U.S. Fighter Gap: Myth or Reality? (http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/090929486-us-fighter-gap-myth-or-reality.htm)
So the missile defense plan is cancelled, next, Obama seems to want the F-22 cancelled and exported to Israel, Japan, and Australia, which is a change from a 1998 law that forbids their export. I thought it would be OK to make some money selling them, but now I'm not so sure. I know there are defense lobbyists for those things, but it seems that abandoning the F-22 and further reducing their numbers would have our defense capability fall dangerously behind. I don't think I'm worried about the VH-71 being abandoned.
Thoughts?
Dave99
10-06-09, 11:58 PM
I'm not sure there is really a market for them, if we can't afford them, chances are nobody that we would sell to could afford them either. I'd be ok selling them to Australia, Japan & England. Probably not Israel, that would stoke the flames of the region. They can whip anyones ass over there with their F-15's & 16's anyway.
Nazgul
10-07-09, 12:42 AM
I think the F-35 is 'replacing' the F-22 (sort of). If we did export them, we'd water the avionics and other 'packages' down. I'm fine with selling them to Israel, as I've no doubt that the Russkies would sell their neighbors better fighters as well.
kvrdave
10-07-09, 01:27 AM
I don't like the idea of selling our fighters to any country. May not be a rational stance, but it is the way I feel.
Superboy
10-07-09, 06:22 AM
I don't like the idea of selling our fighters to any country. May not be a rational stance, but it is the way I feel.
It's a perfectly rational stance. Arming our enemies has become quite a problem in the post-cold war age.
OldDude
10-07-09, 06:43 AM
It's a perfectly rational stance. Arming our enemies has become quite a problem in the post-cold war age.
The countries listed aren't really on our enemies list. In addition, selling fighter jets makes for tight alliances. Fighter jets are pretty high maintenance; where they going to get spare parts if we are not getting along?
al_bundy
10-07-09, 08:02 AM
the future is UAV's flying missions. most of the cost of the F-22 is to protect the pilot and the limits on performance are there due to human limitations. UAV's are cheaper and offer better flight performance
Tracer Bullet
10-07-09, 08:36 AM
Great article on this topic in this month's Wired:
the future is UAV's flying missions. most of the cost of the F-22 is to protect the pilot and the limits on performance are there due to human limitations. UAV's are cheaper and offer better flight performance
And then the focus will turn to hi-jacking the aircraft and/or blocking the control signal.
Venusian
10-07-09, 08:52 AM
F22 is much better than the F35 (or so folks say).
We've been talking about selling the F22 for awhile (before Obama). There is a reason the first overseas squadron was station in Japan.
Birrman54
10-07-09, 08:58 AM
And then the focus will turn to hi-jacking the aircraft and/or blocking the control signal.
We have people on it (I'm one of them)
Birrman54
10-07-09, 08:59 AM
Great article on this topic in this month's Wired:
The F-22 is not able to perform in the rain, or in dust and dirty air scenarios.
It rains even in war you know...
Reminds me of the that old Chevy Chase/Gregory Hines movie where they sold arms. At the end they were putting on a demo of a UAV that malfunctioned due to rain, it got wet.
The F-35 is one that will apparently be able to fly missions in a real war. It's an amazing plane but wasn't as far along in development when it was originally pitted against the F-22 for the contract.
The F-22 can hardly be deployed now because it's dusty in all our war zones.
Superboy
10-07-09, 09:19 AM
The countries listed aren't really on our enemies list. In addition, selling fighter jets makes for tight alliances. Fighter jets are pretty high maintenance; where they going to get spare parts if we are not getting along?
Right, but they can turn around and sell them to our enemies. And in this world of complex alliances, we shouldn't take for granted that our allies sometimes don't do things that are in our own best interests and security.
I'm also uncomfortable with it because I don't want the government to become dependent on revenue from military funds, even more so than it already has.
Dave99
10-07-09, 01:23 PM
Right, but they can turn around and sell them to our enemies. And in this world of complex alliances, we shouldn't take for granted that our allies sometimes don't do things that are in our own best interests and security.
I'm also uncomfortable with it because I don't want the government to become dependent on revenue from military funds, even more so than it already has.
Hence the reason you only sell them to the closest allies (those couple listed), and not the usual customers like saudi arabia, pakistan, UAE etc. You'd never see australia or england turning over an F22 to russia or china.
Save Ferris
10-07-09, 03:38 PM
The countries listed aren't really on our enemies list. In addition, selling fighter jets makes for tight alliances. Fighter jets are pretty high maintenance; where they going to get spare parts if we are not getting along?
What part thats made in the USA cannot be copied and made in China? Dont they manufacture their own pirated (and cheaper/better) version of a Humvee?
Ranger
10-07-09, 05:08 PM
Great article on this topic in this month's Wired:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-10/ff_smartlist_gates?currentPage=1Wow, that was really good. I liked the explanations on Gates' present-wars policy and fight against defense pork from Congress. Things make much more sense now.
The F-22 is not able to perform in the rain, or in dust and dirty air scenarios.
It rains even in war you know...
Reminds me of the that old Chevy Chase/Gregory Hines movie where they sold arms. At the end they were putting on a demo of a UAV that malfunctioned due to rain, it got wet.
The F-35 is one that will apparently be able to fly missions in a real war. It's an amazing plane but wasn't as far along in development when it was originally pitted against the F-22 for the contract.
The F-22 can hardly be deployed now because it's dusty in all our war zones.Yeah, good points about rain and dust. The F-35 is at least much cheaper than the F-22, and I'm sure the same can be said about the new drones.
Buy: