Order Code RL31673 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web F/A-22 Raptor Updated January 6, 2005 Christopher Bolkcom Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 06 JAN 2005 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2005 to 00-00-2005 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER F/A-22 Raptor 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Congressional Research Service,The Library of Congress,101 REPORT NUMBER Independence Ave, SE,Washington,DC,20540-7500 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 27 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 F/A-22 Raptor Summary The F/A-22 Raptor is a next-generation fighter/attack aircraft that features the latest stealth technology to reduce detection by radar. Using more advanced engines and avionics than the current F-15 Eagle, the F/A-22 is intended to maintain U.S. Air Force capabilities against more sophisticated aircraft and missiles in the 21st century. This report examines the Air Force’s F/A-22 Raptor program, including costs and schedule; considers several key issues, and concludes with a synopsis of recent legislative activity the program. In 1986 two contractors were selected to build competing prototypes, Lockheed’s YF-22 and Northrop’s YF-23, which were flight tested in late 1990. In April 1991, the Air Force selected Lockheed’s YF-22 design for full-scale development, now termed “Engineering & Manufacturing Development” (EMD). The aircraft is powered by Pratt & Whitney’s F119 engine, selected in competition with General Electric’s F120 engine. If produced as now projected, F/A-22s could begin replacing F-15s after 2005. Through FY2004 Congress provided some $41 billion for the F/A-22. A 279-aircraft program was estimated by DOD in June 2004 to cost about $72 billion in actual prior-year and projected out-year expenditures. The Administration’s FY2005 budget requested $4.5 billion for the F/A-22 program in procurement and development funds. Appropriators reduced this request by $40 million. The F/A-22 has had strong congressional support, although some have criticized the program on grounds of cost, requirements, and coordination with other tactical aircraft programs. Deletion of procurement funds in the FY2000 defense appropriation bill passed by the House made the future of the program a major issue for House and Senate conferees in 1999. Some question the urgency of procuring of the F/A-22 when production of comparable or better aircraft by other countries appears unlikely. Others argue that the F/A-22 should enter production as early as possible to cope with future threats from more advanced air defenses of potential enemies and to maintain the preeminent U.S. position in aviation technology and production. The airframe will be produced by Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA, and Ft. Worth, TX, and by Boeing in Seattle, WA, with engines by Pratt & Whitney in West Palm Beach, FL. This report will be updated. Contents Introduction ......................................................1 Background ..................................................1 System Description ............................................3 Planned Procurement Quantity ...................................3 Costs .......................................................4 FB-22 .......................................................4 Key Issues .......................................................6 Does the United States Need the F/A-22? ...........................6 Main Arguments of Those Favoring the F/A-22 ..................6 Main Arguments of Those Against the F/A-22 ...................7 Production Quantity ............................................8 Budget and Schedule ...........................................9 Enhancing Attack Capabilities ...................................14 Are These Capabilities Needed? .............................14 Are These Capabilities Worth the Cost? .......................14 Foreign Sales ................................................15 Congressional Action ..............................................16 List of Figures Figure 1: F/A-22 Weapons Loadout ...................................3 List of Tables Table 1: F/A-22 FY2005 Budget ($ millions) ...........................16 F/A-22 Raptor Introduction Air Force officials regard the F/A-22 program as the service’s highest aviation priority. Designed as a fighter with attack capability, the F/A-22 Raptor uses the latest developments in stealth technology to reduce the probability of detection by enemy radar as well as thrust-vectoring engines for more maneuverability and integrated avionics for rapid fusion and display of target data. The first prototype of this next-generation stealth fighter/attack plane was flown on September 7, 1997, followed by test flights by two development aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. The first F/A-22s could be in service after 2005, with deliveries expected to continue into the 2010s. The major contractors are Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA, and Fort Worth, TX, and Boeing in Seattle, WA, for the airframe, with engines made by Pratt & Whitney in West Palm Beach, FL.1 Known as the F-22 for several years, the Air Force began calling the aircraft the F/A-22 in 2002 to emphasize the Raptor’s attack capabilities. Background During the early 1980s, the Air Force began development of a stealth aircraft called the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF), then expected to enter service in the 1990s to replace F-15 fighter planes developed in the early 1970s. The ATF was viewed as a necessary response to expected advances in the Soviet Union’s development and production of combat aircraft in the 1990s. A naval variant of the ATF that could operate from aircraft carriers (the NATF) was expected to replace the Navy’s F-14 fighter; however, funding for the NATF was not requested by the Defense Department after 1990. However, development of the Air Force’s ATF continued. In hopes of reducing costs, the Defense Department emphasized competitive prototypes for airframes, engines, and avionics. The Air Force selected two teams of airframe contractors to develop ATF prototypes: Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics; and Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas. On October 31, 1986, the Air Force awarded each team a $691-million fixed-price contract to build two prototypes, Lockheed’s YF-22 and Northrop’s YF-23, powered by new engines — one using Pratt & Whitney’s F119 and one using General Electric’s F120 1 The number of companies involved in the F/A-22 program is vast. They are many subcontractors and component suppliers. Estimates vary between 650 companies in 32 U.S. states and 1,150 companies in 46 states and Puerto Rico depending on the range of suppliers included. World Military & Civil Aircraft Briefing. Teal Group Inc. Fairfax, VA. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft (Various years). Jane’s Publishing Group, London. [http://www.globalsecurity.org] CRS-2 power plant. The Air Force announced in 1989 that the full-scale development phase would be delayed to allow more time for development of engines and avionics. Each contractor team reportedly spent over $1 billion in company funds to develop competing prototypes, two YF-22s and two YF-23s, which were flight-tested and evaluated in late 1990. On April 23, 1991, the Air Force selected the Lockheed team’s YF-22 design for development as the F-22, powered by Pratt & Whitney’s new F119 engines. Air Force Secretary Donald Rice stated that the choice was based on confidence in the ability of the Lockheed team and Pratt & Whitney to produce the aircraft and its engine at projected costs. He emphasized the importance of the Lockheed team’s management and production plans, and added that the YF-22 offered better reliability and maintainability. Neither design was significantly more maneuverable or stealthy than the other. On August 2, 1991, contracts totaling $11 billion were awarded to Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the F-22, then including 11 development/prototype aircraft. The quantity of aircraft in the program has been steadily reduced from the initial goal of 750 aircraft. The F/A-22's development/production schedule has also been delayed. Citing budgetary constraints, reduced threats in Europe, and the F-15's longer service life as reasons for deferring production, Secretary of Defense Cheney told Congress in April 1990 that production of the aircraft could be delayed two years instead of beginning in FY1994 as originally planned, with annual production peaking at 48 aircraft in 2001 instead of increasing to 72 by FY1999 as previously planned. These 1990 projections of the F-22's development and production schedules were further revised later, when the development program was extended and the number of prototypes was reduced. The Defense Department’s 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR) resulted in the program’s reduction to 442 aircraft — 438 production and four pre-production versions (later reduced to two) — which would support four fighter wings in a force structure of 20 wings (13 active; seven Reserve/National Guard). The Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) released on May 19, 1997, recommended a further reduction of the projected buy from 438 to 339 production aircraft, which would support three fighter wings in a 20-wing force structure of 12 active and 8 Reserve/National Guard wings. The QDR also recommended reducing the maximum production rate from 48 to 36 planes per year as a more affordable rate of production. The 2001 QDR did not make specific recommendations on the F/A-22 program. The Bush Administration’s current plan is to procure at least 276 F/A-22's. Originally conceived of as an air superiority fighter with minimal air-to-ground attack capability, the Air Force has increasingly emphasized the F/A-22's potential for air-to-ground attack over time. An “A” (for “attack”) was added to the F-22 designation in September 2002 to signify the plane’s ability to conduct these types of attacks. In 2003, the Air Force began letting contracts to the F/A-22's builders that focused on the improvements to radar and communications required to upgrade the Raptor’s air-to-ground capabilities. CRS-3 In October 2003 the F/A-22 entered Initial Operational Test and Evaluation. Following this testing phase a decision will be made on whether the Raptor is ready to enter full rate production. This decision is currently scheduled for September 2004. System Description The production version of the F/A-22 will have a wingspan of 44.5 ft, length of 62 ft, and height of 16.5 ft. The aircraft’s maximum takeoff weight is estimated to be about 60,000 lb with a projected empty weight of about 32,000 lb (without fuel and munitions). Powered by two Pratt & Whitney F-119 turbofan engines with afterburners and thrust-vectoring nozzles, the F/A-22 is expected to have a supersonic level speed of about Mach 1.7 using afterburners and a supersonic cruise speed of about Mach 1.5 without afterburners. Figure 1. F/A-22 Weapons Loadout Source: USAF Legislative Liaison NEWSNOTES. 10/02 The F/A-22's armaments include a 20-mm M61 gun and various loadings of air-to-air missiles (visual-range AIM-9 Sidewinders and medium-range AIM-120 AMRAAMs) and air-to-surface ordnance (e.g., Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and potentially munitions currently in development such as the Small Diameter Bomb), which can be carried internally or on underwing pylons. The F/A-22's reduced radar-cross-section and stealth features of low radar-observability are achieved through the use of radar-absorbing composite materials, the reduction of infrared and radar signatures by shaping and blending of structures, and by exploiting low- probability of intercept communications. Planned Procurement Quantity Obliged to keep production costs below a $36.8 billion cap (reduced from the original estimates of $43.4 billion due to low rates of inflation and subtracting the cost of six aircraft paid for with RDT&E funds), the Air Force can currently afford to build 279 Raptors under current projections.2 Any further increases in the cost of 2 “Conferees Put Caps on F-22 EMD, Production,” Aerospace Daily,. Oct. 27, 1997, p.139B. Tony Capaccio, “Lockheed Must Cut F-22 Cost For U.S. To Buy More, Zackheim Says,” Bloomberg.com, Jan. 30, 2003. CRS-4 the F/A-22 program have to be mitigated by reducing the number of aircraft produced or by relaxing or eliminating the cost cap. On December 23, 2004, an internal DOD Program Budget Decision (PBD 753) was leaked to the press. PBD 753 recommended ending F/A-22 production in FY2008 and trimming 96 aircraft from the 279 planned purchase. These reductions would preclude approximately $10.4 billion in spending on the F/A-22. If PBD 753's recommendation is implemented, the Air Force will field a fleet of 183 Raptors.3 Costs The Defense Department’s Selective Acquisition Report of June 30, 2004, estimated the total program cost of 279 aircraft at $71.7 billion in current year dollars. This equates to a total program acquisition cost of $256.9 million for each of the 279 aircraft. Funding of the F/A-22 began in the early 1980s (as the Advanced Tactical Fighter, or ATF) and is projected to continue into the FY2010s. Some $36.1 billion, mainly in R&D funding, has been spent on the F/A-22 through FY2003. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Comptroller estimates that $25.2 billion remains to be spent on the program. Through FY1992 the program received about $165 million in Navy R&D funds for a naval variant that was not developed. In early 2004 some debate emerged over whether additional costs would need to be incurred by enhancing the F-22's attack capabilities, or whether these costs would be covered by the existing budget. See “Enhancing Attack Capabilities” in the “Key Issues” section, below, for more discussion. FB-22 Lockheed Martin has initiated the study of a radically modified version of the Raptor called the FB-22 . This variant would seek to significantly increase the F/A- 22's air-to-ground capabilities, primarily through a redesign that would double the aircraft’s range, and significantly increase the aircraft’s internal payload. Some estimate that the delta-winged FB-22 could carry up to 30 of the developmental 250- lb Small Diameter Bombs.4 These potential improvements would likely result in some performance tradeoffs, such as reduced acceleration and maneuverability. Although not officially part of the F/A-22 program and still very much in the conceptual phase, some Air Force leaders have expressed enthusiasm for the idea. Secretary of the Air Force, James Roche, reportedly favors the FB-22 idea as the potential platform of choice for providing better close air support for tomorrow’s 3 PBD 763 can be accessed, with a subscription, at [http://www.defensenews.com/ content/static/dn.pbd753.pdf] 4 Richard Whittle. “F-22 Bomber Studied,” Dallas Morning News, July 30, 2002. Frank Wolfe, “Sambur: F-22 Must Prove Itself Before FB-22 Becomes Formal Program,” Defense Daily, Mar. 4, 2002. CRS-5 ground forces.5 Air Force leaders have also depicted the FB-22 as a “regional bomber” that could serve as a “bridge” between the current bomber force and a follow-on capability. Other Air Force leaders have reportedly shown less enthusiasm in the FB-22 concept. Air Force acquisition chief Marvin Sambur said that the F/A-22's difficulties would have to be solved before the FB-22 could be considered.6 Also, the cost of developing the FB-22 are debated. Some argue that by leveraging the F/A-22 cockpit, engines, computer systems, production methods and materials, the FB-22 could be produced relatively cheaply. Others argue that re-designing an aircraft to perform a mission it was not originally intended to perform is difficult, and usually costly. Some estimate that developing the airframe could cost up to $1 billion. Also, some question the attractiveness of a medium range bomber with a relatively small payload. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, for example, is reported to have commented that it was “counterintuitive that our modernization program has, on the average, encompassed acquisition of aircraft with shorter and shorter legs.”7 On April 29, 2004, the Air Force service issued a request for information (RFI) about resources or technologies available with the potential to substantially improve Air Force long-range strike capabilities. It is expected that Lockheed Martin will offer the FB-22 as one concept that could satisfy this requirement.8 In congressional testimony, Secretary Roche suggested that up to 150 FB-22s could be procured. Full-rate production could be achieved by FY2011, Roche estimates, if development funds were committed in FY2004.9 No funds in the F/A- 22 program have yet been devoted to the FB-22 nor has money been allocated to the bomber program from other sources. Potential costs and schedule of the FB-22 concept are still quite notional. How this multi-role aircraft would compete with — or conversely complement — the JSF has not yet been determined. The feasibility of expanding the F/A-22's ground attack capabilities, either in its current configuration or in a redesigned configuration, is currently unclear. In July 2003 it was reported that Air Force officials have discovered that the F/A-22 will likely not be able to carry external fuel tanks without encountering structural problems. The FB-22 could also encounter similar difficulties.10 5 Ron Laurenzo, “Roche Envisions Close Air Support F-22,” Defense Week. July 1, 2002. 6 Bill Sweetman. “Smarter Bomber,” Popular Science, June 25, 2002. 7 Lorenzo Cortes, “Roche Looking to Next Year for Near-Term Proposals on Strike Concepts,” Defense Daily, Mar. 17, 2004. 8 Lorenzo Cortes. “Lockheed Martin Expects FB-22 To Compete Against UAVs, ‘Arsenal Ship’ Ideas.” Defense Daily. March 20, 2004. 9 Lorenzo Cortes, “Air Force Issues Clarification on FB-22, FY’11 Delivery Date Possible,” Defense Daily, Mar. 10, 2003. 10 Laura Colarusso, “Plans to Extend F-22 Range Frustrated by Structural Limit Problems,” Inside the Air Force, July 26, 2002. CRS-6 Key Issues The main issues associated with the F/A-22 center on four overlapping areas. The first issue is whether the Raptor should be built at all. The F/A-22 has been a defense budget issue since 1990 when reassessments of Soviet capabilities called into question the need to replace current fighters with next-generation aircraft. The specifics of this debate have changed over time, but the essence of the debate remains consistent. The second issue is one of quantity. If the Raptor is to be built, how many should be built? The third issue is one of budget and schedule: are they satisfactory? The potential for foreign sales is the fourth issue. Does the United States Need the F/A-22? Main Arguments of Those Favoring the F/A-22. Its advocates argue that the F/A-22 will be the first stealthy fighter/attack aircraft that combines supersonic speed without resort to afterburners (requiring additional fuel), maneuverability via thrust-vectoring engines, and fusion of multi-sensor avionics data via computers, and this will enable pilots to destroy enemy aircraft and ground-based air defenses at greater standoff ranges. They argue that the United States must develop a next-generation fighter if we are to maintain a technological lead in the development and production of combat aircraft. Soviet MiG-29s and Su-27s are equal to or better than current U.S. fighters in combat capabilities, according to F/A-22 advocates, and European aerospace industries are likely to produce more advanced aircraft in the years ahead. Air Force officials say that experiments conducted at Air Force test ranges indicate that the most advanced Russian fighters consistently defeat F-15s in dogfight situations.11 These aircraft could pose serious threats in regional conflicts. Further, recent exercises with the Indian Air Force surprised U.S. Air Force participants. The Indian’s were much more pilots than U.S. intelligence estimated they would be, and demonstrated advanced tactics and strategy. Other developing world air forces may be more potent than anticipated, argue F/A-22 supporters. When the F/A-22 enters service after 2005, many U.S. Air Force and Navy fighters (developed in the mid-1970s) will be about 30 years old. Proponents also believe the F/A-22 is needed as a hedge against a revived Russian threat as well as unpredictable third-world dangers in the years ahead, and they see the program as necessary to maintain U.S. industrial capabilities for development and production of advanced aircraft. With some 30 major subcontractors and some 4,500 suppliers in 48 states, the F/A-22 program is expected to generate up to 28,000 jobs at peak production, with indirect employment adding up to 112,000 jobs, according to contractor estimates in 1999. Proponents further assert that current operational fighters cannot be modified further to provide the stealth and other combat capabilities needed to cope with the air defenses many Third World countries may possess in the 2000s, when economic 11 Ron Laurenzo, “Air Force Inflates Russian Fighter Threat, Experts Say,” Defense Week, July 22, 2002.