Pentagon Plans Deep Cuts in F/A-22 Fighter Program

[XEROX]

The Pentagon is planning deep reductions in spending on the costliest fighter jet ever built.

http://www.f-22raptor.com/



The Pentagon is planning deep reductions in spending on the costliest fighter jet ever built. Costreductions are inevitible amid rising spending on the Iraq war, U.S. defense officials said on Wednesday.

The fast, agile, stealthy Raptor is slated to replace the aging F-15 Eagle, which was first made three decades ago, as the front-line U.S. fighter jet starting in 2005.

Proponents view the F/A-22 as vital for maintaining U.S. air superiority in future conflicts, but its costs have escalated and some Pentagon officials have questioned how much the aircraft is needed as American forces confront low-tech enemies in Iraq and elsewhere.

The White House has asked federal departments to shrink requests for spending in the next fiscal year, at the same time costs of the 21-month-old Iraq war have been mounting.

Defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Pentagon has informed officials at the White House as well as Congress that the Pentagon intended to scale back spending on the F/A-22, but did not give a precise amount.

The decision comes to light in the aftermath of the Dec. 20 crash of one of the 29 Raptors already delivered to the Air Force. The F/A-22 crashed on takeoff at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, and the pilot ejected safely.

The Air Force has launched two separate investigations into the crash and has ceased flights of the remaining 28 F/A-22s for the time being in a precautionary "safety stand-down," said Doug Karas, an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon.

"I don´t have an estimate as to when they´re going to go back in the air," Karas added.

About $40 billion has been spent on the F/A-22 program to date. The Air Force put the current cost per plane at $256.8 million with developmental expenses factored in, and $133.3 million with those expenses excluded.

Convergence of factors

"What´s really happening here is that the cost of the Iraq war and the need to trim budget deficits are converging with a long-standing desire among some of (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld´s advisers to cut back conventional weapons programs," said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank.

The Air Force had planned to purchase 277 F/A-22s. Thompson said the Pentagon may close out the production program at about 160 planes at the end of the decade.

"I think there are two challenges the Raptor faces. First of all, as the size of the production run has been cut back, the cost of each individual aircraft has gone up to the point where it has become controversial," Thompson said. "Secondly, threats have changed in a way that has led some policymakers to believe that air superiority is not as important as it used to be."

Tom Jurkowsky, a spokesman for giant defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. , the F/A-22´s manufacturer, said, "We have not been informed of any changes to the status of the program by either the Air Force or the Department of Defense."

Under Rumsfeld, the Pentagon has canceled big-ticket weapons such as the Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter this past February and the Crusader self-propelled howitzer in 2002, and there has been a lag in the Navy´s ship-building program.

Thompson said the Navy is looking at cutting the size of its aircraft carrier fleet by a quarter and its submarine fleet by a third.


_________________________________________________________________

It looks like the war in Iraq is taking its toll on the F/A 22 program, as is the mounting U.S deficit, still 160 Raptors are more then enough!!

 

[SABRE]

USAF has also cut short the numbers of F-35 ordered.

 

[adsH]

small but very effective is the way to go. this is the Information age, and i think the US needs to realize it needs small nations as its allies if it wants to be the superpower, the US has the Cash (Skils too) but we just have the Skills, so if the US spreads some of its money around they might get some useful help .

 

[highsea]

The biggest problem we have right now is the long term projections. When the GAO makes these projections, it takes today's spending and extends it out for ten years. Since right now, we are spending $100Bn./year on Iraq, that projects out to a Trillion over ten years. In truth, we will not spend even close to that amount, but the law requires those numbers to be used. Take that single item out of the projections, and the US is in a budget surplus in 6 or 7 years.

The Lot 5 order for 2005 is for 24 AC at a program cost of $4.1Bn. The Lot 6 order would be the first order in serial production, 36 AC at about $4.5 Bn. Holding the program in LRIP will not save that much money, since development costs were front loaded. Scaling back the JSF will leave our allies in a pinch, and I don't like that option either. I also don't want to see the Virginia class boats cut back.

I would rather see the 4 Ohio class refits go on hold, and maybe the DD(x) and LCS programs. We could also accelerate the drawdown of our forces in Europe, South Korea and Japan. That makes more sense to me than scaling back the Raptor, JSF, and CSF's.

 

[P.A.F]

http://www.dawn.com/2004/12/31/int3.htm

US to take billions off defence

WASHINGTON, Dec 30: The US Defence Department wants to take some 60 billion dollars off its budget over the next six years, marking the first slowdown in US military spending since the September 11, 2001 attacks , the New York Times reported on Thursday.

Under the plan - which would require congressional approval - the Pentagon would retire one of the Navy's dozen aircraft carriers, purchase fewer amphibious landing ships for the Marines and delay the creation of an expensive army combat system featuring high-tech weapons, among other measures, the Times said.

The planned cuts are in response to White House demands for all federal agencies to trim spending requests for the 2006 fiscal year, which are to be presented to lawmakers in early 2005, the daily noted.

The White House has come under increasing pressure to stem growing deficits while continuing to fund the costly military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which now cost more than five billion dollars a month combined.

Pentagon spending has ballooned since the 9/11 attacks, surging 41 percent to around 420 billion dollars this year, the Times said. The plan would cut up to 10 billion dollars from the Pentagon's 2006 budget alone. -AFP

 

[LCA_Tejas]

doesn't sound too good.

 

[P.A.F]

no. it's about time they cut down. they spend more then the top 3 defences combined.

 

[XEROX]

Its seems to be that the John F. Kennedy carrier strike group is being scraped, At this point it looks like no weapons system may be immune to the budget cuts

 

[gf0012-aust]

Its seems to be that the John F. Kennedy carrier strike group is being scraped, At this point it looks like no weapons system may be immune to the budget cuts

She won't be scrapped - she will go into the ready reserve - and then she'll be mothballed. The JFK will just be inactive - but it won't be destroyed. The rest of the strike force will be redistributed amongst the existing CSF's and ESG's. If anything it means that some CSF's and ESG's will actually end up bigger. The older DDG's may end up delisted - but that's only two of them anyway - and I suspect that they will end up as a gift to another Navy once deemed surplus or if not useful to current fleet requirements.

This is another reason why I hate newspaper articles - they only know a tenth of the story and usually get that wrong as well.

 

[adsH]

i bet the DDG's might endup in pak Navy, since they need more Navy subs, i wonder if these might be leased to PN.

 

[Kurt Plummer]

NO.

Absolutely NOT.

The USN has already forfeited it's deep strike capability by reducing /it's/ (total, with Corps) planned JSF purchase to 310 airframes. That's ONE ten plane F-35C squadron on each deploying carrier with an unhealthy mix of 2 10-12 airframe Bug-1 and Bug-2 secondary squadrons a as <200nm+ short legged alternatives.

Especially given the LIES that pushed the F/A-18EF through OpEval (initial radius 550nm class, final KPP 'required': 390nm. OE achieved: 363nm); you cannot go to war with that mix and expect to live inshore vs. a Brahmos or equivalent baseline AShM threat. Nor project power overland, 'Forward, From The Sea' to the required 400+nm depth.

These are 70-90,000dwt platforms which are currently operating fewer than half the airframes that a WWII Essex class did.

The USAF meanwhile has gone from 2,400 to 1,763 to 1,200 'required' F-35A airframes. Which means that everyone from O'Hanlon at Brookings to CBO estimated _going all the way back to 1997_ has been proven DEAD ON CORRECT.

The JSF will run about 65 million dollars to own (flyaway) and over 100 million dollars in acquisition (flyaway plus amortized-across-inventory R&D).

How many folks in the export market will be sticker-shocked beyond interest when they get an even larger chunk of the bill?

I would further add that the Superbug is a /pathetic/ tanker (take 10 planes and configure 2 of them to feed 20 or so F/A-18C and see how far they run. Now try and task the 'residual' 8 plane squadron to useful cyclative ops in depth.).

And with Grey Wolf and Inshore Hunter dead, the USN effectively _has no_ ISR assets available off-deck.

The USN therefore no longer exists as an independent strike arm and should not get ANY VLO assets. That's right. We should SCRAP the 245 billion dollar JSF. Or better yet, turn it into a non-stealthy F-104 program and let the Brits and the idiots who pyramid schemed themselves into Tier-1/2/3 pay for a _non_ stealthy export version.

That right there would save the better part of 245 BILLION dollars.

Next, you need to keep in mind that the biggest part of yearly force structure costs is, was and will remain training and currency. We are now down to a roughly 1.25:1 manning ratio on typical 72 airframe FW which means that 86 people need to fly /at least/ 40hrs per month to maintain competency. The F-16 figures average between $3,600.00 and $5,000.00 per flying hour, variant and active/reserve useage rate dependent. The F-15 runs anywhere from $10-12,000.00 (F-15C/E) to $15,000.00 per flying hour to run.

86 X 12 = 480hrs annually. X350 F-15 's and 1,500 F-16C-CCIP (i.e. effectively the 2020 force reduction due to aging, acheived by 2010) is STILL
$2,016,000,000.00 plus $3,600,000,000.00.

Or FIVE BILLION SIX HUNDRED SIXTEEN MILLION DOLLARS, _EVERY DAMN YEAR_.

Just for the USAF. Not including salaries, dependent support, housing and and and.

If I include the USN with it's similarly aging F-18 fleet at 12-14 thousand dollars per flight hour and the F-18F with its TWO aircrew (utter waste at the moment) at 7,000 per flight hour, then I can add another 900 airframes at $1,505,280,000.00 and $3,024,000,000.00 for /another/

4.5 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.

Which is where the outright LIE that is the JSF hits the brick wall of reality. Because the JSF is NOT a 'common airframe' it is three airframes, no individual one of can perform the simplest act of LANDING on any other services 'turf'.

By deliberate design.

What this means is that if I drop the USAF total airframe count from roughly 2,500 to 1,900 and the USN total to roughly 500 (448 F/A-18EF + 170 F-35C); I have not only crippled each services' ability to fight indepedently but I have also blown to pieces any 'joint force' operating metric because the F-35A will fly like an F-16 but the F-35C will perform more like an A-6E. And the F-35B will be lucky to fly at all.

And neither side will be able to muster the numbers to support the other. And neither side (with retention at an all time low and certain to sink deeper after we finally ditch Bush and Congress imposes another flee-or-be-bankrupt moritorium ala 1973) will be able to even provide competent pilots because the USN cannot fly USAF tactical profiles without extensive training and the USAF cannot work behind the boat without effectively taking pilot training all over again. And the USMC cannot fly off a carrier with fixed JBD and pendant/deckpark effects on it's VL recovery.

Now. Take the A-45CN. It has no dependents. 90% of the force flies perhaps 20hrs a year. It can land on a runway or on a flight deck with ZERO training, thanks to JPALS (EDGE meets ACLS). And if I buy 1,500 of them, the ENTIRE reserve force can be mobilized to go to sea or to land basing modes with a jet whose nominal performance requirement is 1,200nm radius with a 2hr loiter.

All in a platform which, with R&D factored in, will run you about 20-35 million dollars in acquisition and probably 15 or so in flyaway. i.e. for 100 BILLION dollars I can have BOTH the F/A-22 -and- a common basing mode jet which outranges every known threat on the planet. And whose very radius expansion capability means that I can return to an 80-90 airframe big deck 'go to war' surge deployment and still not overwork the flight deck crews because you are looking at 7-11hr cyclative ops intervals.

No 'specialist landing mode' pilots inherent to a busted JSF operational metric means more money for the ground crews 'on whose shoulders' they constantly pretend to hang their efforts.

It also means that, at HALF the nominal aircrew savings (500 Raptor and 500 F/A-18EF) per year, in 10 years X 5 billion dollars a year, I have saved the ENTIRE amount required to purchase the F/A-22 program 'at something like' the original numbers necessary. And just barely /enough/ to keep the 10 AEF system viable with a single squadron each.

The F/A-22 Raptor is a superior air dominance jet. It is a superior interdictor. It is so damn superior that the entire freaking /planet/ is suffering massive inferiority complex as they see what a complete waste their entire 4th generation efforts have been.

It most certainly puts particularly the USN F-35 to shame in all categories. And given that the USN will never again deploy without USAF tanking, BMC3 and ISR assets. Given that it was their own fault that the F-14D, A-6G and A-12 'led to' the A(F)X-18E. They neither need nor deserve an independed VLO strike capability. Not when they have 1,000+ VLS worth of Tactihawk subsonic cruise and are 'semi-urgently' developing the ARRM/FastHawk aeroballistic followon.

I frankly have nothing but contempt for the export nations that seem to think they can buy VLO without contributing Loyalty. We don't need 'help' in the reverse engineering competitive sense of wasted technical leverage. We /need/ men on the ground to help stabilize Iraq by brute force so that we can get out of there before the entire barbarian world turns against U.S..

And after Spain, I don't see a single European stepping up to the line to say 'sign me up'.

Sorry, but we need the F/A-22 to keep the big wars from happening and states like China wasting money on the JX-12 to try and match us. We don't need the JSF which is an utter waste of effort in OOTW/SSC campaigns. And whose "But what about our production share?!!" gifting to ungrateful foreign states is at best problematic when they see what Neurone will run them on a cost+ basis instead.

The JSF is a lousy performer in comparison with the F/A-22, across all roles. It's U.S.(=driving scalar economic production numbers) halve been effectively HALVED before the first SDD prototype has even flown. It will end up running U.S. THREE TIMES what the F/A-22 will, and like the F/A-22, this baseline price will not markedly decrease for every jet we refuse to produce after R&D is finished. Rather the acquisition (R&D+flyaway) for each individual jet will merely INCREASE. To well beyond the 100 million dollar point.

The last 'fill' buy for a single F/A-22 in 2002 was 117 million dollars. If we buy 334 of them, the last jet off the line will be 74 million. If we buy 500 of them that price will be 60 million.

For a twin engine jet that does everything but land on a carrier better than the F-35 will ever hope to. That's not bad. And it's here now.

CONCLUSION:
Destroy the manned knight-warrior mystique. KEEP the top end of manned fighters at a relatively high inventory level. Replace the sport-war sense of martial combat with a simple logistical effort based around robotic airpower.

And you will do far more to avoid future combat than hope-as-reliance upon foreign allies will EVER buy you in a future coallition.

Disappoint me once, shame on you. Disappoint me twice, shame on me. The world doesn't deserve the JSF. The U.S. doesn't deserve to lose the Raptor as a superior alternative.


KP

 

[Aussie Digger]

Unfortunately, KP the "Brits and other idiots" do not WANT a non stealthy aircraft, the Brits already have one: the Eurofighty Typhoon, and the others have looked at the other available aircraft (Gripen, Rafale, F-16E/F, F/A-18E/F , F-15E/K/T) and decided they do not want them...

They and the other "idiots" as you erroneously describe them want a "stealthy" F-35 JSF. IF that program is cancelled, which I seriously doubt, you can bet anything you like that they will want their already invested money BACK.

The kind of money we're talking about is too significant to simply "write-off" so I don't really see how the US could save the $245 Billion you're describing... The USAF, USN and USMC WANT the JSF as well. The money invested is to assist with the development of rtthe F-35, not to do with as the US wants!!!

The US may not end up with the numbers you'd like, but there's something a lot of people haven't got used to yet, if you want a more capable aircraft, you have to pay for it. If you want more airframes, it's going to cost more... If you've only got so much money to spend, you're going to have to live with reduced numbers of airframes...

As to the USN not having any "off deck" ISR assets. What about the E-2C Hawkeye AWACS? What about the EA-18G Growler? What about F/A-18E/F aircraft fitted with SHARPS pods?

These 3 capabilities represent greater ISR capabilities than nearly EVERY other airforces possess.

I'm afraid I can't really see what you're making such a big deal about. Most other airforces would LOVE to have the capabilities the USN either already has or will be receiving in the very near future...

 

[ajay_ijn]

I found an excellent article on Bomber version of raptor,the FB-22
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp

I would suggest a better Multirole Version of F-22 which will combine the features of F-22 Airsuperiority fighter as well an F-117 attack Fighter with some more enhancements.

 

[XEROX]

The tailless version of the F/A-22, the X-44 looks awsome, take note India

 

[Aussie Digger]

This is what the chief of the USAF has to say about the F-22 Raptor program as things currently stand...


TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. --- Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper ended two weeks of training here Jan. 12, flying his qualification flight in the F/A-22 Raptor, the Air Force’s newest fighter aircraft.

“I’ve been involved with the Raptor program for years, in one way or another,†General Jumper said. “Now, to be able to fly it and see all that it does firsthand is quite remarkable. The Raptor does everything we had hoped it would do, plus some.â€

To qualify, the general completed more than 50 hours in aircraft systems and avionics academics, received stealth-tactics training emphasizing integrated avionics and super cruise technology, and completed five simulator sessions and three Raptor flights.

“There are no two-seat versions of this airplane, so the instructors couldn’t be kind to me because I’m the chief of staff,†he said. The general learned everything all F/A-22 pilots must learn, including how to deal with emergency situations.

General Jumper said it is necessary for him to be qualified to know firsthand what the aircraft can do and better understand how to use it. Air Force officials said they plan to use the jet as a multirole fighter aircraft to combat anything wherever airspace is contested.

“Every air force in the world is trying to figure out how to beat our Air Force,†General Jumper said. One of the ways to do that is through advanced surface-to-air missile systems.

The Russians have built next-generation surface-to-air missiles that many nations in the world are now adding to their inventory, General Jumper said. “The Raptor has the ability to dominate that airspace. So, it is not too early to get the Raptor out there,†he said.

The Raptor will also ensure the safety of U.S. pilots against advanced adversary aircraft, General Jumper said. “The Russians never got out of the fighter-building business. They are delivering aircraft to nations around the world that outperform anything else we have -- except the Raptor,†he said.

Beyond the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, Air Force officials have to plan for what they might be up against 30 years from now, the general said. Some F-15 Eagles on the ramp today are 25-years-old or older and are becoming outdated.

The Raptor is an air-dominance airplane that has air-to-ground capability, can destroy surface-to-air missile systems that no other airplane can and is able to deal with emerging threats like cruise missiles, General Jumper said.

“We’re trying to replace more than 800 airplanes with the right number of Raptors, which we think is 381,†he said.

The Raptor can do the job not only of the F-15, but also the F-15E Strike Eagle and the F-117 Nighthawk, replacing virtually three types of airplanes with a fleet less than half its former size.

However, smaller numbers do not mean less dominance, he said. Raptor pilots will safely execute each mission behind the controls of the fastest jet in operation.

“Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners,†General Jumper said. “To be able to go that fast without afterburners means that nobody can get you in their sights or get a lock-on. The aircraft’s impressive stealth capability, combined with its super cruise (capability), will give any adversary a very hard time.â€

-ends-
Obtained from: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4568405.1092028767.QRcJX8Oa9dUAABm2XOM&modele=jdc_34

A few things are very interesting from these comments. 1. The USAF is still determined to acquire 381 F-22's, which if acquired, would significantly lower the unit cost of mature production jets... 2. The chief of the USAF is convinced that the F-22 is superior to any other jet flying and is also demonstrably survivable against the best SAM and air defence systems in the world... 3. The USAF is well aware of the measures other Nations are attempting in an effort to try and reduce the capability "gap" between the USAF and everyone else and (the USAF by inference) is taking direct measures to ensure their superiority (against ANYONE) in any future conflicts.

Very interesting comments indeed.

 

[Kurt Plummer]

Thanks Aussie Digger,

You have no idea how reading something like this makes my day brighter.

YEARS late and hopefully not too many dollars short, /these/-

>>
The Raptor is an air-dominance airplane that has air-to-ground capability, can destroy surface-to-air missile systems that no other airplane can and is able to deal with emerging threats like cruise missiles, General Jumper said.
>>

>>
“We’re trying to replace more than 800 airplanes with the right number of Raptors, which we think is 381,†he said.

The Raptor can do the job not only of the F-15, but also the F-15E Strike Eagle and the F-117 Nighthawk, replacing virtually three types of airplanes with a fleet less than half its former size.
>>

>>
“Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners,†General Jumper said. “To be able to go that fast without afterburners means that nobody can get you in their sights or get a lock-on. The aircraft’s impressive stealth capability, combined with its super cruise (capability), will give any adversary a very hard time.â€
>>

Are the salient points.

1. Because air to ground comes at virtually no cost -provided- it's generalist in (Infrastructure and Command fixed targeting). But on the fly SEAD/DEAD means the FULL integration of the ALR-94 into an ELS level of computed (i.e. 'range-known') handoff to weapons within a given EDGE+INS or AARGM+Quickbolt level of footprint accuracy. Which in turn probably means an APG-77 upgrade or RTIP switchout to provide for even higher levels of cued-imaging (ISAR/GMTI).

2. With 381 jets, only 214 will be available on any given day (training, depot and field level maintenance effects on M&R). By airframe #335, assuming the PBD hasn't totally thrown everyone's figures out of whack, each _flyaway_ Raptor cost will be around 74 million. Vs. the 117 million that it cost for the last single-fill purchase in the 2002-2003 FY budget. IF you replace both deep strike options, you MUST do so within a generateable sortie figure that matches tanking and radius and aimpoints-per-day to the (target frag) level which the F/A-22 can rightly be expected to match with X8 GBU-39 or X2 GBU-32/35.

3. 'Supercruise Capability' is a LOUSY DARN WAY TO GET THERE! Because it leaves you vulnerable to Riccioni and Co. with their ridiculous '50 in and out' claims. This is simply unacceptable. It's time to define SSC by it's _persistence value_. Even if it means utterly embarrassing the F-35 supporters in terms of "What you do in 5-6hrs, we do in 2" comparitive out--bomb-back-turn justification.
The F-104 had roughly 9,000lbs of gas with the tip tanks. It good go 550nm at Mach 2 with that amount of fuel. The first 200 of which would expend all but 2,000lbs of fuel. The last 350 of which could be 'coasted' at a mere 1,000lbs.
EVERY JET, at 60,000ft, 'is a Starfighter'. In terms of approaching-vacuum LID levels. But whereas the F-104 was a .61 T/Wr bird _at takeoff_ on the J79-GE-19A. The F/A-22s F119s should still be putting out nearly 20,000lbf of go fast PER SIDE, at altitude, when it comes to mid-high SSC throttle settings. i.e. somewhere between .72 and .8 on a 50,000lb airframe which has expended HALF it's 18,000lb fuel load.

That means, to me, that ALL the critics of the Raptor are simply about an order of magnitude (minimum) 'out of assumption' on what a tightly packaged, all-clean airframe can really do for endurant supercruise.

And even 500nm, 'straightline', at Mach 1.7 means you can hit 1-2 tankers on a 1,000nm and still make two-three times the sortie rate of a like number of JSFs. For probably half the total (wasted in hookup lags) fuel.

If true, it will be a triumph of operational sortie generation math (the ONE thing which, sustained, wins air wars) the likes of which this planet has not seen. Effectively like unto sending a B-17G to Berlin at P-51D best combat-cruise velocities in terms of what you can do to saturate an enemy with IAM attack in the D1/R1 'doorkicker' scenario of fast standup and rapid rollback.

IF we buy enough to match the AEF deployment doctrine with sufficient GSCONOPS (theater swing force) jets to make wars a matter of 'combattive deescalation' rather than the MacArthurian 'ISR as I Shall Return!' idiocies that have dominated expeditionary wars for the past 20-30 years.


KP

 

[Aussie Digger]

The very capabilities you pointed out Kurt and arguments in favour of the F-22 are the EXACT same reasons the RAAF needs to purchase this aircraft. We will only ever have a small airforce and any future Australian air force, (short of a massive world war occuring with plenty of lead time to sufficiently equip) will not comprise more than 100 fighters. Our Government simply won't pay for it when there are votes to be had by spending money on Social Welfare, Education and Health. There are very few votes to be had in defence...

Given this an opportunity exists (for the first time) to acquire a Fighter that will genuinely outclass ANY opposition AND is able to double the sortie rate over other types of aircraft. A relatively small force of late production F-22's combined will allow us to combine these aircraft into a 2 tier fighter system with the F-35 JUST as the USAF is doing (though obviously on a much smaller scale) and allow us the "over-match" we require against any likely adversary, and yet remain an affordable system. A force of even 32-36 Raptors, plus 60-70 JSF's will afford us a strategic weight far beyond that afforded by a slightly larger purchase of any other aircraft type, and yet still fit within our $15 Billion budget for our new air combat capability...

In addition, the US (and our other allies) would far more appreciate a deployment of 12 or so Raptors to a Coalition than any number of JSF's we could likely deploy....

The 1000nm+ strike range of the Raptor would nicely fill in for the retirement of our F-111's too...

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The very capabilities you pointed out Kurt and arguments in favour of the F-22 are the EXACT same reasons the RAAF needs to purchase this aircraft. We will only ever have a small airforce and any future Australian air force, (short of a massive world war occuring with plenty of lead time to sufficiently equip) will not comprise more than 100 fighters. Our Government simply won't pay for it when there are votes to be had by spending money on Social Welfare, Education and Health. There are very few votes to be had in defence...

Tell me about it - thanks to the Iraq war, the UK defence budget is in trouble. At one point, the Treasury asked the MoD to choose between the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and Eurofighter. Considering that Geoff Hoon had already signed up for Tranche-II, he would have had to pay almost as much in fines as the cost of the planes. And we really need those carriers. So at this rate, we'll have two new shiny carriers, but no frigates or Type 45s to protect them and plenty of Eurofighters, but no one to fly them or any land forces to protect their bases.

However the government has actually increased spending over inflation and agreed to the Type 45 and CVF projects. The Conservatives didn't have a great record on defence spending. In the long-run the armed services will benefit from some of the changes - it would just help if the PM got the Treasury to actually directly fund the war in Iraq, rather than try to get the MoD to fund it out of their existing budget.

Aussie Digger, that was a very good case for the RAAF you made. It is true that you couldn't support a large airforce (with the way the gov prioritises spending), so quality is necessary. Out of interest, would the Australian Labour Party cut defence spending, or have they expressed a desire to keep things ticking over? Would they stop the purchase of Raptors?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't know about the Labor party. The current head of the ALP is Kim Beazley. He is a former defence minister, and as far as Politicians go, actually knows a thing or 2 about defence. (The F-111 almost seems like a pet project of his...) If the RAAF put a decent case forward for F-22's and he was Prime Minister, there's at least some chance he'd listen.

Saying that however, the greatest run-down in ADF capabilities since the end of WW2 occurred whilst HE was defence minister. The ADF is currently $107 Billion worse off than promised since 1990 specifically due to the defence cuts HE instigated. He also was obsessed with "continental" defence and defending the "air-sea" gap around Australia. F-22's might appeal to him if they could demonstrate a significant anti-shipping capability.

But in the end who knows? Given their recent performance there's little to no chance the ALP will get into Government anyway...