How Much Has the F-22 Really Cost?

Good article and good comparisons.

What would have been interesting would be to compare the costs of the F-22 to the F-35 had the F-22 been produced in the same numbers as the F-35.

I would think the total costs would have been a lot more on par or maybe less.

I understand that a portion of the F-35 was/is destined for foreign countries and the F-22 is restricted for export. I don't know if the F-22 could have been altered by installing different avionics and other material changes that would have made it suitable for export, so it is all just speculation at this point.

I am also not saying I am an adversary of the F-35 program.

I agree and I am pleasantly stunned that Gizmodo assembled a well organized discussion about the baffling variety of ways that one can put a price tag on an aircraft. (I guess that even at Gizmodo, there are a few good web reporters.)

It would've been nice to see a price comparison between the F-22 and F-35. For myself though this comparison would not have addressed my primary reservations on the F-35, but it would've been nice to see. My personal reservations about the F-35 is that I believe that all three variants of the F-35 has too big and ill defined of a mission without including close air support. The apparent do anything but supporting ground troops approach is one of the root reasons for the bloated price tag.

hasn't flown a single combat sortie when there has been 3 theaters of active ongoing combat. So after 14 years it is still not combat tested?

Well, part of the problem is that F-22 entered service in 2005. Unfortunately, the last war that required the kind of air support that the F-22 is used for started in 2003 (Iraq), and we quickly achieved the air superiority role before the F-22 even entered service.

While your statement sounds good on the surface, the issue is that the 14 years is mostly development time and therefore misleading.

I do understand your very valid point. But I would hardly call it a bad thing that the F-22 has not had a need to be combat tested.

That is a good point!

It is just criticizing a weapon system that was introduced after a war for not being battle tested in that war that is a little misleading.

I suppose someone might think that we should be flying these things (just because we have them) in Afghanistan because it is a current theater of operation. If that logic was valid you would expect to see B1s flying around, too.

Does it matter how much it costs?

Only to some.

not so much

when you have the virtually unlimited defense budget at your disposal

there isn't really a need for such a specialized platform