You seem to be much more knowledgeable than I on these matters, so I'll take your word for it. I was just attempting to point out that Rumsfeld, to my knowledge, didn't have it out for the F-22 program. I can't imagine the USAF thinking that a change in SECDEF or even a new presidential administration would get them any closer to more F-22s. It's more likely that the USAF was just trying to put themselves in a situation down the line where circumstances might allow them to procure more F-22s. I doubt the USAF brass were thinking, "We'll have a better chance of getting our 380 F-22's once Bush and Rummy are out of the picture."

I have to back dwightlooi on this one. It was well known for years that Rumsfeld would have liked to have scrapped the Raptor altogether, but only intense lobbying by the USAF saved the program, although it still got slashed badly. It is not a matter of speculation as to why the USAF wanted the multiyear buy: precisely as dwightlooi describes, to leave it up to a future SECDEF less hostile to the Raptor program to decide on its future, as well as to give the economies of scale to work their magic and let the price per aircraft gradually decline to reasonable figures ($120 million a copy or thereabouts). And I also agree with dwightlooi about the Raptor being kept in production pretty much indeffenitely, with the USAF eventually getting close to or even more than the 380 it has said is the MINIMUM it wants. The Raptor, in the end, through various iterations, will do a lot more than just replace the Eagle (including replacing the capabilities lost after the retirement of the EF-111 as well as being the REAL successor to the F-4G, as it is no secret that the F-16CJ has never come close to approaching the full spectrum of capabilities of its legendary predecessor).