ORAC and Others,
Just a couple of thoughts on this discussion and especially F-22 operating costs. While it's absolutely true that the LO stuff on F-22 generates additional support costs, the main driver is that the F-22 is a very (very) large, heavy and complicated aircraft.
Two very powerful engines crammed into an airframe that is stuffed with fuel, lots and lots of avionics and four weapons bays results, all being pushed through the air at high speeds and high g means system complexity and lower reliability.
The F-22 is, in my view, the last of the gold-plated 'dinosaur' combat aircraft, where performance requirements were allowed to drive designs well beyond the bounds of affordability. It was the experience of the Raptor programme, plus a slew of other cancelled tactical fighter bomber programmes (all large twin engined aircraft) that led the Pentagon to devise JSF as a single engined design in an effort to control size and costs.
It's clear that F-35 costs have still been allowed to get well out of the box, but holding the aircraft to a single engined design has definitely constrained weight. And in the end, that will help control costs, although probably not as much as the programme's architects hoped.
Oh, and the nozzle positions of the Harrier actually helped against IR missiles, as they were fairly well shielded in many engagement aspects, reducing the chance of IR lock on. The cold front nozzles also helped reduce IR signature and improve the effectiveness of IR countermeasures. I ran a number of trials on IR stuff many years ago and I can tell you that it was conventional jet types like the Tornado that were simply massive IR targets. Of course, as missiles have improved the chances of any jet evading the b***ers has reduced.
Best Regards as ever to all those working long hours to deliver the F-35 to the people at the front line,
Engines