F-22 export ban

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post09 Sep 2015, 14:07

SpudmanWP wrote:
checksixx wrote:and subsequent fiscal years, shall provide complete, detailed estimates for
the incremental costs of such expansion."


You're misreading it.

Here is the whole quote in context.

Sec. 8116. The budget of the President
for fiscal year 1999 submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, and each annual budget request thereafter,
shall include budget activity groups (known as "subactivities'') in the
operation and maintenance accounts of the military departments and other
appropriation accounts, as may be necessary, to separately identify all
costs incurred by the Department of Defense to support the expansion of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
.

[[Page 111 STAT. 1246]]

The budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of
the budget of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999, and
subsequent fiscal years, shall provide complete, detailed estimates for
the incremental costs of such expansion.


Sec. 8117. None of the funds made available in this Act may be
obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract with a
contractor that is subject to the reporting requirement set forth in
subsection (d) of section 4212 of title 38, United States Code, but has
not submitted the most recent report required by such subsection for
1997 or a subsequent year.
Sec. 8118. 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.


Your quote on was in relation to 8116, not the F-22 relevant section of 8118 which is the only place in the entire budget doc where the F-22 was mentioned.


I didn't misread it, I simply chose a small quote which is still relevant to the Act itself...after that is a list of which the F-22 is part of, as it and the rest listed pertain to the Act. Why quote so much when it isn't needed....?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8395
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Sep 2015, 16:15

I quoted everything because the context matters.

The part you quoted about "subsequent fiscal years" that dealt with an "expansion" is at the top of page 1246 but is still part of section 8116 that was at the bottom of the previous page.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post09 Sep 2015, 17:25

checksixx wrote:
oldiaf wrote:One last thing its not I who assume the idea regarding the ability of the F-35 to shoot down the F-22 but a large number of the crowd in this forum and this hypothetical question is directed to them.


Guess I've missed that huge crowd around here...

Given the choice, whether BVR or WVR, I'd take the -22 any day of the week and even on Sunday.

Well ... The F-22 is definitely with better design for A-A combat wether WVR or BVR .. More powerful radar ... more missiles but the issue is the Bush and Obama administration hindered its capabilities by slashing the HMCS and IRST ( at least these two which are alone can take the F-35 with all other gizmo sensors it has ) ...
The administrations had this issue right and wrong ..... Right through the need of more versatile multi-function aircraft that can be mass produced for the 3 services and wrong by hindering some equipments and sensors for the F-22 ( budget ) ... I don't think equipping the F-22 witH HMCS and IRST can cost that amount of money that already been consumed by three time restructuring of the JSF program ...
Otherwise for the crowd here that favor the F-35 .. Remember this is originally an F-16 site and the F-16 is going to be replaced by the F-35.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post09 Sep 2015, 19:51

SpudmanWP wrote:I quoted everything because the context matters.

The part you quoted about "subsequent fiscal years" that dealt with an "expansion" is at the top of page 1246 but is still part of section 8116 that was at the bottom of the previous page.


LoL...right, because talking about expanding programs and funding them doesn't have to do with the rest of the bill its listed it. Good for you man...either way you want to look at it, there is NO ban on exporting the Raptor. Never was. All right there for everyone to consume. Somehow I knew that my small correction was going to be the end of this sketchy thread....as is the standard here.

*Edit...BTW SpudmanWP....this is just dry humor....not intended as a slight against you. We're both pretty much saying the same thing.
Last edited by checksixx on 10 Sep 2015, 03:40, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post09 Sep 2015, 20:01

oldiaf wrote:Well ... The F-22 is definitely with better design for A-A combat wether WVR or BVR .. More powerful radar ... more missiles but the issue is the Bush and Obama administration hindered its capabilities by slashing the HMCS and IRST ( at least these two which are alone can take the F-35 with all other gizmo sensors it has ) ...
The administrations had this issue right and wrong ..... Right through the need of more versatile multi-function aircraft that can be mass produced for the 3 services and wrong by hindering some equipments and sensors for the F-22 ( budget ) ... I don't think equipping the F-22 witH HMCS and IRST can cost that amount of money that already been consumed by three time restructuring of the JSF program ...
Otherwise for the crowd here that favor the F-35 .. Remember this is originally an F-16 site and the F-16 is going to be replaced by the F-35.


More powerful radar? No. HMCS can't be integrated to the F-22...guess you missed that small detail.
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post09 Sep 2015, 20:36

checksixx wrote:
oldiaf wrote:Well ... The F-22 is definitely with better design for A-A combat wether WVR or BVR .. More powerful radar ... more missiles but the issue is the Bush and Obama administration hindered its capabilities by slashing the HMCS and IRST ( at least these two which are alone can take the F-35 with all other gizmo sensors it has ) ...
The administrations had this issue right and wrong ..... Right through the need of more versatile multi-function aircraft that can be mass produced for the 3 services and wrong by hindering some equipments and sensors for the F-22 ( budget ) ... I don't think equipping the F-22 witH HMCS and IRST can cost that amount of money that already been consumed by three time restructuring of the JSF program ...
Otherwise for the crowd here that favor the F-35 .. Remember this is originally an F-16 site and the F-16 is going to be replaced by the F-35.


More powerful radar? No. HMCS can't be integrated to the F-22...guess you missed that small detail.

No its not like that .. The common HMCS that was used on earlier legacy fighters was not compatible with its stealth ... So it was not introduced but later a newer helmet was developed but slashed because of the budget ... I will post the link as soon as I find it.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post10 Sep 2015, 03:49

oldiaf wrote:No its not like that .. The common HMCS that was used on earlier legacy fighters was not compatible with its stealth ... So it was not introduced but later a newer helmet was developed but slashed because of the budget ... I will post the link as soon as I find it.


Ugh...let me elaborate. You are referring to the JHMCS when you say 'common'. Incompatibility -- It has nothing to do with not being compatible with the F-22's 'stealth', it had to do with the cockpit environment. The JHMCS was developed by VSI. The system they are talking possible integration with the F-22 now is the Scorpion HMCS, made by Thales. There was no new development by VSI...the Scorpion is made by an entirely different company. Its in the pipeline for testing only.
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post10 Sep 2015, 05:10

checksixx wrote:
quicksilver wrote:From the link (verbatim) --

"Page 100, after line 15, insert the following new section: \ SEC. 8103. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to approve or license the sale of F-22 advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government.

Purpose:
An amendment to prohibit the sale of F-22 aircraft to any foreign government.

House Amendment Code:
(A008)

House Tally Clerks use this code to manage amendment information."

You wanna quibble? Argue with the Congress.


Absolutely...yes, that is the exact wording...for those who care not to actually read it. Obey was all paranoid and wanted to ban foreign sales. So yes, that is his purpose for the amendment. As I stated though, it did NOT prohibit foreign sales...its right there in black and white....None of the funds approved in the act could be used for those purposes. If he wanted an outright ban, he failed...hence the reason why there was talks with Japan over funding an export version well AFTER this amendment.

The Australians also showed interest in F-22 and they could have share the cost with Japan ... And most certainly if an export version existed the Israelis will take share too ... I don't know about the Brits and Canada
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8395
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Sep 2015, 05:18

The F-22 was a pipe dream for Australia and did not fit their needs.

The plane it needed to replace was the F-111 which is the polar opposite of the F-22.

The JSF is a much better fit as it has a longer range, better avionics, larger internal capacity, better A2G capability, and is a much cheaper buy than the F-22, especially if you throw in them having to pay for dev on an "export" version.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post10 Sep 2015, 05:19

SpudmanWP wrote:The F-22 was a pipe dream for Australia and did not fit their needs.

The plane it needed to replace was the F-111 which is the polar opposite of the F-22.

The JSF is a much better fit as it has a longer range, better avionics, larger internal capacity, better A2G capability, and is a much cheaper buy than the F-22, especially if you throw in them having to pay for dev on an "export" version.

Why the F-35 is cheaper than the F-22 with all its advanced sensors and Avionics ( not counting the development cost ).
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8395
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Sep 2015, 06:54

Reasons why the F-35 is cheaper:
1. It is smaller thereby saving costs related to bulk materials fee, assembly time, etc
2. Economy of scale where the F-22 was built 2 every month and the F-35 will reach more than 2 a week.
3. One engine
4. Better fuel economy
5. The development costs of the F-35 is being shared across multiple customers.
6. The avionics for the F-35 were designed from the ground up for ease of upgradeability
7. The F-35 as a whole was designed for ease of maintenance
8. The stealth coatings around most of the panels was designed so that the panel can be opened without the need to reapply the coatings
9. Built-in training allows flyers in Australia to train against ships located in Florida protected by SAM sites located in California.
10. Etc, etc, etc
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 10 Sep 2015, 22:47, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2841
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post10 Sep 2015, 07:25

I think these things also make F-35 cheaper:

- Lower top speed (lower requirements for materials for example)
- No super-cruise (cheaper design possible)
- No TVC
- Being made after F-22 means a lot of knowledge was there already When the development began. F-22 was first true stealth fighter and thus a lot of things were done for the first time. This means a lot of things can be done cheaper and more efficient now.
- Computers have become much more powerful and cheaper from F-22 to F-35.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1063
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post10 Sep 2015, 08:13

oldiaf wrote:
Otherwise for the crowd here that favor the F-35 .. Remember this is originally an F-16 site and the F-16 is going to be replaced by the F-35.


Exactly what does that have to do with anything? Just because it will eventually replace the F-16 doesn't mean that the people here on this site should automatically hate the F-35. (if anything it seems like there are more supporters here than ANYWHERE else on the interwebs). The F-22 was originally supposed to replace the F-15 outright, I don't remember a lot of hate on the F-22 from the people that actually matter (the pilots). The only hate on the F-22 I saw was from politicians, reformer DBs, left wing liberals, Sukhoi, and Mig fanboys...
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post10 Sep 2015, 10:36

charlielima223 wrote:
oldiaf wrote:
Otherwise for the crowd here that favor the F-35 .. Remember this is originally an F-16 site and the F-16 is going to be replaced by the F-35.


Exactly what does that have to do with anything? Just because it will eventually replace the F-16 doesn't mean that the people here on this site should automatically hate the F-35. (if anything it seems like there are more supporters here than ANYWHERE else on the interwebs). The F-22 was originally supposed to replace the F-15 outright, I don't remember a lot of hate on the F-22 from the people that actually matter (the pilots). The only hate on the F-22 I saw was from politicians, reformer DBs, left wing liberals, Sukhoi, and Mig fanboys...

Yes that was what I meant ... You understood my point all the way around ... I mean because it is the eventual replacement for the F-16 that is why it is loved by much of the crowd ... And yes I agree regarding politicians and the F-22
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post10 Sep 2015, 22:38

oldiaf wrote:The Australians also showed interest in F-22 and they could have share the cost with Japan ... And most certainly if an export version existed the Israelis will take share too ... I don't know about the Brits and Canada


Showed interest and what Japan was doing to get the jet would be like comparing the North Pole to the South Pole. As mentioned already, the Aussies were never going to get the F-22...and they knew it, and moved on quickly. Japan was the ONLY potential customer willing to front development costs. They persisted even after it was discussed at length with Lockheed Martin and it was decided not to attempt moving forward with a FMS model. One of the major issues was cost in the sense of exceeded estimated budgets as was already happening with the -22 and, at the time, JSF's budget was in process of ballooning. Bottom line is that it was better all around not to move forward with a FMS F-22, and move forward with JSF which was already in the pipeline to FMS customers.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests