Real cost of an F-22?

djpav

New Member
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

New Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

The Bunker Group
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

New Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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

New Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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?!

Feanor said:
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? :eek:nfloorl:
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.:eek:nfloorl:, 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

Active Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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

Active Member
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
 
Top