How much do fighter jets cost today?

[DanteXavier]

I wass just wondering about the prices of some of these aircraft. So far, i do know a few of them already:

MiG-21 - $1-3 Million
SU-30 - $35 Million
F-16 C/D - $20 Million

I've just been curious about some of the figures for some of the other fighters and combat jets out there. And also some of the lesser known info. For example, we know a new top of the line F-16 would cost like $20 million or more, but how much would it cost for a used model that was in storage in the US and is 20 years old or something? How much does 16 year old SU-27 cost, etc, etc.

Any help would be appreciated:)

[-DarthMaul-]

Well Im not sure what the official price is but the F/A 22 Raptor is supposedly around $150 Million which is the most expensive ever for a fighter plane(and the only anywhere near it I beleive)

I beleive most CURRENT/NOW Generation Jets cost around $25-35 Million a Jet.

[Hutz]

Well Im not sure what the official price is but the F/A 22 Raptor is supposedly around $150 Million which is the most expensive ever for a fighter plane(and the only anywhere near it I beleive)

I beleive most CURRENT/NOW Generation Jets cost around $25-35 Million a Jet.

Just read it's now $330 million (not sure if true).
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3378&from_page=../index.cfm]

[Scottie]

As of 2006 it costs $120 Million per unit for the F-22

[DanteXavier]

As of 2006 it costs $120 Million per unit for the F-22

I had originally thought that to be about $200 million, but even then, that's still through the roof expensive. I guess it might be worth it, though.

[ando]

What was the design cost from the drawing board on the raptor ? Just wondering

[Ratamacue]

What was the design cost from the drawing board on the raptor ? Just wonderingI'm not entirely sure, but the oft-quoted $330 million pricetag is when R&D costs are factored in and divided among each unit cost.

[ando]

Ive found it

Well trhe first web page may not be correct as per today anyways :

Air Force officials announced 07 November 2002 a potential cost overrun of up to $690 million in the engineering, manufacturing and development phase of the F/A-22 program. The potential overrun appeared to be related to achieving cost and schedule in the developmental phase of the program, officials said. It is not related to its technology or performance. The aircraft remains on schedule for first aircraft delivery in 2004 and initial operational capability in 2005 as planned. The projected overrun is about 3.3 percent of the program's $20 billion development phase and about 1 percent of the program's $69.7 billion estimated total pricetag.

Basically its a friggin lot !!!

[ShakesFIST]

Is the APR lower if you have a higher down payment?

[eruk55]

Is the APR lower if you have a higher down payment?


lol.rofl

i gotta get a deposit down on one of those babies!

[saigonsmuggler]

on what kind of cost you are looking at (there are many and they vary widely for the same platform). Here's what Wikipedia says:


Types of costs for military aircraft
There are a variety of types of costs related to military aircraft programs, with each form of accounting used for different purposes and insights. The two types most commonly reported are the unit "flyaway cost" (FAC) and "unit procurement cost" (UPC), the latter also being referred to by some as "unit program(me) cost". A "unit" cost is simply the indicated type of cost divided by the number of aircraft being paid for (i.e., the "per airplane" cost). The FAC is what most people think of as an airplane's cost. Unfortunately, there are two different costs that get referred to "flyaway cost". The UPC is most often reported as the total announced price of an acquisition program divided by the number of aircraft, but this is just an approximation because programs can and do vary widely in what "other stuff" is included.

For the purposes of Wikipedia, our order of preference for cost types we provide should be 1) basic FAC, 2) "Total FAC" and 3) UPC. However, for those who want to better understand how these costs are defined and build upon one another, the following paragraphs discuss each type.

Recurring flyaway cost: Usually reported as the "unit recurring flyaway" (URF) cost, this covers only the airframe, engines, avionics, and other such equipment that come "standard" with every airplane (and thus are "recurring"). The URF is one of the two fundamental cost elements of the basic FAC. Until the F-35 program began using it, the URF was rarely ever reported in the general press. The F-35 program uses it to capture those costs of the basic airplane that are common to all of the partners. The partners are individually responsible for those "nonrecurring" elements they may desire to better "tailor" the airplane to their specific requirements. The F-35's URF is often mis-reported as the airplane's FAC, but this understates the true FAC.

Nonrecurring flyaway cost: Almost never separately reported, the nonrecurring costs include basic "startup" costs which are apportioned over the whole fleet of aircraft planned to be built for the purchaser(s), as well as allowances for user-required changes. The nonrecurring cost is typically a fraction of the recurring cost.

Flyaway cost: The basic flyaway cost (FAC) is the sum of the recurring and nonrecurring costs and is always reported as a "unit flyaway cost" (usually abbreviated "FAC" or, rarely, "UFAC"). It is the most commonly reported cost and is normally what most people think of when they think about what an airplane "costs." However, just to keep things from being simple, there is something called "total flyaway cost".

Total flyaway cost: This is always reported as a "unit" cost, and is often also referred to as the "weapon system cost" or simply as the "flyaway cost" — however, it comprises not only the "basic" flyaway cost, but also the delivery costs and the peculiar support equipment, technical data packages, training equipment, and a variety of contractor services required to provide initial support for the airplanes; all of this is usually amortized over the size of the customer's purchase. Unfortunately, with the total flyaway cost often being called "flyaway cost" and the term "weapon system cost" being used generically (even sometimes for the total lifecycle cost), it can often require an expert to figure out which is which. For the purposes of Wikipedia, editors should treat the "total" FAC and "basic" FAC as roughly the same "in round numbers." For follow-on purchases of a given aircraft by the same customer, this difference is often quite small.

Procurement cost: This can be reported as either a "program cost" or a "unit procurement (or program) cost"; the unit procurement cost (UPC) adds the cost of initial spares — amortized over the quantity being purchased — to the flyaway cost. This is the other most commonly reported type of cost, and is usually derived from the reported procurement program cost divided by the quantity of aircraft being bought. While this is not a fully accurate estimation method, it is usually just about all one has to go with. (It should be noted also that there is no such thing as a "standard initial spares" package for costing purposes.)

Program acquisition cost: Rarely ever seen — and normally only in the US — the PAC adds the costs of research and development, testing and evaluation, and related military construction (e.g., new hangars, test facilities, etc.) to the procurement cost. It can be found in the US DoD's "Selected Acquisition Reports". Detractors of a program often use this to "estimate" an exceptionally high unit cost for an airplane; while it is a "legitimate" form of cost, it is often used as a political tool by comparing it to the FAC or UPC — which are very different types of costs — thereby implying that it is the "real" cost (generally perceived to be the FAC or UPC) of the airplane as opposed to the government's "official" — and by implication, deceptive — cost (the actual FAC or UPC).

Life-cycle cost: The (total) life-cycle cost (LCC) takes the program acquisition cost and adds to it all of the projected lifetime logistic and operational costs: munitions and missiles, AVPOL (fuel, oil, and lubricants), spares (other than initial spares), replenishment, depot maintenance, system support and modifications, as well as the costs of hiring, training, supporting, and paying the personnel associated with the operating unit(s). In recent years, the term "life-cycle costs" has increasingly been used to refer to just the logistic and operational costs, while the term "total life-cycle costs" includes the PAC. While certain things may indeed be done to reduce LCC, any LCC projection should be taken with more than a few grains of salt; I've yet to see a verified and validated methodology for producing a realistic valuation.

Again, Wikipedia editors should strive to only use the basic unit flyaway cost (FAC) or unit procurement/program cost (UPC) in their articles and identify which they are using.

[DanteXavier]

on what kind of cost you are looking at (there are many and they vary widely for the same platform). Here's what Wikipedia says:

Thanks, that's a lot of good info!:)

[saigonsmuggler]

I read an article somewhere that mentioned the $200mil F-35 vs. the $45mil F-16. Well that was extreme bias on the author's part - taking the program acquisition or possibly even life cycle cost of the F-35 and compared it to the fly-away cost of the F-16. :)

[Limeyfellow]

anyone know how much a eurofighter is?

Britain paid what would be a little under $80 million dollars back in 1996-97 for its first lot of planes, but the cost per unit is closer to about $62-67 million or as we call it in real money £40-45 million. The price however gets modified due to different features and requirements each nation wants with the Typhoon so the price jumps about a little bit.

[DanteXavier]

I read an article somewhere that mentioned the $200mil F-35 vs. the $45mil F-16. Well that was extreme bias on the author's part - taking the program acquisition or possibly even life cycle cost of the F-35 and compared it to the fly-away cost of the F-16. :)

LOL, yeah, i've noticed people tend to do that when they are critical about these big programs(F-22 as well as several others).

[justagoodolboy]

If you watch www.aso.com (http://www.aso.com), you often see old Aero L-39s for sale under 500k. They're a ground attack/trainer from lates 70s-80s vintage, I believe of czech origins. I always wondered what It would be like to have one of those to go fly on the weekends.

[DanteXavier]

If you watch www.aso.com (http://www.aso.com), you often see old Aero L-39s for sale under 500k. They're a ground attack/trainer from lates 70s-80s vintage, I believe of czech origins. I always wondered what It would be like to have one of those to go fly on the weekends.

Yeah, i remembered reading somewhere that they can be bought for about 300K even, but I didn't believe it. That is pretty amazing, though. A smaller airforce could afford to grab a bunch of them if they wanted.

[justagoodolboy]

Yeah, or I could just use them to buzz local highways and patrol cars.

[DanteXavier]

Yeah, or I could just use them to buzz local highways and patrol cars.

Yeah, that would be pretty entertaining I'd have to agree. At least as good as a ride in any Ferrari or Lambo.

[h22chen]

wow, a Mig-21 for $1-3 million.

[Angelino]

The real big killer component in modern fighters is the cost of avionics. In a book written by Ben Rich (former head of Lockheed's skunk works) in 1994, he estimated that the avionics cost approximately $7,000 per pound of fighter weight! R&D work also takes a large chunk of the costs, especially since manufacturers in the US try to build planes that no one has ever built before, and hence, they have to discover several key technologies themselves.

When you build sophisticated planes, there are quite a few other things that also contribute to unit costs. For instance, a manufacturer needs to start a new assembly line, and get specialized tools, jigs, workers, training etc. all lined up, even before they've built a single aircraft. The cost of all this is a fixed cost and will remain the same, whether they are planning to build one aircraft or one hundred aircraft. Now, if the customer (say, the US government) decides to suddenly reduce the number of units ordered, the manufacturer still has to recover their fixed costs and the R&D costs that they put up front for the job. Hence, they start to charge more per aircraft, to recover the money they put up front. This is the reason why the B-2 bomber costs 2.2 billion per airplane!! Congress had originally authorized construction of 132 B-2s to be delivered over a period of a few years. Hence, the manufacturer built their factory and assembly line to meet the delivery schedule. Then, a couple of years later, Congress changed the number to 50, then they reduced it down to 22. The manufacturer (Northrop) was now stuck with a factory with excess capacity and hence they had to increase the cost per bomber.

[Raphael Cortez]

I just bought one Mig-21 few minutes ago.

[Atlantic Friend]

whats R&D?

Research and Development.

[DanteXavier]

wow, a Mig-21 for $1-3 million.

Yep, that's why they're so common in developing countries. You can grab a 50-60 of them for the cost of one Eurofighter.

[dorian]

MiG-21 - $1-3 Million
SU-30 - $35 Million
F-16 C/D - $20 Million

New F-16s are nearly $40 Million
F-16 BLK60 - $80 Million

[Limeyfellow]

Also, so say, relative to inflation, how much would the cost of a torando in the 1980's compare to buying a eurofighter today?

Not sure howmuch the RAF paid for their Tornados. Not sure when it was even declassified but must have been sometime in the 90s or later. I know the Saudis in 1985 paid £21.5 million each if I remember correctly. That would work out about £45-60 million nowadays.

[DaGreatRV]

Rafale:

Total programme cost between €28,000,000,000.
This translates to a unit programme cost of approximately €95,000,000.
Unit system cost (€91m) €88m (including development cost per aircraft)
Unit flyaway price (2000) €47m (air force version)
€49m (navy version)

BTW, I've read that one of the major problems with selling the Rafale is it's radar. It is said to be to weak. This no problem for France since they operate Hawkeyes, but for smaller countries this disadvantage may be a show stopper.