F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: PACOM doesn't Want F-22 sold to Japan - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8739-start-15-sid-ef4fbcec766e377aec36796608e1f269.html
Printed on: 13 October 2008

Forum: F-22A Raptor

PACOM doesn't Want F-22 sold to Japan



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
checksixx
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2007 - 08:29 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1034

Status: Offline
I love it...once again an article quoting the 'Obey Amendment'...which does not exist. I've yet to see anyone produce it although some will argue tooth and foot that it exists. Oh well...either way, I'd rather no one else have the Raptor which in my opinion is much more capable than the F-35.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Oct 14, 2008 - 12:13 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor






This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
   
 
SkunkWorksPlayboy
PostPosted: Jul 31, 2007 - 04:21 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Apr 24, 2007
Posts: 32

Do you think it's strange that you're the only one that's not acknowledging the legislation, check?

It's in the defense appropriations acts from 1998 and 2007.

You know where to find acts. Keyword amendment.

You can always contact Mr. Obey and tell him his legislation does not exist, and while you're at it remind the Japanese diplomats too, because according to you they're quoting law that "does not exist".

Too funny.

http://obey.house.gov/HoR/WI07/Contact+Dave/

Post the email reply Wink

_________________
The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
checksixx
PostPosted: Jul 31, 2007 - 02:14 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1034

Status: Offline
SkunkWorksPlayboy wrote:
Do you think it's strange that you're the only one that's not acknowledging the legislation, check?

It's in the defense appropriations acts from 1998 and 2007.

You know where to find acts. Keyword amendment.

You can always contact Mr. Obey and tell him his legislation does not exist, and while you're at it remind the Japanese diplomats too, because according to you they're quoting law that "does not exist".

Too funny.

http://obey.house.gov/HoR/WI07/Contact+Dave/

Post the email reply Wink


Not at all. What I find strange is everyone's willingness to follow like sheep quoting it because some news source or government official quoted it. Don't YOU find it strange that no one has been able to post the law? Unlike you finding my view 'funny', I find your willingness to follow to be sad. I've already done my research on what the law specifically says about F-22 sales, and have even posted it here on this site...you obviously have not. Gotta go, I think I hear your shepherd calling. Laughing
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Roscoe
PostPosted: Jul 31, 2007 - 09:17 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jun 29, 2004
Posts: 972

Status: Offline
checksix wrote:
Not on technology export they don't.


As a matter of fact they do. Exports fall under two major categories. FMS, and direct commercial sales (DCS). The former is managed by DoD (and my old organization, SAF/IA, for the USAF) and usually involves complete systems. USAF policy is all exports must be approved via a fully staffed package to the CSAF or VCSAF prior to offering them for sale.

DCS can be either systems (UAE Block 60 for example) or technology. Both are conducted under licenses granted by the State dept. All license requests involving military equipment or technology are sent to the services for review. Technically, we have no veto hammer but in reality if any service says no, then it's usually no. Occasionally, a senior administration official will overrule based on political needs, but that is very rare. However, before the USAF license reviewer can approve anything, there has to be policy guidance in place. Same process as FMS. in either case, I guarantee you the signer wants to know the opinion of the theater staff. Depending on the significance of the proposed policy, it may or may not go to the Theater commander. F-22, you bet it did.

_________________
Roscoe

<b>"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns"</b> - <i>Dos Gringos</i>
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
checksixx
PostPosted: Jul 31, 2007 - 09:40 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1034

Status: Offline
I understand all of that...especially having Air Force experience under my belt also. I agree with everything you just said and it also backs up my point, theater CC's have no say in the matter. You can say 'unofficially they do' all day long, but the fact is they don't. They may share their opinions and whatever, but its just that. His opinion.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Loader2088
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 02:23 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 103

Status: Offline
It is possible that Adm Keating doesn't want the Raptor exported to Japan because he wants them to buy F-35's instead. The Navy has a huge stake in keeping Lightning II production high to reduce costs and has no stake in the Raptor. Just a thought. Personally, I can think of no reason Japan shouldn't be allowed to buy the F-22, since they have been a good ally and show every indication of being a better one in the future. They already have Patriot, AEGIS, etc.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
zeroyon04
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 09:59 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Oct 14, 2005
Posts: 45
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Loader2088 wrote:
It is possible that Adm Keating doesn't want the Raptor exported to Japan because he wants them to buy F-35's instead. The Navy has a huge stake in keeping Lightning II production high to reduce costs and has no stake in the Raptor. Just a thought. Personally, I can think of no reason Japan shouldn't be allowed to buy the F-22, since they have been a good ally and show every indication of being a better one in the future. They already have Patriot, AEGIS, etc.


I have a feeling that Keating doesn't want Japan to have the F-22 because China doesn't want Japan to have the F-22. Just my opinion.

Also, we all know Keating's opinion, but what are the Air Force general's opinions on this?
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
elp
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 02:36 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2848

Well here is something interesting to consider too....

=======


Financial Times
August 1, 2007

Japanese Poll Stokes US Security Fears

By David Pilling, in Tokyo

Quote:
The US warned on Tuesday that its security relationship with Japan could be disrupted by the government’s crushing defeat in upper house elections.

US officials in Tokyo are seeking an urgent meeting with Ichiro Ozawa, leader of the triumphant Democratic Party of Japan, to urge him not to block the extension of emergency anti-terrorist legislation.

The DPJ, which won a landslide victory in upper house elections on Sunday, is threatening to veto legislation allowing Japanese ships to fuel US and other allied vessels in the Indian Ocean – an operation the US believes to be crucial to its ability to patrol Middle East seaways.

“It would be unfortunate if [the election result] spilled over into issues that hopefully Japan looks on in a non-partisan way,” said Thomas Schieffer, the US ambassador to Tokyo.

Mr Schieffer said he hoped to persuade Mr Ozawa that blocking the extension of the emergency measure on terrorism, which runs out in November, would not be in Japan’s interests.

“Japan is a responsible member of the international community and I would really hate for Japan to decide that the issue was not important any more or that they didn’t want to contribute.”

The DPJ has threatened to give Shinzo Abe, the Liberal Democratic party prime minister, a rough parliamentary ride in an attempt to force a general election. The LDP is divided on foreign policy, with some of its senior officials keen to adopt a more assertive foreign policy, while others are more wary of meddling with Japan’s pacifist constitution. Some were against Japan’s decision to send a reconstruction mission to Iraq.

Mr Schieffer said he had never met Mr Ozawa, an indication of how thin relations are between Washington and a party that has never seriously vied for power before. The ambassador said he thought the importance of the alliance went far deeper than individual relationships, but he conceded that the defeat of the LDP had changed the situation.

“We try to carry on as normal as we possibly can,” he said. “The dynamic has changed. There is no question about that. The LDP no longer controls the upper house. That is a historic change. So I don’t think any of us know exactly how that will work out.”

A hung Japanese parliament could affect US-Japan relations in other ways, analysts said.

It might make Tokyo less able, for example, to persuade the US Congress to lift a ban on selling advanced F-22 fighters to Japan. The US has upset some Japanese defence officials by refusing to sell the aircraft, because of fears of upsetting China and concern for Japan’s lax handling of classified information.

Mr Schieffer said: “Obviously you can’t sell the F-22 today because Congress says you can’t. But that doesn’t mean there might not be some time in the future that that might not be contemplated.”

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
bdn12
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 03:04 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Jul 16, 2007
Posts: 38

Status: Offline
I love this guy Schieffer. Saying that some point in the future it could be sold. So, banned for sales in 2008. Hate to say it, but the future is now. People have been saying this since 2000. Maybe not now, but sometime in the future. Give me a break.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
SkunkWorksPlayboy
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 09:11 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Apr 24, 2007
Posts: 32

When you start defining reality based on your level of knowledge, the universe gets small extremely fast. You're having trouble understanding the law because you clearly don't understand what an amendment is. "Obey Amendment..does not exist."
Source: [thomas.loc.gov] Department of Defense Appropriations Act, (from 97(*) 98 to 2007 ) take your pick. Wink


And guess what? Until the legislators in the beltway rewrite that law, that bird's not being sold to Japan. No meaningful conversation can be had if you're not going to recognize US law. Wink

I think I'll go with the logical route here and listen to reason.

Pentagon spokesman
Air Force Maj. Patrick Ryder
“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.”


checksixx wrote:


Not at all. What I find strange is everyone's willingness to follow like sheep quoting it because some news source or government official quoted it. Don't YOU find it strange that no one has been able to post the law? Unlike you finding my view 'funny', I find your willingness to follow to be sad. I've already done my research on what the law specifically says about F-22 sales, and have even posted it here on this site...you obviously have not. Gotta go, I think I hear your shepherd calling. Laughing

_________________
The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
checksixx
PostPosted: Aug 02, 2007 - 12:30 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1034

Status: Offline
You have argued with me over this before and you need to stop. This is from the previous thread:

H.R.5631
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007

SEC. 8062. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to approve or license the sale of the F-22A advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government.

Specifically, it does not ban the sale of the F-22. Rather the Raptor already falls under the Arms Exportation Act. The purpose of the line item was to not allow appropriation of the procurement funds approved to be used for anything other than US Air Force procurement of the F-22.

Thats what prohibits the sale of the jet...ownership, not some crazy law specifically stating it can never be exported. The Raptor specifically falls under the Arms Export Control Act which pretty much every arm falls under. Listen to reason all you want...hell, listen to the Air Force Major you quoted from the Pentagon who has such detailed knowledge of the situation, that he doesn't even know the correct designation of the aircraft. I'm not going to be an a$$ like yourself and talk about your 'reality based on knowledge' because thats what children do. Instead I'll just say that I have no trouble understanding the law, I know what an amendment is and the Obey Amendment no longer exists because it was added to and signed into effect with the H.R.

Press on troop...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
SkunkWorksPlayboy
PostPosted: Aug 02, 2007 - 02:00 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Apr 24, 2007
Posts: 32

I think someone needs to grow up. Every time someone respectfully disagrees with you, it seems you feel the need to publicly pout. Razz

I need to stop. Stop what, correcting fabricated misinformation spewed onto the board in an attempt to save face?

That provision you've quoted is the Obey Amendment. You know, the one that "no longer exists" and that every new source quotes and US/foreign diplomats wrongly refer to. Why are you incapable of seeing that? I already pointed it out in the thread you referred to! lol Appropriation conferees draft it every time. That provision is one, if not the most difficult obstacle in Japan's quest to acquire the jet. Like I said, you just don't understand, so I gather the conversation is over.

_________________
The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
checksixx
PostPosted: Aug 02, 2007 - 02:15 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 1034

Status: Offline
Yes it is, I don't continue arguments with kids...so when you do grow up as you indicated, let us all know. I posted exactly what it says...specifically, it DOES NOT ban FMS of the aircraft. FACT. The DoD ownership and the specifics of not being able to use any of the funds allocated to the program for FMS is what stops it. FACT.

Press on troop...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
PhillyGuy
PostPosted: Aug 02, 2007 - 05:00 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 195

Status: Offline
Umm... either way unless the USAF gets more funds to procure more Raptor's production will wind down in 08 and terminate sometime in 2010. So for the Japanese it's either now or never, same for the USAF, once the assembly line is closed you really can't start it up again years later. Sadly, one of the most costly, promising and amazing aircraft ever to be produced is being buried prematurely by the very country that needs it... Terrible.

_________________
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
bdn12
PostPosted: Aug 02, 2007 - 05:41 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Jul 16, 2007
Posts: 38

Status: Offline
Don't underestimate the force of 183 F-22's. Besides, there really isn't any country we will potentially go to war with that has an air force even close to ours. We could take on any country with no Raptors and I will make a sure bet it would be a one-sided fight.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel