F22 software problems, Japan plans to design its own stealth, Israel to buy Raptors.

Excellently put Wombat,

If the F-35 is so good why did the US continue with the Raptor, and why now Rumsfeld is gone, is the USAF gunning for more of them, even if it's at the expense of the LighteningII? As a point, the Raptor is A) Capable of doing ALL the roles of the F-35 and more and is proven. B) Is rapidly seeming like it will be little more expensive than the F-35(given its spiraling cost) particularly if the F-22 is built in greater numbers. C) The F-35 WONT have superiority over advanced Sukhois. People quoting otherwise here need to do their homework, understand the basic characteristics of the F-35 design philosophy and it's stealth, and revisit basic physics.

I highly doubt the F-22 will ever be exported. In my opinion, it doesn't need to be either, No one really needs the F-22 but the U.S

Ummm great! thanks bdn12. I thought we were allies? So the US gets to decide what we should and shouldn't have NOT us. How would you feel if we pulled the plug on JDAM-ER? YES that’s right WE invented it NOT you guys, but we are happy to share, along with anything else like OTHR technology we also developed, friendship is a two way street. So are you saying that if a regional conflict broke out with an advanced enemy the US shouldn't allow its allies to deal with it? Are you saying that you should get involved every time? How will US taxpayers feel about that? Will they grow tired of THEIR armed forces being worn out and THEIR men and women being killed in someone else’s backyard every time? Doesn't it make sense on a pure economic argument to sell at least some(not all) of your top tier equipment to very close allies to both "share the load", and take advantage of the reduction in cost that increased production brings? Or do you think the US can continue to bury it's head in the sand and pretend that it is still 1957 and all powerful? Further how will you feel if some of your allies band together and actually does produce something equal or better than the Raptor? Are you then going to let us "sit at the table with the grown ups" or treat as potential enemies? I thought US isolationism ended with the Second World War?

the F-35 is for that and can take out SU-xx's or Migs just fine.

Really based on what, Lockheed Martin smoothly worded press releases and slick lobbying campaigns? The F-35 was designed first and foremost as a battlefield strike and CAS platform, its kinematic performance precludes it from being able to comprehensively defeat any of the later variants of the Flanker family. It's T/W ratio is not good enough and it appears it will only get worse. And NO don't bother to start regurgitating that tired old line about it's stealth profile, it to is a compromise. The F-35 is stealth optimised in the forward sector and its LO shaping is designed to degrade the performance of typical eastern block GBADS radars. It was never designed or envisaged as an air superiority platform capable of taking on high performance fighters. In fact in terms of size and capability it could best be described as a modern day F-105 Thunderchief.

Lastly why is the US(and some on this post) so worried about the Raptor if few but the wealthiest and most trusted allies could afford it? A LOEXCOM preliminary study of the feasibility of exporting the F-22 to Australia in the 1999-2001 period concluded that there was no greater risk of sensitive technology falling into the wrong hands than there would be in USAF service. If not then why is Australia as well as the UK, Canada and NZ part of the "Echelon" intelligence system? What is this saying, that we cannot be trusted, or maybe that we cannot trust you?

LEE

Bozeian, you are ridiculous. Do You know how much stuff we have sold to australia? Let's see, F-111's, Super Hornets, now F-35's, and countless other weapons. I will stand firm in my belief that a country should keep the best of the best only for itself. And with many U.S. allies, it's not a two way street. What has Japan militarily given to us? Israel? Saudi Arabia? The only one I can think of that has helped us is the UK, and not near to the extent in which we help them. Fine, I'll be willing to let you keep your JDAM-ER if we can keep our Raptor. Please don't take the path that Israel has chosen: They ask, we give, they get, no exceptions. Israel:We want your best fighter aircraft (huge lobby) US:OK, sure, here it is. It's okay if you've given tech to China, I doubt you'll do it again.

OK, guys, let's not get hot under the collar.....

I can understand why the US doesn't want to export the F-22.

Australia and Canada can't afford it and don't really want it (too specialized and we are unlikely to encounter a threat that requires the specific talents of the aircraft).

The Brits don't want it because it is just a waste of range and endurance for them and they can afford to develop their own aircraft to their own requirements. Industrially, they would rather spend their money at home anyway (and that includes F-35).

That leaves Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia and (eventually) South Korea and Taiwan (although Taiwan hasn't been getting much directly in recent years - but that could change at a moments notice if there is a love spat [trade dispute] between the US and China, or China significantly changes its stance towards Taiwan).

Yes, I can see that these countries might WANT F-22 and some of them, for reasons other than that they NEED them. Israel has a poor record on tech transfer. Japan is really good at absorbing and applying imported tech to their own products. Saudi Arabia has internal problems which could leave them on either side of the fence in 5 years time (and no one wants to see a situation similar to what happened in Iran when the Shar was overthrown, tech transfer wise, specifically).

But there is a number of problems with the way the US has gone about this. ...

1. It breeds distrust..... just look at the comments (mine included) about trust between allies. That ain't good for future cooperation. Combine this with the brawl over the release of F-35 software source code to the Brits and you have all of us believing you don't trust any of us. Politically, things are pretty dodgy concerning participation in 'coalition of the willing' operations and it will be more difficult in the future. If America was to go it alone (without a 'coalition of the willing') anywhere in the world (Iran included) then that would be seen as a unilateral attack on another country.... get my drift.... not a good scenario with regard to the UN, where those that wish to support the fight (but who politically cannot get it past their own voters) could do little but abstain from any vote on possible UN sanctions against the US - and that means OIL!).... so not good PR at all. On this thread at the moment, we have two people in Australia talking about trust between Australia and the US and we haven't even asked for the aircraft, nor do we want or need it! I'll leave it to you to consider what the Japanese are muttering into their sushi (and Japanese language bulletin boards) !

2. Why does it need legislation? I don't believe that there was any such legislation concerning the B-1, B-2, SR-71, etc. Also not good PR, as it tends to lead to a myth that the F-22 is some sort of 'wonder weapon' that everyone MUST have. OK, it is the best air superiority fighter at the moment, but it ain't no 'Martian death ray'!

3. If enough allies are rebutted on requests for the F-22 and they group together (financially and technologically), then you have created a competitor for yourself (financially, technologically and militarily). You are creating a market that you are not willing to service. If you did that in business your competitors would slaughter you by stealing your customers! The analogy holds true.

Unfortunately, by legislating against the export of the F-22 (instead of a polite explanation that, like the B-2, you don't feel that they really need it), you have given your allies the impression that when the situation changes in, say 20 years time and they really do need it, you still won't sell it. While it is difficult to see anyone being able to develop new technology to counter the F-22 in the foreseeable future, history has a strange way of coming up with surprises (and military planners are required to plan for surprises) - and if that happens then that piece of legislation will be as helpful as a 50 year old train timetable (and will, no doubt be shredded).

The US has made a massive PR and diplomatic blunder with this legislation. NEVER, EVER say NEVER, especially to your friends!.

The Winged Wombat

PS, bdn12, Just to set the record straight - since WWII you have not 'given' Australia anything (unlike the Israeli, Saudi and now most ex-Warpact countries). As one of your closest allies and supporters, we pay full price for everything we get from you. We get no foreign aid from you to offset anything! Of course you have a vested interest in us because of the amount of US investment here, but that's another story entirely. (I rather think you are interested in our hypersonic research at the moment as well - what do you think, thebozeian - can we trust them with it)?.


[edit on 1/8/07 by The Winged Wombat]

well if i was america id give japan a set of f-22's for free to save embarrassment, if not the japanese will invent a plane with klingon stealth capablitys lol, very clever people.

Originally posted by bdn12
Saudi Arabia?

Oil. pretty simple aint it?

As for other countries the Aussies Brits and Canucks all support the US in there rediclous middle east wars and in fact Canada is cleaning up the mess that is Afghanistan. With a little help from the netherland and other countries but the spearhead is Canada at the moment from what I understand.

Canada_EH,

Yes, I fully understand and appreciate that Canada contributes more to overseas operations (NATO and peacekeeping operations) than any other country on a per capita basis. We are in Afghanistan as well (working under Dutch admin control plus some special forces elsewhere) or at least that was where my son told me he was going! Who can you trust these days?

Oh, yeah, that's right, the Americans have come back to kill some more Taliban in Helmond (Helmund?) Province as well.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 1/8/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by thebozeian
If the F-35 is so good why did the US continue with the Raptor, and why now Rumsfeld is gone, is the USAF gunning for more of them, even if it's at the expense of the LighteningII?

Because there are not enough of them to meet our deployment and operational needs? It has nothing to do with the F-35, both aircraft are needed in proportional numbers. Yes the F-22 will be better suited for the A2A role but the F-35 will complement the USAF in other mission much like the F-15/F-16 force. The Raptor will not be used in the A2G/strike role like the F-35 will be, nor will it be as versatile as the F-35. Also, the F-35 will be more than capable of handling the current and near term future Flanker/Mig variants. With better kinematics than the F-16 and an avionics/weapons suite more advanced than the F-22 combined with a VLO design it will be second only to the Raptor in the air. This notion that because it was not designed to be solely an air superiority fighter it therefore cannot do well in the A2A role is flawed. Besides the fact that it was designed to be a multi-role fighter you also need to look at the capabilities of the aircraft and not get caught up in the name.

Originally posted by thebozeian
The F-35 WONT have superiority over advanced Sukhois. People quoting otherwise here need to do their homework...

And you presume we have not?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by thebozeian
If the F-35 is so good why did the US continue with the Raptor, and why now Rumsfeld is gone, is the USAF gunning for more of them, even if it's at the expense of the LighteningII?

It has nothing to do with the F-35, both aircraft are needed in proportional numbers. Yes the F-22 will be better suited for the A2A role but the F-35 will complement the USAF in other mission much like the F-15/F-16 force. The Raptor will not be used in the A2G/strike role like the F-35 will be, nor will it be as versatile as the F-35.

Again this is in the relm of how you use what you've got. I agree West in your statement and outlook and numbers etc. People are expecting this plane to do everything perfetly while I've already come to tersm with the fact it will not. But will it do it better then the 16-18-15 I believe in the roles that they will deloy it in.

On the fact that the Us gov is pushing for more 22's is its own stupidity in cutting the numbers like they did and now they want them back because they can actually see the planes performance. I hope and have a feeling that the F-35 once people start to see it in action will be much the same way.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
The US might spend the most but that doesnt mean they discover or develop most things.

Its a pretty good indication though. And I never said the US discovers everything. It does however discover most. Money is very important when ever it comes to these matters. The more you have the more you can fund (in terms of programs). The more money that the scientist and engineers have to work with (money) the better chance of success a project has of being completed versus the opposite. For instance, go to DARPAs website and just see what the US is working on to 'stay in the lead'. Talk about science fiction coming to life. And thats just what they let us know... god knows whats still classified or in the black.


[edit on 1-8-2007 by West Coast]

Well it seems someone on this thread thought my assertions on the F-22 export ban were ridiculous. It also seems that someone else forgot to inform Japan that their initial request for the Raptor to be cleared for export was denied. Perhaps the Japanese have learnt, unlike the useless bureaucrats in other US allied nations ,that if you show some persistence, balls and a compelling strategic case, you can get what you conclude you actually need, not what someone wants to sell you. Or they could just be a bit slow and thick. Check out another drive by Japan to get the Raptor .

LEE.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by thebozeian]

Whoever wrote this specific piece from the article did not properly do their homework. Not only is the premise wrong but so is the conclusion, silly journalists...

That shift would add another option to the decision about a new fighter for the Japanese air force. F-15s equipped with AESA would have a larger radar aperture than the F-22. As a result, in the defensive, anti-cruise missile role, the Eagle would have an advantage in detecting smaller objects at longer range because of its additional power and size.

Anyway, after reading that article I'm still not convinced that the F-35 couldn't fulfill all of Japan's needs. Stealth - First Strike - ISR - Deep Penetration - Air Superiority etc... the F-35 would do all that. Me thinks this is more of a 'pride issue due to not having the biggest stick in the air. Japans military is particularly noted for such bad habits...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Anyway, after reading that article I'm still not convinced that the F-35 couldn't fulfill all of Japan's needs. Stealth - First Strike - ISR - Deep Penetration - Air Superiority etc... the F-35 would do all that. Me thinks this is more of a 'pride issue due to not having the biggest stick in the air. Japans military is particularly noted for such bad habits...

The F-35 is not a patch on the F-22, you know it and they know it.


It would be an extremely poor replacement compared to the alternative. I fully support Japan's actions.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The F-35 is not a patch on the F-22, you know it and they know it.

Never said it was, all I said was that it can fulfill Japans needs, i.e. perform each of it's stated missions effectively.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
It would be an extremely poor replacement compared to the alternative.

Maybe, but is it still capable of performing the stated missions of Japan. And in my view there is no alternative, the F-22 is not available as such it is the best choice available.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Never said it was, all I said was that it can fulfill Japans needs, i.e. perform each of it's stated missions effectively.

They obviously do not feel that way - and I for one would share their sentiments.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And in my view there is no alternative, the F-22 is not available as such it is the best choice available.

Uhm... yes. At the moment there is no alternative. In a few years time there may be a Russian alternative. Would Japan even consider it? Or use considering it as leverage to get F-22s?


You know... diplomats and their little games.

[edit on 7/8/07 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Uhm... yes. At the moment there is no alternative. In a few years time there may be a Russian alternative.

Besides the obvious reason why such a deal is very unlikely we do not know the capabilities of this Russian next generation fighter. In any case we will be lucky to see it in prototype stage by the end of the decade and in service by mid next decade. At that point the F-22 will no longer be available, for anyone, seeing as how the assembly line is scheduled to shut down in 2011 unless the USAF procures more. Japan cannot afford to wait that long anyway, a platform will likely be chosen end of the decade.

i'm still praying britain don't waste its money on the jsf (or lighting2 whatever its called), ucav's will be on the go then:-

www.baesystems.com...

build more of them man, better and cheaper.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
build more of them man, better and cheaper.

You can't replace an aircraft like the F-35 with a limited UCAV. They (UCAV's) are complimentary systems not ones which can do everything...

The previous australian defence minister Brendan Nelson asked the americans whether australia could buy the f22, and the reply was no. But that hasn't stopped the new labor government from attacking the previous coalition government for agreeing to buy the jsf and f18e/f instead of the F22 and keeping the 38 year old f111s. (It seems like the labor party is taking policy advice from Carlos Kopp). If you exclude the russians and europeans and second-hand there is not many aircraft to choose from. I think Brendan Nelson got it right.

If we get the F22 and retire the f111, what will we do for a longish range bomber?

You guys will probably laugh at this segestion. Is it possible to get general dynamics to build some more f111s? Or can Australia build some new ones? Just remember that Sweeds with a population of 8 million build there own Saab fighter aircraft from scratch. We wouldn't need to design a new jet, just copy the old one, and incorporate all those expensive F111 upgrades.
We have many of the skilled workers in australia who would be needed for this project. There are the 100s of workers involved in maintaining the current f111 fleet and Boeing australia employs 3400 people and there are many others.
The Queensland government is tring to turn Brisbane into a major aviation hub, This ambititous project , which would attract many skilled people and aviation companys to australia.

Originally posted by lambroast1
If we get the F22 and retire the f111, what will we do for a longish range bomber?

The F-15E or Su-34 are two options on the table.