The United States Air Force’s F-22 Raptor has very high hourly costs and reduced availability: a technical dive into the reasons behind this situation.
Summary
The F-22 Raptor is considered one of the most expensive fighter jets to operate. According to various sources, its hourly cost is close to or exceeds $68,000 to $85,000 per flight hour. There are several main reasons for this: stealth coatings and highly demanding materials processing, the complexity of the supply chain after production ceased (only ~195 units produced), high maintenance requirements (20-30 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight in certain phases), and the scarcity of parts or the immaturity of certain systems. The budget for maintaining operational readiness (MCO) remains very high: for example, more than $9 billion is estimated to be needed until 2030 to maintain a credible fleet. Compared to aircraft such as the F-15E Strike Eagle or the F-16 Fighting Falcon, which have much lower hourly costs (USD 30-40,000 or even less), the difference is due not only to performance levels but also to economies of scale and industrial maturity. This situation poses a budgetary dilemma for the USAF: prioritize performance or optimize availability and cost.
Hourly flight costs and what they mean
The figures available for the operation of the F-22 show a significant reality: a very high hourly cost. One source estimates that the aircraft costs $85,325 per flight hour, covering fuel, maintenance, and personnel. Another source mentions approximately $68,000 per hour for the F-22. In comparison, the F-15E has lower costs, which shows the gap generated by the advanced nature of the F-22.
This hourly cost reflects several combined effects: long maintenance phases, expensive parts, the complexity of stealth systems, and low production volumes that limit economies of scale. For example, in a 2008 report, the USAF stated that the F-22 cost $44,000 per hour compared to $30,000 for the F-15, but this figure included non-recurring costs related to the implementation of the system.
When examining hourly costs on a regular basis, it is necessary to take into account flyable hours (mission sorties), maintenance hours, training, and alert or refueling hours. The higher the non-operational fraction (maintenance, parts, updates), the higher the effective cost per useful sortie hour.
The complexity of stealth coatings and their impact on maintenance
One of the most cost-intensive technical elements of the F-22 is its stealth architecture: optimized structure, composite materials, anti-radar coverage, serpentine air intakes, and RAM (Radar Absorbent Material) coatings. Stealth coating is not limited to “painting” the aircraft: it is an active/passive system, subject to mechanical wear, hostile environments (sand, humidity, sea salt), thermal stresses associated with supercruise (high speed without afterburner), and reduced infrared signature requirements. A 2009 source indicates that one-third of F-22 maintenance activity was related to stealth systems, including the aircraft’s skin.
These coatings require regular inspection, frequent repairs, controlled environments for application, and parts that are often produced in small batches. As a result, every time the aircraft is flown, comes into contact with the ground or air, or suffers minor damage, the repair cycle is long and costly. In the early days, maintenance times of more than 20-30 hours per flight hour were reported.
This has a twofold effect: first, it increases downtime and therefore reduces the number of aircraft “ready to fly.” Second, it significantly increases the cost per flight hour, since a significant portion of the human and parts effort is devoted to stealth and not just “standard” tasks.
The supply chain, halted production, and the “small series” effect
Only ~195 F-22s were ultimately produced, including several test and reserve aircraft. This small series greatly limits economies of scale, increases unit costs per part, and creates a more fragile support chain. When a platform is produced in large numbers, there are many spare parts, optimized processes, and multiple subcontractors. With a small production run, all of this costs more.
At the same time, the halt in production means that parts must come from closed series, that chains must be maintained at additional cost, and that logistical performance is lower. The GAO report notes that maintenance costs for the F-22 have continued to rise, due in particular to “contractor support costs.”
Another point: the mission capable rate for the F-22 was historically low. For example, in 2009, the rate was around 68% for the fleet. This means that one in three aircraft was unavailable, which has an impact on usage, training, and therefore on the “amortized” cost per useful hour.
In summary, this low production run and heavy logistics reduce the operational profitability of each flight hour and increase the marginal cost of each mission.
Comparison with other aircraft and budget forecast
To give an idea of the scale: an aircraft such as the F-15E Strike Eagle or the F-16 Fighting Falcon costs much less per flight hour. For example, the F-16C is estimated at ~$22,500 per hour. This represents a very large difference compared to the F-22 ($68,000-$85,000).
In terms of the anticipated budget, one document indicates that maintaining the credibility of the F-22 until 2030 will require at least $9 billion in R&D and modernization investments, not including operating costs. In 2020, maintenance costs amounted to more than $1.6 billion for the fleet.
If we divide this figure by the size of the fleet (~150 aircraft in operational service according to data), this amounts to ~$10-11 million per aircraft per year just for maintenance. But the bottom line is that the costs per flight hour or per mission are very high.
In the long term, the USAF must decide between a replacement phase (new generation) or an intensification of MCO to maintain the fleet. Life extension costs, software upgrades (“block upgrades”) and replacements of critical parts (engines, stealth coatings) will continue to add to the bill.
Operational and strategic consequences
One of the immediate effects is that the USAF may be tempted to limit the F-22’s flight hours or reserve the most critical missions for the platform in order to save money. This may limit training and tactical use and reduce survivability in the event of a high-intensity conflict. Lower availability or high hourly costs may lead to delays in replacement or a return to higher levels of overuse.
Strategically, this raises the question: how optimal is a “top-of-the-line” platform if its cost of use and availability are restrictive? Export markets (which do not concern the F-22) and allied partners are watching the results. The USAF must strike a balance between extreme performance and industrial efficiency.
Ultimately, the issues of air sovereignty, strategic reach, and adaptation to emerging threats (A2/AD, electronic warfare, drones) mean that cost must not become a major limiting factor. If each sortie costs $70-80k, in a scenario of saturation or prolonged conflict, the bill will be very high.
The F-22 Raptor embodies the technological pinnacle of American stealth fighters, but this pinnacle comes at a price: maintenance, logistics, stealth coatings, and a reduced production line. The challenge for the USAF is to maintain this capability without compromising budgets and operational availability. While its performance remains unquestionable, profitability, logistics, and long-term sustainability remain the major challenges to be overcome.
Live a unique fighter jet experience