Economic analysis of the choices between modernizing or acquiring new fighter jets, with figures, examples, and budgetary constraints.

Balancing innovation and budget constraints

The decision of an army to purchase new fighter jets or modernize existing aircraft is never purely technical. It is based primarily on economic, strategic, and industrial considerations. The list price of a new fighter jet now exceeds $100 million, not including the cost of logistical support and the necessary infrastructure. Conversely, a major upgrade, including radar, electronic warfare and multi-role capabilities, can cost between $25 million and $40 million per airframe for an aircraft that has already been amortized.

But this choice is not just about the immediate budget. It commits to capacity cycles of 20 to 30 years, alters industrial balances, impacts the training of pilots and technicians, and redefines geopolitical room for maneuver. Ukraine, India, Brazil, Greece, and Egypt illustrate these dilemmas: modernize an aging fleet in the face of immediate threats, or switch to new, high-cost platforms with built-in operational advantages.

This article presents the precise economic criteria underlying these decisions, illustrating them with figures, case studies, and the systemic effects they have on military sovereignty and strategic balances.

The cost of a new fighter jet: acquisition, life cycle, infrastructure

Buying a new fighter jet involves much more than the unit price. A mass-produced F-35A costs around $100 million, but this figure masks significant associated costs. Over 30 years, the cost of owning a single aircraft can reach $280 million, including training, spare parts, fuel, maintenance, and software updates.

A fifth-generation aircraft is equipped with fused sensors, stealth capabilities, advanced network connectivity, and complex automated systems. To fully exploit these capabilities, it is necessary to:

• build specific hangars (humidity control, anti-espionage devices),
• create a logistics system for certified parts,
• invest in suitable simulators (unit cost: $10 million to $15 million),
• train crews over a 12- to 24-month cycle, with flight hours costing $30,000 to $50,000 depending on the aircraft.

By comparison, the operating cost of a modernized F-16 is around $20,000/hour, compared to more than $44,000 for an F-35A, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). For a fleet of 40 aircraft flying 200 hours per year, the annual difference exceeds $200 million.

Political considerations also play a role: buying new equipment from a third country creates contractual dependencies (maintenance, ammunition, cybersecurity), which are sometimes considered excessive. The Turkish case (exclusion from the F-35 program) and Franco-German tensions over the SCAF illustrate the sensitivity of these choices.

The cost of modernization: extended cycle, leverage effect, and capacity limits

The modernization of a fighter jet involves replacing critical subsystems. This often includes:

• the integration of an AESA radar (unit cost: $5 million to $8 million),
• an improved electronic warfare suite (2 to 4 million),
• extending the payload capacity or adapting to newer missiles (such as Meteor or AMRAAM D),
• replacing the cockpit with a digital interface and advanced data links (such as Link 16 or tactical Satcom).

A program such as the F-16’s MLU (Mid-Life Upgrade) costs around €32 million per airframe, with a net gain in capability. These aircraft can then remain in service for another 15 years, with performance close to that of a new aircraft, but without native integrated sensors or structural stealth.

In the Indian case, the decision was made to modernize 84 Su-30MKIs at a total cost of $3.4 billion, rather than acquiring an equivalent fleet of Su-35s or Rafales. The cost of a modernized Su-30MKI (€40 million) remains 35% lower than that of a new Rafale (€65 million), while allowing for the integration of BrahMos missiles, local radar, and Israeli electronic warfare systems.

Modernization also provides industrial leverage. Local production lines can be reactivated for certain parts, guaranteeing internal economic benefits. This limits imports, ensures a degree of sovereignty, and prevents the existing fleet from becoming obsolete.

But the limitations are real: increased weight, performance close to saturation, inability to interact fully with fifth-generation systems. In short, a modernized platform never becomes a next-generation fighter. It can keep up, but rarely get ahead.

Medium-term budgetary and strategic trade-offs

The purpose of armed forces is not to showcase technology, but to maintain operational superiority within a constrained budget. The ability to deploy a fighter jet depends not only on its technical performance, but also on its actual availability and cost of use.

Most air forces adopt a mixed fleet. Greece is a good example: Athens has modernized 84 F-16 Block 52+ aircraft to the Viper standard, while purchasing 18 new Rafale F3Rs, at a combined cost of $4.2 billion. This ratio allows sufficient manpower to be maintained while integrating high-end capabilities.

Another example is Poland, which is modernizing its F-16s while purchasing 32 F-35As for $4.3 billion, demonstrating that the objective is not only renewal but also complementarity. The F-35 is used for first entry, while the F-16s carry out interdiction, patrol, and medium-intensity strike missions.

The marginal cost of technological superiority thus becomes a political tool. An army operating 20 fifth-generation aircraft but 80 modernized ones will be better able to sustain a prolonged conflict than a fleet of 40 isolated state-of-the-art aircraft with low availability rates (less than 50% for the F-35 between 2020 and 2022).

The industrial factor also carries weight. Local modernization creates technical activity, reduces dependence on foreign production cycles (which are often saturated), and facilitates export negotiations. For producing countries (France, the United States, Russia), this lever is also diplomatic.

Strategic profitability: cycle, resilience, and dependencies

Finally, the economic issue is linked to the resilience of the operational model. An army that depends on a single type of recent aircraft, which is very expensive to maintain, is exposed to a rapid decline in availability in the event of a logistical crisis or prolonged conflict. This is the case in Canada, which is struggling to maintain its aging CF-18s, with no effective replacement before 2026 due to delays in the F-35 program.

The return on investment of a combat aircraft is also measured by its adaptability to future scenarios: asymmetric warfare, high-intensity confrontation, coalition operations. A modernized airframe can integrate software upgrades more quickly than an industrially locked platform.

In addition, the budget cycle requires planning over 15 to 20 years. A new fleet involves infrastructure spending from the order phase onwards. Conversely, a phased modernization allows for better absorption into annual appropriations, with costs spread out over time. Brazil illustrates this logic with the Gripen NG program, which has been integrated into local production with a tailored schedule.

Finally, maintenance chains must be evaluated at full cost: the maintenance cost of a Rafale is $16,500 per flight hour, while that of an F-15EX exceeds $27,000, according to the USAF. The difference has long-term repercussions and sometimes justifies the extension of aircraft such as the Mirage 2000-5 or the modernized F-4E in Greece.

Get in touch to live a unique fighter jet experience – we fly in France AND YOU CAN TAKE THE CONTROLS!!!