support aircraft if they're going to be in an area where enemy air defenses are operational, which is something that we would NEVER allow to go on. We'd use HARM radar-seeking missiles and Tomahawks from long range as well as precision guided bombs from B-2 Spirits until the air defenses went away.

All the other major improvements in the F-35 such as avionics can be rolled into new versions of the F-16 and F/A-18, without having to design, test, and build a completely new airframe. In short, it's an upgrade that doesn't really give us anything.

The F-22, on the other hand, does do something that we lack the capability for now, namely engage enemy fighter aircraft from a mobile, effectively radar-invisible position. We don't need a ton of the things, but together they and upgraded models of our existing birds could handle all the combat roles that we're likely to demand of them any time in the forseeable future, without the $240 billion dollar total cost of the F-35s. (Which are actually $83 million apiece.)

Of course, Pentagon procurement doesn't listen to me, so...

[Political Heretic]

33. We just don't have a need for air-to-air focused combat fighters.

But the F-22 is my favorite fighter just the same :)

[depakid]

36. Not today

[Posteritatis]

18. The JSF's replacing nearly everything

Most USAF fighters, fighter/bombers and carrier planes, along with most of NATO's other aircraft. The per-unit cost is much closer to contemporary fighters, and there's economy of scale all over the place with that project. Considering they'd need to start replacing most of the fleet soon anyway, they could do much worse than that.

[TheWraith]

22. I favor retrofitting existing designs.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the airframes on our existing fleet of birds, they just need to be rebuilt and have their systems improved. We could save money by using proven engineering designs upgraded for modern tech, as opposed to replacing everything with a whole new airplane.

[Kaleva]

26. An updated Sopwith Camel would be cheap.

Hundreds of Snoppies flying into battle with the evil ones.

[Posteritatis]

30. You underestimate how big a "just" that is

It would basically be the same as replacing everything with a whole new plane.

The airframes themselves are in trouble in a lot of the current inventory (it's raining aircraft at a greater rate than it really should). Many of them are at the point where you couldn't retrofit them without effectively rebuilding them entirely from scratch anyway. After awhile the process of redesigning them from the hull in, rebuilding everything from the hull in, and so on gets to the point where it's probably cheaper to build a new fleet. It would certainly be more expensive than building a whole new run of the aircraft as originally designed.

[TheWraith]

31. Even from scratch you save money.

You're talking about being able to bypass the long and expensive process of testing the airframe and the design to make sure it was stable, reliable, rugged, etcetera.

This sort of thing is why all of the military's recent improvements in rifles have been based on the previous generation: keeping the old engineering principles keeps things cheap and allows for successive minor upgrades, tweaking the machine as you go.

[Posteritatis]

38. A rifle might as well be a spoon, complexity-wise, compared to a modern jet fighter

I'm not convinced it isn't actually cheaper to replace the fleet about once every generation and a half, given what would be involved in rebuilding the entire thing from scratch.

Besides, the "tweaking as you go" thing is very much alive for every aircraft in the US inventory; that's happened to the F-16 at least thirteen times. Unlike rifles, though, aircraft aren't quite as mature a technology. There's only so much you can do to new small arms aside from shuffling around the appearance or tweaking performance to wherever wars happen to be fought these days; things change a lot more dramatically in aeronautics for a variety of reasons.

[lapfog_1]

5. Other reports (and other web sites) put the cost at over $200 M

per plane.

OTOH, the F-15 Strike Eagle had a per-unit cost of about $35M.

I, personally, would much rather have 6 F-15s than one F-22. But that's just me.

[Sherman A1]

8. To

Damn Much!

For a plane that does not serve the requirements of our current situation.

We simply need to build more of what we currently have and move onto the next generation of aircraft. This was designed to fight the Cold War and rumor has it that the Cold War has concluded.

[depakid]

15. The current situation doesn't require maintaining air superiority over top of the line aircraft

and air defenses. Future situation might- and the current F-15's and F-16's aren't up to the task. Nor do they deter a fight.

[Sherman A1]

19. and those would be which aircraft?

Flown or built by who and in what quantity?

Certainly there are newer designs that the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 but just how many of them are there and who has them?

[depakid]

28. Take your pick

http://www.afa.org/Mitchell/Reports/0908air_dominance.pdf

[PufPuf23]

37. Thank you. Interesting and informative link.

Many Americans are not that aware of the scope and activities of the Pentagon.

The media is not given access, under reports / investigates, and is biased (or actively propagandizes)the agendas of the
Pentagon and associated intelligence agencies

The proportion of our federal budget in military expenditures is far too much and could be better spent.

[Thrill]

9. Funny how Republicans are against wasteful spending unless its

for military bullshit

[harun]

35. They always speak of "smaller gov't", I try to get them to admit

what size are they talking about. Because cost is a measure of size as well and endless spending on military equipment we don't need in any way is big flippin gov't as well. At least if we spend it on Health Care, mass transit, or more green energies it helps put money back in the average joe's pocket. A few people get rich off the military spending, but it is hardly the little guy.

[Ian David]

10. When they come down to about $20,000 each I'll buy one. n/t

[cboy4]

11. That is one spectacular fighter jet

[Canuckistanian]

27. Yes, they do look good at Air Shows, don't they?

But in modern warfare, they're as useful as Spitfires. These things aren't even any good at air to ground bombing. They're meant for fighter against fighter skirmishes.

Face it - dogfights with fighters battling each other for air supremacy is bizarre in todays world of cruise missiles, advanced SAMs and stealth drones.

[Mudoria]

12. It's an awesome plane but the DoD and the WH both think we have enough of them

Even W wanted to stop production of more of them. So far this plane hasn't flown in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

[depakid]

13. The cost per aircraft depends on how many are built

[Kaleva]

25. And how many per year

Cost per unit goes down when total number ordered and number manufactured per year go up.

[President Decider]

14. Doesn't matter how much they cost, we won't be building anymore of them ...

Obama is more interested in the F-35 joint strike fighter for future threats ....

[liam_laddie]

17. Cost...

Apparently the seven "extras" are budgeted at $1.75 billion...$250 million per. IIRC, the overall program cost - design, development, lobbyist expense accounts, various payoffs (oops, is that too cynical?) for the 187 planes contracted for at present comes to about $350 million per plane! Absurd. But that's reality in the DC/M-I Complex.
I saw the first development airframe, non-flying test bed, at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH a few weeks ago. Big! Must be packed to the gills with electronics. When WILL the Pentagon be called out on its expensive "toys?"
:crazy:

[baldguy]

20. Or one well-equiped medium-sized public school.

[TankLV]

23. umm - HEALTHCARE FOR ALL FOR A YEAR or more...

would be my rough guess...

[depakid]

29. The rough guess would cover end stage renal failure and cardiovascular interventions

Conditions which in many cases, could be headed off or ameliorated through access to primary care.

Among other good ideas as to health policy- that everyone has.

[TankLV]

24. umm - HEALTHCARE FOR ALL FOR A YEAR or more...

would be my rough guess...

[Political Heretic]

32. It's a shame F-22s aren't practically useful in this era, because they are the coolest jets ever.

F-22s are simply the coolest fighters ever made for air-to-air combat.

[invictus]

34. Yay! A $135M baby-killing machine. But I thought fundies were against abortion. I guess it's OK for

Yay! A $135M baby-killing machine. But I thought fundies were against abortion. I guess it's OK for fundies to kill them after they are born.

:sarcasm: