Beyond the Sticker Price: A Critical Oversight
The U.S. Air Force’s push for its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, focusing on mass affordability, has primarily centered on the procurement price per airframe. This narrow focus, though understandable given the program’s novelty and the desire to justify cost-effective scalability, risks ignoring one of the most important principles of military budgeting: total lifecycle costs.
The Pitfall of Cost Myopia
While low per-unit costs may excite officials and the public, they do not tell the full story. Full cost accounting includes research and development, procurement of the entire fleet, and ongoing operation and support—covering personnel, logistics, supplies, and maintenance throughout the weapons’ service life. Overlooking these elements can create unrealistic expectations, leading to severe financial surprises later.
Potential Congressional Backlash
History warns that underestimating total costs can provoke a “sticker shock” in Congress. If actual expenses surpass initial projections, a program could be severely trimmed or canceled altogether—particularly if lawmakers feel costs were deliberately underestimated to gain support. Such outcomes would undermine a promising program that’s still in its early growth stage.
Unseen Future Expenses in Software and Autonomy
Major future costs lie in the development, sustainment, and logistics of software and autonomy systems integral to the CCA. These are complex, evolving areas with costs difficult to predict accurately now. Developing cutting-edge autonomy, which the Air Force plans to extend beyond CCAs, demands substantial resources—many of which will be shared across multiple programs.
Why Cost Understanding Matters
Estimating lifecycle costs isn’t straightforward. For example, even an “affordable” CCA at $9 million per aircraft could total $35 billion to $55 billion over its service life through 2045. The more ambitious $37 million-per-aircraft scenario could run $80 billion to $125 billion. If these figures sound high, consider that they still represent a relatively small portion of overall Air Force spending—less than 5 percent over a decade—and are comparable or lower than some existing manned aircraft programs.
The Risks of Miscommunication
Pretending that CCA costs are negligible when they are not risks fostering disillusionment among Congress and the public. Transparent, realistic communication about total resource requirements—including software, logistics, and sustainment—is essential to set proper expectations and ensure sustained support.
Conclusion: Transparency Is Key to Program Resilience
The Air Force must emphasize that affordability isn’t just about the initial purchase price. Stakeholders must recognize that substantial, ongoing investment is needed to fully realize the potential of CCAs. Clear, honest messaging now will help prevent future crises and sustain the program’s long-term success.
