# U.S. fighter aircraft (F-22 Raptor) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764 "2009-07-12T15:29:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/41 "2009-07-13T16:26:23Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > But it’s not like someone’s going to sneak up on us all of a sudden with some sort of super-duper fighter. Or they could just steal the design, which they’ve done in the past. We should get royalty checks for stuff like the W-88 warhead. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/42 "2009-07-13T16:40:46Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > BAe Systems informally described the Typhoon as ‘80% of the Raptor for 20% of the cost’. That’s self-serving BS, quite frankly. First, the flyaway cost of a Typhoon is 60-65 million US. The overall average flyaway cost of the F-22 is about 140m. Due to improvements in the production line, new aircraft would have a flyaway cost of about 116m. So the cost is actually more like 50%, in terms of flyaway cost. It may be more favorable if you factor in maintenance cost. As far as “80% of the raptor” - that’s hard to define. If you’re talking about concrete stats - 80% of the engine thrust, 80% of the range, 80% of the payload - that’s easy. But how would you quantify a nebulous concept like overall capability? I’m not aware of any wargames between the typhoon and raptor, but since the raptor can kill the best F-15s and F-16s at a greater than 30:1 ratio - against the best pilots in the world (aggressor force at red flag), and the Typhoon isn’t an especially good fighter platform, being more of a multirole aircraft, and its radar is far inferior to the F-15’s, I’m guessing the raptor could achieve at least a 20:1 kill ratio against them, even more. 80% of the performance? Ha. Not as a fighter. I don’t think people appreciate what a generational leap the F-22 is. It’s so much better than current aircraft that the gap is probably greater than any other aircraft has enjoyed in the history of warfare. I can’t think of any aircraft that was more ahead of its competition. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/43 "2009-07-13T17:32:31Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Plus, they’re old. Let’s say we start up a brand new fighter program now - whether it be manned or unmanned. How long until that system is in full deployment? Can the old F-16 and F-15 airframes last that long? Fighter airframes are stressed more than bomber airframes - we’re not going to see the F-15 in service for 50+ years like we might a bomber or tanker. No, of course they can’t last that long, which is exactly why the F-35 has been under development since the mid 1990s and will replace all F-16s, F/A-18s, and AV-8s over the next two decades or so. If one reads your comments a certain way, one could believe that the F-22 is the only replacement out there for the current fighter fleet, which would be in error. > [@](#): > > Somewhere around 160 of an order of 183 have been delivered, and the others have been paid for and are in the production pipeline. To add to that, the Secretary of Defense has proposed not buying any more than that. Congress might not go along, and add money to keep building them. > [@Quartz](#): > > BAe Systems informally described the Typhoon as ‘80% of the Raptor for 20% of the cost’. This reminds me of the episode of King of the Hill in which Dale catches his teenage son smoking. He admonishes him to get the truth about cigarettes and his health… not from some government bureaucrat, but from the people who really know tobacco: the National Association of Tobacco Growers! ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/44 "2009-07-13T19:04:22Z")
[http://www.alternet.org/action/140906/tell\_your\_senators\_f-22's\_are\_a\_waste\_of\_our\_money/](http://www.alternet.org/action/140906/tell_your_senators_f-22%27s_are_a_waste_of_our_money/) This article claims the military does not want it. Those that were for it, already have the amount they wanted. It also claims it is not good for air to surface combat. That is the type wars we are in now and will likely deal with in the future. We do not dogfight with Iraqi or Afghani jet fighters very often. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/45 "2009-07-13T20:05:45Z")
Having a passing obsession with warbirds, it seems to me the F-22 ought to be built and tweaked using today’s dollars to get the most value from them as we phase out the 15/16’s while dev’ing and building the next, biggest and baddest. That is until someone makes a giant version of a UAV. ---
**Author:** ![Roulette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Roulette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roulette)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/46 "2009-07-13T20:15:56Z")
The F-22 is one of the best (if not THE best) air-superiority fighters in the world today. It was very expensive to design. The cost is high because of its relatively limited production run. The cost per unit went up when the number of units ordered was reduced, which made an expensive machine look even more expensive. On the other side, you have the more versatile F-35. My impression of it is that it’s a solid multi-role fighter that has a much lower cost point per unit. But there are a couple of caveats that I’m aware of. First, R&D costs were spread across several countries. Second, it benefited from a number of technological leaps made during the Raptor development, so they didn’t have to re-invent the wheel. Finally, it’s a multi-role fighter. While I’m sure it can perform the air-superiority mission, the F-22 has a much greater envelope in speed, range and maneuverability. So, the question is really do we still have a need for a air-superiority fighter? I think the answer is yes. China and Russia are both developing 5th generation fighters, partially in response to the threat that the f-22 and f-35 represent. Both countries know that American air power is a massive threat that must be countered. Air superiority must be maintained. Are we going to go to war with either of them? Probably not. But you don’t start preparing for war in a few weeks, and planes like these take years to develop, even assuming contractors like Lockheed don’t over bill and under deliver. Standard disclaimer: The above are my impressions that I’ve taken from reading about the development cycle of both planes. It’s possible I’m misinformed, confused, or flat out wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/47 "2009-07-13T20:17:57Z")
FWIW, Sen. John McCain supports the Obama Administration’s spending proposals on the F-22 Raptor: [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/13/mccain-backs-obama-opposition-to-funding-more-f-22-jets/](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/13/mccain-backs-obama-opposition-to-funding-more-f-22-jets/) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/48 "2009-07-13T21:30:42Z")
> [@Dynamo](#): > > I didn’t really pry beyond that but he basically described incompetence and inexperience on behalf of the assembly staff as the main reasons behind early problems with the F-22 line, specifically at the Marietta, GA installation. > > Whether or not that is still the case, I do not know, but this is what he relayed to me in early 2006. You always have serious labor skill issues when you place your production facilities based on congressional districting. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/49 "2009-07-13T21:50:27Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > The F-22 is an awesome airplane. … Given that, the F-22 project should be cancelled. Soup up the predators, get a 12 year old kid and watch them light up the sky. > [@](#): > > Lockheed has subcontracted to suppliers in 40 states. Cancellation of the F-22 would cost a lot of jobs over a large part of the country. With the economy as it is, jobs are one thing we can’t afford to lose. Does this make the F-22 a boondoggle? Maybe. But those ‘wasted’ dollars are paying mortgages, buying food, putting money into the coffers of the makers of consumer items (who employ people, who have mortgages, buy food, etc.). Any spending = jobs. Keynes was only trying to make a point when he talked about paying people to dig ditches and then paying other people to fill them up. Its better to do stuff that is going top create value. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/50 "2009-07-13T21:52:35Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > As far as “80% of the raptor” - that’s hard to define. If you’re talking about concrete stats - 80% of the engine thrust, 80% of the range, 80% of the payload - that’s easy. But how would you quantify a nebulous concept like overall capability? Give me a football team with half the number of players as your team and if your team’s players are 80% of the size, speed, skill, endurance and strength of my players, I will probably wipe the field with you. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/51 "2009-07-13T23:23:37Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > That’s self-serving BS, quite frankly. First, the flyaway cost of a Typhoon is 60-65 million US. The overall average flyaway cost of the F-22 is about 140m. Due to improvements in the production line, new aircraft would have a flyaway cost of about 116m. [Obama threatens veto if F-22 funded](http://thehill.com/business--lobby/obama-threatens-veto-if-defense-bill-funds-f-22s-2009-07-13.html) > [@](#): > > The letter to Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) comes as the two senators introduced an amendment to strip $1.75 billion for seven additional F-22s from the Pentagon policy bill. That’s $250 million per plane. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/52 "2009-07-14T00:01:25Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > You just reasoned out why it’s the broken window fallacy. In this case, the broken window fallacy is “even if it’s not really worth it, still, spending that money means jobs for people, so we can’t stop it” - the problem with that is that if we didn’t produce them, it’s not as if the money and resources dissapear - they’d be put to tasks that also create jobs. Therefore that point is irrelevant to the decision. You seem to have explained it yourself in the premise of your question, so I’m not sure what the source of your confusion is. I see what you mean - I haven’t seen the Broken Window Fallacy in that application. On the one hand, the F-22 is a considerable improvement over 20-30 year old F-15s, on the other, if the Pentagon doesn’t want more, what’s the point of building them? I was confused by the notion of building any F-22s being a “broken window” and the notion of building extra F-22s being a “broken window.” Thanks for the helpful explanation. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/53 "2009-07-14T00:07:22Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [Obama threatens veto if F-22 funded](http://thehill.com/business--lobby/obama-threatens-veto-if-defense-bill-funds-f-22s-2009-07-13.html)That’s $250 million per plane. I don’t have an explanation for that - maybe some sort of pork attached to the bill? Every source I’ve seen put the marginal cost of the plane from ~115-160 million, depending on when it was produced. Maybe there are riders in the bill to procure more parts for the existing fleet? > [@wevets](#): > > I see what you mean - I haven’t seen the Broken Window Fallacy in that application. > > On the one hand, the F-22 is a considerable improvement over 20-30 year old F-15s, on the other, if the Pentagon doesn’t want more, what’s the point of building them? > > I was confused by the notion of building any F-22s being a “broken window” and the notion of building extra F-22s being a “broken window.” Thanks for the helpful explanation. 🙂 What I meant was… it’s not useful to say “we can’t cut F-22 production, so many people will be out of jobs!” is in itself a useless statement because wherever the money got allocated elsewhere would also lead to people having jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/54 "2009-07-14T00:22:48Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I don’t have an explanation for that - maybe some sort of pork attached to the bill? Every source I’ve seen put the marginal cost of the plane from ~115-160 million, depending on when it was produced. Fair enough. Something is screwy here though. With regard to ‘creating jobs’, didn’t Michael Steele just tell us that the Federal government has never created a single job? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/55 "2009-07-14T02:06:32Z")
The $250 million figure doubtlessly includes things like training equipment and spare parts (which it apparently needs a lot of). It may also include long-lead items in case they want to build even more F-22s next year. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/56 "2009-07-14T05:18:04Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > What I meant was… it’s not useful to say “we can’t cut F-22 production, so many people will be out of jobs!” is in itself a useless statement because wherever the money got allocated elsewhere would also lead to people having jobs. Oh yes, I agree with you there completely as well. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/57 "2009-07-14T14:33:30Z")
But not all jobs are equivalent. The ones involved in high tech employ highly educated, highly paid (but not highly enough) people, and create more of a multiplier effect in the economy. You could argue (and some do) that releasing them into other industries will allow technological development that is being hampered by lack of talent today, but it’s hard to find examples. The Japanese are heavily lobbying to be allowed to buy some F-22’s themselves, but that won’t make much difference in the program in the long run. DoD’s prime concern seems to be timing the end of the F-22 and the beginning of F-35 production to keep the Lockheed workforce stabilized, and minimize problems with F-35 ramp-up that learning curve issues could otherwise cause. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/58 "2009-07-15T06:15:34Z")
After looking up the F-35on WIKI I discovered it used technology purchased from the Russian aircraft company YAK. Interesting. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/59 "2009-07-15T07:27:14Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > In 40 years time the F-22 will be hopelessly dated. There’s no point in building more copies of the plane if there’s no credible likelihood of a suitable threat arising _before_ the Raptor is an antique. The F-15 is not hopelessly dated, but it there is now considerable competition for it. Nothing currently touches the F-22 and nobody has anything on the drawing board that can keep one or two squadrons from establishing and maintaining complete air supremacy in a theater of war. Air supremacy is very useful for all of the ground troops, navies, helicopters and warthogs to dominating on land. There is no substitute for air supremacy. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764/60 "2009-07-15T08:27:56Z")
I’ve never really been very interested in the issue of military hardware, and i certainly hadn’t followed any of the debates over the F-22. But i subscribe to the _Atlantic Monthly_, and found this article in a recent edition to be very interesting reading: [“The Last Ace,” by Mark Bowden](http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-fighter-aircraft-f-22-raptor/502764.md?page=4)