Don’t Let the NGAD Fighter Make the F-22 Raptor ‘Mistake’

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points: The F-22 Raptor’s tumultuous history offers lessons for the U.S. Air Force as it develops the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter.

-With the F-22 fleet capped at 183 planes, debates continue over whether to retire 32 older models used for training or upgrade them at a steep $3.5 billion cost.

-Meanwhile, NGAD faces scrutiny for its projected $300 million-per-unit price tag, prompting a pause in development to address affordability.

-To avoid pitfalls, the NGAD program must prioritize stakeholder consensus, cost containment, and streamlined production.

-A misstep could replicate the challenges of the F-22 and F-35, hindering future air superiority.

What the F-22 Teaches Us About the Next-Gen NGAD Fighter

Retire or don’t retire?

The U.S. Air Force has confused us concerning the possible divestment of the F-22 Raptor. Some Air Force civilians and generals, plus military analysts at think tanks, are split on whether to upgrade 32 older F-22s used for training or remove them from service and plow the money into the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter.

Some praise the F-22 as an integral part of U.S. tactics, operations, and strategy; others say it is time to move on from the stealth Raptor.

Clearly, history has a lot to teach us, considering the Air Force was, at least, until recently, considering another $300 million plane.

Put the Brakes on NGAD

But the history of these confusing signals sent by the Department of Defense and Congress about the F-22 program writ large is a cautionary tale for the fledgling NGAD project, which was once estimated to have a $300 million price tag for each next-generation fighter.

Now, the NGAD program is on pause until it can get its costs down to around what the military pays for F-35s. The NGAD needs more design finalities and additional research and development before it matures.

Chalk It Up to Lessons Learned

Acquisition honchos should take a big lesson from the F-22. The Pentagon, Congress, and the White House must all be on the same page if NGAD is to progress because the F-22’s history is full of stops and starts.

The NGAD is already suffering from this malady, and that does not bode well for the whiz-bang futuristic airplane that so many are crowing about.

What’s to Be Done with the 32 F-22 Orphans?

The Air Force only has 183 F-22s. In 2023, the plan was to retire 32 aging models without the latest upgrades that would have modernized the entire fleet. These 32 “orphan” fighters were used to train new pilots or those transitioning from flying the F-15 or F-16. The plan was to refrain from upgrading the ones initially built in the late 1990s and early 2000s and send that batch to the Boneyard in Arizona to rest in peace. This would save an estimated $485 million annually and $2.5 billion across five years. It will now cost $3.5 billion to bring those aging 32 F-22s up to combat readiness.

That’s a pretty penny that could go to the NGAD project. However, Congress blocked this divestment from the F-22 program, and military analysts at think tanks wondered if this was the right decision.

Where Should the Priorities Lie?

“My general reaction is ‘Hallelujah’,” Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and retired Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula told Forbes that the F-22 should be a high priority.

Another think tanker disagreed. “It’s hard to believe this is one of the Air Force’s highest priorities. I think the B-21 and Sentinel are higher priority,” said Mark Cancian in the same article, who is senior adviser for the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

You see how difficult it is to get all oars rowing in the same direction. There are fans of the F-22 who don’t want it retired, those who wonder if a divestment should go to fledgling programs like the NGAD, and those who want the money to go to a stealth bomber or new nuclear missile.

This type of confusion could plague the NGAD program, too. Perhaps the NGAD will be too expensive and problematic – replicating the difficulties with the F-35. Or the Air Force could learn its lesson and be cautiously optimistic about the next-generation airplane. That’s why placing a pause on the NGAD is one of the best decisions Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has made recently.

Make Sure the NGAD Program Is Stable

In 20 years, the NGAD doesn’t want to face cancellation if it comes to fruition and spawns arguments from uniform officers, civilians, and think tankers—not to mention the legislative and executive branches fighting over priorities.

One good thing about the NGAD program is that it can learn many lessons from the F-22 and F-35. First, create consensus among all stakeholders. Next, make sure there are offsets to pay for it. Then, slow down on design, research, and development. Keep the costs low. Build it with the latest techniques, such as 3D printing and easy-to-upgrade software.

Perhaps the U.S. military may not even need the NGAD and can pour time, money, and resources into keeping the F-22 and F-35 in the air for the coming decades. They are stealthy, fast, and maneuverable but expensive.

These monetary allocation decisions will be critical in the coming years for a new president and existing Members of Congress who may need to make tough choices about the future of the Air Force, which does not have an overwhelming number of airplanes in the first place.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.