F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 24, 2007 Posts: 32

The line "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government." is Obey's line. And it's in the defense appropriations acts from 1998 and 2007. It's just been rolled over. Obey's amendment still stands....hence why everyone quotes it.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

Fine...whatever. It DOES NOT ban the F-22 from export.

Forum Veteran Joined: Nov 07, 2003 Posts: 902

kinda late for a response. But I'm intrigued by a number of pointers posted by Thumper3181. I stand to be corrected on my responses. Perhaps the more senior members of the board e.g.elp can fill in where I'm wrong.

Thumper3181 wrote:

But then why would they spy on us? (Robert Pollard)

I'll take a miss. Much has been said.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Why would they sell out technology to China (Lavi-J10/Patriot)

I am under the impression, U.S. was actually the initiator to Israel-Sino arm trade relationship, started as early as 1970. Back then, when Carter administration was developing a strategic alliance with China against the Soviet Union and U.S. was not too concerned about Israel upgrading the PLA. Perhaps U.S. policy toward the China has since changed, but the common understand with the Israeli counterparts was not realigned? Rolling Eyes

Thumper3181 wrote:

Why do their defense contractors (funded by the USA) compete with ours?

"In 1987, the Congress designated Israel as a major non-NATO ally, which allowed Israeli industries to compete equally with NATO countries and other close U.S. allies for contracts to produce a significant number of defense items."
I'll understand from the statement, the competition includes American Defense Industries too. Rolling Eyes

Thumper3181 wrote:

Why do they "sell" us weapons performance information gathered while defending their country using weapons that we supplied them with.

Well, I guess that is why giant software companies (e.g. Microsoft) offer big reward to bug reporting.
No, seriously, I would think wartime data is extremely informative, not even very close allies can be made available, regardless the prices involved. Try asking, how often one can test out how well your Jammer pod works against military hardware using wartime frequency? Rolling Eyes

Thumper3181 wrote:

Why do they kill our sailors (USS Liberty)

With no disrespect to those directly/indirectly involved in USS Liberty, I do not see how the unfortunate incident can question the loyalty of an ally. The issued reports "concluded that the attack was the result of a mistake, caused by confusion among the Israeli attackers about the precise identity of the USS Liberty."
As controversial as the report is, that is how I would have read it. Just the way I read the official report to NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade; An unfortunate wartime error.

Really, at this stage Israel isn't even on the radar screen.................with the most likely candidate for the Raptor being Japan and/or South Korea.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

I'm wondering if there will be a request for the plane from Australia.

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 24, 2007 Posts: 32

checksixx wrote:

Fine...whatever. It DOES NOT ban the F-22 from export.

As long as you know two things. One, that there is a law that specifically targets the f-22.... and two, Obey's piece of legislation (the Obey amendment) is still there from 1997-98. The reason why you couldn't find it and thought is wasn't there is because it's an amendment (the act was altered, an addition was made).

Effectively, in a way, it does ban the exportation of the technology. By law it prohibits the USAF to use any money to market, sale or license the advance tactical fighter and or its technology to foreigners. Ban meaning-the act of prohibiting by law (Obey's legislation).

It's a major reason for anything to do with F-22 technology changing hands. That's why White house officials and foreign officials mention it. Like Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, specifically asking to do away with Obey's piece of legislation. To sell it to them, which they can't, would be exporting.

Dr. Michael Green
Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs, National Security Council.

White House National Security Council wrote:

"asking for the administration to work with committees on the Hill to change the Obey amendment and allow exports for national security reasons," Michael Green

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

Wrong again...it targets the funding for it, not the aircraft itself. I'm amazed you can't figure it out so I'll explain it. It specifies that the funding approved to fund the acquisition of the aircraft may not in any way be misappropriated or re-appropriated to fund exportation. In other words, any funds needed to make, market and produce an export variant would most likely have to come from the manufacturer. The aircraft specifically falls under the Arms Export Control Act meaning, like any other arm, it would have to receive approval to be sold under a FMS. To the end of the 'Obey Amendment'...I know I can't find it...thats because it was already added and signed into the Defense Appropriations Bill. Therefore, its no amendment, its law. But no, it doesn't target the aircraft itself, but rather the funds allocated to acquire it. If it was his intention to target the aircraft itself, he failed as a law maker.

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 24, 2007 Posts: 32

Actually, I'm wrong on no account and I've already explained it. To draw a line and say he's only targeting the funding but not the aircraft is asinine. "Failed as lawmaker" ....you keep telling yourself that but he achieved his goal of BANING THE EXPORTATION (through the funding as I said above). It has high ranking foreign officials trying to get the hill to change it. Of course he was targeting the aircraft, he refers to directly.

Mr. Obey's mission wrote:

So I said, if we are going to build the thing, at least let's make certain that we hang onto our technology edge this time.

However, you are wrong several times.

checksixx wrote:

Some on here talk like there is a law in place specifically for the F-22...that is not the case.

From the horses mouth.

Pentagon spokesman Air Force Maj. Patrick Ryder wrote:

I can tell you that, by law, the F/A-22 is not available for international sale. There has been specific legislation to that effect since 1997.

We've been through this, it's Mr. Obey's piece of legislation. It's law, so you can stop trying to spin it.

Here's a quote from the horses mouth.

thomas.loc.gov wrote:

to prohibit the sale of F-22 aircraft to any foreign government.

Yep, looks like they're talking about the f-22.....And to sell to a foreign government, would be to export it. Which Mr. Obey didn't want.

checksixx wrote:

That was from 1997 and is no longer in place

You were wrong here too. Defense Appropriations 1998...the funny thing is that you quoted it from the 2007 Defense Appropriations.

checksixx wrote:

All the bills and amendments are online and searchable (thomas.loc.gov)...unfortunately, you won't find anything other than the Arms Export Control Act which covers the F-22 along with everything else.

Wrong, see: Defense Appropriations 1998-2007. You found it and I found it.

So you see, you're in the wrong. And that's what's funny.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

Skunk...I'm done with you. Apparently you read into everything...thats a personal problem to which I cannot fix. I can read...others can read...it does not ban Raptor exports. Good luck.

Others: Here is an exerpt that really explains how the appropriations measure slams the door right now on exports. "Since the owner of the F-22A is the US DoD (not the principal industrial corporations that design
and produce it, eg: Lockheed Martin and Boeing), and the
Department has no other source of income than that
appropriated to it by the Congress - it is effectively and intently
impossible for the F-22A to be exported."

Check

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Israel in talks with USA over F-22 orders