MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: Webmaster on May 16, 2005, 04:57:33 PM
-
Should the U.S. (re)consider to export its most advanced aircraft, the F/A-22 Raptor, to its closest allies?
The Foreign Military Sales program of the U.S. proved to be highly successfull in the past. Supporting national security, political goals, economic goals, military goals and interoperability with its allies. So what are the benefits and concerns for the United States if it would export their newest fighter:
Industrial considerations:
The Research & Development is largely completed, the production infrastructure is in place. Therefor an export version of the F/A-22 would benefit the production lines and US industry in general. Increased production can give a positieve return on investment, will increase competitiveness of the US in the fighter market specially but also in other industrial areas, and could ultimately decrease unit cost.
Increased flexbility:
If allies have their own F/A-22 support infrastructure, the US military will be more flexible in positioning the F/A-22 around the world.
US Displomacy:
Diplomacy is an important guarantor of American security. Giving trusted US allies access to a capabality such as the F/A-22, expresses confidence and recognition of the allies. This would advance diplomatic goals and gain access and leverage for US interetests.
Regional security:
Some believe that giving allies leading edge technology, combat capability and minimize their risk will contribute to regional stability. As they have better ability to fight along with the US and take on more missions on their own. It would demonstrate a commitment to their security by the US, and give them more confidence in the US and their own combat effectiveness. :-\ I fail to see how this would increase regional stability?
Interoperability:
A high level of interoperability with allies is very important to successfully conduct combat and post-conflict operations in a coalition environment. The US should not leave its allies behind in its technology advance.
Cost and Technology Concerns
1. US allies will not be interested in the F/A-22 because of its high cost.
2. Exporting the F/A-22 will lead to unwanted technology transfers.
For 1, one can argue that in a market of $158 billion, a superior product, although more expensive, will find a place in the market.
For 2, one can argue that the can be overcome these concerns. The most sensitive technology would not be included in the export version or would remain under US control. The US should limit who may buy them and make clear understanding that the technology can not be offered to third parties.
Conclusion
A carefully thought-out export version of the F/A-22 could benefit both the U.S. and its trusted allies.
All of above is a quick summary of an article by Jack Spencer and others, published by the Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/em970.cfm
My opinion
In my opinion, there are some more concerns and they are bigger than the article makes them appear.
Trusted Allies? Effect on diplomacy
I think the "trusted allies" is a big issue. How can they know which nations are among those? Although it may contribute to diplomacy offering the F/A-22 to one ally, it will negatively effect the diplomacy in other - perhaps more sensitive - countries who you deny access to the technology. For example think about Taiwan - China, Pakistan - India, Israel - Arabic world, Turkey - Greece.
Technology transfer and licensed production
Germany, France, UK have their own industries and they wouldn't want to buy export-downgraded F/A-22s and still don't get the desired technology level transfer. They want their industries to benefit as well and not buy off-the-US-shelf, they would want licensed production. So there goes the benefits for US production lines for a large part.
Then costs.
Politicians of nearly all allies, fail to see the need for high-tech high numbers of modern fighters. And other nations included. Of course it will find a market somewhere among the trusted allies (Japan should be a good candidate, and Australia would benefit), but will those numbers create a positive return on investment? I have my doubts, maybe it will be just enough to justify the costs of keeping the production line open and enforcing security and agreements on the technology secrets.
Where's the market?
I fail to see a sizeable market. Countries that can afford a proper number of them to keep the production lines open, have their own aviation industries and technology developments or can't be trusted. Countries that buy off-the-shelf can not afford them, are not trusted, are in a politically sensitive situation, or settle for something more economical.
Big trusted ally?
Israel would surely be interested in buying them. But can they be trusted? Their partnership in the JSF program has been suspended because of sales and technology transfers to China (and probably other non-US allies). Also how would providing the F/A-22 to Israel provide regional stability? Okay, they won't invade Israel again...but that's security, not regional stability. And here I mention again, the "diplomacy kick-back".
JSF perhaps Biggest Concern
The things with trust, diplomacy, return on investment...are all very well. But what the article fails to see is the impact it has on the JSF. The JSF is aimed at precisely the same market! US allies that need technological advanced American product for interoperability and combat effectiveness, but can be trusted with that technology. The JSF in order to be a economical success, should not be downgraded. So the advantages of a more expensive, downgraded F/A-22 with limited access to technology, and no license production, has what advantages over a JSF that will be operated in larger numbers, by more countries and does offer the industrial advantages. Those who can be trusted with F/A-22...will not buy Russian when they don't get it, they will buy the JSF or develop their own using US technology and parts. With the missed sales on the JSF program...how much can be gained for the US industry from selling smaller numbers of F/A-22?
;D Aight, that was me, now let's hear your opinions!
-
There are a lot of different angles to this problem. If it is a problem!
First of all, there was this little mistake the US made in the seventies, by selling one of their top-fighter, the F-14, to a trusted ally. Who would have thought that the situation in Iran could change that fast. Not even the NSA/CIA.
This means the US is gonna this think this one over quite thoroughly.
There are of course some allies that are trustworthy. Australia was mentioned by the author, the UK, some other NATO-allies. Japan is trusted, I think (and a possible buyer after the F-2 debacle).
That means there are some theoretical candidates. But why should they buy the F/A-22. I believe the unit price of one F/A-22 is about $ 300.000.000 (count the zero’s …). A good export sale could lower this price, but its never going to be cheap. It’s the most expensive of the ‘Big Four’. F/A-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale and the Grippen. You can buy about 4 Eurofighters for the price of 1 F/A-22!
Again, looking at capability, why should they buy it. OK, the F/A-22 is the best airplane of ‘Big Four’. But it only works as part of an integrated warfare-system like operated by the US. Buying a few F/A-22’s is great, but making full use of the extra capability (that makes it stand out over the other 3 aircraft) would mean a massive investment in a huge integrated system (AWACS, ELINT, etc.). Systems most countries don’t have and can't afford neither .
And by the way, the battlefield-dominance doctrine of the US will probably not work with smaller buyers. The US believes the enemy will not even try to send in aircraft with the F/A-22 hovering overhead. With 200+ aircraft in your inventory you’re probably right. But with a small number of F/A-22’s its possible the enemy might take a chance…
I think Lockheed-Martin should be extremely thankful they won the JSF competition…
-
It's too expensive I think nobody wants to see the most expansiva plane go down.
-
I think nobody wants to see the most expansiva plane go down.
What about the enemy..?
-
;) Hah
-
I wounder why U.S. always wins it's wars ?
-
F/A-22 Raptor is a Thrust Vectoring aircraft. As it is too expensive but every country to add in
its AF inventory.
-
Well to answer the question if the US should sell the F-22, it seems like there are just a number of problems that point to NO. As mentioned above, politics can be a touchy thing, even amongst trusted allies. The whole issue seems like it would cause a rift among the allies if a export version was sold only to trusted allies. And for those other allies that are not on the truasted list, they would be hurt(that is assuming they even wanted to buy a few F-22s), then resentment might be a brewing. I agree with what everyone else has had to say about this subject, I would say no do not stir up more problems and don't sell an export version.
-
I agree, and F/A-22s could still be deployed under US command to allied countries if they think it would increase security and regional stability. With regular or permanent deployment, the investment in the supporting infrastructure would pay off, and could be financed by the close allies if they want the US to be deployed on their territory (for example Iceland or Japan).
-
It's too expensive I think nobody wants to see the most expansiva plane go down.
No Dear
I think there are many countries wants to get F-22 Raptor.
-
At the moment it seems that the USA are going to buy max. 275 aircraft, perhaps even less than 200 :'( (USAF needs are for 380 Raptors).
So if the Raptor got export orders, this would result in a lower prize.
Giving the Raptor to trusted allies (Israel or Japan, wich is even interested in the Raptor) would strengthen the power position of the USA in these regions. With perhaps only 180 Raptors in US service, you can't deploy them all around the world, so having the aircraft already in potential crisis regions would be a positive thing.
-
I wounder why U.S. always wins it's wars ?
Lot of Fighter Jets, Personals, Missiles etc win's its war.
But Viatnam war not wins by USA.
-
NO because its fun fighting other fighters out there not the same one fighting each other. gotta have some fun not nowing the others ability!
-
Lot of Fighter Jets, Personals, Missiles etc win's its war.
But Viatnam war not wins by USA.
Hate, so say it but brawn does not always win wars. The US doesn't admit defeat in Vietnam, (even though it was evidently clear of the outcome) though the US certainly had the capability to win the war, superior technology, highly trained military, and logistical support, but it lacked planning, during the vietnam conflict the orders were coming down from washington as oppossed to the field generals in country, the decission making was left to the politicians they know dick about fighting an enemy that they know absolutly nothing about.
I'm sorry I'll be quiet now, by no means am I trying to give the wrong image or the wrong impression.
-
Well you are right on one point. The most common excuse they use of the vietnam war is: They won the battles but lost the war.
But i think all that "chest out, flex your biceps" mentality from the cold war era have stayed with US goverment. Thou rest of the world have adapted to a more relaxed way of life. Guess thats why many countries find them insulting.
-
Well you are right on one point. The most common excuse they use of the vietnam war is: They won the battles but lost the war.
But i think all that "chest out, flex your biceps" mentality from the cold war era have stayed with US goverment. Thou rest of the world have adapted to a more relaxed way of life. Guess thats why many countries find them insulting.
Oh I agree with you 100%, it's kind of like "act now, ask questions later"
-
The discussion is in the spotlight again, but still not reaching the top decision makers yet.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,88282,00.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl
-
Well I think it shouldnt be offered, like the first post said, most of our big allies (except Isreal) have their own projects and the other ones will sell the technology and the other ones cant afford it and/or keep them in good repair.
I say sell them the F-4, F-16, F/A-18, F-14, etc.
-
I've heard Japan is a front runner to buy the F-22. Since they are relegated to a Self-Defense Force, their version will be stripped of the air to ground capabilities present in the USAF version. This will help lower the cost, probably a decent amount.
Also something I noticed is Japan's location, close to China. What is the Raptor still being delevoped for? In case war with China breaks out. Where are the Raptors being stationed? Almost exclusively to the West. I think the Air Force views a potential sale to Japan as the potential to have a free unit of their premier weapon stationed exactly where they want it.
-
First of all, big welcome to Tomcatboy48237 and wwj6392. I'm glad you decided to join!
Good point Tomcat. Although I don't believe much in the Self Defense force thing much (Japan deployed troops to Iraq) I think you have a fair point, that Japan operating F-22s has more pros than cons for the US. Also if Japan operates them, and the US operates them from Japan (and South Korea probably), it makes it worthwhile to put infrastructure and logistics into place for premanent deployment. However up till now, the US wants to base them at Alaska (Elmendorf AFB) and Hawaii (Hickam AFB) I think, both already pretty close to east Asia. So not exclusively to the West as you said...
The others up till now are currently Langley AFB and preferred is Holloman AFB.
Japan is also one of the few allies with enough budget to acquire them, and one of the few allies that would want it without destabilizing the region.
The only problem with such a sale to Japan, I think, is that Taiwan will be requesting them next. China (probably one of the biggest trade partners of the USA) won't be happy about that you know.
-
Yep, good points also.
However up till now, the US wants to base them at Alaska (Elmendorf AFB) and Hawaii (Hickam AFB) I think, both already pretty close to east Asia. So not exclusively to the West as you said...
The others up till now are currently Langley AFB and preferred is Holloman AFB.
I generalized them as the west coast of the US, but those were the places I was referring to.
-
Hehehe, ah west coast... sorry, for me the east-coast is in the west, and the west-coast is closest to the far east... so that's why I misunderstood ;D
-
It's all good, haha. Where are you at anyways?
-
Not only China but N. Korea also. Korea isn't a big military power, however S.Korea and Japan need something to scear the glowing nuclear commies with.
-
quite simply "no"- copies of the "raptor" will sooner or later end up stripped down ( by China or Russia )anyway- so why sell it and allow for cheap copy cats to be made- the Mig 29s ,SU-27s and SU-30s are still a preoblem , and good old U.S. tech- though only a few steps ahead, is none the less ahead and should stay that way !The allies- are happy with block 40/50 F-16s as well as the F/A 18C/Es,the improved F-15D-Ls ,and the UK, Germany,and France have the choice of Rafales or the Euro fighter,as well as some good stuff coming out of SAAB,so why even the feild- the F-15 and its smaller sibling,the f-16 ruled the roost for at least 20 yrs,and the U.S hasn't had a capable dog fighter since the P-51 and the F-86( the F-4 phantom was the American equivalent to a suped up grocery getter and its far superior replacement ,the F-14,has been kicked to the curb for the sake of modern $$ spending!).I say ,we build a better killing machine and let the rest catch up................
-
Maybe, but not all allies, but I guess that's why we have the F-35 JSF option as well. It's a shame though that experiences with countries as Iran and now maybe Venezuela will mean far better, more reliable and stable allies get the 'no' on the Raptor but also on Technology Transfer and Software codes to modify according to specific needs (remember recent UK-US row over the JSF tech transfer.)
I say ,we build a better killing machine and let the rest catch up................
Ah, ok, but then don't come and complain that your allies are lagging behind technology wise and cooperation was crap because of it! With the current (and for a while continiuing) political climate, the US can not fight wars on its own, it won't be accepted. They want allies in as well, maybe not for their capabilities but for their political support. And let your allies develop their own systems, but when something revolutionary comes from the European the US are quick to intervene, threathen, or at least distort possible sales to foreign countries that are not kissing Bush's behind.
Then finally another perspective... I think we all know the saying keeps your friends close, but your enemies closer. OR something like this... if you bring this into the argument, it might be actually good to export high tech planes and weapons, and you won't be surprised by any Su-27 derivaties and other capable foreign planes.This is of course a precarious argument..., but think about it..., I am putting my hand in the fire now...tricky example but what if the US supplied the Iraqi insurgents (or whatever you want to call them) with anti-vehicle mines... wouldn't that make it easier for the troops than now having to cope with IEDs (inprovised explosive devices)... ;)
@ Tomcatboy: I'm in the Netherlands... Sweden soon...
-
Well you are right on one point. The most common excuse they use of the vietnam war is: They won the battles but lost the war.
But i think all that "chest out, flex your biceps" mentality from the cold war era have stayed with US goverment. Thou rest of the world have adapted to a more relaxed way of life. Guess thats why many countries find them insulting.
Yeah,it has - but if the "rest" of the world would stop fence sitting and DO something about the crack pot despots in the World and the potential threat they bring( like Irans prez and that tyrant in Nor Korea) you would see so much "U.S. meddling"- it only takes a "few" yrs for you Euros to forget- in your grandparents time- everybody thought that leave well enough alone mentality,until "uncle Adolf" was either sitting in your kitchen or had his nazi goons sharpening their bayonets at your front doors!Waiting until you SEE a threat is usually TOO LATE.The U.S. is inspired by REAL history.It sat back after WWI and stayed out of "way"-Hitler and the japanese War machine nearly took over the world.And of course you all seem to forget that Stalin was threatening you right after WW2-and his gov;t continued to threaten West europe until Ron Reagan and the "insulting" U.S of A closed the book on Commie Russia-many of your nations have never had to taste war or threat of it thanks to "American Muscle flexing".We also learned a lesson from vietnam-PLAY TO WIN-SCREW WORLD OPINION. HAD we bombed the commie North right away like we did in '72,we'd have beaten them-worrying about nations who aren't stepping up to make sure the rest of the world is safe is a joke-so sue us if we act selfish and rude- our idea of defense is to go over in our neighbors yard and kill his pest problem so that it doesn't end up in ours-even if our nieghbor is too dumb or cowardly, or lazy or uncaring to do something about the problem.......
-
I've seen the "Soviet Muscle flexing", if it's anything like US'es, then god help the people towars who they flex!!
I sencierly hope that EU will grow stronger in military strenght, cause US is out of control.
You know they bombed Fallujah with white phosphoruse :-X
-
I've seen the "Soviet Muscle flexing", if it's anything like US'es, then god help the people towars who they flex!!
I sencierly hope that EU will grow stronger in military strenght, cause US is out of control.
You know they bombed Fallujah with white phosphoruse :-X
I think the EU is powerful enough. In it's own sense. And, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it the Soviet's brute force that eventually ran them dry and finally, a major loss to the USA???
-
The military was still strong, but in the end of 1980s and begining of 1990s they were afreid to use it against crowds in larger scale.
-
Hmmm. Thanks. I still wonder, though, selling the best fighter of the time is a bit much...
-
In 10-15 years there will be a new best one :)
Better sell them to japs and make some profit.
-
No doubt about it. I'm sure the Japs are just itching to get their hands on it.
Maybe waiting a while for the USAF fleet to grow a bit first, then selling it would be wiser. After all, if the USAF has only a small number, they would be unable to maintain air superiority over the other nations with a weapon of the same power and potency.
-
NEVER EVER SELL THE F-22 UNTIL IT BECOMES REALLY OLD TECHNOLOGY!!!
-
Lot of Fighter Jets, Personals, Missiles etc win's its war.
But Viatnam war not wins by USA.
Its not just our number. Its our militarys will to do whats right. Its our militarys superior technology. Its our training, its our members bravery and duty and many, many other things. and about Vietnam, our ground losses were heavy for what? not for us but for them. And can someone tell me our current relations with South Vietnam?
-
NEVER EVER SELL THE F-22 UNTIL IT BECOMES REALLY OLD TECHNOLOGY!!!
Deal! Let germany and uk sell their typhoon, france sell their rafael and sweeds sell their Jas-39 to everyone who currently are looking at US techs. And what would be left of US economy then? ::) ;D
Only the Israeli and Hizbullah conflict brough in for US $319 million and some more probably.
-
NEVER EVER SELL THE F-22 UNTIL IT BECOMES REALLY OLD TECHNOLOGY!!!
AGREED. PERIOD.
-
Hey Cobra 2, there is no more South Vietnam, just Vietnam. the US relationship w/Vietnam is a good one now, ironically. Americans are now tourists in Vietnam - ain't that something else! First we were POWs and they took our lives, now we're tourists and they're taking our money! go figure!
-
Hey wait. I disagree on the 'until old technology' point. Won't it be the most pricy antique piece of junk on the market then? I say just leave it like the 117.
-
i thought that the F-35 and the Rapton were designed around the same sort of principal. why would the US sell its brand new fighter to Allies when it can give them a fighter that isnt as capable, even with its stealth capabilities, and still have them believe it can?
like the Raptor has supercruise, and in not sure if the -35 does..
-
F-135 engines are more powerful than the F-119 engines, used on the Raptor. The two fighters were built on the same lines, but the F-35 is more of a utility jet than the Raptor, which performs, to the best of my knowledge, more delicate operations.
-
i thought the J-35 was built to replace the F-18
and the Raptor to replace the F-15 fighter??
-
J-35 is still the Saab Draken in my book, but you mean the JSF or F-35
Yes, but it is a Joint Strike Fighter, which means a strike fighter for all three services. So the F-35A conventional take-off and landing variant will replace the F-16 and A-10 of the Air Force. The F-35B SVTOL will replace the Harriers of the USMC. And the F-35C carrier capable will replace the F/A-18C/D of the US Navy and USMC.
Yes, the Raptor is only replacing the F-15C/D fighters, so that's why they still needed a more economical F-16 multi-role replacement.
Exports will probably consists of mostly F-35As, maybe even downgraded for some countries, and F-35Bs. I don't think there is a big market for the F-35Cs.
-
J-35 is a Draken, yes.
The JSF probably won't come up to the costs that the Raptor totals now, mainly because of the already present market for it. But this is a suject about the Raptors, after all. Not the JSF.
-
oops my bad
i did mean the F-35 JSF
-
No prob. So now my opinion is that USA should sell downgraded F-22s
-
haha
sell the downgraded version
typical American Military
-
Hm. Well, thy could always sell the full version, make the whole world as poor as an empty wallet, and then take back the F-22s, which the rest of the world can't afford to maintain, for a third of the price they sold them for. Wow-wee!!!
-
capitalism at its finest ;D
-
Poor Japan. :( and Australia ;D (just kidding) adn UK and the rest of the world. :(
-
Australia was looking at buying F-22's, and apparently we got pretty far on them before deciding to get the F-35 junkheaps
-
Pretty far, as in getting the credit card ready?