Dr Dennis Jensen, MP: "Production of the Raptor must continue"

08:04 GMT, February 18, 2009 The US refusal to sell the F-22 Raptor to its main allies is a matter of grave concern to many around the world and is an issue exacerbated by the possible termination of the Raptor project before it even has delivered the number of aircraft demanded by the American military itself.

There seem to be no dissenting voices to the view that the Raptor is far and away the best air dominance fighter on the planet.
But key US allies – particularly Australia, Britain, Japan and, although with a very different relationship, Israel - have been told the Raptor is simply too good for them and that they will have to be content with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (and a hobbled export model at that, to ensure even America’s closest friends remain inferior in the skies).
Now there have been many serious concerns raised about the JSF and specifically its ability to meet the air defence requirements of some intended client-states such as Australia. Some critics suggest this aircraft will never be a match for the new Russian-origin aircraft and air defence systems already proliferating in the Asia-Pacific region, and so will fail both as a deterrent and as a counter in any conflict.
But even giving the JSF the benefit of the doubt, its staunchest proponents quite openly concede it will be found lacking against the Raptor.

To foist this inferior “Little Brother” of the Raptor on close long-term allies is akin to a motorcycle dealer telling a customer they can buy only a 50cc scooter.

Unfortunately, such light-hearted analogies fail to convey the gravity of the issue.

The block that supports selling the Raptor to US allies supposedly safeguards America’s national security interests. But US assessments have repeatedly given key allies a clean bill of health in terms of security leaks and, in the case of the Australian military, it was found to pose no greater risk in operating the F-22 than the US Air Force itself. That risk assessment indicated that fighter jet technology passed to Australia might fall into the hands of unauthorized parties through either the downing of aircraft or through espionage – the same risks faced by the US.
Although the domestic political dimension of decisions such as those blocking sales of the Raptor to allies is well understood among America’s allies, it is nonetheless a slap in the face to friends who have been unswerving for many years in their loyalty to the US, and who have paid high prices to maintain the relationship.

Australia, for instance, has steadfastly supported the US for decades.
Our troops fought alongside each other in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and now in Afghanistan.

Our intelligence services continue to work hand-in-hand with those of the US, and US-led electronic intelligence gathering operations have always enjoyed Australia’s full and practical support. Only last week, the Australian parliament whole-heartedly backed legislation to recognize the special security status of the Pine Gap facility, a joint intelligence-gathering operation between the US and Australia.

Such cooperation has come at a great material and political cost to Australia, but it has been deemed worthwhile to not only maintain, but strengthen security ties with the US.

To be told that such support is welcome, but that reciprocal respect will not be forthcoming is, quite frankly, an insult. It would not be surprising if similar sentiments were expressed by other key US allies, particularly Japan.

Furthermore, with the permanent US air combat presence in Asia now confined to a handful of bases on the continent’s periphery, and other states (particularly China and India) rapidly developing their military strength, it is essential that America’s allies possess strong air defense systems to maintain regional security and, thus, sustain peace in the region.
The refusal to export the Raptor is an impediment to this objective.

The present state of affairs does no credit to any of the parties concerned.

It reflects badly on the US for its shabby treatment of allies who are being told to pay top dollar for inferior military hardware.

And it shames those allies, such as Australia, which have pathetically accepted the suggestion they should receive scraps from America’s table and pay through the nose for the privilege to do so!

This is the grim future being contemplated by US allies as they await the decision by the new Obama administration by March 1 on whether to terminate the F-22 project.

A decision to end the program will not only be to the detriment of the allies – the US military will also be caught short, with its air power composition in disarray because of a critical shortfall in the number of F-22s it needs to maintain global air superiority, and likely a subsequent increase in the number of inadequate JSFs it does not need and cannot use effectively in any real conflict.

It is a complex issue to be decided in the first weeks of the Obama administration, and there is a risk of it not being given the consideration required amid myriad other concerns, particularly the economic crisis.

So the importance of the matter cannot be overstated. Production of the Raptor must continue. To do otherwise could quite likely cause major shifts in global balances of power, with all the perils that entails. And that is in not in the interests of America or its closest friends.

----
By Dr Dennis Jensen, MP

Dennis Jensen is the Australian Federal Member of Parliament for Tangney, and a former defence research scientist.

----

More articles related to the F-22:

Numbers Matter: Strategic Consequences of F-22 Termination
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/246/

Is American Air Power on the Verge of Collapse?
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/236/

Will the US Air Force be Annihilated in the Next War?
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/5595/

President Obama Will Decide the Fate of F-22 This Month
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/5600/ 
 

If the F-35 could actually sing and dance perhaps some of the $12-$16 billion AUD will have been worth Australian taxpayer's money, as a boost in spending on arts and culture. Failing that, can it be used to drop water on bushfires in Australia and Indonesia? Will it help in humanitarian efforts with our near neighbours in the Asia-Pacific by supporting other sections of our defence forces? Will it run on biofuel? If this is being purchased to keep the US-A Alliance in good shape, then why not just give the US Govt the billions outright - and perhaps the money will be used to prevent some mortgage foreclosures or pay for health care rather than lining the pockets of Lockheed-Martin shareholders. Has anyone travelled? The Asia-Pacific Region and its people cannot afford an arms race stimulated by an arrogant nation.

---

Updated: 2009-02-19 13:20:48

Depends what you mean by "hobbled export model"... There was the start of a plan to get Australia a full-up A model USAF spec F-22. Until the hype of the Just So Farcial money-graft-gravy-train promise of industry participation was presented. http://wikileaks.org/leak/f22-australia.pdf With the economic meltdown, the industry participation will be a big loss-leader. While on the topic of making a jet export friendly, about three quarters of a billion dollars has been shoveled into the F-35 as part of Delta-SDD to make different "configurations" of the F-35. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,156400,00.html Australia has always been there for the U.S. yet pushing the blue sky marketed mediocrity known as the Buick of Stealth is the thanks for the effort.

---

Created: 2009-02-19 11:02:18

1. Under what tactical scenario will Britain, Australia, Japan or Israel ever have to contend with an F-22 Raptor equipped force? 2. Those opposed to the acquisition of the F-35 Lighting II by Australia, of which Dr Jensen is a card-carrying member, have a percuniary motivation behind their arguments. Anything written about the "strategic consequences" of an F-35 acquisition or otherwise is written by them with this motivation first and foremost in mind. One might also ponder the situation of Dr Jensen, being a Parliamentary member of the Australian Liberal Party, yet holding a view on this debate that is diametrically opposed to his own Political Party's defence stance. A curious situation...

---

Created: 2009-02-19 05:06:12

To be fair to the US the countries who have the Eurofighter would not buy the F22 anyway as they can't afford it and don't need it anyway.

---

Created: 2009-02-18 16:41:09

Interesting article. One small error to start with, however, Britain is not interested in the F-22 Raptor and has been part of the F-35 programme for a very long time, largely driven by the need to buy a replacement for the Harrier, primarily for aircraft carrier use. I wouldn't class the US's refusal to sell the F-22 Raptor to its "main" allies as a matter of grave concern as painted by Dr Dennis Jensen. The only countries that seem to have expressed an interest in it have been Australia, Israel (who also plans to buy the F-35) and Japan. While it is understandable that such an important procurement decision is likely to fuel much debate within Australia, it seems that many of the arguments are largely based on looking at the country's own defence requirements and looking to any perceived threats that the US might share, while ignoring the overall requirements of the US or the majority of the rest of its allies who are procuring the F-35. By desperately trying to turn the US military much more in favour of the F-22, the hope is that production will be extended and, ultimately, an export version will be made available that Australia will be able to buy. And in the unlikely event that happened, it would also probably be a "hobbled export model" to meet US export regulations that would be developed at extra cost to the US. Any extension to the F-22 production line is therefore likely to be for the USAF, not for any other service or for any other country. Many of these arguments appear to be driven by Australia's single fighter buy approach. Australia must have an an all-singing, all-dancing fighter that will be vastly superior to everything else in air-to-air combat possessed by its regional neighbours and an equal to the F-22 in every aspect. If not, it must have the F-22. Many other states planning to buy the F-35 do not share this approach. They are looking to eventually operate a mix of F-35s, F-22s (in the US's case), vastly upgraded fourth generation fighter types and new stealthy UCAVs. The biggest issue for many of those countries looking to order the F-35 outside Australia is now eventual cost and not primarily focussing on its air-to-air capabilities or a desire to have it as stealthy as the F-22. That is why there has been much public debate in many countries like Norway and the Netherlands, who share similarities with Australia by having a single fighter buy approach, and even the UK about their plans to buy the F-35, especially at this time when the economic climate is likely to put further pressure on defence spending. Besides, a "hobbled export model" of the F-22 would probably not come in very much cheaper either. The F-35 is not being "foisted" onto its allies as Jensen puts it. Countries are not reluctantly handing over money to be involved in the F-35 programme while really wishing that they could have the vastly superior Raptor instead. If the F-35 didn't exist or was cancelled with the money diverted to the F-22, many states would probably go and buy the Euro-canards (Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen) or similar upgraded legacy fighters instead that would probably leave the US with very few countries to sell an all-singing, all-dancing F-22 export version to.

---

Updated: 2009-02-18 16:09:19