I don't remember what got me interested in this, but here are the unit costs for the most popular (and expensive) fighter jets in the world:
These are "flyaway" costs. That is, the cost per unit of the latest batch on the assembly line. It is not the total procurement cost, which includes the entire cost of R&D. On that basis, it's widely agreed that the F-35 is the most expensive weapons procurement program of all time.
In any case, take these numbers with a grain of salt. It's all but impossible to get reliable, current figures even for American fighters, let alone Chinese or Turkish fighters. The F-22, in particular, which was discontinued years ago, appears to be an abyss impenetrable to human understanding.
Regarding the ability of the "defense industries" to absorb taxpayer dollars,
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..."
-Roy Batty.
The (incremental) cost of an F35 is cheaper than an F18?
Of course this does not include operational costs. Wikipedia has costs ranging from $17.7K/flight hr (A-10) to $41.9K/flight hr (F-15C), with F-35A down to $35K (claims it will go lower).
The operating life of a fighter is generally about 7,000 hours. For a $70 million airplane, that's $10,000 per flight hour just in depreciation. For a Raptor, it's $20,000 per hour depreciation.
The F-35 also requires that each pilot has their own personalized helmet, at a cost of $400,000 each. The helmet includes a heads up display the meshes the aircraft's sensors with the pilots. Misunderstanding how the helmet works may be the source of TFG's stupid comment that the F-35 is invisible. When wearing the helmet the pilot is meshed in with the plane’s sensors, so he/she can literally look through the airplane to see an enemy fighter that would otherwise be hidden from view. Just because the airplane is "invisible" to the pilot doesn't mean it can't be seen by other people.
He's such a moron.
As a former engineer for Pratt & Whitney, I used to be really anti-F-35. Came across this from Noah Smith. Not convinced, but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH8o9DIIXqI&ab_channel=LazerPig
thanks for the link. The hard sell is a bit much, but he has some valid points. The F-35 can do a lot, and we don't know just what it can do. However, I'd say the critics have some valid points--there were lots of bugs that had to (and still have to for some) be worked out. And it's only recently been approved for full scale production, delayed a bit because of those bugs.
As a former engineer working for a P&W supplier, I worked on sensors for the engine’s FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Controller). I too was a sceptic but am beginning to come around. The F-35’s biggest advantage may not be aerodynamics but its networked software.
Using inflation-adjusted dollars I trust.
Back in the day, late 1970's, the branch had a subscription to the AIAA mag. In it I read an article about the cost of fighters. It had a graph showing where the cost of one would equal the DOD budget. It would be so capable that it could shoot down all the other fighters in the world. I think the authors name was Norman Augustine.
Found the graph!!!
It is in this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_R._Augustine
awesome!
James Fallows made a similar argument. At the point where we could only afford one fighter the navy and the Air Force would have to share it, flying it on alternate days.
War machine costs are how we bankrupt our potential adversaries. Go big or stay home.
Ukraine needs the Saab instead of the F16. The Saab was designed to operate off roads with minimum support requirements. Ukraine needs to disperse its planes to keep them from being ground targets. Ukraine needs a lot more Patriots and support equipment. If Ukraine could obtain air superiority over the battle field it would be game over.
But the Saabs end up confusing rookie pilots because the ignition is between the seats.
HaHaHaHa!!!!
I used to park cars for a living. The way we hazed the new guys was by giving them the keys to a Saab and telling them to move it. Some Mercedes models worked, too.
It took me about 2 seconds to get used to the ignition position. No issues after that.
Forget the most expensive, which is the best? Of course, the mission statements vs capability make the answer to that very subjective. That said, I read that a lot of pilots regard the F-18 as the best jet fighter. True?
There are actually two F-18’s, the Hornet and the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is significantly larger, has very limited commonality with the original Hornet, and is generally regarded as a good value as military hardware goes.
I am interested to see how many drones you could buy for one crew manned fighter plane. I bet its a shit ton. I dont think the DOD or armed forces are ready for the shift.
How many of those drone ukrainian speedboats would it take to sink a carrier? If there was 1000 of those coming from all directions would it be possible to get them all?
I think the drone warfare model is signaling the end of the fighter jock era.
Question for the defense nerds, if you had 2 F-16s in combat against an F-22 would it be an equal match or would one $140 million package be better than the other?
In various case studies and exercises, it's been observed that an F-22 can defeat ~five F-15s in Air-to-Air combat before being neutralized itself. Notably due to its stealth, advanced electronics, long range capabilities, supersonic cruise speeds, and if in close quarters, its vectored thrust.
And an F-15 is much much better than an F-16 in Air-to-Air superiority, so take that as you will!
But, as another poster mentioned above, I'd reckon the real battle is not an F-22 vs any other jet, but rather an F-22 vs one hundred advanced drones.
That really depends on which block (version/generation) of the F-16 you're referencing. Block 70/72 includes software that is compatible with the F-22 and F-35, and uses the same radar technology used in the F-22.