Over $44,000 an Hour to Fly: Putting the F-22 in Perspective

In the midst of the debate over whether or not to suspend production of the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, the Washington Post has revealed exactly how much it costs to fly and maintain each aircraft. It's dizzying.

The F-22 costs more than $44,000 an hour to fly. That's nearly 50 percent more than it costs to maintain its predecessor, the F-15. Think about that. That's what most Americans make in a year. And while the Air Force says the cost to fly the plane for an hour is $44,300, the Office of the Secretary of Defense says it's actually $49,800. They throw these numbers around like they're nothing.

Of course, I don't have an issue with spending whatever it takes to keep America safe. The problem with expanding production of these extravagantly priced F-22s is that they represent the cost to use something we'll likely never need--a Top Gun-style fighter jet which would've come in handy in the 1980s--at the expense of things we could really use at home and abroad--now.

Let's look at this another way. Let's look at it in terms of domestic issues and national security ones. Most operational F-22s are based at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. According to the state Department of Education, the average annual salary of a Virginia public school teacher in 2009 is $51,900. So a public school teacher in Virginia deals with unruly fourth graders for an entire year to earn the amount it costs to fly an airplane for an hour. An airplane America will not need unless we find ourselves in all-out war with China or Russia. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

But let's not stop there. Let's turn to Afghanistan where troops have faced equipment and personnel shortages since 2001. The average infantry staff sergeant serving as a squad leader there--a person without whom counterinsurgency operations simply could not take place--makes around $32,500 a year. A first lieutenant platoon leader commanding a rural outpost in Pashtunistan makes around $41,800. You can add on, say, $10,000 to these positions for hazardous duty pay, housing, etc. Either way, the annual salaries of these critical personnel are more or less in line with what it costs to fly an F-22 for an hour.

That we would spend as much money in an hour flying a nearly useless fighter jet as we do paying critical personnel to fight the war on the ground is obscene. Many would say the teacher salary comparison is even worse. If I thought this jet would help enhance our national security at any time in the next 25 years, I'd offer a full-throated defense for its continued production. But because the program lives on as a contractor-driven Cold War zombie hunting for Congressional brains, it's just not something I can support. The money presently being allocated for more F-22s should instead be used to address the threats we might face in the near- to medium-term future--and not our Cold War foes.

Also available at VetVoice

Follow Brandon Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BrandonF

Comments

[CCreformer]

The biggest issue I have seen with this story is that fact that Boeing and Lockheed Martin, alongside many other defense contractors, are spending incredible amounts lobbying for these jets. It's a sincere fear of mine that such cash buys them influence to the detriment of the people...I'm sure Berettasskeeter would agree with the following at the least--Qualified personnel in the DOD should tell us what they need(not Lockheed and Boeing)And, keep in mind, it's the DOD that says it doesn't want anymore f-22's... This is what I mean with reference to the influence of money-----> http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=5305393

Thoughts?

[Berettasskeeter]

I certainly agree with your comment about qualified personnel. But I disagree with your DOD "doesn't want anymore.." statement. The Secretary of Defense doesn't want anymore, and the Generals who depend on him for their jobs may make the same claim. Now, lets ask the pilots who may have to go in harm's way, shall we?
Semper fi

[CCreformer]

I couldn't agree more, if there are pilots out there who feel as though they are being slighted(by not having f-22's), then we should certainly pay close attention to any such concerns, but I personally haven't seen any evidence of the sort. That isn't to say our pilots don't think that. That idea aside, however, it is the job of our generals to make sure they make requests for equipment they need. "...Generals who depend on him for their jobs may make the same claim..."--This statement really frustrates me because, frankly, it's an assumption we can't operate under if we want to our military to be capable and loyal to the interests of this country and our military personnel on the ground.

[CCreformer]

Moreover, you make the assumption here that the generals are so blinded(by fear of losing their jobs) that they would act against the safety interests of our forces. I don't believe that's true. Again, I urge you to read the following article about the various and prevalent mechanical failures of the f-22(Wapo-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html ) Those failures are far more likely to cause harm to our troops, then the decision to spend our money developing weapons that actually do what they are supposed to.--Again my biggest issue is with the influence of defense contractors over our decision-makers, if we can lessen such influence--The right decisions are far more likely to be made

[CCreformer]

The issue, with the relatively high cost, is not necessarily the high cost itself. From my understanding, it has more to do with the durability and usefulness of the F-22(I don't think many of us would be having this conversation if the fighter was considered to be worth its excessive maintenance costs as well as initial investment--after all, it is the most advanced fighter jet of our time).
Facts such as rain damage being prevalent (and costly to fix), or the plane meeting only 7 of the 22 key performance requirements (agreed to before we were supposed to buy it), or that our top weapons testing expert from 2001-05, Thomas Christie, can still stand by statements such as "It flunked on suitability measures -- availability, reliability, and maintenance."--all seem worrying when we are spending as much as we are.(Wash. Post "F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing") At the very least, it seems prudent to make sure the fighter does what its supposed to do before throwing billions of dollars at it.

[jhamm1]

Exactly. Even the members of the USAF's so-called "Fighter Mafia", which pioneered the energy-man­ueverabili­ty theory and spearheaded the development of the F-16, have pronounced the F-22 as both overrated and irrevelent in the face of current threats.

[Berettasskeeter]

If they spearheaded the development of the F-16, they are so out of date as to be nearly irrelevent. They no longer will be required to go in harm's way, and probably could not if needed. They are probably all retired, for a number of years. Let's ask the current fighters, okay?
Semper fi

[Afolabi70]

The future of aerial warfare is unmanned planes, which can out perform manned craft. Why are we spending all of this money on obsolete plane?

[jhamm1]

Indeed. It only takes an unforeseen "Achilles Heel" to render a seemingly invincible aircraft obsolete.

[Bernique]

Imagine all that money going towards universal health care, not just here but in Iraq and Afghanistan! If we were to spend the monies devoted to military to improving the lives of U.S., Iraqis and Afghans, it would be just the opposite of what we have today.

In the words of John Lennon ---Yes, I know I'm a dreamer ... but I'm not the only one.

[Berettasskeeter]

Imagine you taking care of yourself, and not demanding the hard earned money of the rest of us who take care of ourselves!?
Semper fi

[jhamm1]

Will you cut the "Semper Fi" crap already?

[oldgeek1]

Sometimes we develop technology and develop a weapon in search of a problem.

Far too often some fall in love with some expensive technology approach, sold by a contractor with rationale that does not pass the straight face test.

The amount of money is finite, funding this comes at the expensive of replacing, repairing, maintaining highly effective aircraft or housing or even improving military heath care.

The excuse that no expense should be sparred and the fear of some superior enemy is foolish.

I wonder how many former air force officers are now connected with the F22

[Berettasskeeter]

You know, I half agree with your last sentence. As a 26 year Marine, I worried about the revolving door, but then I had to think, who else would I want to go to work for the aviation companies, mailmen???
Semper fi

[AhnAmuru]

Just thought I'd point out that historically military technology leads the way in bringing state of the art technologies to the market.

The reason probably is that no private entity can marshall the resources expended in experimentation. Think NASA, robotry, communications, Radar (GPS) ... etc.

Recall, folks, the outrage at the "waste" during develpment of jet propelled military aircraft. I'm not sure B 29's would've won us the cold war, desert storm ... etc.

P.S. Caveat; I offer no specific opinion on the cost of the F 22.

[pahpah25]

i think way too many politicans are enthralled byTOP GUN' movies..especially republicans.....the ' TOP GUN] always gets the girl........
'

[BlackJAC]

I'm reminded of the Evil Overlord List, specifically the section that reads "I'll develop weapons to cover a whole range of tactical and strategic needs so my only options aren't 'hand-to-hand combat with swords' and 'blow up the planet.'"

Despite the parallels between defense contracting and children's toys, what Mr. Friedman speaks of is commonly referred to as Fighting The Last War. It's a bad move because it emphasizes reactionary purpose-building of equipment over anticipatory flexibility. Can an MRAP, which is essentially a police cruiser for occupied regions, withstand an antitank weapon or even take on a tank? Can a prop-driven Predator drone dogfight a jet-driven manned MiG? Just because Somali pirates and al-Qaeda favor Boghammers and Zodiacs armed with RPGs and homemade limpet mines doesn't mean the Chinese Navy does, based on Beijing's documented pattern of building or buying power-projection ships like boomers and carriers.

Just because the current brushfire heavily favors asymmetrical guerilla warfare doesn't mean the next one will, too.

[DrHuffington]

Exactly!
I saw John McCain on the Senate floor yesterday speaking about how we have yet to use the F-22 in either Iraq or Afghanistan and that it is not the weapon the U.S. would need in future conflicts.

My question to McCain would be: What about all of our ICBM's, Ballistic submarines, all the way down to our MOP suites for chemical/biological warfare? We haven't used any of those military assets, should we get rid of them as well?

It's called deterrents.

[Archontruth]

We should have fewer nukes, certainly. There's not a great deal of difference between enough nukes to destroy the world ten times over, and enough to just do it once or twice. Since nuclear-armed submersibles remove the possibility of a first strike depleting our retaliatory capability, there's really no need for thousands and thousands of ICBMs

The author isn't saying we shouldn't have any conventional weapons. But building more when we already have enough is stupid. I suspect he's writing this article in response to Congress buying a couple dozen new F-22s that Bob Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has flat out said he doesn't want or need. Let's be clear. We continue to expand our fleet of F-22s for one reason only: members of Congress whose districts receive a great deal of money to build and house planes that will likely not be used in their operational lifespan.

[Boyaca]

If you guys want to keep bleeding yourselves to death economically with deterrents the world is happily watching. Americans put me a mind of a movies i saw oncw with Rock Hudson. He went camping with a tractor trailer load of camping gear. Things have not changed in the 50 years since that movie played.

[Boyaca]

Just another little thought. Deterrence American style. Thats where you show weaker nations that if they do not gear up and go nuclear and develop weapons of mass destruction that you will invade them, kill their women and children, bomb their homes into the ground and steal their oil fields. I notice that deterrence does not work where the other nation has nuclear bombs and is willing to use them. Then it's deplomacy.

[jhamm1]

Bull.

The entire concept of "fighting the last war" amounts to relying upon obsolete military technologies rather than endorsing any advancement whatsoever.

And within the parameters of preparing for future conflicts, assessment of these predictions need to large extent be governed by the face of current global circumstances and accurate intelligence estimates and we do not dictate these predictions in accordance to wildly improbable scenarios which clearly defy any logical assessments whatsoever.

Our current arsenal is more than capable of dealing with any prospective opposition the world over, and to debunk ridiculous parallels to the second war, the circumstances in question could not have differed to a greater extent, with America spending far less on national defense than the nations which ultimately molded into the Axis Powers.

Nowadays, we spend far more on defense than all other nations combined (which includes annual expenditures more than five times that of the combined defense budgets of China and Russia) , and "preparing" for a global conflict which defies any and all logical assessments is no more rational that wasting money in preparation for an alien invasion.

[jhamm1]

Like it or not, the saying that "anything is possible" does not govern the way we invest in national defense.

[DrHuffington]

There may be a way to satisfy both sides of this debate. Our allies have been clamoring to have the F-22 in their arsenal. However, due to many of the classified avionics the Raptor possesses, congress passed a law forbidding the sale of the F-22 outside of the U.S. The cost to re-tool Lockheed to enable the U.S. to maintain its secrets has been estimated to cost upward of $1 Billion. The Japanese have already expressed their willingness to cover these costs. Since the DOD wants to cease production of the aircraft, why not repeal the current ban on foreign sales and keep the workers around the country employed.

In addition to providing allied countries with a fifth generation fighter, and American workers employed, it would also provide our military industry the ability to continue their technological advancements for the future.

[BlackJAC]

In all seriousness, I wonder why nobody's considered building new F-15s to replace the current fleet of aging F-15s. A recent POPULAR MECHANICS article mentioned that we're building F-15s with internal weapons bays called "Silent Eagles" for export to countries that can't afford F-22s, so why not make some for ourselves, with improved avionics, thrust-vectoring engines and an Ironball stealth paint job?

[DrHuffington]

I first heard of the F-15SE a few weeks ago when I was reading about Japan's willingness to purchase F-22's. Japan, I believe, is one of the countries purchasing the Silent Eagles. I thought the same thing at the time. Of course I believe we must still move forward with development of aircraft such as the Raptor.

[Archontruth]

Hehe, that's really funny. The makers of the F-22 would love that. They'd sell them to a dozen other countries, and then a few years later, they'd all be saying, "Well, other countries have F-22s, so now we're going to need tens of billions more from the government to build the next generation of air-to-air fighters in case some of those F-22s get used against us". It's been done.

Do you work for the defense contractors?

[DrHuffington]

I believe it's the State Department that decides what countries can purchase our military assets, not a defense contractor.

And no, I don't work for a defense contractor.

[ebwada]

I was thinking about this the other day and realized the last time the united states was actually invaded by an army from another country was 1812. 1812!

Do we really need a military at all?

Think about it.

And don't think about pearl harbor. Hawaii wasn't even a state at the time. We were there illegally.

[DrHuffington]

"Do we really need a military at all?"

Are you just ki11ing time till the Medical M@rijuan@ shop opens?

[ebwada]

I'm serious as cancer here. When was the last time the actual soil of the usofa was attacked by a foreign nation? Near as I can tell it was the brits in 1812. Nearly two hundred years.

[BlackJAC]

Further, why do we even have fire departments when we can just construct fire-resistant buildings complete with internal sprinkler systems? Especially in towns where they haven't had fires for years?

[Bernique]

BlacJAC -- so your grandma's house is fire-resistant?

[Bernique]

Thomas Jefferson said that we didn't need a standing army at all in times of peace. Hence the "second amendment", militias that would defend the country, if needed, the way Switzerland defends itself, today, as it always has. Hitler did not attack Switzerland in WWII.

[rkoenn]

Eisenhower, our top WW2 general and then president, made a couple of very enlightening speeches concerning the military/industrial complex. He described it similarly, the cost of one bomber could build 10 high schools, one carrier could build 30 hospitals, etc. He warned us of exactly this and the man saw the worse of war. Our government has become enamored of weapons and war. There is no country in the world that is a military threat to us yet we spend more on our military than all the other countries of the world combined. And now the real threats cannot be beat by exotic and hugely expensive weapon systems like the F22. But our congressmen would rather blow billions to keep some jobs building these monetary black holes in their states. There is no consideration to what is honestly best for the country, just pork for my state. This country is headed to the junk pile unless things like this and so many other atrocities in spending and governing don't change in Washington. I fear for my children and even more for my grandchildren if rationale good governance does not ever happen.

[Bernique]

You said it well, rkoenn.

[gmgl]

I have an issue with spending "whatever it takes to keep America safe". If "whatever it takes" bankrupts us or steals so much money we need from other areas to keep our country whole damn right I have an issue. We aren't safe when we are bankrupt k?

How safe is safe anyway? You can always argue it is not safe enough. Maybe I should spend all my money on a massive security system to keep my home safe from burglars, because I should spend "whatever it takes" to keep my family safe. Screw educating my children, feeding them, health care anything besides putting a million locks on my house. Then we all die of malnutrition.

[katmeyster]

Watch the movie "Why We Fight." This is about money, not defense, of course. The F-22 has parts made in almost every state in the union so that each representative will have a stake in the jobs and the lobbying money attached to the F-22. Members of Congress only have one goal: get re-elected. So will they endanger donation cash or jobs? No. Always follow the money -- especially related to re-election -- and you will understand these seemingly odd decisions.

[jhamm1]

I'd recommend screening "Deal of the Century" as well, which actually contains an accurate assessment of the corruption rampant throughout both Congress and the defense industry, and also demonstrates how defense industries typically whine about the inability of their employees to "put food on the table" whenever their proposals are rejected.

[Bernique]

We spend on "defense" more than the rest of the world COMBINED. We are the big bully on the planet. We have come to what President Eisenhower in his farewell address warned us against, the power of the unrestrained military industrial complex, where producing and selling weapons is more important to our government than taking care of us, the tax payers that fund the weapons. Our foreign aid consists mostly of selling arms to strategic countries. If all problems are made to look like a nail, then all problems are solved by using a hammer (tanks/mis­siles/phos­phorus).

When they ask us how are we going to fund universal health care, I say, defund weapon programs until our needs are met. Or repeal the Bush tax cuts. Or both.

[Berettasskeeter]

Can you cite the internal documents of the Chinese government, or the Russian government, or Iranian, or North Korean? No, you cannot! Without those, noone knows how much they spend. They are Dictatorships (or an oligarchy, in Russia's case). They are able, and driven, to hide their expenditures from those they view as enemies.
You don't have a right to my money, in the form of health care. Get a job and support yourself!
Semper fi

[GrahamInCanada]

Honey, just because Bernique is not a comrade does not mean no-one knows how much is spent on defense around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[vim876]

We're America. Are you honestly arguing that we don't know how big Russia and China's defenses are? The Cold War is over. Get a clue.

[Carries]

that's right - it used to be $450 billion US spending and $450 billion rest-of-world. Now it's $500 billion US because of the Iraq debacle.

[Bernique]

Carries -- we spend ten times more on defense than China ($600 billion U.S. vs. $60 billion China). Hell, we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined.I guess some sleep better at night because of that. Others are sick, and can't get health care, and don't sleep so well. Priorities, wrong.

[Berettasskeeter]

Can you cite the internal documents of the Chinese government, or the Russian government, or Iranian, or North Korean? No, you cannot! Without those, noone knows how much they spend. They are Dictatorships (or an oligarchy, in Russia's case). They are able, and driven, to hide their expenditures from those they view as enemies.
You don't have a right to my money, in the form of health care. Get a job and support yourself!
Semper fi

[DaneAZ]

Oh you can't be serious?
Semper Fi?
Are you saying you have been in the military?
The one where every bite of food and piece of clothing and military healthcare you received was paid for by ME and the rest of your countrymen?

[elbzee]

IT'S MY MONEY! IT'S MY MONEY! MINE, MINE, MINE!

I got mine, go get your own.
Classic Repub mantra mixed with right wing fear.

Research "empathy" please. Any maybe charitable acts?

[JayWilliams]

Why does anybody whine about this stuff? Nobody gives a damn that this stuff costs buckets of bucks. We could spend less, but it would make us nervous whether we had military superiority. Has it not been a goal to have the hardware and personnel for staging 3 wars simultaneously? We are world police. The vast, vast majority of Americans are prideful of our world military superiority. This is what America wants. This is who we are.
This is also why we should not have more spending on health care or anything else. We can't afford it. The Keynsian model of guns vs butter must be minded. We want the guns, so forget the butter. Let us have guns.

[FortressOrange]

How about you take care of yourself instead?

[CHARLESTHETENTH]

Good piece unfortunately as much as things change they never really change. Our government spending is wasteful in many many areas....blame our men & women in Congress for that...keeping their pet programs going at the expense of the taxpayer. How can one forget the $6,000 toilet seat the Military paid for some years ago...and we thought that would put some brake on wasteful spending. No matter how many of these articles are written and being critical on our government's poor use of taxpayers dollars...it never seems to do any good. The problem is most of us have accepted this as normal day to day governments way of doing business and just look the other way...it's only a matter of time before it all comes tumbleing down...we see that happening now. If our government runs GM like they do everything else...expect more of the same...GM will fail also !!...again only a matter of time. Question is, how heavy a price will the American taxpayer have to pay??