The Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between The U.S.3rd And 4th Generation Fighters

According to the fundamental theory of the modern fighter cost-effectiveness analysis, this article analyses and compares widely the cost-effectiveness between the U.S. 3rd and the 4th generation fighters (concerning heavy and light types). Based on the cost-effectiveness comparisons between the U.S. 3rd generation heavy fighter F-15 and the 4th generation heavy fighter F/A-22, and between the 3rd generation light fighter F-16 or F/A-18 and the 4th generation light fighter F-35, it summaries the motive and measures of the United States improving the cost-effectiveness of the new-generation fighters. On the basis of the fundamental theory of the fighter cost-effectiveness analysis, the fighter cost-effectiveness trade-off is considered in a certain trade-off space, i.e. only meeting the demand of the cost constraint and the effectiveness requirement, the better cost-effectiveness fighter designs are feasible. Cost and effectiveness are two essential factors in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The cost refers to the life-cycle cost (LCC) including R&D, production and support spending; the system effectiveness is distinguished from the combat effectiveness by its implication, the system effectiveness is the comprehensive effectiveness including combat, reality and maintenance, supportability and survivability etc., and the combat effectiveness is the operational capability possessed by fighter. The system effectiveness is usually used in the modern fighter cost-effectiveness analysis, but on certain occasions the combat effectiveness is also used. The ultimate target of the cost-effectiveness analysis is, with the given cost constraint and effectiveness requirement, to find approaches to improve the cost-effectiveness of fighter and take the efficient measures. There are five approaches in improving the fighter cost-effectiveness. For developing the new-generation fighter, it is real to increase the effectiveness of aircraft with lightly cost rising. In the history of the fighter development, there isn't such example that the new-generation fighter is cheaper than the older-generation aircraft. F/A-22 is the 4th generation heavy fighter designed by U.S. during the Cold War, and its original adversaries are the Soviet Su-27, MiG-29 fighters and the advanced surface-air defense systems. The fighter realizes fully the performance revolution compared with the 3rd generation fighter F-15, including stealth, supersonic cruise, thrust-vectoring nozzles and integrated avionics etc. The analysis conducted by the foreign research establishments indicates that F/A-22 is far better than F-15 in cost-effectiveness. Accomplishing the same mission on the 100% success, the required F-22s and pilots, their losses and the total value of the relative assets at risk are much less than those of F-15; but the R&D and production cost and price of F/A-22 are too very high to meet the original quantity requirement of the USAF with the limited military budgets. The major reasons that lead to the cost climbing of F/A-22: In the environment of U.S. military expenditure shrinking with the end of the Cold War, repeated plan modifications lead to the great of the non-valued efforts, some of the critical technology that haven't matured lead to the cost overrun and the schedule delay, and there are the out of date or unsuitable practices in the acquisition management, etc. Decreasing the number of the F/A-22 production has caused the continued climbing of the aircraft price and formed a trouble price trap. The difficult position of the F/A-22 acquisition leads to the thinking of how to keep the defense industrial base vigorous in the future. After the Cold War, U.S. turns to pay attention to the affordability of the armament and equipment under the heavy pressure of the military budget shrinking. The affordability is superior in the requirements of the U.S. 4th generation light fighter F-35. Compared with the 3rd generation light fighter F-16 and F/A-18, three variants of F-35 have improvements more or less in the effectiveness/capability. To real...