Why Do Fighter Aircraft Cost So Much?
Are there good reasons for fighters being as
pricey as they are?
421
674
The question
has long vexed defense analysts, as the projected costs of fighters seem to
expand even faster than those of other military hardware. Some of the reasons
include the ever-increasing gulf between civilian and military technology, a
gulf that demands extra specialization on the part of engineers, equipment, and
workforce. Also, fighters (as opposed to interceptors, bombers, or attack
aircraft) are literally designed to fight one another, making escalatory cycles
particularly likely. Moreover, since modern fighters are generally expected to
fulfill multiple roles (air superiority, plus attack, strategic bombing, and
interception) packing mission capabilities into a single airframe naturally
metastasizes costs.
And
then there’s the (mildly) dirty part; in many cases, governments only pretend
to care about the expense of their fighters. Money spent on cost overruns for
F-35s doesn’t just disappear; it makes defense contractors wealthy and
generates jobs across the country. Representatives from districts that produce
expensive fighters have literally no incentive to hold costs in line. The same
goes for more authoritarian systems in which different power brokers use military
spending to favor specific communities and interest groups.
Export
customers have stronger incentives to seek low costs, and opportunities for
export can potentially drive costs down. But social factors also matter. An
under-mentioned point in defense procurement
debates is that the purchase of advanced fighter aircraft is often
less about national defense than national identity. Both civilian and military
leaders tend to resent the idea that neighbors and rivals will own and operate
more capable, advanced, and expensive aircraft. Moreover, states don’t simply
buy advanced fighters “off the shelf,” as advanced aircraft have historically
required long term deals for training, maintenance, and spare parts. Buying a
fighter means buying a political relationship.
But
high end trends
notwithstanding, there are some glimmers on the affordability front.
While Brazil’s Gripen decision has been interpreted as a symbolic defeat for
the United States, there are few decisions more practical than attempting to
manage the expense of a massive modern fighter-purchase by picking the lowest
cost option. Similarly, the decisions of Iraq
and the Philippines
to go low by acquiring the inexpensive South Korean T-50 imply that even (or
perhaps especially) those customers with serious security concerns are willing
to pursue affordable options. It will be especially interesting to see how the
Textron Scorpion fares on the
international market.
Moreover,
the advent of 3D printing may
well mean that customers will have the opportunity to carry out much needed
maintenance and repairs without relying on the sellers as much as they have in
the past. The days in which the Soviet Union could use MiG-23 airframes
as a loss leader for jet engines, or in which the United States could use
long-term maintenance agreements as a club to encourage additional purchases,
are coming to an end.
Thus,
there’s some evidence that we are seeing the emergence of a mature market
for fighters in a multipolar world, which gives consumers more choices
than they had during the Cold War, when procurement decisions often implied
alliance commitments. Ironically, we may be approaching a world in which
first-tier aerospace powers find themselves stuck with a dwindling number of
hyper-expensive warplanes, while second-tier importers can take advantage of a
smorgasbord of fighter options.
Poster's comments:
1)
Thriftiness has an intrinsic value, too.
2)
Numbers count, also.
3) When
an airplane becomes so expensive it becomes a national asset, then many future
leaders may not be willing to commit it to their national defense.
4) Not
every airplane has to be able to fight against the best opposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment