The Bush Administration's FY2008 defense budget requested $3.38 billion to procure 20 F-22A fighter jets. For non-mathematicians, that equates to a per-unit cost of $169 million.  Seem like a deal to you?  Think again.

As it turns out the F-22A was originally designed during the Cold War to replace the F-15 for use against fighters in the Soviet Air Force that have yet to be developed (and will likely never be developed).  The F-22A was meant to ensure U.S. air superiority, as it provides better handling, range and fire power than any other fighters in existence.  But how much air superiority do we need?

After citing the F-22AA's technical problems and cost growth, the House Appropriations Committee noted: "current threat projections for 2010 indicate that the United States will have a 5 to 1 numerical advantage of advanced fighters against our most challenging adversaries without the F-22A."

The performance of the current fleet of Air Force fighter jets in Afghanistan and Iraq clearly demonstrated that the Air Force already has the capability to achieve air superiority quickly and easily.  Given the biggest threats to the U.S. of today are not airborne - The Taliban, Al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents - it's not likely we'll be needing more air power soon.

Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld agreed. In 2002, he tried to do away with the F-22A program but relented when his Air Force Secretary threatened to resign over the issue.

The F-22A isn't the only air superiority fighter in development.  The Air Force, Navy, and Marines combined their minds and budgets to conceptualize a fighter jet that would serve all of their unique missions.  The plane is called the Joint Strike fighter a.k.a the F-35.  It has a much larger payload for dropping bombs than the F-22A, advanced radar, and excellent air-to-air combat capabilities, although the range is slightly worse than the F-22A's. 

Even more interesting is the F-35 costs $35 million versus the $169 million price tag for the F-22A.  The big question then is, why is DoD spending an additional $2.68 billion this year for incremental technological advances in the F-22A when the F-35 is already far superior to any other enemy fighters?  

The rationale lay in DoD's longtime strategy of maintaining two types of fighters; one expensive super-fighter to eliminate enemy fighters, and one cheaper, less advanced fighter to bomb the hell out of enemies on the ground.  Originally, the F-22A was to be the newest super-fighter and the F-35 would be the less advanced bomber.  Over time, DoD decided they wanted to modify the F-22A with many of the bombing features of the F-35, making the plane much more expensive and more of a multi-role combat aircraft. But wait, the F-35, given the fact it uses many of the technologies of the F-22A, was also an advanced multi-role combat aircraft.  And there lies the duplication.  Billions each year are wasted to procure the F-22A, an airplane whose role could easily be replaced by its F-35 counterpart for a savings of $131 million for each plane.

The stubbornness of DoD could not be denied.  Even after the GAO pointed out in a 12-page letter to the House Subcommittee on Defense that by funding the F-22A program, the DoD cut its ability to meet the Air Force's stated need of 381 new planes, the budget request was still submitted.

Based on our review, in our opinion, the DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program. The Air Force's current stated "need" is for 381 F-22As to satisfy air-to-air missions and recently added requirements for more robust ground attack and intelligence-gathering capabilities. However, because of past cost overruns and current budget constraints, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) states that it can now afford only 183 F-22As. This leaves a 198-aircraft gap between the Air Force's stated need and what is currently affordable.          
                                        - GAO-06-455R, June 20, 2006