@Todjaeger, if the export restrictions you mention are so difficult to overcome, why would NG and LM even bother to attempt involvement in the Japanese program? Your comment seems to imply there isn’t much the US government would allow them to contribute.
If the F-22 LO is more capable, why isn’t this incorporated into a valuable asset like the F-35. Perhaps it is, in US F-35s only. If that is the the case, we will never know.
The restriction, which is known as the Obey amendment, is specific to the F-22. It is not applicable to either aircraft mission or subsystems, or other aircraft.
Something like 90% of the LO effects are due to aircraft shaping, which has to be factored in during the design of the aircraft. This also means that LO features which work for one aircraft/design, cannot simply be applied to a different design.
Take the F-22 and F-35 as examples, the rear aspect LO of the F-22 is supposed to be greater (as in smaller thermal and radar signatures) than the F-35 due to the size and design of the engine nozzles.
I also believe the skin of the F-22 has greater effect for LO than the F-35 skin does, but that it was a deliberate choice to use a different material on the F-35. Basically for the F-35 a choice was made to go with a less effective material from a LO perspective, but one that was easier to maintain.
When the F-35 was being designed, it was not being designed to exceed the F-22 in terms of LO, as the F-22 turned out to be hideously expensive to develop and then sustain. The F-35 was designed to have greater LO than every other available (i.e. not the F-22) fighter, while also being easier to support than prior LO aircraft like the F-22, B-2, F-117, etc.
One of the great advantages of the F-35 is that much of the efforts put into the avionics made them both more capable than in previous aircraft (including the F-22) and should make it easier to maintain and upgrade them in the future. Examples include things like the Universal Armaments Interface (UAI) from Raytheon, which if I understand the technology correctly should enable the integration of future munitions to proceed more smoothly as it provides a common architecture for the munitions to communicate with the aircraft. As a side note, I would anticipate that tech like the UAI will over time get applied to other aircraft, either older generations via upgrades/SLEP and built into new/upcoming designs.
The previous method of fitting munitions to an aircraft required designing, testing and integrating a system to enable the munitions to communicate with the aircraft and the important bit is that this design, testing and integration was required for each different aircraft design and I suspect in some cases, had to be done multiple times for different variants of the same aircraft.