Over $44,000 an Hour to Fly: Putting the F-22 in Perspective

[babylonsister]

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2945

Over $44,000 an Hour to Fly: Putting the F-22 in Perspective
by: Brandon Friedman
Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 11:34:39 AM EDT


In the midst of the debate over whether or not to suspend production of the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, the Washington Post has revealed exactly how much it costs to fly and maintain each aircraft. It's dizzying.

The F-22 costs more than $44,000 an hour to fly. That's nearly 50 percent more than it costs to maintain its predecessor, the F-15. Think about that. That's what most Americans make in a year. And while the Air Force says the cost to fly the plane for an hour is $44,300, the Office of the Secretary of Defense says it's actually $49,800. They throw these numbers around like they're nothing.

Of course, I don't have an issue with spending whatever it takes to keep America safe. The problem with expanding production of these extravagantly priced F-22s is that they represent the cost to use something we'll likely never need--a Top Gun-style fighter jet which would've come in handy in the 1980s--at the expense of things we could really use at home and abroad--now.

Let's look at this another way. Let's look at it in terms of domestic issues and national security ones. Most operational F-22s are based at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. According to the state Department of Education, the average annual salary of a Virginia public school teacher in 2009 is $51,900. So a public school teacher in Virginia deals with unruly fourth graders for an entire year to earn the amount it costs to fly an airplane for an hour. An airplane America will not need unless we find ourselves in all-out war with China or Russia. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

But let's not stop there. Let's turn to Afghanistan where troops have faced equipment and personnel shortages since 2001. The average infantry staff sergeant serving as a squad leader there--a person without whom counterinsurgency operations simply could not take place--makes around $32,500 a year. A first lieutenant platoon leader commanding a rural outpost in Pashtunistan makes around $41,800. You can add on, say, $10,000 to these positions for hazardous duty pay, housing, etc. Either way, the annual salaries of these critical personnel are more or less in line with what it costs to fly an F-22 for an hour.

That we would spend as much money in an hour flying a nearly useless fighter jet as we do paying critical personnel to fight the war on the ground is obscene. Many would say the teacher salary comparison is even worse. If I thought this jet would help enhance our national security at any time in the next 25 years, I'd offer a full-throated defense for its continued production. But because the program lives on as a contractor-driven Cold War zombie hunting for Congressional brains, it's just not something I can support. The money presently being allocated for more F-22s should instead be used to address the threats we might face in the near- to medium-term future--and not our Cold War foes.

[IADEMO2004]

1. P-51 Mustang costs

The P-51 orginally cost the U.S. Government $51,000. As late as 1959, they were sold at surplus auction for an average sales price of $1,490. Today these aircraft are valued in excess of $1,000,000, depending on aircraft condition.

The hourly estimated cost to "Keep it Flyin' " approaches $1,600 per hour, which includes the cost of engine overhaul, parts, maintenance, insurance, hangar, fuel, oil, paint and all the other items necessary to safely operate the aircraft

http://www.greatplainswing.org/p51.htm


Wouldn't a couple hundred low tech be more usefull than a few best of of best of best

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. My sarcasm-meter must be broke...

"Wouldn't a couple hundred low tech be more usefull than a few best of of best of best"

Is this a serious quote?

[Javaman]

12. ask him next time he brings a knife to a gun fight. LOL nt

[dysfunctional press]

18. i think he's talking about bringing 100 knives to fight one gun...

at the price of the f-22, you could have either a squad of f-22's, or a swarm of f-4's.

i seem to remember some nato war games in spain awhile back where the low-tech fighters were able to beat the higher tech fighters when they attacked with higher numbers.

[madrchsod]

2. all for a plane we`ll never use....

oh well,boys and their toys.

[redqueen]

3. Thanks for posting this. (nt)

[Hippo_Tron]

5. A wonderful example of why cutting defense spending is easier said than done

If the President could cut this and other useless defense programs by executive order it would be done overnight. Unfortunately one of the few things we still manufacture in this country is weapons. Congress simply won't de-fund the F-22 because it means people in the districts where they make the F-22. So we're stuck footing the bill for a plane that we don't use because it keeps somebody employed.

[Blue_Tires]

9. also don't forget the military contractors are entrenched in the pentagon

and politically connected/protected...when it comes down to it, they are bigger socialists than i am....

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. Cost versus worth... the F22 is comparatively a bargain

when stacked up against the F15. I don't have the resources to look up the cost figures for an F15, so I'll assume your figure is accurate.
"That's nearly 50 percent more than it costs to maintain its predecessor, the F-15" translates into $25k/hr. Correct me if I've read this wrong.

The F15 Eagle, a 30+ year old aircraft, has never been lost in combat. That should put in perspective the capabilities of the F22 where, in documented training exercises, one F22 defeats FIVE F15 fighters. I'd rather have one fighter @ $50k/hr than 5 fighters totaling $125k/hr. Not to mention risking fewer pilots lives. Considering the F15/F16 programs are established and sunk costs, it may be a fair bit cheaper to procure & operate them than the $25k/hr elluded to in the OP article.

Air superiority... If you control the air, you control the war.

[Statistical]

8. +1. Total fleet operating cost is what matters.

The F22 will be the smallest air superiority fleet we have had in the last 30 years.

So if you look at the entire fleet operating cost a smaller more lethal fleet of F22 is cheaper to operate than a larger less capable aging fleet of last gen planes.

Control the air and you end any meaningful resistance from the enemy.

[babylonsister]

10. The only problem is, no one wants the F-22 except

Congress critters who have defense contractors in their districts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3941216&mesg_id=3941216

Congress Ignores WH Veto Challenge Over Fighter Jets

Source: CBS News

Congress is moving forward with plans to fund the construction of additional Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter jets, even though the Obama administration has said the president would veto such a move.

A Senate panel on Thursday approved $1.75 billion to build seven more F-22s and the House of Representatives voted in favor of a Defense Department funding bill that would allocate more funds for the planes, the New York Times reported. Both chambers are also asking for a report from the administration on possibly exporting the planes to Japan and other allies.

On Wednesday, the Obama administration made it clear it opposes the extra funding. The Office of Management and Budget said the funding for more F-22 fighters runs counter to the "collective judgment" of the military's top leaders. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said production of the jets should stop after 187 have been built. Last week, he called the funding boost a "big problem." He said the jet does not fit well into 21st century warfare.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politi... ;contentBody





http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2893


Will Congress Put the F-22 Above America?
by: Jon Soltz
Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 10:20:13 AM EDT


Let me get this straight. The latest polls say three-quarters of the American people want a public option in health care, yet it's in question. But, Congress is about to throw $369 million (on a down-payment of $2 billion) for a dozen F-22 fighter jets that even the Pentagon doesn't want. Oh, and the money for it? It's coming out of funds that were set aside to clean up dangerous nuclear waste in the U.S.

Only in Washington.

For those not familiar with the F-22 and why it's a waste, let me explain. It's one of the most - if not the most advanced air-to-air fighters in the world.... To fight the Soviet Union's next generation fighters. That's right, that's why it was developed. The fighter has limited air-to-ground capabilities, which renders it pretty much useless in the wars we're fighting right now, and might be fighting well into the future. President Obama and Secretary Gates have rightly decided to shift our procurement to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which we could actually use, because of its air-to-ground and stealth capabilities.

Nevertheless, to play it safe, we've got 187 of the obsolete F-22s on-hand or in the pipeline already, just in case the Soviet Union ever comes through with their next-generation fighters. Secretary Gates asked for only four more, to complete what the Pentagon said it could use. After that, the military doesn't want any more of them. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz have publicly withdrawn support for it saying, "The time has come to move on."

Apparently not those looking out for defense contractors, though.

snip//

So, a warning. To any in Congress who vote to keep this money for the F-22 in, don't try to present it as a pro-military vote. The military doesn't want it. Troops can't use it. Most veterans would say they're not for it. And none of us are for letting dangerous nuclear waste continue to seep into our land and water. So don't try to tie this pork to troops and veterans.

In fact, those who really care about the military, troops, veterans, and America will vote to strip the money for the F-22 out. We'll be watching.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. It's an air superiority fighter. No one ever claimed it was useful for current conflicts.

That's why the much more economical F35 JSF was developed as well.

The F22 is the best Air Superiority fighter in the world. It's main purpose is more of a threat deterrence to other nations and to keep one step ahead of the enemy - whoever it might be in the future. It is an ultimatum that nearly guarantees the safety of the american public at this point in time. The F22 started in the late 80's... WAY before the current conflicts or financial/healthcare/housing crises. I think it's unfair to look at current conflict requirements and call the best fighter on the face of the planet obsolete or worthless. Things like this take many years to come into existence.

I do agree though. At this time the F-35 presents a better investment as a well rounded approach to various needs.
That's not to say the F-35 is better than the F-22... only that we currently need strike fighters rather than air superiority fighters.

[gratuitous]

14. Now all we need is an enemy with an air force

I mean, those sneaky Al Qaeda guys did a surprise attack on some fully loaded passenger jets. If they'd been man enough to build an air force, train pilots, fly maneuvers, and attack us head on, by golly we would have been ready for them!

Otherwise it looks like we're spending billions we don't have for jets we don't need. And where's the sense in that? Get with it, bad guys! Start building air forces! You don't want the U.S. and A. to look foolish, do you? Those dirtbags.

[Canuckistanian]

17. What are the odds of ever having a fighter jet dogfight again?

And what does dogfighting accomplish? Surface to air missiles are probably just as effective. And smart bombs, cruise missiles or drones could destroy fighters on their home bases from thousands of miles away.

And unless you're talking about Russia or China, the US undoubtedly has air superiority wherever it decides to fight.

I don't see the point of having thousands of fighter jets in today's high tech world.

[Blue_Tires]

7. if you had told me to guess, i would have actually guessed more than $44,000

[Taverner]

11. Damn - I guess that blows my chances of getting one for Christmas

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Pertinent words from a soldier.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

* and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Dwight Eisenhower

[crickets]

16. This ties up money that could be spent instead on

you guessed it: social programs, including health care.