Posted on 07/11/2006 12:05:59 AM PDT by AKSurprise
Washington, July 5 (IANS) The US House of Representatives has recommended lifting a nine-year ban on international sales of the F-22 Raptor, its most advanced fighter made by the same firm that manufactures F-16s proposed to be sold to Pakistan.
But instead of putting the plane in the general shopping window, Lockheed Martin is eyeing US allies like Australia, Britain and Japan as potential buyers for the expensive plane.
The House voted to lift the ban after an 11-minute debate on June 20, Washington Post reported.
Prospects of passage in the Senate are unclear, but it has been generally more tolerant of allowing international involvement in military programmes.
The ban was put in place to keep the Raptor's high-tech systems out of the hands of foreign governments. But with US military orders for the jet lagging, members of Congress and some top staffers in the air force have become concerned that Lockheed may shut down the plane's production line in coming years.
The $70 billion fighter programme is one of Lockheed's largest, employing more than 4,500 workers in Georgia and Texas and bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue.
The Pentagon has steadily lowered the number of F-22s it planned to purchase from the 750 -- it thought it needed to face off against the Soviet Union nearly 20 years ago -- down to 183. As with the older F-16, foreign purchases could keep the Raptor in business.
Lockheed and some in the air force began making a case for overseas sales of the fighter early this year as the Pentagon lowered the number of planes it would buy to save $10 billion over the next few years.
Until that point, Lockheed had expected to sell about 381 planes to the US government. The reduction prompted Lockheed to say it would have to close the F-22 production line by 2011.
Any specific sale is likely to face concerns about the export of technology that is still considered sensitive. Congress has continued funding the plane, despite its increasing cost, in part because the Raptor's technology was considered worth sustaining.
Excluding development costs that the Pentagon paid early in the programme, the price of the plane drops to between $150 million and $183 million, or even less for a stripped-down model. Foreign sales could also help defray some of the cost of the plane to the US military and keep the production line going.
Lt. Col. James Hecker flies over Fort Monroe (Virgina, USA) before delivering the first operational F-22A Raptor to its permanent home at Langley Air Force Base, Va., on May 12. This is the first of 26 Raptors to be delivered to the 27th Fighter Squadron. The Raptor program is managed by the F-22A System Program Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Colonel Hecker is the squadron's commander.
The House is absolutely correct, and I'm sure they're taking into account that some allies are more trustworthy than others in controlling the technology that comes with the fighters.
At $150 million a copy, "stripped down" might be a tough sell.
yitbos
'11-minute debate'
That's less time than I spend on the throne after a bag of sliders.
LOL!! Now THAT's a sig line.
selling it to a wider market would make it cheaper - that's the point of doing it.
yitbos?
what are the Soviets flying these days?
I'm kinda worried about a possible fighter gap.
So, they're not selling to Democrats(?)
"At $150 million a copy, "stripped down" might be a tough sell."
Even "stripped down," there is NOTHING on this planet that can come close to the F22 in air-to-air, except for a non-stripped down F22.
The thing was over-engineered in the tradition of good US milspec equipment. It far exceeds it's design parameters, which were considered to be ridiculous (if not impossible) when first released.
Countries will be clamoring for the F22, even "stripped down."
Naaa EF2000 is no F-22.
F-22= Stealthier while not using after burner, faster without afterburner, more reach.
EF2000 = Better IR Sensors, more paypload, cheaper, turns faster
F-22 is for taking down any aircraft anywhere - even over countries that own a certain degree of radar coverage.
EF2000 is a deliverance vehicle for ordonance of any kind.
The only nations with such a need are the US, UK, Japan, and Australia. Israel has also expressed interest in the F-22, however its not due to the need for a long range fighter (all of Israel's enemies are close, unfortunately). The Israelis want it because it is the best air superiority fighter in the world.
To my knowledge Britain is not working on any kind of fighter that is even in the same league as the F/A 22A Raptor. They have expressed interest in purchasing carrier capable Rafale-M jets from France if the US does not give in to demands on technology transfer and software source code for the JSF.
Lol the F-22 is 2.5 'generations' advanced.
But I guess the major advantage of a modern western fighter is it's data link to other units. The soviets are far from running such flying networks consisting of E-3s, U2s, UAVs, JSTARS, ground units, intel etc. etc.
If you connect all these units you may go bunker Busting in Iran on an Ultra-Light, because some UCAVS in front of you took out all the threats and you just deliver a stand off weapon.
NO! Sell it to Israel and China will have it with in a year.. :\
not even close.
In WW1, biplane pilots used to throw bricks.
Now that must have been fun.
I wouldn't worry about that so much anymore. The Israelis got thrown out of the JSF project because of their sales to China. They are not being slowly (stp by step) allowed back in on a provisional bases. I think they've learned their lesson. They sure as hell don't want to piss off the gurantor of their military supplies.
not beeing gassed or shot in the trenches was certainly 'fun'.
At between $150m & $183m/plane, the US probably wouldn't have to worry about other countries having access to the technology!
From 750 to less then 400 to 183
The unmannned fighters better be good.
And quick to produce.
It's like the Clinton years - avoid spending the money on hardware, which is where you should spend it in peacetime.
Instead spend in Bosnia, or now Iraq.
Fewer assets = less future capability, and shorter life formthose assets.
B52's are still around because we built a 744 of them. not 183
I hope that our President vetoes it. Western Europe can't be trusted with critical technologies.
Ally today - enemy tomorrow. How can you tell?
There are also a few facts that didn't excite readers as much as hysterical conspiracy stories.
Israeli contractors concerned over US export request
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1427203/posts
Didn't the Aussies, Brits and Japanese get the full versions of the F-16 and F-15 when they were state of the art? If so, we should keep the policy.
"The only nations with such a need are the US, UK, Japan, and Australia"
I'd back sales of the Raptor to those countries.
Maybe (I don't know), but the F-16 and even the F-15 didn't represent the great leap in capability that the F-22 represents today. It trains against a half-dozen F-15s (and wins, which themselves are one of the best fighters in the world today.
That said, I don't think we need massive amounts of them. I'd much prefer larger amounts of F-35s which kinda follow in the F-16 train of thought--a moderately (relatively) priced aircraft that can be fielded in decent numbers and for a variety of missions, sure it may not be best at any one particular thing, but it looks to be a better air-superiority fighter than 90% of what's going to be available, and its more than capable of suiting our needs.
Sure it's nice to have air-superiority-only aircraft available--if for no other reason than to maintain our superiority, but it's more useful to have something capable of doing the jobs that are more likely to be done (I know they added the "A" for a reason).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.