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

[rjmaz1]

• Selling it to tier one partners is not going to effect the F35 programe in any significant way.

I completely disagree. The F-35 is very close to the edge of a steep cliff even the smallest reduction in sales may be the straw that breaks the camels back.

The F-35 program must be protected at all cost. To deny Australia and Japan the F-22 is a small price to pay to avoid the complete faliure of the biggest defence program in history.

Sure Australia and Japan may buy the F-22 and the F-35 program may still succeed, however its not worth the risk. We all know that the US wants to reduce its own orders but cannot reduce them as the death spiral would begin.

If Japan ordered 300 F-35's and Israel 100 F-35's.. thats 400 F-35's that the USAF doesn't have buy. That money saved is very important as they cant really afford them anyway.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[alexsa]

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

The F-22 in its current form does not have the strike capability of the intended capability of the F-35. What will a detuned version have (at probably greater cost)? Sounds like a poor idea to me.

If JSF lives up to expectations it will be an important, and probably the correct, aircraft for Australia to purchase in large numbers at this time. Depending on whether;

• the US keep producing the F-22 so the cost is reduced
• they decide to export the F-22; and
• if the SH are kept for a longer period that just the interim bridging option

then perhaps our F-22 focus should be as a SH replacement.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Some may claim that's what the F35 is for, mate....

Pretty huge capability gap between the two platforms, dont you think?????

 

[Todjaeger]

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

Some may claim that's what the F35 is for, mate....

Agreed... While there are concerns that the US has no real counter to the VLO/LO tech on the F-22, I don't think there is any real concerns that any sold to Australia or Japan would be used against the US. The concerns as I see it are about control/dissemination of the technology, as well as the political aftermath of such a sale.

IMV, with control of the technology, part of the issue is obvious, keeping the tech out of the hands of threat nations. This has been an issue with some countries (who shall remain unnamed) being careless and/or selling tech to countries that the US doesn't want to have the tech. Then there are concerns about possible dissemination of tech in the event of an equipment failure/operational loss. Other nations apart from the US might not have the desired capability to mount an op to retrieve or destroy the aircraft/wreckage. This could put the US into the difficult position of possible compromise in the main A-to-A fighter or conduct such an op themselves. If the loss occurred as a result of hostile or combat ops that could then draw the US into hostilities they might have preferred to sit out. Also, examination of the aircraft could inspire other countries to develope LO/VLO methods and tech that might not be controlled as US IP and could therefore, again, end up in the hands of nations that the US doesn't want to have LO tech. Also, with more users of the aircraft, and over a wider part of the world, there is a greater chance for any potential "vulnerability" in the design to become publically known and potentially exploited.

Lastly, there are the political ramifications of such a sale. IMV these are significant, on both the domestic (US) and international sides. Without dipping too much into internal US politics, there is a divide between the two competing parties in the US and neither has a major edge over the other. Given the concerns about keeping the US safe, the politically safe thing to do is not allow the F-22 to be exported.

On the international side, there are a number of aspects to the issue. The first is the effect such a sale would have on allied nations that would like to purchase the F-22, but are denied (US and UK). Such an outcome is unlikely to improve the relationship between the two countries. Then there would be concern over changes in the relationship between allied countries that are allowed to purchase the F-22 and those allies that aren't (Oz and UK). One also most consider that some countries don't want other countries to have the F-22 and would be upset with the US (think how happy the PRC or N Korea would be if Japan and/or S Korea get Raptors). Then there is the possibility that an arms race might be initiated by such a sale (Oz and Indonesia, Japan and the PRC or N Korea).

The US gov't, if acting responsibly (not jokes, please...) has to weigh all these factors and then decide what is in the best interests of the US. So far, it appears that what is in the best interests of the US is to not allow the sale. Given the state of the world, and US relations with the rest of the world, I find that conclusion acceptable.

-Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The F-22 in its current form does not have the strike capability of the intended capability of the F-35. What will a detuned version have (at probably greater cost)? Sounds like a poor idea to me.

The F22 has all the deep strike capability wee need at the moment. It is the replacement for the F117 and therefore does have a very decent generic strike capability. The only thing it does lack is maritime strike, for which it just needs the right weapons intergrated, and CAS/BID, at which the F35 will be a much better platform. Therefore a high low mix is preferable, and will be adopted by the USAF, (unlike us).

So in reality you get a platform that can penitrate any IADS with ease, hit high value strategic targets without fear from defences, is the most capable air superiority fighter by far, the only platform in production (maybe the typhoon) that can adequatly conter the long range cruise missile threat, and can easily conduct devistating maritime strike due to the launch rages it can get to without detection. And a squadron sized purchase is a bad idea?

If JSF lives up to expectations it will be an important, and probably the correct, aircraft for Australia to purchase in large numbers at this time. Depending on whether;

• the US keep producing the F-22 so the cost is reduced
• they decide to export the F-22; and
• if the SH are kept for a longer period that just the interim bridging option

then perhaps our F-22 focus should be as a SH replacement.

That has allmays been my intention and hope that the RAAF will end up with a force structure something like 3 squadrons of F35A's and 1 squadron of F22A's (maybe one of the F35 squadrons could be the B model).

A 4 squadron F22 fource structure, or a 3 squadron for that matter, is to costley and wont give us the tactical strike capabilities of the F35 without seroius modification. The only option i have been hoing for is that the SH can be replaced, not with F35's but F22's, so we will actually have both the "hi" and not just the "lo" mix.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Agreed... While there are concerns that the US has no real counter to the VLO/LO tech on the F-22, I don't think there is any real concerns that any sold to Australia or Japan would be used against the US. The concerns as I see it are about control/dissemination of the technology, as well as the political aftermath of such a sale.

IMV, with control of the technology, part of the issue is obvious, keeping the tech out of the hands of threat nations. This has been an issue with some countries (who shall remain unnamed) being careless and/or selling tech to countries that the US doesn't want to have the tech. Then there are concerns about possible dissemination of tech in the event of an equipment failure/operational loss. Other nations apart from the US might not have the desired capability to mount an op to retrieve or destroy the aircraft/wreckage. This could put the US into the difficult position of possible compromise in the main A-to-A fighter or conduct such an op themselves. If the loss occurred as a result of hostile or combat ops that could then draw the US into hostilities they might have preferred to sit out. Also, examination of the aircraft could inspire other countries to develope LO/VLO methods and tech that might not be controlled as US IP and could therefore, again, end up in the hands of nations that the US doesn't want to have LO tech. Also, with more users of the aircraft, and over a wider part of the world, there is a greater chance for any potential "vulnerability" in the design to become publically known and potentially exploited.

Tech getting into the wrong hands is a big issue, but again a down geared version would only have a better powerplant and TV than the F35, the rest could be at a similar level (avionics, RAM ect), so that risk is pretty much mitigated.

Annother point is that they will be exporting LO tech to many many nations around the world with the F35, and this would be no different for an exportable and less LO F22.

Lastly, there are the political ramifications of such a sale. IMV these are significant, on both the domestic (US) and international sides. Without dipping too much into internal US politics, there is a divide between the two competing parties in the US and neither has a major edge over the other. Given the concerns about keeping the US safe, the politically safe thing to do is not allow the F-22 to be exported.

Actually the democrats have a huge edge at the moment. If they decided to lift the ban i would expect a backlash from republicans, but i doubt it would be significant (especially when you controll both houses). And i personaly think that exporting this platform just isnt part of the concerns over there. i mean why should they care, they allready have it.

On the international side, there are a number of aspects to the issue. The first is the effect such a sale would have on allied nations that would like to purchase the F-22, but are denied (US and UK). Such an outcome is unlikely to improve the relationship between the two countries. Then there would be concern over changes in the relationship between allied countries that are allowed to purchase the F-22 and those allies that aren't (Oz and UK). One also most consider that some countries don't want other countries to have the F-22 and would be upset with the US (think how happy the PRC or N Korea would be if Japan and/or S Korea get Raptors). Then there is the possibility that an arms race might be initiated by such a sale (Oz and Indonesia, Japan and the PRC or N Korea).

The UK have the typhoon and wouldn't apply to buy the thing anyway. Thats why were only talking about JSDFand ADF. If they did want it they would be first in line you would assume.

As far changes in relationships. We are the only nation that has been sold the SH. The Malaysians wanted them for ages but were denied. Did that have any effect on Aus/malaysian relations? the fact is the US sells different tech to different alliesall the time and the political influences are minimal.

As far as an arms race, well theres one allready going on in east asia. As far as other nations, NK is irrelevent (who cares if they get upset, there on as much of a war footing as is humanly possible at the moment anyway), and its only PROC you've got to wory about, who are rearming on amassive scale as we speak anyway. And with the indonesian question, I'm not to sure how they are reacting to the masive increase in the ADF's defenceive and offencive capability with JORN, F35, Wedgetail, LHD's, M1A1's, tigers and AWD's, and how the a squadron of F22's would dramaticaly alter this equasion. So in my opinion its a bit of a moot point.

The US gov't, if acting responsibly (not jokes, please...) has to weigh all these factors and then decide what is in the best interests of the US. So far, it appears that what is in the best interests of the US is to not allow the sale. Given the state of the world, and US relations with the rest of the world, I find that conclusion acceptable.

-Cheers

i personaly dont see the consequences as being anywere near as dire, excpt the US shares some of the R&D cost, reduces the load of their fleet, and gets overdeas upgrade and maintinance work.

 

[Tasman]

That has allmays been my intention and hope that the RAAF will end up with a force structure something like 3 squadrons of F35A's and 1 squadron of F22A's (maybe one of the F35 squadrons could be the B model).

A 4 squadron F22 fource structure, or a 3 squadron for that matter, is to costley and wont give us the tactical strike capabilities of the F35 without seroius modification. The only option i have been hoing for is that the SH can be replaced, not with F35's but F22's, so we will actually have both the "hi" and not just the "lo" mix.

That fits in pretty well with what I would like to see and it also means that the timeline for a decision on the F-22 component could be delayed for some time, by which time any questions about 'export' F-22s should be well and truly sorted out one way or another. The only reason I would see for Australia to enter early discussions re the F-22 (apart from a request from a new Labor government for political purposes) would be if it wanted to piggy back on any Japanese order. To do this could be financially advantageous and would also ensure that we were not the only operators of this version (bearing in mind the comments made by Magoo). But even if it did this any RAAF component of a combined order could, IMO, come near the end of the production run.

Cheers

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Todjaeger]

Tech getting into the wrong hands is a big issue, but again a down geared version would only have a better powerplant and TV than the F35, the rest could be at a similar level (avionics, RAM ect), so that risk is pretty much mitigated.

Annother point is that they will be exporting LO tech to many many nations around the world with the F35, and this would be no different for an exportable and less LO F22.

Part of what seems to make the F-22 a success IS the tech included in it... If it gets downgraded (if that is even an option, remember much of LO comes from the shaping...) to a sufficient level to equal that of the F-35 the question will then become this. Is an F-22 (B?) Raptor something other nations would be interested in, particularly when other options like the Typhoon are available?

As for the export of the LO tech in the F-35/JSF, remember that program is part of a consortium. The participating members all contributed money and in some cases I expect, technology, to the program. Therefore it is reasonable for the participants to get something out of it. And don't forget the tech exchange troubles the UK has been having with the program...

Actually the democrats have a huge edge at the moment. If they decided to lift the ban i would expect a backlash from republicans, but i doubt it would be significant (especially when you controll both houses). And i personaly think that exporting this platform just isnt part of the concerns over there. i mean why should they care, they allready have it.

I'm not here to discuss politics, so I'll just respond with this. I disagree with the way you're reading the situation. If you'd like me to clarify, PM me.

The UK have the typhoon and wouldn't apply to buy the thing anyway. Thats why were only talking about JSDFand ADF. If they did want it they would be first in line you would assume.

I was just using the UK as an example, though I think it likely that the RAF would be interested in the F-22 if the LO/tech was essentially the same as USAF versions, even with the Typhoon.

As far changes in relationships. We are the only nation that has been sold the SH. The Malaysians wanted them for ages but were denied. Did that have any effect on Aus/malaysian relations? the fact is the US sells different tech to different alliesall the time and the political influences are minimal.

Remember though, how potentially unbalancing the F-22 could make the situation. Denying Malaysia the SH isn't the same, because there are other similar aircraft available from other sources. With the F-22, depending on the kit, might not have a close rival in the A-to-A role.

As far as an arms race, well theres one allready going on in east asia. As far as other nations, NK is irrelevent (who cares if they get upset, there on as much of a war footing as is humanly possible at the moment anyway), and its only PROC you've got to wory about, who are rearming on amassive scale as we speak anyway. And with the indonesian question, I'm not to sure how they are reacting to the masive increase in the ADF's defenceive and offencive capability with JORN, F35, Wedgetail, LHD's, M1A1's, tigers and AWD's, and how the a squadron of F22's would dramaticaly alter this equasion. So in my opinion its a bit of a moot point.

And remember when Indonesia was upset at the announcement that the RAAF would be acquiring JASSM for use on the F-18 A/Bs to cover the strike role with the impending retirement of the F-111? Many of the current projects are aimed at replacing a current capability that is reaching the end of service life with a newer, more capable version. Given the edge the RAAF already has, and is expected to expand upon with the F-35, it's likely Indonesia would question why Oz feels the need to make the gap even larger...

i personaly dont see the consequences as being anywere near as dire, excpt the US shares some of the R&D cost, reduces the load of their fleet, and gets overdeas upgrade and maintinance work.

The potential outcome of such sales might not be as negative as I touched on, I agree. The fact is though, those situations may very well come to pass. As I'd mentioned, the US needs to decide what is in the best interests of the US. Weighing the risk of not selling the F-22 vs. selling the F-22 with the attendant possibilities... For now, maintaining sole ownership of F-22s seems the better choice for the US.

-Cheers

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Aussie Digger]

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

Sure does. It makes them seem amazing and something that makes me a bit more confident in the capability of the F-35 than any amateur "external reflectivity study" that purports to show how LO it may be...

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

IF it's that low. The doom and gloom merchants prattle on about the risk inherent in the F-35 program, yet dismiss wholesale changes to the capability of the F-22 as "simple and easy". More delusion.

It seems to me that the figure Mr Kohler came up with was very "rough" to say the least. Given the history of modifying base platforms in Australia, this seems to be a tad optimistic to me.

Or do the WELL known problems with the AGM-142 integration, Seasprite, M113-UP, FFG-UP and AP-3C - UP, again magically disappear when the F-22 suddenly becomes involved?

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.

Can the F-22 accept the "Advanced Harpoon Weapon control system"? Because this has to be integrated to make full use of the Harpoon II...

As to the EO/IR targetting option, I guess you're unfamiliar with RAAF rules of engagement then? If you think radar is sufficient to generate accurate enough targetting information to satisfy Government policy in A2G missions, you need to read a bit more braodly I'd suggest...

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???

I don't argue that the F-22 would make a superb air combat aircraft for Australia. it DOES have significant issues in anything OTHER than A2A combat and limited strike profiles, though.

Sorry but even 7% on USD$175m is going to be too high a price to pay for Australia, and perhaps others. This assumes of course IF, it's actually allowed to be sold to us and anyone in Australia happens to be in a position to actually effect change and WANTED to pay that much for it.

More "if's and buts" there than the F-35 project, but that's just my opinion...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Pretty huge capability gap between the two platforms, dont you think?????

In A2A combat, yes. Anything else, no.

Pretty huge price to pay for a greater capability in one single increasingly narrow role anyway, when other more cost effective options exist.

F-22's the only "decent interceptor out there". Damn what is the rest of the WORLD DOING?

Now apparently the entire WORLD's air forces are corrupt and incompetent. Does anyone else smell a touch of obsession around here lately???

 

[Tasman]

Japan urged to buy F-35 rather than F-22

In a report that I think is significant to the Australian situation the Financial Times states that Japan is being urged by the Pentagon to buy the F-35 rather than the F-22.

However, Kenneth Krieg, the Under-Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, also acknowledged that he "is only one part of the decision-making process."

Japan is urged to consider F-35 jets
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington

Published: May 14 2007 22:53 | Last updated: May 14 2007 22:53

Japan should consider buying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter instead of the more advanced F-22 Raptor if Tokyo wants a fleet of next-generation fighter jets, says the top Pentagon acquisitions official.

“[The F-22] was never considered for export when it was designed, developed and built,” Kenneth Krieg, the under-secretary of defence for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the Financial Times.

The Raptor is the most advanced of the latest family of fighters, known as fifth generation, in production for the US Air Force. “I have supported the position that says the fifth-generation aircraft for an export market...is the Joint Strike Fighter and not the F-22.”

The comments from the head of procurement at the Pentagon follows heavy lobbying of the Bush administration by Japan for the Raptor last month. Japan is expected to choose a replacement fighter for its ageing fleet of F-4 Phantoms next year. Its air force favours the F-22, which is built by a Lockheed Martin-led consortium.

But Tokyo is also considering Lockheed’s F-35, which is already on order with a number of foreign air forces, including the UK and Italy. Tokyo will also assess Boeing’s F-15 and F-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Current US law prohibits export of the F-22 and the US has previously rebuffed an approach by Australia, another strong US ally, for the aircraft.

While some administration officials support providing the close US ally with the F-22, others, including Mr Krieg, are concerned about sharing sensitive technology. But he acknowledges he is only one part of the decision-making process. “The extent to which there is a debate and a discussion happening above me, that discussion happens,” he said. Some officials are also wary about antagonising China by selling Japan the F-22, by far the most capable fighter.

Fumio Kyuma, the Japanese defence minister, raised the F-22 issue during recent meetings in Washington with Robert Gates, the US defence secretary. Thomas Schieffer, US ambassador to Tokyo, recently said he hoped Japan would end up with a new fleet that combined the JSF and the F-22.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/73b7ac0a-0261-11dc-ac32-000b5df10621.html

I was interested in the comment by the Japanese Defence Minister that he hoped Japan would eventually have a mix of F-22s and F-35s.

The report indicates to me that the US (especially the US military establishment) is still very reluctant to open up sales of the F-22 to any other country at this stage.

Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

In a report that I think is significant to the Australian situation the Financial Times states that Japan is being urged by the Pentagon to buy the F-35 rather than the F-22.

Of course from the US point of view selling the F-35 to Japan has many advantages.

Selling the F-22 has no advantages and many disadvantages.

 

[Aussie Digger]

In a report that I think is significant to the Australian situation the Financial Times states that Japan is being urged by the Pentagon to buy the F-35 rather than the F-22.

However, Kenneth Krieg, the Under-Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, also acknowledged that he "is only one part of the decision-making process."



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/73b7ac0a-0261-11dc-ac32-000b5df10621.html

I was interested in the comment by the Japanese Defence Minister that he hoped Japan would eventually have a mix of F-22s and F-35s.

The report indicates to me that the US (especially the US military establishment) is still very reluctant to open up sales of the F-22 to any other country at this stage.

Cheers

I wonder why Loren Thompson wasn't quoted in that article? Afterall, he apparently has a better insight into the US Government's intention than any mere Under Secretary ever could...

 

[AGRA]

I wonder why Loren Thompson wasn't quoted in that article? Afterall, he apparently has a better insight into the US Government's intention than any mere Under Secretary ever could...

Another that doesn't bother quoting Loren Thompson is the US's weekly defence rag Defense News. Their editorial in last week’s edition was scathing of any attempt to sell the F-22 to Japan. For an interesting new (for this debate) reason.

Sale of the F-22 to Japan would piss off South Korea... The editorial and several supporting articles talked about just what a millstone Japan is around the US's neck in their relationship to South Korea, China and Taiwan not to mention South East Asia. While the Australian government is willing to make up with Japan after 1945 these other countries aren't. The advantage of not being occupied by them.

Providing new capability arms to Japan and not to other close allies in Asia is a dangerous path for the US.

Fortunately for west-orientated Asian air forces the F-35 can meet all of their requirements that the F-22 can. Except one: 2010-15 operational capability. This is good news for Boeing who should be able to sell more F-15E B2 and F/A-18E/F B2s on the back of it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Another that doesn't bother quoting Loren Thompson is the US's weekly defence rag Defense News. Their editorial in last week’s edition was scathing of any attempt to sell the F-22 to Japan. For an interesting new (for this debate) reason.

Sale of the F-22 to Japan would piss off South Korea... The editorial and several supporting articles talked about just what a millstone Japan is around the US's neck in their relationship to South Korea, China and Taiwan not to mention South East Asia. While the Australian government is willing to make up with Japan after 1945 these other countries aren't. The advantage of not being occupied by them.

Providing new capability arms to Japan and not to other close allies in Asia is a dangerous path for the US.

Fortunately for west-orientated Asian air forces the F-35 can meet all of their requirements that the F-22 can. Except one: 2010-15 operational capability. This is good news for Boeing who should be able to sell more F-15E B2 and F/A-18E/F B2s on the back of it.

I agree. BUSH and the next President Elect himself could come out and publicly state that the USA won't sell the F-22 and these people would still argue that the issue is "undecided" and that we haven't really "pushed the issue sufficiently".

 

[Waylander]

It could not only be good news for boeing but also for the EF consortium, or for Dassault.

Japan needs mainly an air superiority fighter and they need it more sooner than later as an replacement for their Phantoms.
This should give the EF and the Rafale a chance in a competition.

 

[Scorpion82]

It could not only be good news for boeing but also for the EF consortium, or for Dassault.

Japan needs mainly an air superiority fighter and they need it more sooner than later as an replacement for their Phantoms.
This should give the EF and the Rafale a chance in a competition.

Dassault has already decided not to bid for the Japanese RfP. So it's down to Boeing and Eurofighter and maybe LM.