No. For one thing, the F-22 isn’t export-cleared – its systems haven’t been secured against leakage (unlike the F-35’s; notwithstanding the cyber-espionage embarrassment). For another, once the floodgates open, denying the same to Japan, Australia, Israel would have been perceived as a snub. Unless it was made available to them as well after which you have South Korea, Turkey and potentially others standing in line. Would have also hurt the F-35 program.

The US did tentatively offer the F-22 to Australia in the mid to late 90s but the RAAF turned it down given the expected, and realised, sustainment costs associated with operating the platform.

Both the UK and Australia have exchange pilots that fly F-22 so there was a 5th gen learning curve already started in both countries before F-35 arrived.

I wasn’t aware the J-20 had an engine fire in 2015. Did I just miss this or has it only recently been revealed? If so, interesting that all three new stealth aircraft, J-20, PAK-FA and F-35 have had engine fire issues during dev and test.

Why China’s first stealth fighter was rushed into service with inferior engines

China rushed its first advanced stealth fighter jet into service ahead of schedule last year, using stopgap engines, in the face of rising security challenges in the region, the South China Morning Post has learned. But that means its capabilities will be severely limited, affecting its manoeuvrability and fuel efficiency as well as its stealthiness at supersonic speeds. Without saying how many were in operation, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force confirmed on Friday that the J-20, the country’s fifth-generation fighter, had entered combat service, meaning it was combat-ready.

However, the aircraft was equipped with inferior engines designed for earlier warplanes when it first joined the air force in March last year because “critical problems” with its tailor-made WS-15 engine, exposed by an accident in 2015, had not been fixed, two independent military sources told the Post.

“The WS-15 engine designed for the J-20 exploded during a ground running test in 2015,” one source said, adding that no one was injured in the accident. “The explosion indicated the WS-15 is not reliable, and so far there is no fundamental solution to overcome such a problem … that’s why the J-20 is using WS-10B engines now.” The WS-10B is a modified version of the WS-10 Taihang engine, which was designed for the country’s fourth-generation J-10 and J-11 fighters.
The explosion was confirmed by another source close to the military, who said the reasons it happened were complicated, with one being the quality control of its single-crystal turbine blades, the key component for such a powerful turbofan engine.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2130718/why-chinas-first-stealth-fighter-was-rushed-service

Canadian firms could be in the running to repair F-35 parts – but will they succeed in such a bid?

The US government is looking for a company to conduct future depot level repair of F-35 components for the North American region.

Since Canada is still part of the F-35 program, Public Services and Procurement Canada is providing details to Canadian industry.

The US government wants information from the firms and whether they can do the job. Key criteria include: existing capability, ability to grow, and labour costs.

“The Canadian Government, as for all F-35 Participant nations, has been asked to distribute this RFI (Request for Information), collect responses, ensure completeness, and forward to the United States Joint Program Office,” Public Services and Procurement Canada noted. “The Canadian Government is not involved in the selection process. Completed responses will be required by the Canadian Government no later than 16 March 2018.”

There are approximately 400 different parts and components to repair. Work would continue until 2040.

What are the chances of a Canadian firm being selected?

Canada’s aerospace industry has the skills to do the work.

But the Canadian government hasn’t committed to buying the F-35 so that could be a factor. It would be certainly controversial among F-35 users to select a Canadian firm for this role, considering the government’s decision not to buy the F-35, at least at this point.

However, if the US government wanted to solidify the purchase of F-35s by Canada, providing Canadian firms with this job would make it increasingly difficult to ignore the industrial benefits resulting from the F-35.

http://ottawacitizen.com/g00/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-firms-could-be-considered-to-repair-f-35-parts-but-will-they-succeed-in-such-a-bid?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS5hdS8%3D&i10c.ua=1

Definitely has to be the Grognard…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]258156[/ATTACH]

On a more serious note, it is a toss up between the F1 and the Sud Aviation Vautour.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]258157[/ATTACH]

If similar deployments were on the mind of the BAF, they surely would opt for something else than a type which can only be procured in mere three dozen examples..

The BAF sought responses from five manufacturers. All five airframes, especially in the timeframe that the BAF is looking to order, are probably within 15-20% of each other for acquisition and again similar for operating cost. The BAF is also seeking a multi-role airframe to replace the F-16, so they require A2A as well as A2G capabilities. A mere three dozen examples as you have claimed would not marginally be impacted by one type over the other from a cost perspective. That three dozen number is dictated by budget, not by airframe. Had the Belgians dedicated the same ratio of budget as when they acquired the F-16, they would be looking at 80+ aircraft.

ISIS has no air force and no SAM defense network to cope against

You keep wanting to plan for the past and not the future…

what really counts is numbers, readiness, reliability and turnaround times.. hardly parameters where a complex type like the F-35 would excel in..

Except all five are essentially no more or less complex than each other and in the case of the F-35, despite your poorly informed comments, the vast number of airforces choosing that type clearly indicate that isn’t a concern.

except that: what business do they have to go around the globe in the first place?

I don’t know, maybe that crazy notion called international alliances. The BAF flew in Bosnia, over Afghanistan and against ISIS, perfectly justifiable international actions where the BAF was able to contribute airpower to an international coalition.

I don’t remember any of the details, but there was a document published that outlined some scenarios (various missions). As far as I recall some of those missions had SEAD/DEAD components, and in general 4-ships were to be used with no extra support.

I don’t have time to dig out the document right now, it was made available when the competition started. I assume it’s still available.

Available here, http://www.vandeput.fgov.be/sites/default/files/articles/Request%20for%20Government%20Proposal_0.pdf

Pure blah blah. (especially the last sentence). Oh incidentally there is atm a belgian government team discussing the french offer details atm in Paris…

Please point out any of it that isn’t correct Halloween.

Any guess why Belgium have a delegation in Paris right now? Because France/Dassault didn’t provide any info to the RFT. Don’t be surprised when a non french airframe is selected and one of the primary feedback points provided will be a lack of valid tender submission.