Raptors and Lightnings and F-16s. Oh, My!

If you think the growing economic crisis is hitting you hard, consider its effect on the most vulnerable of our corporate citizens: the defense contractors.

A Reuters report yesterday suggests that happy days may not be here again for the defense industry -- at least not unless the economy perks up. The cascade of failing Wall Street banks, and the resultant tightening of lending that's already being felt on Main Street, is expected to hurt tax revenues and crimp defense budgets well into the new administration.

Memo to the next commander in chief
No other aspect of the defense industry has a higher profile right now than the Air Force's new fighter-jet programs, involving the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. The Pentagon is looking for some 1,700 F-35s to be built over the next few decades and also wants to more than double the existing fleet of 183 F-22s. But the presidential candidate who inherits the current economic mess will have to do more with less, and that's bad news for defense contractors.

Built by Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT  ) -- with wings by Boeing (NYSE: BA  ) and engines from United Technologies (NYSE: UTX  ) -- the F-22 aims to become the dominant air-superiority craft of the new millennium. It will inherit that role from the venerable F-15 Eagle (a Boeing bird). In contrast, the Lockheed/Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC  ) F-35 aims to replace the Lockheed/General Dynamics (NYSE: GD  ) F-16 and become the world's premier strike fighter. The new birds do have one thing in common, though: They both cost a wing and a leg.

The high cost of progress
And in the end, it's that cost that could determine the programs' futures, their technological improvements over older warbirds notwithstanding. Because however good the new tech may be, these next-gen fighter jets cost orders of magnitude more than the planes they're meant to replace. Here's how a few competing weapons systems break down:

  • F-22 Raptor: $191 million apiece.
  • F-35 Lightning II: $104 million.
  • F-15 Eagle: About $30 million.
  • F-14 Tomcat: Upward of $40 million.
  • F-16 Falcon: Most cost anywhere from $15 million to $30 million, depending on the options. Adding a sunroof, Sirius XM radio, and a spoiler could set you back a bundle.

The Pentagon's shrinking wallet, and how to play it
So here's the question for investors. How do you hedge the risk that a stagnant U.S. economy, declining tax revenues, and a consequently tight defense budget will threaten the cash flows of Lockheed, Boeing, and the like in the coming decade?

I think the Pentagon's been trying to teach its new birds the wrong tricks. In a world preoccupied with the "Global War on Terrorism," it doesn't make sense to be spending $100 million apiece on planes that will drop bombs on people carrying $100 Kalashnikovs.

Sure, we still need high-tech warbirds to counter a rising, heavily militarized, and ever-wealthier China. True, too, Russia's actions in the Caucasus remind us that the Bear is no longer hibernating. The natives are restless, and it seems prudent to keep a few long spears lying around to ward off the Bear when it gets too frisky. So I expect that the government will keep buying F-22s and F-35s -- just maybe not as many as Lockheed investors might like.

Moreover, buying Lockheed on fears of a dampened defense budget seems to me a good hedge. The company is having no trouble selling its supposedly now-obsolete F-16 to foreign buyers, and if the U.S. finds itself temporarily strapped for cash, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Air Force requisitioning a few extra late-model Falcons to bridge the gap between "need" and "want."

Foolish takeaway
Still, I suspect that when it comes to lower-intensity conflicts, the Pentagon will conclude that the more cost-effective means of fighting insurgency reside in the robotic hands of unmanned aerial vehicles. A Predator drone can be had for just a few million dollars, and a more advanced Reaper will set you back less than $10 million. Honeywell's (NYSE: HON  ) RQ-16A "micro" air vehicle is also inexpensive, and other small, "surgical-strike" UAVs, such as AeroVironment's (Nasdaq: AVAV  ) planned Switchblade, will likely price below $1 million as well.

We all have to learn to live within our budget at some point; I suspect that the Pentagon's time is rapidly approaching. And if that's true, investors can profit by shopping downmarket from super-duper fighter jets to the humble, but cost-effective, UAV.

Learn more about the economic dynamics betwixt F-16 and F-35 in:

Fool contributor Rich Smith owns shares of AeroVironment and Boeing. AeroVironment is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers recommendation. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (4)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 01, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Weasel63 wrote:

    Where are you getting your cost per fighter numbers from, the Wiki??? Are you using total program dollars divided by total price or fly away cost per plane once in production or projections? At best, your numbers seem to be way off. For example, you can't buy a new F-14 without restarting the assembly line which has been closed for many years, and the final planes cost about $50 million each in the 90s, so how did you come up with $40 million per plane? And comparing unit prices for established products like the F-15 and F-16 to relatively new systems which are in early production (F-22) or just starting production (F-35) is very misleading. In fact, worrying about acquisition costs misses the bigger picture - operations and maintenance. Over the life of a system, acquisition costs only make up about a third of the total cost, so why are you only focussing on that?

  • Report this Comment On October 03, 2008, at 11:29 AM, valuwarrior wrote:

    Weasel63 is right---(TMFDitty) Rich Smith's costs here = bad research. An apples-to-apples comparison of average FLYAWAY cost using 2007$$: F-22 is $140M, F-35 is $75M, F-15K is $80-90M, and latest F-16C is $65-70M.

    More importantly, wrt DEFENSE its really about OPERATIONAL UTILITY over the next 20-30 yrs. Only 5th Gen a/c (F-22 & F-35) will survive in the modern SAM and Fighter-laden battlespaces. If an F-22 can kill 6 Flankers in 5 minutes, who cares that it cost $140M? Nothing else can do that, including F-35, which is more optimised for multi-role strike. USAF's problem is they need 60-200 more F-22, so we can deploy them if & where crises pop up. Older, cheaper 4th gen a/c will soon be just expensive targets over the modern battlefield. (Disclosure--As an ex-fighter jock, I own LMT and prev. owned BA)

  • Report this Comment On June 24, 2010, at 11:36 AM, chulinguy wrote:

    I agree with both posts above. Also, it would probably be better to compare F22s with F16s as air superiority fighters and compare F35s with F15s as strike fighters ...

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 742238, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/19/2014 11:04:39 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement