By now, you may have heard that the Pentagon is proposing deep cuts in the F/A-22 Raptor fighter program. I'm a bit of a military airplane buff, but even I see that the "Advanced Tactical Fighter" program under which the F/A-22 was developed (as well as its erstwhile competitor for the contract, the F-23) is a Cold War relic. We aren't planning a war with the Soviets any more.
Ignore that its mission no longer exists. I have to question the wisdom of a program that produces fighters at a cost of $258 million each 1 . Yes, the F/A-22 can travel faster than the speed of sound without using afterburner ("supercruise"). Yes, it has advanced avionics. Yes, it is more maneuverable than current fighters. And yes, it is "stealthy." But how does any of that matter? At this point, I figure the cost of building yet another F-15 or F-16 or F/A-18 is far less than $258 million. Let's say it's $32 million, which is a not-unreasonable number I mostly invented. The F/A-22 is better and cooler than any of those current fighters. But is it 8 times better? Clearly not. We have bases all over the world, so sustained supersonic speeds aren't as important. Our Air Force hasn't really had to engage other fighters since Vietnam, so maneuverability doesn't really matter. And we have such military dominance overall that advanced avionics and stealth capabilities don't do much for us. That all sidesteps the real issue. Even if we still needed all of those things, why does it cost so much?
I am not saying we need to cut back on defense. Nor am I arguing that the F/A-22 fighter has no reason for existence, as that is obvious. What I am questioning is a system that produces so little for so much. How do we let that happen? I'm not against a strong defense strategy, but I am against a wasteful one. It has taken nearly 25 years to get from concept to almost-production on the F/A-22. It has already taken $40 billion of an estimated $72 billion 2 to get this far.
This is completely naïve, but let's compare the F/A-22 against other, roughly comparable things. The somewhat less-capable Eurofighter costs about $100 million each, but is also produced in Europe, where everything costs more. Boeing's most recent production airliner, the 777, costs about $200 million each 3 , but it took only 6 years to go from concept to production, and that's without bulk discounts. The F-15 Eagle, one of the fighters the F/A-22 is meant to replace, ran about $30 million each in 1998. Those are inexact comparisons, but they are close enough to see that we're getting far too little, far too late, for far too much money.
I believe that we could and should get the exact same product for considerably less, but we don't because of a lack of government discipline. Defense is a sacred cow. The Republicans push free market enterprise and cutting back government pork, except with the Defense Department. They like the big budgets, even if they're wasteful. The Democrats are no better; they're highly sensitive about being portrayed as wimps, and no more so before than now. When the Pentagon comes knocking, then, neither party finds it easy to say "no." When a defense contractor with lots of lobbyists and manufacturing plants in important districts says they need more time, neither party finds it easy to say "no." These numbers are so big that people can't wrap their heads around them and understand how big they really are 4 . And so we end up with $258 million fighters that are 15 years past relevance being built because neither party has had the balls to cancel it, nor did any party have the balls to make the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin accountable from the beginning. You don't need to agree with the priorities. You don't need to agree with the politics. You don't need to agree with anything justifying the program at all. This is waste, plain and simple. Our defense budget is $420 billion, but we're not getting $420 billion worth.