Bringing the F-22 debate back to Earth

Given the myriad of issues which were also no doubt discussed, the level of media coverage the F-22 ‘question’ got seemed to be somewhat excessive.

Gates was certainly gracious when asked by media whether Fitzgibbon had discussed the availability of the F-22, more or less saying that he had told the minister that, while US law currently states the aircraft is not for sale, that he should ‘Leave it with me and I’ll see what I can do. ’ But Gates and his advisors surely know that the F-22 won’t be released for sale, and for that matter probably appreciate that it will likely never be a serious contender for Australia’s BACC and NACC requirements, were that not to be the case.

It’s understandable that Fitzgibbon is seeking to further strengthen his position politically at the expense of his predecessor by throwing the F-22 into an already convoluted mix, but this debate now needs to move beyond the F-22 and those pesky “six point six billion dollar” Super Hornets.

Firstly it’s worth stressing that whether they’re the right aircraft or not, the Super Hornets themselves will actually cost less than $3 billion, and that the remainder of that infamous $6 billion figure covers manning, fuel, basing and support costs, which would still need to be spent no matter what combat aircraft the RAAF was operating in the decade that funding covers.

And the reality surrounding the F-22 is despite it being a superlative ‘air dominance’ fighter, the RAAF leadership just doesn’t want the single-role F-22 in its 100 aircraft air combat mix. Plus the US Congress doesn’t want to release it for sale to anyone because it doesn’t want to have to say yes to some allies and no to others (ie Japan), and because its sale may dilute potential foreign sales of the F-35. And despite some elements within the USAF publicly stating their confidence that the F-22 build run will reach the 380 the service originally wanted rather than the 187 currently funded, the Pentagon wants to end production as soon as possible in order to free up funding for more ‘usable’ and urgently needed aircraft such as the F-35, the new KC-45 tankers, and CSAR-X helicopters.

And all that aside, even if the F-22 were released, the first F-22 export customer would need to spend as much as $1 billion paying for the development of an export cleared variant. This for an aeroplane that already costs nearly three times as much as a Super Hornet.

Some experts will no doubt advise Minister Fitzgibbon that fifth generation Russian fighters are proliferating in our region and we’ll soon be outgunned, but there is no real evidence yet to support this. The generally accepted definition of ‘fifth generation’ comprises all aspect stealth and full sensor integration amongst other capabilities, none of which the Su-30MK, MiG-35 or anything else currently flying apart from the F-22 and the still immature F-35 can boast. Others will tell him we should equip ourselves to fight the wars we are currently or are likely to be fighting in the near future while keeping one eye on longer term developments.

There’s plenty to consider.

But the minister concedes that “I’m not an air power expert”, as he told ABC TV.

It will be reassuring if this means that going forward the ADF leadership group, the results of air combat capability review, and the follow on White Paper will do the talking about specific aircraft types, mixes and capabilities