There has been a flurry of political and media commentary on the F22 Raptor in Australia over the last two weeks. A quick run-down on the statements and issues.
Lockheed-Martin F22 Raptor 
The F22 Raptor is an air-superiority platform with networked-warfare technology that can have each unit act as a force multiplier. Last week the US House of Representatives voted to allow US allies to potentially purchase the F22. The US Senate has not voted on Representative K. Grangers amendment yet but as the Washington Post notes, the Senate has normally been more tolerant of international involvement in US military programs.
As noted in a previous AFC post titled; Parliamentary Research Note on the JSF the APH covered the options for Australia should the JSF project prove sub-optimal for Australia. The two options offered were the F22 and the F15K variant.
The F22 is very expensive, currently thought to be in the area of 200 million USD each, but Maj. Gen. Richard B.H. Lewis claims the next production run of one hundred F22s will bring the unit cost down to 116 million per aircraft.
That makes it cost competitive with the JSF which is thought to currently cost somewhere between 95 million and 100 million.
That may be cost competitive with the F15K as well. South Korea bought forty F15Ks for 4.2 billion which comes out as a unit cost of 105 million each. Modern platforms are expensive no matter what. A C130J goes for over 60 million now!
Economies of Scale With the House of Representatives in the US opening up the F22 to overseas procurement, there are other nations who will be interested in the aircraft and reduce the cost of it with an increased production run.
Israel recently threw its hat into the JSF ring but the article mentions that they would like F22s if they were for export. Brigadier-General Ze'ev Snir;
The F22 Raptor is an air-superiority platform with networked-warfare technology that can have each unit act as a force multiplier. Last week the US House of Representatives voted to allow US allies to potentially purchase the F22. The US Senate has not voted on Representative K. Grangers amendment yet but as the Washington Post notes, the Senate has normally been more tolerant of international involvement in US military programs.
As noted in a previous AFC post titled; Parliamentary Research Note on the JSF the APH covered the options for Australia should the JSF project prove sub-optimal for Australia. The two options offered were the F22 and the F15K variant.
The F22 is very expensive, currently thought to be in the area of 200 million USD each, but Maj. Gen. Richard B.H. Lewis claims the next production run of one hundred F22s will bring the unit cost down to 116 million per aircraft.
That makes it cost competitive with the JSF which is thought to currently cost somewhere between 95 million and 100 million.
That may be cost competitive with the F15K as well. South Korea bought forty F15Ks for 4.2 billion which comes out as a unit cost of 105 million each. Modern platforms are expensive no matter what. A C130J goes for over 60 million now!
Economies of Scale With the House of Representatives in the US opening up the F22 to overseas procurement, there are other nations who will be interested in the aircraft and reduce the cost of it with an increased production run.
Israel recently threw its hat into the JSF ring but the article mentions that they would like F22s if they were for export. Brigadier-General Ze'ev Snir;
The IAF would be happy to equip itself with 24 F-22s but the problem at this time is the US refusal to sell the plane, and its $200 million price tag.The Washington Post mentions that Japan may be in the market for the F22 as its fleet of F4s are getting very long in the tooth. Australia is in a similar position with its F111 being retired without a replacement. Miniaturisation has meant that platforms such as the F18 can carry the precision weaponry that previously the domain of large strike-bombers such as the F111. But there is no denying that even with the JSF replacing the F111/F18 platforms there will be a loss of Australian projection. There is the added problem of there being a gap between the F111's retirement and the JSF coming into service. This is a significant issue. The media recently had a frenzy over a 2005 DSTO report which was recycled to claims that the JSF technologies were not working. The Defence Department's media release was strongly titled; Joint Strike Fighter is not `Flawed'. The media also raised the ongoing issue of the US Pentagon deciding that export versions of the JSF were non-modifiable. Meaning that nations like Australia, the UK etc would not get the source code or technologies in the platform to modify and upgrade on their own. Basically LM would become the sole vendor. The UK was heavily against this, to the point that it would become a deal-breaker for them. One of Brendan Nelson's goals in his recent trip to the US was to ensure access to source code and it seems the Pentagon has relented on its policy as Israel is not concerned about Rafael being restricted in how to integrate their systems into the aircraft. Politics and the F22 While the government re-affirmed its support for the JSF project, the interesting political statements came from the other side of parliament. Both Kim Beazley and Robert McClelland made statements saying that Australia should seriously look at purchasing the F22 to plug the projection hole. For instance McClelland;
... we will closely examine the option of acquiring F-22 Raptors, at least in the initial procurement phase, to ensure Australia does not forfeit regional air superiority between retirement of the F-111s in 2012 and delivery of replacement JSFs in 2015 at the earliest and more likely 2017.And Beazley a couple of days later;
It's a very serious situation. A big capability gap is building up now - Australia versus the region ... We have always enjoyed technological superiority. We are now about to lose it.Labor has traditionally had a more regional focus in its foreign policy than the Liberal government who have relied on the "Great and Powerful Friends" doctrine of foreign policy. This has made Liberal governments more expeditionist in world-view though all governments maintain a relationship with the US and UN in one form or another that leads to expeditionary deployments. It can be construed that regional air superiority is more important to Labor as they are more inclined to play power politics regionally than the current Liberal government is. There is also the warning from Paul Dibbs [pdf];
We already risk Australia being seen to talk big and carry a little stick, to reverse Roosevelt's well-known dictum. ... The question is whether this level of defence funding is credible or whether, as an American friend of mine observes, we run the risk of having ambitions for strategic reach that exceed our practical grasp. Our international reputation as well as our security is at stake here.The ability to win at power politics comes from diplomatic, military and economic might that can be potentially leveraged. This may be seen by Labor as a deficiency in their ability influence the region. Another political consideration is that Labor is permanently behind in opinion polls on defence and security. Massively so; in the June 2006 Newspoll, 54% of respondents thought the Liberal/Nationals would respond best to defence issues, where 24% of respondents said Labor would. It may just be political posturing. Geo-political Considerations Australia's relationship with Indonesia took a nasty turn recently with Indonesia recalling their Ambassador. A silly move that is normally a prelude to open warfare but a display that Indonesia is prepared to enter another Konfrontasi cycle with Australia. This is not a good thing for regional security or stability. The current summit between Australia and Indonesia is nothing to write home about as Indonesia is playing power politics with us, and winning. Both our countries are now liberal democracies with market economies, but when we got together all we could agree to was that we didn't trust each other's penal and judicial systems and decided to do a prisoner swap - something that nations at war do. In addition we are being rebuffed on even simple shared interests like illegal fishing. Indonesia has made remarkable strides in liberal democracy, wresting its civil structures from the military and is far more socially stable that it has even been under Suharto or Sukarno - but the recent Konfrontasi politics is destructive. A geopolitical consideration for Australia is that our military might and projection power should be sufficient that the cheap method of Konfrontasi, especially to shore up domestic support through an appeal to nationalism, is not an option for our region. The procurement of the F22 would send a large message of Australian power, seriousness, deterrence and prestige. The Asian Arms Race Another consideration is that Asia is currently going through an arms race, of which we are a part, aided by our Air Force facing block obsolescence. The Pacific and Indian Oceans are seeing the emergence of two economic giants, one a liberal democracy, and the other a one-party communist state. Existing super-powers and regional powers are re-assessing their relationships with each other, and the new powers as the globe under-goes this transition. It makes sense for Australia to go through this transition in a position of strength. cam
