Which NextGen Fighter Will Pentagon Chose?

A battle is brewing in Congress, over whether the F-22 Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter should be selected to replace the US Air Force's aging fleet of F-15 Eagles.

According to Defense Times, US Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England clashed with Democratic lawmakers on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee Wednesday,
over which aircraft would be selected. England is among those who want the F-22 production line shut down, after 183 Raptors are produced, in favor of the F-35; but some lawmakers, including the panel’s vice chairman, Washington Congressman Norm Dicks, want to order more Raptors.

Each side has its strong and weak points. Raptor supporters note it's the plane the Air Force wants -- the service has asked for as many as 381 of the advanced, highly-maneuverable fighters -- and, it's already in production. But the plane is also pricey, at around $120 million per airframe... and has yet to see actual combat duty.

The F-35 is still in development... and while it's per-plane cost is expected to be much cheaper than the F-22 (to the tune of "only" $35 million), the development program has run over budget to the tune of $299 billion -- making it by far the Pentagon's single most expensive weapons expenditure.

As originally designed, both aircraft were also designed with different roles in mind. The Raptor was conceived as an air-to-air superiority fighter, along the lines of the original F-15 in the 1970s and 80s; whereas the F-35 was developed primarily as a ground attack aircraft, closer in spirit to the latest F-15E Strike Eagle.

During this week's hearing on the White House's 2009 defense budget proposal, Dicks questioned the move to defer a final decision on shutting down F-22 production to the next administration, and diverting that estimated $400 million to programs aimed at keeping F-15s in the air -- despite the recent discovery of serious airframe issues with the oldest Eagles.

"Shouldn't you have done one or other?" he asked England, on the choice to purchase more Raptors, or shutting down the production line.

"To be blunt, the Air Force has spent $65 billion and you have 183 planes," replied England, who sat on the hearing in place of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who broke his shoulder slipping on ice earlier this week. "Look, at some point, we have to buy" the cheaper fighter, he added.

On Tuesday, England told the Senate Budget Committee he doesn't consider the F-22 to be a suitable replacement for the F-15. "So I would expect instead we would try to accelerate the Joint Strike Fighter, which is more the class of the F-15," he said, according to Reuters. "So the Air Force would move into Joint Strike Fighter and not into the much more expensive F-22 airplane."

Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, an F-22 supporter, says England's math is misleading... as it doesn't consider discounts on volume production of the Raptor. If the Air Force is allowed to purchase the 381 planes it wants, he said, the per-jet price could drop as much as "10 or 12 percent" -- a number that still represents a much larger outlay than the JSF, he admits.

Murtha stressed he would only support buying additional Raptors if the Air Force "is convincing" in selling the need for the F-22's capabilities in combat.

"The department believes [the service] has enough" F-22s, Murtha told reporters after the hearing. "The Air Force is trying to prove to the committee -- and we'll have hearings later on -- to tell us, 'These are the threats.'"

That's a sizable challenge... as the Air Force must convince lawmakers to plan ahead, for potential conflicts with such superpowers as China or Russia, and their advanced aircraft, rather than the current threat by ground-based al-Qaeda.

FMI: www.af.mil, www.house.gov, www.senate.gov, www.f22-raptor.com, www.jsf.mil