How to pay For the F-22B

[jessmo111]

I know I know.. your going to link me to the previous F-22 post discussing all things Raptor.
But Fighter sweep has a really good article on HOW to actually pay for it. I don't think the Airforce has a Issue with having more F-22s. I think that they want to make sure priorities are met.

https://fightersweep.com/5023/case-re-o ... ptor-line/

1.
Slow F-35A procurement for the USAF and defuse any per-unit price increases by ramping up delivery of F-35As to international customers. Accelerating foreign F-35A deliveries ensures the number of F-35As coming off the Lockheed-Martin production line remain consistent with current projections, preventing a spike in per unit cost that could scare off international customers and put at risk the total USAF purchase of 1,763 F-35A airframes. This would require a great deal of negotiation with our international partners, including requiring them to modify their current spending projections. But with rising tensions in the Pacific and elsewhere, perhaps our allies would welcome a chance to accelerate their own F-35A initial operational capability.

2.
Second, the US should allow export of the F-22B to our closest allies. HASC opened the door for this option when they tasked the Air Force to look at “opportunities for foreign export and partner nation involvement if section 8118 of the Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-56) prohibiting export of the F-22 were repealed.” In the past, Australia, Japan and Israel were very interested in purchasing the Raptor.

3.Third, and most painfully, my plan would require the retirement of the F-15C on a 1:1 basis with F-22Bs reaching operational status. The Eagle is the most successful air superiority fighter in history (104:0 air-to-air kill ratio makes a pretty persuasive argument), and its retirement will be a sad day for thousands inside and outside the active duty Air Force. However, by the time the theoretical F-22B reaches operational status the youngest F-15C airframe will be more than 50 years old, and ready for its retirement from the force. It must be noted that my plan would not allow for premature retirement of the F-15C fleet, these airframes could only be retired as they are replaced by the newest Raptors. This would prevent a further USAF fighter gap, and would provide a ready and trained force to pilot the new F-22s.

The Air Force must treat this acquisition as a total force initiative. Considering the majority of remaining F-15C squadrons are in the Air National Guard (ANG), the 1:1 replacement of the F-15C would send new F-22B airframes directly to the Guard. The ANG should therefore assist with procurement, modernization and sustainment. This would undoubtedly require complicated budget machinations, but the opportunity for new-build 5th generation fighters could be very enticing for the ANG.

Discuss. If congress Gives out money SPECIFICALLY for F-22s would the Airforce bite? can we be certain that the F-35, B-21 and other priorities wont suffer?

[thepointblank]

1. Foreign customers may not have the cash flow to afford F-35's at an accelerated delivery rate, especially in the current economic environment.

2. Of the three, only Japan has the fiscal means to buy F-22. Australia doesn't have the money, and the Israeli's would demand that most of the cost be borne by the US through military aid.

3. The F-15 has nothing really unique that can't be shared with the F-15E force; for example, the depot for heavy maintenance on both fleets is at Robins Air Force Base. Cutting the F-15 force really doesn't provide much in the way of savings because a lot is shared with the F-15E fleet.

4. Probably not.

[count_to_10]

2. Of the three, only Japan has the fiscal means to buy F-22. Australia doesn't have the money, and the Israeli's would demand that most of the cost be borne by the US through military aid.

That an interesting way of calculating "fiscal means", considering how dangerously in debt Japan's government is. "Fiscal will" might be more appropriate.

[XanderCrews]

1. Increased partner sales by allies to keep the F-35A going.
2. increased partner sales by allies to get the F-22B going.

Pick one.

[madrat]

The reopened F-22 line isn't necessary. Spend the money on F-35A to compliment the current F-22A updates is far better investment

[KamenRiderBlade]

It'd be cheaper to put more money on the 6th gen Navy / Air Force joint Air Dominance platform.

[Corsair1963]

It'd be cheaper to put more money on the 6th gen Navy / Air Force joint Air Dominance platform.

..........and wiser

[Corsair1963]

1. Foreign customers may not have the cash flow to afford F-35's at an accelerated delivery rate, especially in the current economic environment.

2. Of the three, only Japan has the fiscal means to buy F-22. Australia doesn't have the money, and the Israeli's would demand that most of the cost be borne by the US through military aid.

3. The F-15 has nothing really unique that can't be shared with the F-15E force; for example, the depot for heavy maintenance on both fleets is at Robins Air Force Base. Cutting the F-15 force really doesn't provide much in the way of savings because a lot is shared with the F-15E fleet.

4. Probably not.

Sorry, Japan doesn't have the Military Budget to purchase New F-22's. Honestly, never going to put the Raptor back into production anytime in the foreseeable future. So, the whole discussion is moot....

[popcorn]

The F-35 is one of the top 3 AF priority programs. Building new F-22s isn't even a blip on the AF leadership's radar. And yet some people just can't seem to let it go.

[cosmicdwarf]

The F-35 is one of the top 3 AF priority programs. Building new F-22s isn't even a blip on the AF leadership's radar. And yet some people just can't seem to let it go.

It's now seen as the best aircraft so people have decided the air force was correct to want more. And it's good for political careers to try and get a favoured aircraft back that was panned and cut short by politicians.

It's the same thing that keeps the A-10 around despite it's job being done by literally almost every other aircraft the USAF has and it being at the end of it's lifetime.

[XanderCrews]

Kinda shows how fighter-centric we are. As if the choices were only which F-## to buy... lol.

[jetblast16]

3. build a sixth-generation platform or platforms to replace the Raptor.

[str]

2. Of the three, only Japan has the fiscal means to buy F-22. Australia doesn't have the money, and the Israeli's would demand that most of the cost be borne by the US through military aid.

That an interesting way of calculating "fiscal means", considering how dangerously in debt Japan's government is. "Fiscal will" might be more appropriate.

Japan is *still* the 3rd largest economy on earth. Germany is 20% smaller. Australia is ⅓ the size. And Japan is no where close to insolvent. Right now Japanese bonds have negative interest rates. Do you know what that means? It means that you have to pay THEM for the right to loan them money. They can borrow as much as they want for whatever they want and they might even make money doing so.

That's your first economics lesson. Here's the second one: nation states and their economies are in *no way* similar to your household finances. Even normal concepts, like "making" and "losing" money are, frankly, absurd when used in this context. Especially when you have a country with its own central bank. Japan literally cannot go broke, nor can America.

Everything at this level is abstracted. There is no such thing as "unaffordable" when it comes to something like F-22s. It's more of a preference for using resources on something else. It's only a constraint because that's how we view it as part of a larger framework.

[steakanddoritos]

OK, I'll bite. Restarting F-22 production could work, but would require a specific set of circumstances to actually play out. Here goes:

1. Funding
The elephant in the room of restarting F-22 production is the funding. Simply put, we have no money for this. Hell, we don't have enough money to complete upgrades on the existing fleet, let alone any new Raptors. A defense budget increase is needed. Some things are looking up for this. The next president (likely Hillary, you can like her or not but its her election to lose at this rate) is more hawkish than President Obama and more concerned with the Pivot to Asia, where the F-22 is most relevant. Also, old farts like McCain who would rail against any F-22 production because 'muh BRRRT' may lose their Senate Seat (Arizona has a good chance of going Dem this election).

The real problem however, is the export dilemma. The only way we have any sort of shot at reducing the cost will mean peddling a new F-22 to foreign customers, and therefore rescinding the export ban (Congress needs to act, lol like that is gonna happen). Due to increased aggression by states like Russia and China, F-22 customers are not hard to think of (Australia, Japan, UK, Korea, Israel, etc). Simply put, no exports = no positive cash flow = no F-22 restart.

2. Production
If this idea actually goes through AND the AF digs under the couch cushions for some cash AND export partners are lined up, we still need to determine what a restarted F-22 would look like. There are three options:

Option 1: Vanilla F-22. Exact same build as before, no changes past current airframes.
Pros: Simplest, cheapest option. No engineering work required.
Cons: Some components, mainly aging computer processors are out of production and will need to have production restarted. Lowest capability, lacks advanced features from F-35. Ops costs will be high. Lack of A/S capability will still hamper overall combat effectiveness. Lack of IRST may prove to be a serious weakness against other stealth aircraft.

Option 2: F-22B. Basically F-35 systems in an F-22 airframe. Baked in RAM, new avionics, EODAS + EOTS, HMDS, expanded A/S capability.
Pros: Increased combat capability and versatility. Cutting and pasting components from F-35 will drive down costs of both programs. Easier to maintain. Better integration with F-35 and B-21. Increased lethality against stealth aircraft.
Cons: Expensive, time consuming. Minor structural changes and significant software/weapons integration challenges. Entire avionics and software package likely in need of replacement. Airframe design will likely constrain future systems, F-22B will not be able to mount a centerline gunnery/jamming/laser pod.

Option 3: King Raptor. True 6th generation F-22 derivative. Changes include:
-New avionics, mainly F-35 systems
-Weapons bays expanded to carry 2000lbs munitions
-Dorsal laser blister
-Variable Cycle engines
-Elimination of vertical tails for enhanced stealth
Pros: Incredibly lethal, unquestionably superior to Chinese and Russian developments. Can fulfill F-X requirement. Ease of transition from current F-22 units. Increased range. Development after F-22B would save money.
Cons: Incredibly expensive, would make any separate 6th gen program impossible. Not ready now or any time soon. Export of 6th gen technologies unclear. Major structural and airframe changes, massive engineering challenges.

3. Opinion:
If we actually want to go at this, Option 2 with Option 3 far down the road. An F-22B with F-35 technologies would be the best balance between cost and capabilities, while a further King Raptor development would meet 6th generation requirements, while leveraging existing F-22 production and engineering resources.

[slapshot!]

How to pay for F22B:

Step 1: Shut up about restarting F22 production
Step 2: Upgrade existing F22As and F15Cs to provide air superiority through 2030
Step 3: Invest in sixth gen fighter to replace F22A and F15C when money is not tight (someday)
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit.