Why so few new fighters these days?

[UKBengali]

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.

True to some extent.

Comparing France and India:

1. A substantial part of the French defence budget goes into R&D -who knows how many billions they spend every year to develop and improve their weapons.

2. French equipment is better than what India has in most but not all areas.As an example the Leclerc is a much better tank than the T-72 or even T-90 that mainly equips the Indian army.

3. Personnel cost much less in India than in France.

I still say that if France spent the same proportion of GDP as it did in 1967, then it could operate 4-500 Rafales. Remember the more you order the cheaper it gets and that includes maintenance and weapons

 

[flamer84]

True to some extent.

Comparing France and India:

1. A substantial part of the French defence budget goes into R&D -who knows how many billions they spend every year to develop and improve their weapons.

2. French equipment is better than what India has in most but not all areas.As an example the Leclerc is a much better tank than the T-72 or even T-90 that mainly equips the Indian army.

3. Personnel cost much less in India than in France.

I still say that if France spent the same proportion of GDP as it did in 1967, then it could operate 4-500 Rafales. Remember the more you order the cheaper it gets and that includes maintenance and weapons

Well,you're right ofcourse.They now spend some 2.4 % for defence if i'm not mistaken.If they would pend 5% obviously they can afford 500 Rafales going by simple mathematics.

But did they operate 500 fighters in the 70's ? Or 1500 ?

 

[Darth Vader]

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?

1 F 4 Costs Around 3 Million
While Single Raptor Costs 150 Million Now How many F4s You Can Buy in 150 million

 

[flamer84]

1 F 4 Costs Around 3 Million
While Single Raptor Costs 150 Million Now How many F4s You Can Buy in 150 million

150 million 2014 does not equal 150 million in 1970.

 

[UKBengali]

Well,you're right ofcourse.They now spend some 2.4 % for defence if i'm not mistaken.If they would pend 5% obviously they can afford 500 Rafales going by simple mathematics.

But did they operate 500 fighters in the 70's ? Or 1500 ?

I think you are correct that weapons for the Rafale would cost more as it now can take a greater variety due to the omni-role capability.

 

[Superboy]

1 F 4 Costs Around 3 Million
While Single Raptor Costs 150 Million Now How many F4s You Can Buy in 150 million

Back in the day, in the 1960s, F-4 was state of the art with very advanced radars, radar guided air to air missiles, and so forth. Cost wise, adjusting for inflation, should F-4 be costing about the same as F-22?

 

[T90TankGuy]

Back in the day, in the 1960s, F-4 was state of the art with very advanced radars, radar guided air to air missiles, and so forth. Cost wise, adjusting for inflation, should F-4 be costing about the same as F-22?

Have you even bothered to read the replies given by the members? your suppositions are based on ignorance.

much like this thread.
How can a small country like Sweden develop fighter jets with only a few million people?

 

[That Guy]

Back in the day, in the 1960s, F-4 was state of the art with very advanced radars, radar guided air to air missiles, and so forth. Cost wise, adjusting for inflation, should F-4 be costing about the same as F-22?

Not really. The F-4 was a disaster, because of it's lack of a main gun. They had to put it in later on after their disastrous debut during the vietnam war.

As for cost, nope, even by 1960s standard, it was fairly basic but high end fighter. Adjusting for inflation, it would cost the same amount as a second hand F-16.

This shows the original cost, and what it would cost today if you adjusted for inflation.
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

------
P.S. Seriously, did no one read my lengthy and detailed explanation?

 

[janon]

...
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.

Apples to oranges comparison. For one thing, France is geographically small compared to India, and therefore needs far fewer aircrafts and tanks to defend its airspace or land. India needs a lot more. Two, India has much more real threats than France does. France is not anticipating its neighbours to start a war with her.

As for why the same budget can support a bigger military in India - one, payscale. India pays third world salaries to its personnel, while France pays first world rates. Just as in any other industry. Two, one dollar can buy a lot more in India than in France, for the same reason. So tanks and fighters assembled or manufactured in India by Indian workers turns out a lot cheaper than those in France.

This is where PPP figures are important. Compare the defence budget in purchasing power parity terms, and then compare the size of the armed forces.

 

[flamer84]

Not really. The F-4 was a disaster, because of it's lack of a main gun. They had to put it in later on after their disastrous debut during the vietnam war.

As for cost, nope, even by 1960s standard, it was fairly basic but high end fighter. Adjusting for inflation, it would cost the same amount as a second hand F-16.

This shows the original cost, and what it would cost today if you adjusted for inflation.
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

------
P.S. Seriously, did no one read my lengthy and detailed explanation?

So i was kind of right ...18 million $ in today's money fly away cost for the F4 against some 70-100 mill $ fly away for a modern blk 52 F16/Rafale/EF.

4000$ in today's money flying hour for an F4 vs 15.000+ for a modern fighter.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

1 F 4 Costs Around 3 Million
While Single Raptor Costs 150 Million Now How many F4s You Can Buy in 150 million

Worth of 3 million in 1967 is not equal 3 million in 2000. Sir, you do some math.
Thank you.

 

[Superboy]

Lower orders for planes means less jobs in manufacturing and servicing. The US should operate at least 5000 F-22, if only for employment.

Worth of 3 million in 1967 is not equal 3 million in 2000. Sir, you do some math.
Thank you.

That's exactly true. Steffi Graf earned less prize money compared to Daniela Hantuchova, even though Steffi has 22 slams compared to Daniela's 0. Steffi played in the 1980s and 1990s whereas Daniela played in the 2000s and 2010s.

 

[Luftwaffe]

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.

Did US fly all 5000, many were sold many many more went to bone yard brand spanking new. US have as many has 300 F-16s with almost 0-100 only hours on them in storage and other various types.

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!

But i think US is rethinking of increasing the numbers again plus superior technology mainly against Chinese...2443 F-35s would be built in total that is a huge number replacing all F-16s/F-15s and F-18C/D.

 

[Kompromat]

Welcome to the world on 'multirole' aircrafts. Jets and weapons have evolved, more can be done with less these days, thanks to better situational awareness, battlespace analysis and smarter, precise weapons. Time sensitive use of precision weapons can attain better strategic impacts than bombing an entire city when its too late.

 

[That Guy]

So i was kind of right ...18 million $ in today's money fly away cost for the F4 against some 70-100 mill $ fly away for a modern blk 52 F16/Rafale/EF.

4000$ in today's money flying hour for an F4 vs 15.000+ for a modern fighter.

That would be stretching it a bit. For one thing, you shouldn't compare a modern system with a system from the 1960s, because they're two completely different beasts built on different ideas.