F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[Scorpion82]

I can't imagine that the RAAF will purchase 3 types. It's way to much for such an airforce. If I understand it right the F/A-18F will be new built, it wouldn't make much sense to spend 6 bln on a weapons system, just to take it out of service after a few years because another aircraft (F-22) is available. The RAAF don't operate any air superiority fighter at all, the F/A-18 is capable, but for sure not the best in its form.
A pure F-35/F/A-18F combo is the most likely option and that's the way the RAAF is going.

 

[Grand Danois]

It seems like these Think thank people/Pro sale lobby are testing the waters to see if they would encounter any resistance from the military or other influencial quarters about possibly exporting Raptor a few first-tier allies.

Hmm. Yes. That is certainly a possibility; riding on the back of the Japanese interest.

My assessment is, that any formal inquiry into the availability of the F-22A for export, will be met with a resounding NO, in the near-term.

So if any such formal inquiry is made in the next 5 years, it will effectively terminate any prospect of exports to that particular nation - even in the medium or long term.

That is why the Japanese are treading carefully, not bringing the issue to high level.

Implication is, that if an ALP govt makes any formal inquiry to the US Govt - as they say they will, if they get into govt - they will get that no, and ALP will be in the clear wrt any promises made in the heat of day-day politics and elections.

It's effectively a free ride backing the F-22A as an alternative procurement option.

Do note, that this is my 0.02€ from the other side of the planet.

But I am curious as to what the Aussie posters think...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This article and the others, are based on the statements from one guy, Thompson, from one think tank.

Now take a look at these statements:

Designing an export version of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research radar-evading F-22 Raptor could cost more than $1 billion and be "prohibitively expensive" for any would-be foreign buyer, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

"If (export) were to be considered, which it's not, it essentially would have to be redesigned, rebuilt, retested and then go into production," Kohler, who oversees government-to-government arms sales, told Reuters in a brief interview.

Lets look at the logic behind these statements.

A one billion dollar cost of redesigning the platform for export would be prohibatively expensive? Well, if we take the guestimate of 100 platforms for the JSDF, and add another 50 for other first tier allies, your looking at 150 platforms exported ( a rough gues that's on the conservative side). The $1bn USD needed to design a export version would translate to a $6.5m USD increase in the flyaway cost per platform. Thats on a projected price of ~$170m USD. Somehow i doubt that is prohibative.

"This airplane was built to give us an edge way into the future, and that's why it's not exportable."

[...]

Kohler told Reuters the U.S. intent was to supply Lockheed Martin's next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, due to be available for export in about 2015.

U.S. arms-sale chief discounts F-22 sale to Japan
[/I]

This doesent really make any sence. There going to keep this platform all to themselves because they like "having the edge" over their closest allies???? The only effects of keeping the F22 out of the hands of your closest allies that you are bound to be in a coalition with, considering that there just isn't annother platform out there (maybe EF2000) that's a desent interceptor, is that your going to have to provide that capability. An extra strain on a small F22 fleet that allready has duel roles. This takes on some real importance when you consider the cruise missile threat increasing throughout asia and the mid east. Also the spare parts and maintinance needs that would all go to LM.

The other, major point, is the F35 program. The protection of this program is a more compelling reason than maintaining the "edge" over your closest allies. However selling the F22 to the JSDF, ADF and CDF, would not impact the numbers of F35's exported to a significant degree. The JSDF has not signed up to the JSF programe, and the Canadians, like us, would probably adopt a high low mix of 1/3 squadrons of F22/F35. Even if we both cancelled our orders of F35's it would not significantly alter the total numbers to be produced. So i dont see the logic here. There is more to gain economicaly in exporting the F22 to these nations over the F35 because the private sector support would all be US industry.

Outside of his own beliefs, there are no statements to support that the F-22A or variants will be expeorted to Japan.

I dont think you can write off the whole pro export F22 lobby in the US to tompson, he seems to be a vocal advocate. So just becaus the three or four articles we have read here have featured thompson, dosent mean the whole lobby is this guy sitting on a milk crate outside capitol hill holding up a "export F22 NOW!" sign.

Also all the articles dismissing these claims are all from "company" men. And the export ban has nothing to do with LM, or the USAF for that matter, it does have something to do with congress. This is a political action and therefore relies apon the whims of polititions and their allectorate. Alot has happened scince this law was passed, and the argument has not been brought to the table scince.

Just for all those yanks out there like Rich who might get knickers in a knot, i'm not questioning your right to with hold technology from your allies. But i just dont see the logic in it. It will be profitable for the US, will relieve the operational stress on your own F22 fleet and wont endanger the F35 programe. I just dont see how illogical policy can be kept in place indefinatly.

 

[Grand Danois]

Lets look at the logic behind these statements.

A one billion dollar cost of redesigning the platform for export would be prohibatively expensive? Well, if we take the guestimate of 100 platforms for the JSDF, and add another 50 for other first tier allies, your looking at 150 platforms exported ( a rough gues that's on the conservative side). The $1bn USD needed to design a export version would translate to a $6.5m USD increase in the flyaway cost per platform. Thats on a projected price of ~$170m USD. Somehow i doubt that is prohibative.

The customer decides what is a prohibitive cost. What is he willing to pay tp cover a certain requirement? Now, the pricetag itself is not what I would consider what makes the prohibitively expensive. However, buying them as pure exports is.

On the US side, what motivates industry & USAF is to maximise the value of already sunk costs. This means they would want to do all the work in the US. This also goes for Congress.

I cannot see a situation where these ends can meet.

This doesent really make any sence. There going to keep this platform all to themselves because they like "having the edge" over their closest allies????

No. They like to have the edge over their enemies. And other related reasons. Nothing to do with whom they trust or distrust on tech sec issues.

The only effects of keeping the F22 out of the hands of your closest allies that you are bound to be in a coalition with, considering that there just isn't annother platform out there (maybe EF2000) that's a desent interceptor, is that your going to have to provide that capability. An extra strain on a small F22 fleet that allready has duel roles. This takes on some real importance when you consider the cruise missile threat increasing throughout asia and the mid east. Also the spare parts and maintinance needs that would all go to LM.

Ahh. So in any coalition campaign or to guarantee security, you'll need to have the US involved? That would be a powerful political incentive not to export the Raptor.

The other, major point, is the F35 program. The protection of this program is a more compelling reason than maintaining the "edge" over your closest allies.

I'd agree to that it is also a factor.

However selling the F22 to the JSDF, ADF and CDF, would not impact the numbers of F35's exported to a significant degree. The JSDF has not signed up to the JSF programe, and the Canadians, like us, would probably adopt a high low mix of 1/3 squadrons of F22/F35. Even if we both cancelled our orders of F35's it would not significantly alter the total numbers to be produced. So i dont see the logic here. There is more to gain economicaly in exporting the F22 to these nations over the F35 because the private sector support would all be US industry.

Cannot see the Canucks entering such a complicated consortium, when they already have the F-35. But it is not much of a consortium, if the incentive for the US is to do all the work.

I dont think you can write off the whole pro export F22 lobby in the US to tompson, he seems to be a vocal advocate. So just becaus the three or four articles we have read here have featured thompson, dosent mean the whole lobby is this guy sitting on a milk crate outside capitol hill holding up a "export F22 NOW!" sign.

Didn't think I did. Thompson did feature prominently in the past flux of articles though.

Also all the articles dismissing these claims are all from "company" men. And the export ban has nothing to do with LM, or the USAF for that matter, it does have something to do with congress. This is a political action and therefore relies apon the whims of polititions and their allectorate. Alot has happened scince this law was passed, and the argument has not been brought to the table scince.

Yes. And the signals I read is that due to politics, it is unlikely to be exported in the near term.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The customer decides what is a prohibitive cost. What is he willing to pay tp cover a certain requirement? Now, the pricetag itself is not what I would consider what makes the prohibitively expensive. However, buying them as pure exports is.

Lifetime costs need to be considered i agree. But argueing the cost of redesigning a new model would be desisive when it would translate to a 2~3% increase in cost doesent seem to be that relevant.

On the US side, what motivates industry & USAF is to maximise the value of already sunk costs. This means they would want to do all the work in the US. This also goes for Congress.

Agreed. This seems to have more to do with who would buy it than the US wanting to sell it. Foregin buyers would still be paying off some of the total cost of R&D and development in the design.

No. They like to have the edge over their enemies. And other related reasons. Nothing to do with whom the trust or distrust on tech sec issues.

So why does the "edge" held by the US have anything to do with exports to tier one allies?

Ahh. So in any coalition campaign or to guarantee security, you'll need to have the US involved? That would be an incentive not to export the Raptor.

Were talking about tier one allies. Odds are the US is going to be involved in any coalition and is a guarentor of security anyway. Exporting raptor has real benifits for the USAF but not exporting would only grant the US a level of hedgemony they allready had.

Cannot see the Canucks entering such a complicated consortium, when they already have the F-35. But it is not much of a consortium, if the incentive for the US is to do all the work.

I'm sure the JSDF or maybe even ADF wouldn't mind puting up some of the $$$ or doing the R&D for the export version, however this would probably mean it would be manufactured and maintained by Japanese firms (or Australian to a smaller extent), and therefore some major economic incesntives for the US would be lost.

Yes. And the signals I read is that due to politics, it is unlikely to be exported in the near term.

Maybe. I doubt it will suddenly come up for export in the next couple of months. However i wouldn't outrule it after the next presidential election (i know its the executive and not the legislature, but these sort of issues will be more prevelant then). In the 2-4 yr term its anyones guess.

 

[Magoo]

Hmm. Yes. That is certainly a possibility; riding on the back of the Japanese interest.

My assessment is, that any formal inquiry into the availability of the F-22A for export, will be met with a resounding NO, in the near-term.

So if any such formal inquiry is made in the next 5 years, it will effectively terminate any prospect of exports to that particular nation - even in the medium or long term.

That is why the Japanese are treading carefully, not bringing the issue to high level.

Implication is, that if an ALP govt makes any formal inquiry to the US Govt - as they say they will, if they get into govt - they will get that no, and ALP will be in the clear wrt any promises made in the heat of day-day politics and elections.

It's effectively a free ride backing the F-22A as an alternative procurement option.

Do note, that this is my 0.02€ from the other side of the planet.

But I am curious as to what the Aussie posters think...

From everything I've read and heard GD, that about sums it up.

It's a no-lose for the ALP.

One can't help but suspect if the concept of a japanese or Australian F-22 acquisition were sold to the US government correctly, i.e. the USAF wouldn't need to acquire any more Raptors because the 100-150 jets Australia and Japan would get could effectively look after the Pacific theatre, there may still be a possibility.

However, I won't hold my breath...

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

The customer decides what is a prohibitive cost. What is he willing to pay tp cover a certain requirement? Now, the pricetag itself is not what I would consider what makes the prohibitively expensive. However, buying them as pure exports is.

The issue with having a 'dumbed down' export quality F-22 or any other aircraft for that matter is not so much the initial cost of developing that airframe(which at A$1.4bn+ is not unsubstantial), but more so that you end up with a unique configuration and therefore may not be able to dovetail into block upgrades performed by the USAF or other parent service.

One such example goes back nearly 30 years when the RAAF was looking to replace its Mirages with what ended up being the F/A-18A/B. In evaluation testing, Northrop's lighter, longer ranging and nimbler F-18L was very highly regarded, but despite its close similarities to the F/A-18, the RAAF, it was too different to be able to use USN-standard systems and weapons upgrades, thus we would have been an orphan operator and would have had to develop the jet's software and hardware evolutions itself.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

Hmm. Yes. That is certainly a possibility; riding on the back of the Japanese interest.

My assessment is, that any formal inquiry into the availability of the F-22A for export, will be met with a resounding NO, in the near-term.

So if any such formal inquiry is made in the next 5 years, it will effectively terminate any prospect of exports to that particular nation - even in the medium or long term.

That is why the Japanese are treading carefully, not bringing the issue to high level.

Implication is, that if an ALP govt makes any formal inquiry to the US Govt - as they say they will, if they get into govt - they will get that no, and ALP will be in the clear wrt any promises made in the heat of day-day politics and elections.

It's effectively a free ride backing the F-22A as an alternative procurement option.

Do note, that this is my 0.02€ from the other side of the planet.

But I am curious as to what the Aussie posters think...

You might be on the other side of the planet GD but I think you've made a very perceptive observation of the Oz political situation in regard to the F-22!

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The issue with having a 'dumbed down' export quality F-22 or any other aircraft for that matter is not so much the initial cost of developing that airframe(which at A$1.4bn+ is not unsubstantial), but more so that you end up with a unique configuration and therefore may not be able to dovetail into block upgrades performed by the USAF or other parent service.

One such example goes back nearly 30 years when the RAAF was looking to replace its Mirages with what ended up being the F/A-18A/B. In evaluation testing, Northrop's lighter, longer ranging and nimbler F-18L was very highly regarded, but despite its close similarities to the F/A-18, the RAAF, it was too different to be able to use USN-standard systems and weapons upgrades, thus we would have been an orphan operator and would have had to develop the jet's software and hardware evolutions itself.

Cheers

Magoo

Although in this case we would be using the exact same platform that would probably be manufactured by Japan. So you would assume the export version all future maintinance and upgrades would be JSDF/ADF and we wouldn't be a orphan operator. The US block upgrades on Avionics and powerplant would be indentical i would assume, its probably just LO they want to change, and maybe some whiz bang stuff with the APG 77 that would have more to do with software. And heaps of this work has allready been done on the exportable F35. So if they dont like giving away comprehensive stealth, then use the same RAM from the F35, if they dont like giving away the APG 77, put the APG 81 in it. F35's stealth and avionics coupled with F22's performance and you've still got one fearsome platform. The 150 odd platforms for export would make up 30~40% of the total numbers produced. So the support and upgrade structure would be substantial.

One way or another an export version will be a new platform to some extent, depending on what the yanks are touchie about and want to take off. However just becaus we may not be able to utilise the US block upgrades (we didnt in the Bug's) is no reason not to buy the platform if its for sale. With only minor upgrades a down geared F22 would be very leathal over its whole projected lifetime, especcialy with the opposing platforms and technology being designed now by the russians.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Maybe they just dont like selling a platform that they just cant counter, to anyone? If so theres a touch of paranoia in that belief.

 

[rjmaz1]

Regarding an export F-22 version.

It would be very easy and cheap to produce. These days software is what gives the aircraft its capabilities. The F-22 has already had many software updates and has already had an upgraded radar added.

Simply reflashing the computer to an earlier software version automatically downgrades its performance. They could even flash the computer before it had any JDAM capability so it can not do any bombing if the US didn't want a country to have that capability.

Also as the AESA modules have been updated to higher power modules it would be quite simple to make a radar using the older modules. As you know an AESA radar can actually work with some modules broken. The US could simply fit only half of the modules to the APG-77 export versions and everything will still work fine.

Then down the track after the US has moved beyond the F-22 they will be able to provide the export F-22's with the latest software or AESA modules to increase their capability.

It wouldn't cost anything though, besides creating the paper work.

 

[Todjaeger]

Regarding an export F-22 version.

It would be very easy and cheap to produce. These days software is what gives the aircraft its capabilities. The F-22 has already had many software updates and has already had an upgraded radar added.

Simply reflashing the computer to an earlier software version automatically downgrades its performance. They could even flash the computer before it had any JDAM capability so it can not do any bombing if the US didn't want a country to have that capability.

Also as the AESA modules have been updated to higher power modules it would be quite simple to make a radar using the older modules. As you know an AESA radar can actually work with some modules broken. The US could simply fit only half of the modules to the APG-77 export versions and everything will still work fine.

Then down the track after the US has moved beyond the F-22 they will be able to provide the export F-22's with the latest software or AESA modules to increase their capability.

It wouldn't cost anything though, besides creating the paper work.

I don't think it's quite that easy. Changing to an earlier software build could work on downgrading the current capabilities of the avionics... However, such a solution doesn't address a host of issues. Among them, the potential ability of a user-nation to create their own code to make use of the capabilities of the avionics. Granted, that can be difficult and costly to do, particularly if one isn't provided with the existing sourcecode. It definately can be done. As I see it, the only way to prevent a comparable avionics suite would be to have a less capable one installed, both in terms of software and computing power.

Also, changes to the avionics largely won't impact the LO characteristics. Much of the LO performance (90% is the figure I've heard for radar) comes from the shaping of the aircraft. Similarly, location of internal equipment for cooling, pumps, etc also have and effect. Much of that would need to be changed in order to have a significantly different platform. And then the question would be, would anyone want the revised Raptor platform?

Maybe they just dont like selling a platform that they just cant counter, to anyone? If so theres a touch of paranoia in that belief.

I have a few thoughts on this... Just because one is paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get you...

I'll follow this up with this. How many B-2 bombers has the US exported? Or F-117s? To my knowledge, none. Given that the US (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't have a reliable counter to them, it only makes sense to keep tight control over the equipment and technology. Particularly with the existing track record of US tech/weapons and where they end up...

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think people need to look at this problem somewhat objectively. The USA has concerns with transfer of technology on the F-35. Are these concerns magically going to disappear on the F-22 even IF the US law is changed to allow it's export?

Everyone keeps saying how much more technologically advanced the F-22 is. I cannot see ANY evidence whatsoever that the USA is likely to be MORE accomodating with respect to source codes etc on a MORE technologically advanced platform.

Second, the F-22 is currently selling for a US$175m a piece in 2006 dollars. THAT is the cost for the USAF. The main advantage for the US in selling this aircraft to others is defraying the massive development cost. Anyone who thinks they'll get around paying their share of the developments costs for this aircraft is simply delusional.

Added on top of these enormous costs, is the cost of PAYING L-M to downgrade the capability of the F-22. A cost which has been speculated (because it HASN"T been done yet) at USD$1b. It may be more and in any case increases the risk of the acquisition.

Then the aircraft has to be modified to perform the roles we require, most prominently, the addition of an EO/IR sensor suite, networking and sensor "fusion" and maritime strike capabilities we require in our next generation platform to get the most from it and have it fit in to our force structure. Of course, with the USA's eagerness to provide source codes on it's high end technologies and our defence industries tremendous track record of integrating advanced technologies into an off the shelf platform, all of these issues will in fact be a "non-issue"...

Look at these costs in reality and add them to the MASSIVE base cost of the aircraft anyway and I begin to see why Mr Kohler thinks these costs would be "prohibitive".

But hey, I'm sure us armchair professionals know better and someone will wheel out some open source data which best suits their argument...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think people need to look at this problem somewhat objectively. The USA has concerns with transfer of technology on the F-35. Are these concerns magically going to disappear on the F-22 even IF the US law is changed to allow it's export?

Says something about the much lauded F35's LO capabilities doesent it.

Everyone keeps saying how much more technologically advanced the F-22 is. I cannot see ANY evidence whatsoever that the USA is likely to be MORE accomodating with respect to source codes etc on a MORE technologically advanced platform.

I agree, they're going to be damn touchie about exporting a platform with LO tech that effective on it, not to mention the APG 77. Thats why these sensitive area's have to be at F35 standard for this to become viable.

Second, the F-22 is currently selling for a US$175m a piece in 2006 dollars. THAT is the cost for the USAF. The main advantage for the US in selling this aircraft to others is defraying the massive development cost. Anyone who thinks they'll get around paying their share of the developments costs for this aircraft is simply delusional.

Of cource not, that would be part of the flyaway cost.

Added on top of these enormous costs, is the cost of PAYING L-M to downgrade the capability of the F-22. A cost which has been speculated (because it HASN"T been done yet) at USD$1b. It may be more and in any case increases the risk of the acquisition.

which equates to a 2~3% increase in unit cost.

Then the aircraft has to be modified to perform the roles we require, most prominently, the addition of an EO/IR sensor suite, networking and sensor "fusion" and maritime strike capabilities we require in our next generation platform to get the most from it and have it fit in to our force structure. Of course, with the USA's eagerness to provide source codes on it's high end technologies and our defence industries tremendous track record of integrating advanced technologies into an off the shelf platform, all of these issues will in fact be a "non-issue"...

This is no were near as hard as you make it out to be. As far as maritime strike you only need to intergrate the weapons, which were doing on the hornets right now. The radars fine. i'm sure LM could equip a Block III SH EO/IR suete on it, if we REALLY needed it, and i dont see why given the all weather SAR and targeting capabilities of the APG 77. Just cus the F35's got it doesnt mean its needed for any of the roles we will be using it for that the USAF wont, or maritime strike. As far as sensor fusion and networking, it'll allready be more than adequate on the baseline model, it'll just need some ajustments to slot into our network. So really the only thing that would be needed would be the intergration of a shipbuster like NSM, and probably JASSM or a navalised JSOW-ER. I dont think that is at all beyonde the capability of the RAAF to handle.

Look at these costs in reality and add them to the MASSIVE base cost of the aircraft anyway and I begin to see why Mr Kohler thinks these costs would be "prohibitive".

But hey, I'm sure us armchair professionals know better and someone will wheel out some open source data which best suits their argument...

So your looking at a 3% increase because of design changes, intergration of an AShM which we would allready have in stock, and maybe an extra ~5% due to development costs. Thats a ~7% on late production birds. And the risk would be shared with the JSDF. And this cost needs to be weighed against the unmatched capability you get for it. Now who's marching out the doom and gloom when it best suits his argument???

 

[Grand Danois]

Good to see I read correctly into the ALP/F-22A matter.

Next up is working on my English punctuation.

 

[Rich]

Maybe they just dont like selling a platform that they just cant counter, to anyone? If so theres a touch of paranoia in that belief.

Oh boy, here we go again.

 

[swerve]

Good to see I read correctly into the ALP/F-22A matter.

Next up is working on my English grammar.

Problem grammar yours with I see don't.

 

[Grand Danois]

Problem grammar yours with I see don't.

I just now corrected it to punctuation. My native language has three rules. So one has to be consistent and stay with one system. English is another system and I just realised how heavily my native punctuation permeate what I write.

 

[Brandon]

Ridiculous

First of all, I'm new here so hi everybody.

Anyways, I strongly disagree with exporting the F-22. The purpose of creating this fighter was so that the U.S., and only the U.S., would have complete air dominance. These countries can't just keep pushing when we already say no. If the F-22 EVER gets exported, I will be very skeptical about how effective our export policies are.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Oh boy, here we go again.

Sorry mate. I just cant figure out why you wont export it, even a less capable version to your closest allies.

• It makes economic sence for the US
• Exporting the platform will help to pay off some of the massive costs sunk on the thing
• In any decent conflict involving a coaltionion with said partners the F22 is going to fill a neshe that has to be filled. i.e. its the only realy capable interceptor out there (sorry EF2000 guys, its not in the same leauge), esecialy with the eveolving cruise missile threat globaly. Thats an extra streign on a small Raptor fleet that allready has duel roles.
• Selling it to tier one partners is not going to effect the F35 programe in any significant way.
• It makes any future platforms platforms the US decides to produce cheaper for you
• LM will most liekly get all of the work.

Now dont get your knickers in a twist! I'm not questioning your right not to sell it, just the reasoning. The whole "we built it to give us the edge and not someone else" argument, when talking about your closest allies, sounds a bit too emotionanal and nationalistic to be behind the real reasoning going on in the Pentagon/Congress. US policy makers tend to be logical (sometime that logic may be flawed) and if it makes economic and geo-strategic sence to expot it to the ADF/JSDF why wouldn't you? The only reason i can think of that isnt "NO MAMA, ITS MINE!!!:cry ", is that you guys dont like exportong VLO platforms because you have absoloutly no way to counter them yourselves. if so, and you consider the posability of Japan or Australia going to war with the US likely enough to not export the platform well nfloorl: just about sums that up. If the wory is about technology leaks, all the sensitive stuff would be removed anyway, and apart from the powerplant you wouldn't be exporting anything you wouldn't on the F35.

Its the only explination that makes any sence to me. Do you have a better one?