One would assume that countries like Pakistan or China wouldn’t be permitted to get export approval for just those reasons. That’s why Congress has to approve foreign arms sales, after all.

Not so much with those countries purchasing the planes, I mean technology ending up on their planes. Not saying US is impervious to people leaking secrets to rogue nations, but selling these planes are still security risk.

Perfect example of this is Iran and F-14.

I know, I just wanted to point out the Eagles might be purchased with China in mind among others.

If Chinese wants to come invade your country, having handful of F-22 isn’t going to stop them. You’d know ahead of time but, if they want to come down and take your country, they pretty much can do it.

What’s stopping China from doing such thing is existence of US and in small way Russia

Did anyone say Israel yet?

Japan and Israel – in my eyes – are the only serious potential export customers.

Gulf Arabs might want some because they have the (our) money, but I doubt that they would get it, and quite frankly they don’t need it cause there is no enemy that can put a system in the sky to be a threat.

Israel would like it, and they might get a few dozen at a discount, if they really need it – I doubt it. Is there a military threat left for Israel?

So you’re saying Israel wouldn’t buy it or not? And why should US sell it to them at discount? And if there are no credible threat why would they need it?

Japan really could use it. And they could afford it. Easily. Just lift the 1% limit on the defence budget.
And they could manufacture some components in Japan, other components could come from LMCO directly, and Japan could have final assembley at home. LMCO gets the money plus a potential second assembly line, Japanese can expand their technological expertise, everybody is happy.

If US is busting balls about UK having access to stealth technology in F-35. Why would you believe US would allow Japan to manufacture F-22. And why would LM do that if they need to have the production line to continue in US? And even if they did allow it, how many do you think they would be building? 20 or 30. Now, not only are you paying for the aircraft, you are paying for the facility to build them for such a short run?

But what I say is, that a Japanese and Israeli order for F-22 could keep the production line open beyond 2009, which is what the USAF wants and needs, and hence the FMS price could be lower than we all expect.

Can’t trust Israel with any secrets, they’ll hack the technology for themselves and sell it to whoever brings them the cash.

As for Japan, I just don’t see them operating them. F-15 they have are more than enough for their needs. Japan doesn’t need air-superiority fighter they need an interceptor. They are not going to fly over China and enforce No-Fly zones. They are going to chase interlopers out of their air space. AWACS and a 5th generation will do that just fine.

Even a Eurofighter or Rafale is a better fit for them. They would probably get to build the whole them thing and get technology transfer to boot. and it’ll be three to four times cheaper.

The real problem according to Air Force Magazine, is that all the numerous small sub contractors producing odds and ends parts and specialized components, will soon be forced to dismiss their skilled workers, and or look for new contracts.

Quite frankly, if the production run ends with 180+ that US is buying, then so be it. Move on to F-35 or develop a cheaper alternative like UAV. Ending of F-22 production isn’t going to have dire consequence to LM or Boeing or any of the sub-contractor… if they were smart enough to latch their cart on to F-35 gravy train.

I don’t think Japan will buy any F-22’s… It’s one thing if they spend Trillion Yen on indigenous fighter. The money stays in Japan, economy will recycle the money… Billion Yen spent on F-22 is Money sent to Lockeed Martin/Boeing… And since US will not let this Jets be built in any country other than US, no point in buying them if you are Japan… You are getting nothing but the plane, no technology transfers, No licensed builds. They would just be handing money over to US.

Israel… I don’t think US trust them anymore so I think there will be strong opposition to this sale. Also, isn’t the goal of Israel to achieve technological independence from US?

Are you trying to psychoanalyse me or something ? :confused:

Just messing with ya! :diablo:

Well it might be, but stop spouting numbers and weapons and devices like you know something. All the information you have are in the same category. It’s from manufacturers to promote their product. So for you to call one report propaganda and say what your saying as gospel, well if that’s not call kettle black I don’t know what is.

Fact is you nor anyone else know anything. STOP TRYING TO BE AN EXPERT.

The DERA evaluation is a joke. no more no less.

How can they compare fighters in BVR combat without serious data about

– RBE-2 and N-011 radars
– OSF
– mica and R-77 missiles
– ECM
– all aspect angles RCS

???????????

The only datas they have are about the captor, the amraam and the DAAS system.

Sorry, but this evaluation thing is pure cr^p :p

I mean, even real BVR exercices (with the real planes and systems) are very difficult to debrief because each side downgrade their missile/ ECM efficiency and never provide missile launch timings in order to keep the ranges and no-escape zones secret. BTW, i’m sure the DERA creators have never put their butt in a rafale or a Su-35. :rolleyes:

You got to be right, they didn’t consult with you first! Because we all know you have all the information. Got forbid, these people who actually do these thing for living not consult you! What were they thinking.

I mean, they have million dollar equipments to do these test and they have resources at hand, but hey next time they should consult you and your amazing skills at doing google search.

You can’t compare C-130 (J or not), A400M and C-17A.
The Hercules is a pure tactical transporter, the C-17A a heavy strategic transporter with the short-field performance. The A400M on the other hand – and I openly admit I don’t like it (as it looks today on paper), but not because it is an European project – is a queer mix of tactical performance and “strategic” MTOW. Its only asset as far as I can see is its really low ground pressure. But that will be offset by the need for a runway 50% longer than the C-17A. It will have incredibly high empty weight, solala range (poor with max payload), an unhealthy high spread between mtow and max-landing weight, and will in tactical mode only be capable of lifting something around 30 metric tons (at a tactical mtow of 120t!) which isn’t really that much more than a C-130J. I could go on. All that you can look up on Airbusses A400M website.
Price is not sooo bad for the C-17. The last multi-year contract brought the C-17A down to about USD140M, which is lower than the projected costs of the A400M as made public today! Building the A400M is pure EU-politics, not military reason, nor financial reason. It will not give the planned EU “Battle Groups” the strategic reach they are hankerin’ for and it will cost one hell of money. (My opinion about the EU buying C-17 and USAF buying E/K/C-330 is well documented and I will not repeat it here.)
But I’m biased; perhaps I’m totally wrong.

I wasn’t comparing them, I was mentioning that RAF will be only nation that will be operating all three, and if anyone has anything to say about them, its the RAF.

The A400 is a brand new platform is certainly better for a adpatating new technologies.
Anyway, I would trust Airbus any day of the week over an american compagny.

Before you start blabbering why don’t you wait until they actually build one.
I’m sure it’s going to be a fine plane, but all plane have teething problems so A400 will be no different.