Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Beazz wrote:

Personally, I find it absolutely beyond belief that the US does not have some type of *chip* installed in all this high tech military hardware we sell to some of the most *questionable* nations on the planet to disable whatever it is we sell them if it somehow was used against us or our allies? These weapons systems are so technical and full of electronis that no one but us actually knows what it is all for that there is no way anyone could ever possibly know it was there.

Beazz

We learned a long time a go that "safeguards" are very much needed in our technologies that are exported.

It's the very reason why the F-35 will have safeguards in certain key tech (and this is no big secret folks). Even the Brits, who are Level 1 partners (and with our country's "special" relationship"), know first hand how sensitive we are with certain tech.

History will continue to be the very reason why if the mythical (and yes, at this point it's very much mythical) export F-22 Raptor that everybody hopes for ever materializes, you can bet safeguards will be standard in it.

F-16.net Sponsor

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

Beazz wrote:

Personally, I find it absolutely beyond belief that the US does not have some type of *chip* installed in all this high tech military hardware we sell to some of the most *questionable* nations on the planet to disable whatever it is we sell them if it somehow was used against us or our allies? These weapons systems are so technical and full of electronis that no one but us actually knows what it is all for that there is no way anyone could ever possibly know it was there.

Beazz

We learned a long time a go that "safeguards" are very much needed in our technologies that are exported.

It's the very reason why the F-35 will have safeguards in certain key tech (and this is no big secret folks). Even the Brits, who are Level 1 partners (and with our country's "special" relationship"), know first hand how sensitive we are with certain tech.

History will continue to be the very reason why if the mythical (and yes, at this point it's very much mythical) export F-22 Raptor that everybody hopes for ever materializes, you can bet safeguards will be standard in it.

Admittedly, I don't understand all the ins and outs of our stealth technology, but isn't one of the main reasons we will not export the F22 is it's stealth and it's highly advanced RADAR? If that is the case, wouldn't exporting it, even with *safeguards* on it allow another nation to analyze how it's RADAR and stealth work together to make it the game changer that it is and by doing so allow someone besides ourself to better understand how to defeat it and therefore possibly negate its huge advantage over other a/c? Seems like if the enemy would now know how the F22 does what it does, even if we could flip a switch and cause all theirs to fall out of the sky, they still know how we use it and it now loses all it's advantage?

Beazz

Greetings to you, geogen:

Thank you for your reply.

geogen wrote:

to confidently assume…is at best, sketchy and unsound Defense acquisition policy making. Many will assess such attitude as borderlining on reckless.

First, I assure you that I am not a defense acquisition policymaker, and that if I were, I would have no desire to conduct such policymaking here on the forums at f-16.net. Furthermore, I certainly hope that no policymaker of any kind within the US Govt would utilize any forum on the Net for such a purpose. Instead, I am just a fighter-plane hobbyist who visits this forum mostly to hear the facts, opinions, and views of others who typically are much better informed than I am. Only on the rarest of occasions do I feel compelled to offer my views. In this particular instance, I felt compelled to reply due to the strength of my convictions on this particular topic, however sketchy, unsound, or reckless those convictions may be. The poorly constructed and uninformed views of a single inconsequential amateur like myself matter little or none, so you can relax regarding my apparent recklessness.

Secondly, if “many” assess my attitude as reckless on any particular point, would you please now direct me to those who share this view with you?

If it turns out that my assessment of the F-22’s longevity as an unmatchable air superiority platform is significantly overestimated, I will concede to you that I erred in calling the US Govt stupid for wanting to export the F-22. Instead, I will assert that the US Govt. was even MORE stupid for building it in the first place because of its short-lived dominance. Would the US Govt be so stupid as to spend $65-70 billion fielding 187 units whose dominance lasts only a decade or less, for example? Let’s hope not! Interestingly, I don’t hear the USAF shouting that the US needs to get cracking on the next generation air superiority fighter in time to be fielded by 2019. Could it be that the USAF expects the F-22 to dominate for longer than 10 years?

geogen wrote:

A re-fitted F-22 including foreign sourced RAM possibly, would still be a most superior air-dominance/strike deterrence money could buy.

Perhaps you are correct. Or perhaps not. Who knows, except perhaps the professionals? My amateur’s vote goes to the F-35. It’s the money-could-buy phrase that persuades me.

Lastly, of course you are aware that I am not alone in asserting that the F-35 offers striking capabilities that the F-22 does not. How many times have dwightlooi or Spudman or Corsair asserted the same? Please count me among them on this point, without apology or “excuse.”

Beazz wrote:

Admittedly, I don't understand all the ins and outs of our stealth technology, but isn't one of the main reasons we will not export the F22 is it's stealth and it's highly advanced RADAR?

They are among several reasons.

Beazz wrote:

If that is the case, wouldn't exporting it, even with *safeguards* on it allow another nation to analyze how it's RADAR and stealth work together to make it the game changer that it is and by doing so allow someone besides ourself to better understand how to defeat it and therefore possibly negate its huge advantage over other a/c? Seems like if the enemy would now know how the F22 does what it does, even if we could flip a switch and cause all theirs to fall out of the sky, they still know how we use it and it now loses all it's advantage?

Beazz

Without getting into detail (and this is nothing new), safeguards (or tamper-proof tech), as the name implies, would prevent unauthorized users to "analyze" said hardware/software or function(s) without at least us knowing. As I mentioned earlier, some sensitive components in the F-35 will have this feature. They were designed in from the start to protect some things that we had developed.

Since the mythical export F-22 Raptor does not exist, it would be difficult to say exactly what radar and systems would be installed in that version.

Yes, what you said are all legitimate reasons of concern if a mythical export F-22 somehow becomes a reality. It is the very reason(s) why I'm personally against an export Raptor, a stance I've taken since day one. We've developed the F-22 so it will not be challenged for at least the next 30 years. So why give up some of those tech and advantage to someone who will use it springboard and jumpstart their own industry? Even if we were to export just the airframe and F119 motors and nothing more, it would be a huge leap in advancement to whatever the gaining country.

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

Yes, what you said are all legitimate reasons of concern if a mythical export F-22 somehow becomes a reality. It is the very reason(s) why I'm personally against an export Raptor, a stance I've taken since day one. We've developed the F-22 so it will not be challenged for at least the next 30 years. So why give up some of those tech and advantage to someone who will use it springboard and jumpstart their own industry? Even if we were to export just the airframe and F119 motors and nothing more, it would be a huge leap in advancement to whatever the gaining country.

Greetings, S1a:

Thank you for contributing the comments above to the discussion. Naturally, I hope your views dominate the views within the US Govt. as well.

PhillyGuy wrote:

When you have a Sec Def that say it's useless because it cannot fight the Taliban (I feel like self exploding every time I think about it), and a President who know jack and S about military matters, it seems pretty over, unfortunately.

I agree completely with you regarding our SecDef. It seems Obama knew exactly what he was getting when he asked him to stay.

Senators like my own Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Inoye of Hawaii give me some small hope, but not much regarding the F-22. The next fight may be to stop Gates from ordering the tooling destroyed.

Loader2088 wrote:

PhillyGuy wrote:

When you have a Sec Def that say it's useless because it cannot fight the Taliban (I feel like self exploding every time I think about it), and a President who know jack and S about military matters, it seems pretty over, unfortunately.

I agree completely with you regarding our SecDef. It seems Obama knew exactly what he was getting when he asked him to stay.

Senators like my own Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Inoye of Hawaii give me some small hope, but not much regarding the F-22. The next fight may be to stop Gates from ordering the tooling destroyed.

Gates is the military version of a prostitute. Go back and read up on him over the last 25 years and he is simply the guy you hire when you wish your view supported. He says what his boss wants him do no matter what it is. It's no mistake Obama kept him. He knew he had a man that had no morals or personal opinions and as long as he gets his paycheck, he says what he is told to. As for the F22, unless WWlll breaks out pretty soon, we can all forget any more Raptors then currently ordered. Sad

( I'd love to have many more, but not at the cost of WWlll to get them.

Beazz

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

Beazz wrote:

Admittedly, I don't understand all the ins and outs of our stealth technology, but isn't one of the main reasons we will not export the F22 is it's stealth and it's highly advanced RADAR?

They are among several reasons.

Beazz wrote:

If that is the case, wouldn't exporting it, even with *safeguards* on it allow another nation to analyze how it's RADAR and stealth work together to make it the game changer that it is and by doing so allow someone besides ourself to better understand how to defeat it and therefore possibly negate its huge advantage over other a/c? Seems like if the enemy would now know how the F22 does what it does, even if we could flip a switch and cause all theirs to fall out of the sky, they still know how we use it and it now loses all it's advantage?

Beazz

Without getting into detail (and this is nothing new), safeguards (or tamper-proof tech), as the name implies, would prevent unauthorized users to "analyze" said hardware/software or function(s) without at least us knowing. As I mentioned earlier, some sensitive components in the F-35 will have this feature. They were designed in from the start to protect some things that we had developed.

Since the mythical export F-22 Raptor does not exist, it would be difficult to say exactly what radar and systems would be installed in that version.

Yes, what you said are all legitimate reasons of concern if a mythical export F-22 somehow becomes a reality. It is the very reason(s) why I'm personally against an export Raptor, a stance I've taken since day one. We've developed the F-22 so it will not be challenged for at least the next 30 years. So why give up some of those tech and advantage to someone who will use it springboard and jumpstart their own industry? Even if we were to export just the airframe and F119 motors and nothing more, it would be a huge leap in advancement to whatever the gaining country.

S1A, are you saying that for all practical puposes we are telling those who buy the JSF that it works, we will show them it works, but as for the how and why, it's not their concern and don't bother asking cause we ain't tellin? Not that I got a problem with that, but dayuuummmm, kind of in your face for the new PC world in which we live?

Maybe you or someone on here could help me understand why it is we are willing to even export the JSF and risk that stealth tech surely falling into the wrong hands before it's all said and done? Not to mention it's EW suite is suppose to be even superior to the Raptor right? Why even risk this? Is the stealth on the JSF so far inferior to the F22 we are willing to give it to a Moslem nation ( Turkey ) when we know full well, NATO or not, if push comes to shove against another Moslem nation and it's an all western nation affair against them they are NOT going to support us and could very well use it against us.

I just do not understand exporting ANY stealth a/c until such time as someone else has cracked the barrier and has them available to export to out enemies. It's not that I don't trust most of our allies, especially UK, Australia, Israel, Canada and Denmark, but the more people who have access to something, the bigger the chance of a traitor getting it out to our enemies is all. We all have traitors and spys among us in every nation so that is not meant to talk down any of out friends. It's just reality.

Beazz

B,

As for taking WWIII to get more Raptors and the potentional of losing the tooling to the chipper, that's probably an accurate assessment. As for USAF recapitalizing it's tacair requirements for 2030 and beyond however, it too unfortunately, will probably take WWIII to be able to afford anywhere near the required F-35A replacements. This is one of the critical, miscalculated flaws in the status quo recapitalization plan - one that unfortunately either most in power are still in denial over (or for some unpublicized intentions for a default downsize), or few with an open, critical assessment can grasp. The theory of course, is that by the time it's realized USAF/ANG won't be able to recapitalize according to requirements (perhaps as early as FY13), there will be no timely or cost-effective alternative options in the pipeline - save perhaps USAF Super Hornets Shocked

. That's when the default recalibration of the requirements will solve everything. Perhaps a cynical assessment, and one I hope doesn't materialize, but it's still an item few in power seem willing to touch yet, for sake of careers.

As far as US having some mythical monopoly, via F-35 over the next 20-30 yrs on various comparative technology, including various VLO measures, there will be plenty of competing global advances given sufficient funding of course, as history shows and as SHOULD be assumed. For this reason, it's only prudent for US to be cooperating on, co-developing, joint-venturing and selling the best tech possible of the era, yes, of course among US's close traditional Muslim allies as well (and US is doing that anyway today vis-a-vis best missiles (SAM/AAM/AGM/GLM), F-15SG, F-16 block 60, Super Hornets II, etc), albeit with obvious tiered-security measures, in order to remain a strategic leader and influence. Yes, there are and will be clear trade-offs and risks and losses of tech, etc, but to exercise over-caution and not play this game robustly going forward (until some handle on the race is worked out), US's posture in this realm will be more and more overtaken.

Just the way I see it at least..

geogen wrote:

B,

As for taking WWIII to get more Raptors and the potentional of losing the tooling to the chipper, that's probably an accurate assessment. As for USAF recapitalizing it's tacair requirements for 2030 and beyond however, it too unfortunately, will probably take WWIII to be able to afford anywhere near the required F-35A replacements. This is one of the critical, miscalculated flaws in the status quo recapitalization plan - one that unfortunately either most in power are still in denial over (or for some unpublicized intentions for a default downsize), or few with an open, critical assessment can grasp. The theory of course, is that by the time it's realized USAF/ANG won't be able to recapitalize according to requirements (perhaps as early as FY13), there will be no timely or cost-effective alternative options in the pipeline - save perhaps USAF Super Hornets Shocked

. That's when the default recalibration of the requirements will solve everything. Perhaps a cynical assessment, and one I hope doesn't materialize, but it's still an item few in power seem willing to touch yet, for sake of careers.

As far as US having some mythical monopoly, via F-35 over the next 20-30 yrs on various comparative technology, including various VLO measures, there will be plenty of competing global advances given sufficient funding of course, as history shows and as SHOULD be assumed. For this reason, it's only prudent for US to be cooperating on, co-developing, joint-venturing and selling the best tech possible of the era, yes, of course among US's close traditional Muslim allies as well (and US is doing that anyway today vis-a-vis best missiles (SAM/AAM/AGM/GLM), F-15SG, F-16 block 60, Super Hornets II, etc), albeit with obvious tiered-security measures, in order to remain a strategic leader and influence. Yes, there are and will be clear trade-offs and risks and losses of tech, etc, but to exercise over-caution and not play this game robustly going forward (until some handle on the race is worked out), US's posture in this realm will be more and more overtaken.

Just the way I see it at least..

Heya Geogen,
Well I hear what you're saying loud and clear. And I think it's quiet obvious there is an intentional downsizing of the USAF fighter fleet under way. F22 was to replace some 750 F15s and now there will be but 187. JSF was to replace some 1800-2000 F16s and ~300 A10. Simple math shows there will be easily a 30% or more reduction in the USAF fighter fleet and they chaulk it up tp the new planes can do more then the older ones. Only problem is no matter how fancy they are, 10 airplanea can't be in as many places as 100 at the same time and thats where its all headed the way I see it. Maybe our next enemy will agree to keep the fight contained to a smaller area so we can cover it all huh? Wink

)

As for the exporting out tech to these yahoos we do, especially our so called Moslem allies I think is nothing short of stupid. They have no such thing as an *infadel* allie and everyone but the ignorant west knows it. Thye use us to get what they want and when the time comes they feel they no longer need us they will not hesitate to tell us thanks for the best gear on the planet and then go and use it against Israel. If I were Israel I'd get up every day asking my pals...ok.. the US is our ally right? I mean we are arming their sworn enemys to the friggin teeth with our best stuff!! Granted, the outcome would still not be in jeopardy, but the road to it will surely now produce more dead Israelis then if they had Russian junk. In a nut shell, we have sold our soul to the devil just for some perceived influence and the almighty almost now worthless dollar.

Beazz

USMilFan wrote:

Greetings, S1a:

Thank you for contributing the comments above to the discussion. Naturally, I hope your views dominate the views within the US Govt. as well.

Greetings and cheers.

Beazz wrote:

S1A, are you saying that for all practical puposes we are telling those who buy the JSF that it works, we will show them it works, but as for the how and why, it's not their concern and don't bother asking cause we ain't tellin? Not that I got a problem with that, but dayuuummmm, kind of in your face for the new PC world in which we live?

I would put it like this (in generic terms): If you buy it, we'll show you how it works, train your personnel on the many different aspects of and in it's operation(s), support you if there is a very technical problem that arises and show you (through invitation of exercises and such) that what you have bought makes your Air Force a more effective warfighter and has better integration with collation forces in a possible future conflict.

However, although we'll tell you what you need to know about certain hardware "X(s)" through the course of training, you will understand that we will not discuss in detail with you the hows and whys of particular hardware "X(s)" or the software process that may make it or something else work the way it does. If you have an issue with the particular hardware "X(s)", as instructed through training, you are to contact this person at this number.

It's really no different than any other big name company protecting certain proprietary technology(s).

Beazz wrote:

Maybe you or someone on here could help me understand why it is we are willing to even export the JSF and risk that stealth tech surely falling into the wrong hands before it's all said and done? Not to mention it's EW suite is suppose to be even superior to the Raptor right? Why even risk this? Is the stealth on the JSF so far inferior to the F22 we are willing to give it to a Moslem nation ( Turkey ) when we know full well, NATO or not, if push comes to shove against another Moslem nation and it's an all western nation affair against them they are NOT going to support us and could very well use it against us.

I just do not understand exporting ANY stealth a/c until such time as someone else has cracked the barrier and has them available to export to out enemies. It's not that I don't trust most of our allies, especially UK, Australia, Israel, Canada and Denmark, but the more people who have access to something, the bigger the chance of a traitor getting it out to our enemies is all. We all have traitors and spys among us in every nation so that is not meant to talk down any of out friends. It's just reality.

Beazz

I understand your concerns, more than you probably know. It's been discussed and debated by many in gov't already.

Risks? Hell yes. No matter what it is.

My personal stance is if there is a choice of the F-22 or F-35 being exported, the F-35 is it.

The F-22, NO.

Beazz wrote:

Maybe you or someone on here could help me understand why it is we are willing to even export the JSF and risk that stealth tech surely falling into the wrong hands before it's all said and done?

Hello, Beazz:

You raise fascinating questions that illuminate the dilemma facing the US and its allies. Recent history suggests that high-tech development becomes increasingly cost-prohibitive as it evolves over time. Perhaps we are reaching a point where the US is the only country that can bear the next round of cost inflation, at least among our allies.

Of course, maximizing an allied force’s combat capability likely will require greater commonality in order to achieve maximum force supportability, maintainability, integrity, and netcentricity. Stealth tech, especially, brings us to your question: how much, if any, should be shared among allies? At what point do we begin compromising US national security for the sake of allied battlefield effectiveness?

Difficult questions indeed. Of course I’m not qualified enough or smart enough or informed enough to answer these questions. But your questions have inspired me to start wondering.

Hi everyone, as a citizen of that moslem country, I thought I could say a thing or two in here.

Alliances in which members do not trust each other or are ready to stick labels at the other members are doomed to lose in the end surely.

Salutations to everyone.

Selam, ga.

Those are wise words, unfortunately, but most likely true for anything long-term. I can p.m you for any discussion if you'ld like as a means to further my understanding from your perspective, if you wish? Respects to Türkiye..

Beazz wrote:

Maybe you or someone on here could help me understand why it is we are willing to even export the JSF and risk that stealth tech surely falling into the wrong hands before it's all said and done? Not to mention it's EW suite is suppose to be even superior to the Raptor right? Why even risk this? Is the stealth on the JSF so far inferior to the F22 we are willing to give it to a Moslem nation ( Turkey ) when we know full well, NATO or not, if push comes to shove against another Moslem nation and it's an all western nation affair against them they are NOT going to support us and could very well use it against us.
Beazz

Ummm... no. Turkey is very westernized. The government is hated by Muslim extremists because it's so secular, in fact. Plus there's a lot of remaining hatred towards Turkey because it (through the Ottoman Empire) ruled large swaths of the middle east until WWI. Sure they were Muslims (depending on who you ask- Wahhabists would call them weak-minded heretics), but they were still viewed as oppressors.

While it may be easy to stick all Muslim countries into one giant block of "THEM," that in no way reflects reality.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 for export?