Michael M. Dunn, President/CEO

In recent months, the Washington echo chamber hurriedly concluded that the F-22 is unneeded, a “Cold War relic.” Case almost closed, and barely even debated. Then a U.S. Senator requested the professional opinions of some of the nation’s commanding generals. To their credit, they responded like military leaders do, with directness and clarity: America needs the F-22. Case reopened.

Gen John Corley heads Air Combat Command. In his June 9 response to Sen. Saxby Chambliss, he said building just 187 Raptors is “high risk” – a conclusion backed by a study showing the U.S. needs a minimum 380 F-22s. Corley stressed the U.S. would be incurring this risk in the “near to midterm.” That should be enough to give hasty policy-makers some pause.

This week, we learn of a response to the same request from Lt Gen Wyatt, head of the Air National Guard: “America’s most important job should be handled by America’s best fighter.” He suggests basing F-22s strategically around the U.S. and making their “unique capability” available for overseas duty on rotation. Once again, this is a response based on military strategy.

This disconnect is easily explained. Generals deal with deployment, logistics, and potential enemy force capabilities. The politicians are thinking about budgets. History suggests we’ll wish we had more, not less, of these game-changing aircraft.

Although both supporters and opponents of the F-22 cut across party lines in unexpected ways, the F-22 should be neither a political issue, nor an economic one – although there are obvious economic benefits and jobs when building more F-22s. It is primarily a national security issue.

At the moment, the F-22 is essentially the most dominant force in the skies -- unbeatable. But our near-peer rivals, Russia and China, are both investing heavily in their own fifth-generation fighter. And we can expect them to sell the technology to willing potential US adversaries. Not just North Korea and Iran, but a host of countries that we could find opposing U.S. interests. All of these nations will have access to fifth generation fighters within a decade. We will need sufficient numbers of F-22s to maintain superiority. An aircraft can only be in one place at a time, and the world is a big place.

Finally, the F-22 is the only fighter we have that can survive the newer surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), such as the Russian SA-20. These missiles, relatively cheap and transferable, are becoming almost common, and even Iran expects to have them soon. Enough of these missiles in Iran deeply complicates any strike on their reportedly fast-growing nuclear program.

Rejecting the F-22, the U.S. is choosing to rest our air dominance future solely on the F-35 Lightning II. Although not yet in production or proven, we expect it to be an excellent plane. The stubborn fact remains the F-35 was designed to be the low end of the new high-low mix, similar to the one that has served us so well for a generation with the F-15 and F-16.

In contrast, although similarly multi-capable and flexible, the F-22 is uniquely optimized for air-to-air combat, including more missiles than an F-35 is capable of carrying. The F-22 has supercruise, which allows greater speeds when necessary while saving fuel and increasing range at cruising speed; unmatched maneuverability due to unique technology; excellent stealth features, allowing it to penetrate hostile airspace; high-altitude capability far beyond that of the F-35; and the requisite firepower with a better than 30-to-1 “kill ratio” against fourth generation fighters.

The F-22 program is directly responsible for 25,000 jobs, and partially responsible for another 70,000 throughout 40 states and 1,000 subcontractors. Building more would prolong that valuable economic activity while the F-35 program ramps up. It seems foolhardy to shut down the only active manned warplane production line the Air Force has left before the F-35 line is up and running.

Allowing dependable allies with a clear need, such as Japan or Australia, the option to purchase F-22s would create even more U.S. jobs, and strategically be an effective force-multiplier that strengthens allied defenses.

The case for a premature shutdown is not based on any military strategy, but budgets alone; a risky proposition when those budgets determine military strategy for a generation. F-22s should continue to be built, at least until the first year a full order of 80-to-110 tested, proven F-35s roll off the ramp. The only thing more expensive than a first-rate Air Force is a second-rate Air Force.