Thanks guys. Great thoughts.
I researched the micromanaging DA a little while back, unfortunately there is a huge body of literature that says more civilian control is better, but since the case requires permanent stationing, I think you could argue that this doesn't even allow the military to re-purpose these Raptors for future use effectively.
How would an Escalation DA work? Would that simply play into aff's hands?
Right, that's where I would focus. The problem isn't civilian control of the military--though that primarily comes from the executive, not Congress--the problem is micro-managing the everyday specifics. Either their plan hinders effective deployment by restricting long term options, or it is ineffective, because if it only mandates they be stationed there once, the military will simply move the aircraft after the affirmative plan is passed. In other words, either the military ends up moving the aircraft anyway (which is a solvency takeout, since they are now just producing F-22s, and also prevents them from even claiming FX-T, since the F-22s could be stationed anywhere) or their plan is an example of legislative entrenchment, which is problematic, to say the least.
I don't think an escalation DA plays into aff's hands, and it might be strong if you are comfortable running it. My guess is that you would link the new aircraft to an arms race between the U.S. and China, then impact to war. You could also use similar argumentation to a Securitization Kritik--even the affirmative language about China being a threat can be interpreted as an "us vs. them" mindset and impacted to war. You will just have to deal with the affirmative response that China has already escalated tensions in the South China Sea, etc., and that military strength is more likely to deter than to cause war, which will go over well with most judges in the NCFCA.