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

[Ivan Seeking]

...For all its capabilities, critics argue the F-22 is too costly and irrelevant to the wars of today. They note that it hasn't flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet, with plants or suppliers in 44 states, the program counts some of its biggest fans in Congress, which has consistently voted to support it. Taxpayers to date have bought 183 Raptors at a cost of $66 billion, including development.

President Obama is required by law to tell Congress by March 1 if his administration plans to buy parts to be used to build more F-22s; in coming weeks, he'll decide whether to phase out production or buy up to 60 more, the Pentagon's Geoff Morrell said Wednesday. Analysts say the jet offers an early gauge of Obama's willingness to make tough spending decisions and take on lawmakers in his own party...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2009-02-25-lockheed-martin-raptor_N.htm

While I do firmly believe in maintaining a strong military force, I found it somewhat amusing to hear one objection to limiting production of the Raptors - jobs. This from the same folks who object to government spending for jobs creation.

We need what we need, but the days of weapons as welfare must end. We have been raped long enough by the defense industry.

 

[misgfool]

Air superiority determines the winner of major conflicts. What are the US war goals in the coming decade or two? If there is a major conflict approaching, then the spending might be sensible. If the US is fighting cave dwellers, then Raptors seem a bit overkill and not suited for such purpose. But let's not forget the broken window fallacy.

 

[turbo]

I hope Obama makes the right choice. The US is an asymmetrical threat - we already have so much military hardware that we are headed down the same road the Soviets took - spending ourselves into collapse. We need to save jobs, but not jobs that are dependent on runaway spending on weapons that we don't need. We need jobs that enrich our lives, create durable wealth, and recover our ability to manufacture goods. We have let manufacturers move those capabilities overseas to the cheapest labor markets they can find, and that loss is a bigger threat to our national security than most people recognize.

 

[mgb_phys]

Air superiority determines the winner of major conflicts. What are the US war goals in the coming decade or two?

Yet another area where the US lags behind europe

In the 80s europe started a project to build an air superiority fighter to counter the east German airforce MIGs.
Before the first prototype flew the berlin wall came down and the East German airforce became the 'German' airforce - but a little detail like that didn't discourage them.
Then by the second gulf war the plane wasn't actually ready - but that was solved by simply declaring the production line at BAe to be a temporary RAF base, thus the unfinished airframes were all in RAF service (had the Iraqis invaded the BAe factory).

The third slice of the procurement is now due - but nobody can afford them (the simple f16 clone somehow amazingly ended up costing many times as much as first thought).
The German airforce solved the problem by selling the old MIGs that the aircraft was going to fight, the RAF has simply cut the number of pilots and will mothball all the aircraft on delivery.

For afghanistan there is a hope that the 3rd version can be fitted with "austere ground attack capability" this consists of the pilots looking out of the window and pulling a string which will release bombs when they see the target.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/NA007595.jpg?size=67&uid={a9927d44-42bb-4d76-b43f-60b9cb184267}

 

[russ_watters]

Air superiority determines the winner of major conflicts. What are the US war goals in the coming decade or two? If there is a major conflict approaching, then the spending might be sensible. If the US is fighting cave dwellers, then Raptors seem a bit overkill and not suited for such purpose. But let's not forget the broken window fallacy.

It is fairly safe to say there will be no such war for the forseeable future and as a result, an extremely expensive, pure air superiority fighter is not the best way to spend defense dollars. Less money for Raptors and more money for drones is what is most needed right now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

China recently demonstrated that they could shoot down a satellite. It has been suggested that this was effectively the first shot in a new cold-war.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's hope Obama (and Panetta) listen to their most knowledgeable advisers before participating in a final decision.

 

[russ_watters]

China recently demonstrated that they could shoot down a satellite. It has been suggested that this was effectively the first shot in a new cold-war.

Ok...so what does that have to do with this thread?

 

[Cyrus]

Originally, the F-22 was only supposed to cost ~$50 million per aircraft in 1990 dollars. ompare this to an F-14 or F-18 which run at about $35 million, the price isn't bad. The problem is that the number of orders for the F-22 got slashed and slashed. The upfront money needed to build such an aircraft is very high, so the only way to make your money out of it is to buy A LOT of airplanes. The fewer airplanes we buy, the MORE expesiver per unit cost each one becomes.

In addition, many of the aircraft we have are old. The KC135 tanker is really just an old boeing 707. The B-52 is nearly 50 years old. The F-14 tomcasts are retired, and the AH-53PAVLOW is also gone (A helicopter). The army also has a bunch of old Kiowa helicopters it wants to replace.

Other countries are now starting to make stealth aircraft, particularly Japan. So there is a need to have the best stealth technology out there. The problem boils down to too much government oversight during these projects which causes delays and cost over run. Thanks uncle sam!

 

[mplayer]

Have you seen how cool these things look? Of course we should buy them.

But seriously, I guess the answer might depend on how well it replaces currently used air superiority fighters and how long its lifetime might be. If the Raptor is equivalent to a dozen or so fighters that are currently used, it might be a good buy. I'm not quite sure when autonomous aircraft will entirely replace manned fighters but it may be a couple decades away, and having the Raptors may help bridge the gap. Then again, diverting resources could stall development of unmanned aircraft, which is surely the future of the air force in my opinion. This will be one of the last manned warplanes produced by the United States.

 

[Supercritical]

I think it's easier to justify spending for the F-22 if you do a fact check on the "military-industrial complex" hype.

A couple facts:

-If the US budget were broken down the same way it was during Eisenhower's terms (remember his famous speech?), with 50-70% spent toward defense, today's baseline defense budget (before supplemental spending like Iraq, Afghanistan, atomic energy, intelligence, etc.) would be in the range of $1.5-$2.2 trillion (50-70% of the 3.1 trillion FY 2009 budget)
On that point:
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6082/91532579rz5.png
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9127/37336966pq6.png

-In terms of constant dollars, from 1954 to 2006 the baseline defense budget grew 41% while total spending ballooned 400% and the GDP increased 447%

That percentage change is tracked http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7246/53131500ox1.png .

*The information is available from the http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf on the GPO website if anyone wants to check the numbers.

In summary, defense spending is higher today than it was in 1954, even when adjusted for inflation. Defense spending as a percentage of the budget and of GDP, however, has gradually tapered off, implying that the US has not deemed it necessary to scale its military linearly with its budget, or with its economy.

Regarding the F-22, I claim that the Philippine insurgencies from the early 20th century are good examples: the United States was involved in a serious air war (WWI) shortly after that conflict, and was found to be lacking. Likewise, the proliferation of advanced Russian fighter designs (Su-27 derivatives and Mig-29 updates) mean potential foes possesses airframes equal or superior to the F-15s the F-22 would replace. Further, any weapons the US military requires for war need to be in-hand on day one. There will be no option to restart assembly lines to produce those weapons, due to the lack of the time component in modern warfare. It is regrettable that each new F-22 would cost ~$140 million, but it is worth every dime, and with defense outlays getting "crowded out" by other spending (see above), it would not be a shameful investment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ok...so what does that have to do with this thread?

You said "it is fairly safe to say there will be no such war for the forseeable future". I think that is an unjustified assumption. China may be the new threat to be addressed. And Russia has assumed a fairly aggressive posture recently.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it's easier to justify spending for the F-22 if you do a fact check on the "military-industrial complex" hype.

It wasn't hype. The first objecton mentioned in today's report is that the F22 means jobs. We shouldn't build weapons for the sake of jobs. Instead we should build things like infrastructure.

Did we and the Soviets really need tens of thousands of nukes each? Of course not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is what a former five-star general and US President had to say about the military industrial complex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

 

[Phrak]

He's following the formula along party lines; predictively selective of nonproductive waste.

Should we-the-people be comforted by SOP?

 

[WhoWee]

You said "it is fairly safe to say there will be no such war for the forseeable future". I think that is an unjustified assumption. China may be the new threat to be addressed. And Russia has assumed a fairly aggressive posture recently.

We have become very entangled with China...buying their goods, selling them our debt, investing in their factories...all transactions have not been smooth...a financial meltdown could lead to an armed conflict.

Consider this...how long do you think the world will continue to buy our debt...especially knowing we're using it to improve the comfort levels of our poor (and that we can't repay)? Eventually, someone is going to tell us to get on our knees.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Other countries are now starting to make stealth aircraft, particularly Japan. So there is a need to have the best stealth technology out there.

The proper response to a potential enemy's stealth technology is not better stealth technology of your own, it's better detection technology.

 

[mheslep]

The proper response to a potential enemy's stealth technology is not better stealth technology of your own, it's better detection technology.

That's reasonable for the traditional battle strategy of offense and defense (like a football game), but not so much for the less commonly known modern one, where the idea is to never sit on defense attempting to detect attack. Instead, one continually attempts to manoeuvre and stay on offense, a loop which if done fast enough eventually disorients the enemy decision process. This paradigm is particularly applicable to air to air combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop

 

[turbo]

Just a small detail: For Japanese stealth fighters to be of any danger to the US mainland, they would have to be shepherded over the Pacific by a pretty sizable fleet of air-refueling tankers, or be brought into strike-range by aircraft carriers. Neither of those operations are particularly "stealthy" and we already have practical responses to deal with either scenario. There may be some viable military justification for dumping more money into the F-22 program, but keeping up with other countries' spending on stealth technology isn't one of them.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2009-02-25-lockheed-martin-raptor_N.htm

While I do firmly believe in maintaining a strong military force, I found it somewhat amusing to hear one objection to limiting production of the Raptors - jobs. [...]

We need what we need, but the days of weapons as welfare must end. We have been raped long enough by the defense industry.

Agreed, no more planes. The aircraft provides some great capabilities, in particular its stealth properties make it an important first strike weapon - go in ahead and attack the surface to air system so that the mass attacks can follow. As such, the US doesn't need thousands of these aircraft. The baseline order is 183, and at $143m/aircraft that's plenty.

...This from the same folks who object to government spending for jobs creation. ...

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.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123490303268502611.html

Regarding the age of the current aircraft, there are two separate problems - age of the inventory and age of the design. There have been half a dozen upgrade programs to the F-16 over the years, with the latest buy delivered as recently as '02-'04. The US can continue to do this for decades at ~low cost. In fact the USAF needs to be pushed to do upgrades; in my opinion they've been stalling in favor of the the new plane. The airframe designs are old, but in conjunction w/ a smaller number of F-22s they're good enough to do the job for years to come. I count only 11 US fighter aircraft lost to hostile action in the month's long air attack 1st gulf war involving tens of thousands of sorties, and I venture than only half of those were avoidable given improvements found in the F-22.
http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm

 

[Cyrus]

The proper response to a potential enemy's stealth technology is not better stealth technology of your own, it's better detection technology.

True, but they both go hand in hand. Building a 'stealthier' airplane, means trying to detect it better and better to make sure its stealthy.

 

[Cyrus]

Just a small detail: For Japanese stealth fighters to be of any danger to the US mainland, they would have to be shepherded over the Pacific by a pretty sizable fleet of air-refueling tankers, or be brought into strike-range by aircraft carriers. Neither of those operations are particularly "stealthy" and we already have practical responses to deal with either scenario. There may be some viable military justification for dumping more money into the F-22 program, but keeping up with other countries' spending on stealth technology isn't one of them.

Stealth technology is cutting edge electronic warfare technology. Why on Earth would you say we should not outspend on cutting edge technology?

 

[mheslep]

True, but they both go hand in hand. Building a 'stealthier' airplane, means trying to detect it better and better to make sure its stealthy.

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.

 

[mheslep]

Stealth technology is cutting edge electronic warfare technology. Why on Earth would you say we should not outspend on cutting edge technology?

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.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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.

Last I checked, the rest of the world was outspending the US (by a small margin).

Oh, maybe you just meant stealth? I have no idea how much other countries spend on that, but probably less than the US, sure.

 

[waht]

The defense contractors have to be showered with gazillions of dollars, or else they will move overseas and start taking orders from China.

 

[mheslep]

Last I checked, the rest of the world was outspending the US (by a small margin).

Oh, maybe you just meant stealth? I have no idea how much other countries spend on that, but probably less than the US, sure.

No I meant the entire world, last I checked. China, Russia stepped up a bit? Edit, yes your right, US is just under half as of 2007.
http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2007.png

Which is way out of line in my opinion. Should be perhaps 7-8x China, not 20x. Also, I think there's a fairly large amount of slack between military effectiveness and military spending.

 

[Topher925]

Hasn't the afghan and iraq war taught us anything? We are not fighting super powers with arsenals of tanks and enormous navy's, we are fighting people that hide in caves and only come out to blow themselves up in shopping markets. How are 200 F-22's going to help us fight this kind of enemy? I think that money would be much better spent upgrading Humvees and body armor.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That's reasonable for the traditional battle strategy of offense and defense (like a football game), but not so much for the less commonly known modern one, where the idea is to never sit on defense attempting to detect attack.

Is this a general principal, or does it apply only to stealth technology. What should we do about IED's. Build better IED detectors, or build IED's that are better than theirs?

 

[mheslep]

Is this a general principal, or does it apply only to stealth technology.

It seems to apply very well to symmetrical combat like air to air and platoon to platoon; I could only guess at its application to asymmetric insurgencies.

What should we do about IED's. Build better IED detectors, or build IED's that are better than theirs?

Certainly the take, hold, and build strategy helped tremendously with reducing IED casualties. Previously the patrol-from-large-centralized-US-base strategy was tailored made for laying down IEDs without interruption, and then later insurgents could go threaten anybody who might later tip off the returning Americans.

 

[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.