What Can the U.S. Air Force Learn from the ‘Stop and Start’ F-22 Program ($300 million per plane): Retire or don’t retire? The U.S. Air Force has confused us concerning the possible divestment of the F-22 Raptor. Some Air Force civilians and generals, plus military analysts at think tanks, are split on whether to upgrade 32 older F-22s used for training or remove them from service and plow the money into the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter. Some praise the F-22 as an integral part of U.S. tactics, operations, and strategy; others say it is time to move on from the stealth Raptor.
Clearly, history has a lot to teach us, considering the Air Force was, at least, until recently, considering another $300 million plane.
Put the Brakes on NGAD
But the history of these confusing signals sent by the Department of Defense and Congress about the F-22 program writ large is a cautionary tale for the fledgling NGAD project, which was once estimated to have a $300 million price tag for each next-generation fighter.
Now, the NGAD program is on pause until it can get its costs down to around what the military pays for F-35s. The NGAD needs more design finalities and additional research and development before it matures.
Chalk It Up to Lessons Learned
Acquisition honchos should take a big lesson from the F-22. The Pentagon, Congress, and the White House must all be on the same page if NGAD is to progress because the F-22’s history is full of stops and starts. The NGAD is already suffering from this malady, and that does not bode well for the whiz-bang futuristic airplane that so many are crowing about.
What’s to Be Done with the 32 F-22 Orphans?
The Air Force only has 183 F-22s. In 2023, the plan was to retire 32 aging models without the latest upgrades that would have modernized the entire fleet. These 32 “orphan” fighters were used to train new pilots or those transitioning from flying the F-15 or F-16. The plan was to refrain from upgrading the ones initially built in the late 1990s and early 2000s and send that batch to the Boneyard in Arizona to rest in peace. This would save an estimated $485 million annually and $2.5 billion across five years. It will now cost $3.5 billion to bring those aging 32 F-22s up to combat readiness.
That’s a pretty penny that could go to the NGAD project. However, Congress blocked this divestment from the F-22 program, and military analysts at think tanks wondered if this was the right decision.
Where Should the Priorities Lie?
“My general reaction is ‘Hallelujah’,” Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and retired Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula told Forbes that the F-22 should be a high priority.
Another think tanker disagreed. “It’s hard to believe this is one of the Air Force’s highest priorities. I think the B-21 and Sentinel are higher priority,” said Mark Cancian in the same article, who is senior adviser for the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
You see how difficult it is to get all oars rowing in the same direction. There are fans of the F-22 who don’t want it retired, those who wonder if a divestment should go to fledgling programs like the NGAD, and those who want the money to go to a stealth bomber or new nuclear missile.
This type of confusion could plague the NGAD program, too. Perhaps the NGAD will be too expensive and problematic – replicating the difficulties with the F-35. Or the Air Force could learn its lesson and be cautiously optimistic about the next-generation airplane. That’s why placing a pause on the NGAD is one of the best decisions Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has made recently.
Make Sure the NGAD Program Is Stable
In 20 years, the NGAD doesn’t want to face cancellation if it comes to fruition and spawns arguments from uniform officers, civilians, and think tankers—not to mention the legislative and executive branches fighting over priorities.
One good thing about the NGAD program is that it can learn many lessons from the F-22 and F-35. First, create consensus among all stakeholders. Next, make sure there are offsets to pay for it. Then, slow down on design, research, and development. Keep the costs low. Build it with the latest techniques, such as 3D printing and easy-to-upgrade software.
Perhaps the U.S. military may not even need the NGAD and can pour time, money, and resources into keeping the F-22 and F-35 in the air for the coming decades. They are stealthy, fast, and maneuverable but expensive. These monetary allocation decisions will be critical in the coming years for a new president and existing Members of Congress who may need to make tough choices about the future of the Air Force, which does not have an overwhelming number of airplanes in the first place.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Roadmaster
September 21, 2024 at 11:09 am
IMO, the F-22 never got a fair shake, by the politicians (lining their pockets) or the bean counters at DOD. The different branches demanded a multirole, “Swiss Army knife” fighter (F-35) which, anyone with a basic knowledge of fighter aircraft knows, can NEVER meet every requirement demanded by the different services employing it.
The Raptor, on the other hand, is such an exceptional, air-superiority fighter, nothing flying now, nor planned for the future can touch it. Not even close.
As the limitations of the F-35 become more obvious, more and more people are taking a second look at just how good the F-22 is. Too little/too late? I hope not.
Francis Maikisch
September 21, 2024 at 1:17 pm
Short of a massive downsizing and a total overhaul of the DOD procurement process, DOD has less than zero credibility. The poster child for govt incompetence and corruption. Navy leadership over the past 30 years has been abysmal, can’t even decide on fleet composition or size. Audits anyone? F35 is stealing a generation’s wealth.
Bret Stagg
September 21, 2024 at 5:30 pm
Absolutely spot on. The core compentcy of DOD is…. Well they don’t have one any more. Can’t plan, can’t procure, can’t fight but they got DEI wired
cbvand
September 21, 2024 at 9:36 pm
Defense contractors are money extraction machines. Their efforts at self reward are greatly facilitated by divergent design proposals, mid-stream changes and dithering, as well as the goal of all senior officers to make a soft and lucrative retirement landing. Time to focus on value for money and cost control.
Jacksonian Libertarian
September 22, 2024 at 7:15 pm
Manned combat aircraft are obsolete.
The prime consideration should be Combat Power/$dollar.
Ukraine is using cheap long-range drones made from cardboard, to destroy refineries, ammo dumps, and other military targets inside Russia.
These cheap drones also soak up Russia’s expensive air defense missiles at a highly favorable cost-to-benefit ratio.
Ukraine will use and produce 1,000,000 drones this year (2024).
Where are America’s drone swarms?
The Military Industrial Complex is the enemy.