Neal Nurmi wrote:
Anybody have a sense of the unit cost of an F-22 compared to F-15 or F-16? Not talking about capability, but per year cost over a decade, for instance. I wonder about whether a country would be better off with 300 absolute world-beater aircraft, or 1000 of an aircraft of somewhat lesser capability that was still better than any other country has... An old and tattered debate, I know, but still interesting to me...
There are some inherent problems with having 1000 good jets versus 300 great jets: you'd need 700 more pilots, 700 more ground crews, 700 more planes' worth of spares, 700 more parking places, and so on. Cost-wise, 1000 top-end F-16s, assuming a cost of $45 million each, would cost $45 billion to buy. 300 F-22s, assuming a cost of $130 million each, would cost $39 billion to buy. It seems that it really is cheaper to have a fleet of thoroughly modern Raptors instead of a bigger fleet of comparitively outdated F-16s.
Of course, the debate still rages on about whether or not we will ever really need the incredible capabilities of the Raptor. If we didn't have the Raptor, then our current very-best is the F-15C. Do "the other guys" have anything currently deployed that would best the Eagle in a fight? I think I've read about a few that would. Randy Haskin could probably fill us in on that subject. I've also read that nobody has anything that will take out the Raptor, at least not yet. Personally, I'd rather have the Raptor and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Cheers!