The U.S. has the only 5th generation fighter plane that exists – the F-22 build by Lockheed-Martin. When the current purchase order runs out, 183 of those will have been produced at a cost of $65 billion.
There is currently a discussion to buy more of these and the Obama administration will have to make a decision in April. The new order planes would have a system price of more than $200 million a piece.
These are really good planes. In an exercise against various 4th generation fighters like the F-15 the F-22 really stood out:
In amassing 144 kills to no losses during the first week of the joint-service Northern Edge exercise in Alaska last summer, only three air-to-air "kills" were in the visual arena–two involving AIM-9 Sidewinders and one the F-22's cannon.
The plane is stealthy and can kill any other plane from a distance without being detected.
So how many does the U.S. need? The Air Force's fighter mafia says 381. But what for?
The total number of airplanes in all air forces of this world is 27,489. Of those 3,704 are in the U.S. air force which leaves 23,785 in the rest of the world.
If the F-22 can achieve a kill ration of 144:0 against still quite modern F-15, the worst case one probably has to think of is a 144:1 loss rate – i.e. the 145th enemy got lucky and hit back at the F-22. To shoot down 23,785 other planes with F-22 at a kill ratio of 144:1 would require 165 of them.
Sure, the availability of the F-22 is only 60% because its stealth skin is hard and expensive to maintain. But who would want to shoot down all military planes of the rest of the world within one day? Why not allow for a week to do so?
Some argue that it would be a good economic 'stimulus' to buy these planes. That is wrong. Any Keynesian stimulus must meet the three-T criteria: 'timely, targeted, temporary.'
Ordering more F-22 that take years to be build is not timely. As all military spending is pure consumption, the new planes will never 'produce' anything, the spending is thereby not targeted. The high costs of maintenance and ongoing pilot training for these planes is not temporary.
Additionally any Keynesian program should be as productive as possible in that it creates additional benefit for the society. A new road, healthier or better educated people are good investments. Spend on infrastructure, health care and education gives some real bang for the buck. So why employ people to make unproductive planes when the same money can employ more people in other areas AND create better total return.
What is the real benefit of more fighter planes than are needed to shoot down all of the worlds military air planes? The make U.S. go broke? Then, maybe, I should support the new F-22 buy.