Why so few new fighters these days?

[Superboy]

Back in the day, say 1967 when the US had fewer than 200 million people, the US air force operated some thousands of F-4 fighter jets, big planes even by today's standard, and at the time equipped with state of the art radars and missiles and engines.

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But today, only 126 Rafales and 187 F-22 were built, not enough to replace their predecessors Mirage 2000 and F-15.

Society has become more technologically advanced, so new fighters should not be more expensive compared to the past per se. So why so few new fighters built compared to before?

 

[UKBengali]

It is to do with the massively reduced defence budgets.

If the French spent like they did in 1967, they could probably afford 4-500 Rafales for their military.

 

[SHAMK9]

Back in the day, say 1967 when the US had fewer than 200 million people, the US air force operated some thousands of F-4 fighter jets, big planes even by today's standard, and at the time equipped with state of the art radars and missiles and engines.

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But today, only 126 Rafales and 187 F-22 were built, not enough to replace their predecessors Mirage 2000 and F-15.

Society has become more technologically advanced, so new fighters should not be more expensive compared to the past per se. So why so few new fighters built compared to before?

They aren't cheap to buy.

 

[Superboy]

They aren't cheap to buy.

Then why over 5000 F-4 were built when the US population was around 200 million? I bet the US could build over 5000 F-22 if it really wants to now that the US population is over 310 million.

 

[MastanKhan]

Back in the day, say 1967 when the US had fewer than 200 million people, the US air force operated some thousands of F-4 fighter jets, big planes even by today's standard, and at the time equipped with state of the art radars and missiles and engines.

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But today, only 126 Rafales and 187 F-22 were built, not enough to replace their predecessors Mirage 2000 and F-15.

Society has become more technologically advanced, so new fighters should not be more expensive compared to the past per se. So why so few new fighters built compared to before?

Hi,

It is simple----one aircraft can do the job of 3 to 4 aircaft or more of the past. Superior technology---superior weapons systems.

And also with the threat of soviet russia fading away---minimal deterrence became the name of the game. So---think about it---who does the U S needs the numbers to put up aganist!

 

[500]

Back in the day, say 1967 when the US had fewer than 200 million people, the US air force operated some thousands of F-4 fighter jets, big planes even by today's standard, and at the time equipped with state of the art radars and missiles and engines.

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But today, only 126 Rafales and 187 F-22 were built, not enough to replace their predecessors Mirage 2000 and F-15.

Society has become more technologically advanced, so new fighters should not be more expensive compared to the past per se. So why so few new fighters built compared to before?

B-24 Liberator - 18,482 built
B-29 Superfortress - 3,970 built
B-52 Stratofortress - 744 built
B-1 Lancer - 100 built
B-2 Spirit - 21 built

 

[gambit]

Hi,

It is simple----one aircraft can do the job of 3 to 4 aircaft or more of the past. Superior technology---superior weapons systems.

And also with the threat of soviet russia fading away---minimal deterrence became the name of the game. So---think about it---who does the U S needs the numbers to put up aganist!

The fact that he associated sheer population count with how many fighter aircrafts a country should have is clue enough of his intellectual maturity about military issues -- not much maturity at all.

 

[Superboy]

651 Drakens built.

329 Viggens built.

247 Gripens built.

Only Gripen seems to be doing the best out of all the new fighters. Rafale is doing way worse.

1422 Mirage III built.

601 Mirage 2000 built.

126 Rafales built.

Typhoon is also not doing that well.

992 Tornadoes built.

400 Typhoons built, with Spain not having used Tornado.

 

[flamer84]

It is to do with the massively reduced defence budgets.

If the French spent like they did in 1967, they could probably afford 4-500 Rafales for their military.

More to do with fighter prices,more developed fighters more money,higher operation costs.

80's communist Romania operated some 300-400 fighters.No chance we'll ever top that even with a 6-7% of GDP for defence today.I'm talking if you want to operate modern fighters not J7 for example.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The bomber number can easily be explained by high altitude accuracy problems. For instance in WW2 about 50 B29 bombers attempted to bomb a steel factory in Japan. Only 1 bomb out of all the multiple bombs carried by those planes hit the target.

 

[shuntmaster]

Then why over 5000 F-4 were built when the US population was around 200 million? I bet the US could build over 5000 F-22 if it really wants to now that the US population is over 310 million.

Then the cold war raging and there was a real threat to security and interests of US..

 

[Irfan Baloch]

now that the US population is over 310 million.

country population has no bearing on number of fighter jets in a country.
the fighter jets of today are far more capable& versatile offering multiple roles and outperforming a much larger number of aircrafts of the past.
secondly the reason for lower number is that the world powers dont expect any large scale air battles and invasions at the scale of world war 2 since the end of cold war.

 

[UKBengali]

More to do with fighter prices,more developed fighters more money,higher operation costs.

80's communist Romania operated some 300-400 fighters.No chance we'll ever top that even with a 6-7% of GDP for defence today.I'm talking if you want to operate modern fighters not J7 for example.

Dude, I am talking about France that has a GDP of 2.5 trillion dollars and not Romania.

Yes, fighter prices are higher now but the increase in GDP has kept pace. In 1967, France had a GDP of around 100 billion dollars. Now it is over 2.5 trillion dollars. That means the GDP has increased 25 times.

The top of the line Mirage III, at the time in 1967, cost somewhere in the region of 5 million dollars and the Rafale now costs around 100 million dollars. As you can see the growth of GDP has kept pace with the increase in fighter prices

Sorry for the numbers but mathematics is my favourite subject

 

[That Guy]

Then why over 5000 F-4 were built when the US population was around 200 million? I bet the US could build over 5000 F-22 if it really wants to now that the US population is over 310 million.

It has to do with multiple reasons, some of which I will try to explain.

First, Technology. Newer technologies are decidedly more costly to develop and install. With Fighters becoming more and more sophisticated, their costs are obviously going to increase. Though the increase isn't as much as you'd think, I will explain that later on.

Second, comparing older fighter capabilities to newer ones. Don't assume that the F-4 is the equivalent of an F-22. If I had to choose between 1 F-22 and 6 F-4s, I'd pick the single F-22, because it would be able to take out the 6 F-4s without a single scratch and at a record time. That is another reason for fewer fighters being built. There is just no need to build a thousand fighters, when you only need a few hundred to do the same job, and even excel at it.

Third, multi role functionality. With modern fighters increasingly becoming more and more capable, they're able to replace dedicated machines. Instead of having a separate light bomber and a separate air superiority fighter, why not just combine the two roles? Sure it costs more in the short term, but long term effects of owning less make maintenance easier and cheaper, because you only have to buy spares for one plane, instead of two. So, it is only expensive in the short term. (less in more)

Before I get to my fourth and fifth points, I'd like to point out that I'm NOT an economics student, and it is one of my weaker subjects. Having said that, I'll try my best to explain the economics behind the increase and decrease in fighter costs as best as I understand them.

Fourth, inflation. Don't assume that fighters are getting super expensive, actually, the price expense is not as much as you'd think. For one thing, the dollar today is significantly cheaper than it was 30+ years ago, so because of the inflated dollar price, the fighter costs "more" to compensate. This has to be done because if corporations don't adjust for inflation, they end up losing money. Why do you think the HAL Tejas costs "more" than it did when it was initially conceived? Inflation of the Indian rupee.

Fifth, and international sales. This sort of relates to the fourth point. This also brings up the four laws of supply and demand:

1. If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
2. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
3. If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
4. If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.

(Click here for more info on supply and demand)

If we look, the F-22 fighter was never offered on the international market, thus the demand was relatively unchanged in the beginning, because only the USAF was the only one able to order the fighters. Later on, the Pentagon actually ended up cutting the orders, because of cost, which decreased the demand of the fighters, which resulted in a shortage of supply, (because of a loss of jobs, and decrease in manufacturing) so the prices hiked.

If we look at the F-16 and F-35, they'll show that if there is a higher demand and surplus in supply, the cost will lower. This is why the F-16 was relatively cheaper than other fighters on the market at the time, because there was massive demand for it. If only the US ordered the F-16, the price of the fighter would easily be double, if not triple the amount. Currently, the F-35 (the most expensive fighter program in the world) is trying to replicate the F-16's success, and lower the price of the fighter by doing the exact same thing. If you notice, every time a new nation announces their intention to buy the F-35, the price of the F-35 decreases, because of an increase in demand, and the expected supply increases to a surplus, but when you see a nation announce that they're pulling out of the F-35 project, or have intentions to reconsider the purchase, the demand decreases, and the expected supply decreases to a shortage, which increase the costs.

Another more recent example of this is the JF-17, which is relatively cheap already, but the PAF is desperately looking to find buyers or potential partners so it can lower the cost of developing and manufacturing the fighter for it's own air force. If PAF can achieve this, the JF-17 would undoubtedly be the cheapest and most cost effective fighter on the market (for it's type).

I hope this explains well enough why newer fighters are more expensive than their predecessors.

@jaibi @Alpha1 @Aeronaut @Luftwaffe @gambit @Oscar

What do you think?

 

[flamer84]

Dude, I am talking about France that has a GDP of 2.5 trillion dollars and not Romania.

Yes, fighter prices are higher now but the increase in GDP has kept pace. In 1967, France had a GDP of around 100 billion dollars. Now it is over 2.5 trillion dollars. That means the GDP has increased 25 times.

The top of the line Mirage III, at the time in 1967, cost somewhere in the region of 5 million dollars and the Rafale now costs around 100 million dollars. As you can see the growth of GDP has kept pace with the increase in fighter prices

Sorry for the numbers but mathematics is my favourite subject

Yes but maintenance costs are way,way higher plus the weapons for it.Just check prices for air launched cruise missiles,BVR missiles,etc.Only to have a fully armed jet with high tech weapons is damned expensive,plus the cost for flight hours which are enourmous these days.And that exactly is the difference that i was talking about.

A country like Romania could operate 300 fighters back then,France was in the 2000 area probably.Now they're in the 250 area,us 40-50 tops.Plus,now all the top european armies are professional and you have to pay all those soldiers.And they don't come cheap.

1 billion $ for France is not the same as 1 bill $ for India.Look how many fighter jets/tanks/etc India has opposed to France even tough France has a bigger budget.Or better yet Sweden has a defence budget the size of Pakistan's but look at the disparity of their armed forces.