Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[Flyaway]

sferrin: "There's a reason the F-35 is exportable and the F-22 isn't. You might want to look into why."

Flyaway: "Internet hearsay"

Marauder2048: "Compliance with the modern ITAR regime is more or less "built in" to the F-35 production line/supply chain but would have to be grafted on (with schedule and cost implications) to revived F-22 production if exports were seriously contemplated."

Flyaway: "Precisely."

But that wasn't the point you seemed to be making rather that the F-22A had something special about it that meant it couldn't be exported. In fact all that's happened is ITAR rules have adapted since it ended production & therefore if it now re-entered production there is nothing stopping its export.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Erm. No. Read again.

Compliance with the modern ITAR regime is more or less "built in" to the F-35 production line/supply chain but would have to be grafted on (with schedule and cost implications) to revived F-22 production if exports were seriously contemplated.

F-22 was not designed with exportability in mind. It would likely require some redesign of certain components / processes to avoid compromising technologies, especially with license production. F-35 was always intended as a multinational program and this has been taken account of in the design.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The reason the F-22 couldn't be exported was the Obey Amendment, if that gets repealed or waived there is nothing stopping the export of the type. ITAR isn't a ban, it just requires State Department and Department of Defense approval, the point of the Obey Amendment was prevent any approval from occurring - The F-22 would get the license if the DoD and State Department wanted to give it. ITAR is an approvals process, not a ban.

 

[sferrin]

The reason the F-22 couldn't be exported was the Obey Amendment, if that gets repealed or waived there is nothing stopping the export of the type. ITAR isn't a ban, it just requires State Department and Department of Defense approval, the point of the Obey Amendment was prevent any approval from occurring.

ITAR isn't just a stamp they throw on for looks. The item in question needs to be ITAR compliant. No compliance, no ITAR stamp. And yes, the F-22 would have to be modified to be ITAR compliant. This is all beside the point however. It'll never be back in production.

 

[markfward]

The reason the F-22 couldn't be exported was the Obey Amendment, if that gets repealed or waived there is nothing stopping the export of the type. ITAR isn't a ban, it just requires State Department and Department of Defense approval, the point of the Obey Amendment was prevent any approval from occurring.

ITAR isn't just a stamp they throw on for looks. The item in question needs to be ITAR compliant. No compliance, no ITAR stamp. And yes, the F-22 would have to be modified to be ITAR compliant. This is all beside the point however. It'll never be back in production.

This is false. There is no such thing as an "ITAR-compliant" widget (that would otherwise fall under DoS controls). And, just because something is on the Munitions List doesn't make it unexportable. The Obey Amendment is distinct from ITAR. There is no "stamp." There is no approval process other than what exists within DDTC. Your entire line of reasoning is demonstrably false. You seem like a nice enough person, but this is just wrong.

 

[sferrin]

This is false. There is no such thing as an "ITAR-compliant" widget (that would otherwise fall under DoS controls). And, just because something is on the Munitions List doesn't make it unexportable. The Obey Amendment is distinct from ITAR. There is no "stamp." There is no approval process other than what exists within DDTC. Your entire line of reasoning is demonstrably false. You seem like a nice enough person, but this is just wrong.

Even without the Obey Amendment ITAR rules the day. And yes, if you export in violation of ITAR you WILL pay a hefty fine. (ITT paid $100 million for example.) But hey, let's just pretend that doesn't exist mmmkay? The fact remains, the F-22 is not exportable in it's current configuration. More than paperwork would have to change in order for it to be exportable under current rules and regulations.

"§127.1 Violations.

(a) Without first obtaining the required license or other written approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, it is unlawful:"

The F-22, in it's current configuration, would not get it. They didn't design the F-35 specifically for export just because it was an interesting technical exercise.

"The top U.S. government arms-sale official on Friday all but dismissed prospects for supplying the United States' premier fighter jet to Japan or Israel, even if a sale is cleared by Congress.

Designing an export version of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT.N) radar-evading F-22 Raptor could cost more than $1 billion and be "prohibitively expensive" for any would-be foreign buyer, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

"If (export) were to be considered, which it's not, it essentially would have to be redesigned, rebuilt, retested and then go into production," Kohler, who oversees government-to-government arms sales, told Reuters in a brief interview."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-usa-fighter-exclusive-idUSN2727861320070427

 

[sferrin]

The F-22 would get the license if the DoD and State Department wanted to give it. ITAR is an approvals process, not a ban.

Sure, we could give ICBMs and their warheads to Iran if the DoD and State Department wanted it. Thing is though, they don't. Same with the F-22.

 

[markfward]

As one of my friends would say, wrongula. The Obey Amendment is specific to F-22. The F-35 is no more or less "ITAR-free" than a ring laser gyro. You are simply misinformed. DDTC makes the deciding judgement, not some innate quality to the defense article. I should know - I was the ITAR Empowered Official for a DARPA-funded entity. We dealt with FORTRAN code from fifty years ago. I hardly think your imagined exemptions for the F-35 applied when some codes for modeling soil slippage did not.

 

[sferrin]

As one of my friends would say, wrongula. The Obey Amendment is specific to F-22. The F-35 is no more or less "ITAR-free" than a ring laser gyro. You are simply misinformed. DDTC makes the deciding judgement, not some innate quality to the defense article. I should know - I was the ITAR Empowered Official for a DARPA-funded entity. We dealt with FORTRAN code from fifty years ago. I hardly think your imagined exemptions for the F-35 applied when some codes for modeling soil slippage did not.

"The top U.S. government arms-sale official on Friday all but dismissed prospects for supplying the United States' premier fighter jet to Japan or Israel, even if a sale is cleared by Congress.

Designing an export version of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT.N) radar-evading F-22 Raptor could cost more than $1 billion and be "prohibitively expensive" for any would-be foreign buyer, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

"If (export) were to be considered, which it's not, it essentially would have to be redesigned, rebuilt, retested and then go into production," Kohler, who oversees government-to-government arms sales, told Reuters in a brief interview."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-usa-fighter-exclusive-idUSN2727861320070427


"The F-35 is no more or less "ITAR-free" than a ring laser gyro."

Who said that it was? This isn't rocket science. Pretty much everything (if not EVERYTHING) on the F-35 is ITAR controlled. That means you need specific approval to export. The F-35 was designed such that said approval would be coming. The F-22 was not.

 

[markfward]

I'm curious to know what exact points you've disproven. So far as I can tell, you've merely proven what I had to say - that the Obey Amendment disallows the like-for-like F-22 sale to any foreign body. Sir, you are incorrect with your statements about ITAR. Your statements regarding the Obey Amendment are very nearly pointless, in that they do not make any new points of argument. That being said, you have made other very valid posts on this website in the past and I am happy to have your input.

 

[sferrin]

I'm curious to know what exact points you've disproven. So far as I can tell, you've merely proven what I had to say - that the Obey Amendment disallows the like-for-like F-22 sale to any foreign body. Sir, you are incorrect with your statements about ITAR. Your statements regarding the Obey Amendment are very nearly pointless, in that they do not make any new points of argument. That being said, you have made other very valid posts on this website in the past and I am happy to have your input.

Address this then:

"The top U.S. government arms-sale official on Friday all but dismissed prospects for supplying the United States' premier fighter jet to Japan or Israel, even if a sale is cleared by Congress.

Designing an export version of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT.N) radar-evading F-22 Raptor could cost more than $1 billion and be "prohibitively expensive" for any would-be foreign buyer, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

"If (export) were to be considered, which it's not, it essentially would have to be redesigned, rebuilt, retested and then go into production," Kohler, who oversees government-to-government arms sales, told Reuters in a brief interview."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-usa-fighter-exclusive-idUSN2727861320070427


My point is that the F-22, in it's current design, is not in a condition such that we would WANT to export it. That it would not get approval. That's all.

 

[markfward]

As one of my friends would say, wrongula. The Obey Amendment is specific to F-22. The F-35 is no more or less "ITAR-free" than a ring laser gyro. You are simply misinformed. DDTC makes the deciding judgement, not some innate quality to the defense article. I should know - I was the ITAR Empowered Official for a DARPA-funded entity. We dealt with FORTRAN code from fifty years ago. I hardly think your imagined exemptions for the F-35 applied when some codes for modeling soil slippage did not.

"The top U.S. government arms-sale official on Friday all but dismissed prospects for supplying the United States' premier fighter jet to Japan or Israel, even if a sale is cleared by Congress.

Designing an export version of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT.N) radar-evading F-22 Raptor could cost more than $1 billion and be "prohibitively expensive" for any would-be foreign buyer, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

"If (export) were to be considered, which it's not, it essentially would have to be redesigned, rebuilt, retested and then go into production," Kohler, who oversees government-to-government arms sales, told Reuters in a brief interview."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-usa-fighter-exclusive-idUSN2727861320070427


"The F-35 is no more or less "ITAR-free" than a ring laser gyro."

Who said that it was? This isn't rocket science. Pretty much everything (if not EVERYTHING) on the F-35 is ITAR controlled. That means you need specific approval to export. The F-35 was designed such that said approval would be coming. The F-22 was not.

This is so wrong it's ridiculous. Fine-grained gyros are ITAR controlled. A whole bunch of software (including some I wrote) is ITAR controlled. Inertial guidance systems are ITAR controlled. You are absolutely and completely incorrect if you think the F-35 was designed to be somehow ITAR-free. Wrong. Like, dead wrong. Freaking rifle scopes are on the munitions list!

Come on, man. The F-35 was designed so that it could pass muster, not that it was magically free of all scrutiny. It was designed so it didn't give up the High Holies. It wasn't designed so it could waltz past any scrutiny.

 

[sferrin]

Pretty much everything (if not EVERYTHING) on the F-35 is ITAR controlled. That means you need specific approval to export.

This is so wrong it's ridiculous. Fine-grained gyros are ITAR controlled. A whole bunch of software (including some I wrote) is ITAR controlled. Inertial guidance systems are ITAR controlled. You are absolutely and completely incorrect if you think the F-35 was designed to be somehow ITAR-free.

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[markfward]

Pretty much everything (if not EVERYTHING) on the F-35 is ITAR controlled. That means you need specific approval to export.

This is so wrong it's ridiculous. Fine-grained gyros are ITAR controlled. A whole bunch of software (including some I wrote) is ITAR controlled. Inertial guidance systems are ITAR controlled. You are absolutely and completely incorrect if you think the F-35 was designed to be somehow ITAR-free.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Oh lordie, my browser went kaput and I got out of sync with our back-and-forth posts. I think we largely agree (but I'm happy to be wrong ).

 

[GTX]

I don't see why people find ITAR so difficult to understand. Although sometimes frustrating and time consuming and coming with significant penalties if breached, it is actually very easy to understand. I also don't believe having a F-22 (or component thereof) gain ITAR the necessary licences (be it a DSP-5, DSP-83, TAA, MLA, WDA etc) would be any more difficult than those for the F-35 or any other item on the munitions list for that matter. The only reason why it would would be if someone deliberately wanted to make it so - that has nothing to do with ITAR though, more ol' fashioned nationalistic pig-headless (usually disguised as "we got to protect our stuff/selves").

It is correct that that the Obey Amendment (see here for details) is what currently prevents the F-22 being exported. I actually think this has done the US more of a disservice than a benefit though as opportunities to bolster close allies and increase production (and reduce costs) have been lost. I also think that increasingly it is becoming irrelevant anyway. Many potential customers may no longer care for F-22s.

 

[sferrin]

Pretty much everything (if not EVERYTHING) on the F-35 is ITAR controlled. That means you need specific approval to export.

This is so wrong it's ridiculous. Fine-grained gyros are ITAR controlled. A whole bunch of software (including some I wrote) is ITAR controlled. Inertial guidance systems are ITAR controlled. You are absolutely and completely incorrect if you think the F-35 was designed to be somehow ITAR-free.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Oh lordie, my browser went kaput and I got out of sync with our back-and-forth posts. I think we largely agree (but I'm happy to be wrong ).

No problem.

 

[sferrin]

I don't see why people find ITAR so difficult to understand. Although sometimes frustrating and time consuming and coming with significant penalties if breached, it is actually very easy to understand. I also don't believe having a F-22 (or component thereof) gain ITAR the necessary licences (be it a DSP-5, DSP-83, TAA, MLA, WDA etc) would be any more difficult than those for the F-35 or any other item on the munitions list for that matter. The only reason why it would would be if someone deliberately wanted to make it so - that has nothing to do with ITAR though, more ol' fashioned nationalistic pig-headless (usually disguised as "we got to protect our stuff/selves").

It is correct that that the Obey Amendment (see here for details) is what currently prevents the F-22 being exported. I actually think this has done the US more of a disservice than a benefit though as opportunities to bolster close allies and increase production (and reduce costs) have been lost. I also think that increasingly it is becoming irrelevant anyway. Many potential customers may no longer care for F-22s.

I'd think the USAF would probably be on that list. If they had more NOW, sure, but I don't see them wanting to delay the next gen to get more F-22s.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

No-one ever said the F-35 was "ITAR-Free". The point made by various people was that the F-35 was designed from the start to be exported, to countries with different levels of trustworthiness, and its stealth and other technologies were built with that in mind, including maintenance, repair and production.

The F-22 wasn't so (like the F-117) it is likely it could only ever have been exported to the must trusted foreign governments not to all and sundry, to avoid the risk of compromising some of its core technologies, and even then some modifications might have been needed.

 

[quellish]

"The top U.S. government arms-sale official on Friday all but dismissed prospects for supplying the United States' premier fighter jet to Japan or Israel, even if a sale is cleared by Congress.

As has been pointed out many times before on this forum, the Obey amendment specifies that no *US government* funds be used to export the F-22. There have been several studies of what it would cost to prepare the F-22 for export. If an entity other than the US government paid for it, it could happen.

Export of low observable technology goes through a different process than a ring laser gyro. The aircraft or system goes through a DoD and industry product team to identify potential export issues. The product is checked against the MCTL, the Low Observabilities and Counter Low Observables lists, and a decision is made wether the product requires review by the LOEXCOM. Red and blue teams will examine the export issues and attempt to find remediation and recommendations. Assuming LOEXCOM has approved the export the process moves to the State Exception to National Disclosure Policy Committee.

Fun stuff! There are guidelines for what should flow through this process and what should not. For example, the F-18E may incorporate some technologies for reducing observables - but not to a level sufficient or sensitive enough to warrant the full LOEXCOM export process. It does not matter if the product was "designed for export" unless that means there is not significant observables reduction or use of sensitive technology.

The F-22 meets the requirements for the LOEXCOM process. Making it "export ready" would require at least product team review to identify potential export issues (which, IIRC, was done at least once ). The cost of exporting it would be dependent on what the required remediation steps may be (which, again, has been studied several times). For example, the radar and radome are very sensitive and could not be exported in their current form. The radome in particular is far too technically sensitive - however it is feasible to produce an exportable replacement and radar, though with significantly reduced capability.

 

[GTX]

it is likely it could only ever have been exported to the must trusted foreign governments not to all and sundry

No different to the F-35 or any other modern platform or piece of US Defense technology.

I actually am starting to come to belief that the 'big secret' about the F-22 is how outdated many of its systems are...

 

[sferrin]

I could swear I read somewhere that before the Obey came about that Japan was willing to pony up the dough for the required export changes. Then that amendment killed it.

 

[sferrin]

I actually am starting to come to belief that the 'big secret' about the F-22 is how outdated many of its systems are...

There's outdated and there's outdated. "Outdated" in the sense that it's no longer effective? Extremely doubtful. "Outdated" in the sense that more powerful computers are available? Certainly. I read somewhere that the F-15Es tool around on the rough equivalent of a 386.

 

[marauder2048]

I don't see why people find ITAR so difficult to understand. Although sometimes frustrating and time consuming and coming with significant penalties if breached, it is actually very easy to understand. I also don't believe having a F-22 (or component thereof) gain ITAR the necessary licences (be it a DSP-5, DSP-83, TAA, MLA, WDA etc) would be any more difficult than those for the F-35 or any other item on the munitions list for that matter. The only reason why it would would be if someone deliberately wanted to make it so - that has nothing to do with ITAR though, more ol' fashioned nationalistic pig-headless (usually disguised as "we got to protect our stuff/selves").

It is correct that that the Obey Amendment (see here for details) is what currently prevents the F-22 being exported. I actually think this has done the US more of a disservice than a benefit though as opportunities to bolster close allies and increase production (and reduce costs) have been lost. I also think that increasingly it is becoming irrelevant anyway. Many potential customers may no longer care for F-22s.

I'd think the USAF would probably be on that list. If they had more NOW, sure, but I don't see them wanting to delay the next gen to get more F-22s.

I almost took the Congressionally mandated F-22 restart study as a rather dour reaction to the USAF's 2030 Air Superiority study which was F-22/F-35 heavy but
contained no new fighter.

 

[GTX]

I was thinking more around "less and less supportable" and "using less efficient/effective" systems. People often like to put the F-22 up on some sort of 'miracle weapon pedestal' but would be surprised to find that many of its systems are using technology that they wouldn't even dream of having on their home computer...

 

[sferrin]

I was thinking more around "less and less supportable" and "using less efficient/effective" systems. People often like to put the F-22 up on some sort of 'miracle weapon pedestal' but would be surprised to find that many of its systems are using technology that they wouldn't even dream of having on their home computer...

Oh, no doubt. But it's that way with almost any system that's been in service for a while. I remember back in the day that "Star Wars" would be impossible because it would require over 10 million lines of code. I think there are apps with more than that. (I'm being facetious but you get my meaning.)

 

[sferrin]

I almost took the Congressionally mandated F-22 restart study as a rather dour reaction to the USAF's 2030 Air Superiority study which was F-22/F-35 heavy but
contained no new fighter.

Did the USAF already kill F-X the way the Navy did the F/XX? ???

 

[markfward]

it is likely it could only ever have been exported to the must trusted foreign governments not to all and sundry

No different to the F-35 or any other modern platform or piece of US Defense technology.

Agreed. We do the same degree of scrutiny for software, hardware -- even our friends the ring laser gyros ( ). DDTC goes through a rigorous process before allowing or disallowing export. There are all sorts of working groups having to do with navigation, software, and other less sexy fields than low observables. There seems to be this mysticism around F-22. The airplane is just an airplane. If I were an adversary state, I'd much rather have the AGM-129, or, far better, the AGM-137. But hey, who am I?

 

[quellish]

People often like to put the F-35 up on some sort of 'miracle weapon pedestal' but would be surprised to find that many of its systems are using technology that they wouldn't even dream of having on their home computer...

Fixed that for you.

 

[marauder2048]

I almost took the Congressionally mandated F-22 restart study as a rather dour reaction to the USAF's 2030 Air Superiority study which was F-22/F-35 heavy but
contained no new fighter.

Did the USAF already kill F-X the way the Navy did the F/XX? ???

F-X has been subsumed into the NGAD effort which won't report back until 2018. The Navy went predictably wobbly on F/A-XX and is now advancing a "family of systems" which is
all well and good until Congress starts widowing and orphaning your family.

 

[GTX]

People often like to put the F-35 up on some sort of 'miracle weapon pedestal' but would be surprised to find that many of its systems are using technology that they wouldn't even dream of having on their home computer...

Fixed that for you.

I'd much rather have the technology out of a F-35 than a F-22...any day!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

it is likely it could only ever have been exported to the must trusted foreign governments not to all and sundry

No different to the F-35 or any other modern platform or piece of US Defense technology.

You may have a different view of "most trusted foreign governments". I would count the other "five eyes", UK, Australia, Canada (and NZ, but the procurement of F-22 in NZ is rather beyond even conjecture) and perhaps Japan and Germany. The UK had significant access to F-117 program, for example.

 

[marauder2048]

People often like to put the F-35 up on some sort of 'miracle weapon pedestal' but would be surprised to find that many of its systems are using technology that they wouldn't even dream of having on their home computer...

Fixed that for you.

I'd much rather have the technology out of a F-35 than a F-22...any day!

I'm not so sure. If you'll indulge a cliche: "there's no replacement for displacement"; the F-22 has much larger physical apertures for RF sensors (radar, ESM) and much more mature low Band (2-4) capability that F-35 won't get until Block IV.

One of Lockheed's recurring proposals is to bump all Raptors (possibly including test aircraft) to a Block 40+ standard.

 

[quellish]

I'd much rather have the technology out of a F-35 than a F-22...any day!

That makes my point better than I could have, thanks!

 

[sferrin]

I'd much rather have the technology out of a F-35 than a F-22...any day!

That makes my point better than I could have, thanks!

Which fighter is at an all around higher level of technology than the F-35?

 

[NeilChapman]

I almost took the Congressionally mandated F-22 restart study as a rather dour reaction to the USAF's 2030 Air Superiority study which was F-22/F-35 heavy but
contained no new fighter.

That's interesting that you say that. DefenseNews reported it that way as well. But my thought is that DNews may have misinterpreted the AF2030 teams intentions. Perhaps I'm way off base but here's how I read it.

Grynkewich mentioned that they wanted to move from the notion of a "fighter" to a "node". Recall that is what the AF has been saying about B-21 as well. It's not a bomber but a node. The AF wants 100 B-21's but has stated to Congress that to meet their force requirements a follow-on to B-21, and not "more" B-21's, might be the solution. I think they've got an idea of what they want already.

We also know that the engagement of F-22's is not a typical fighter engagement. Their tactics are specific to the F-22's array of capabilities - perhaps with the thrust vectoring not contributing much.

I tend to think that the AF wants a node that builds upon the tactics used by F-22 that take advantage of it's stealth and integrated systems. The new node is not going to rely on low and tight maneuvering to win but active and passive stealth, integrated EWS, range, payload and speed. I don't think this is a monumental shift but it will be for some people and will take time to sink in.

After the AF2030 presentation, Holmes stated that F-X was expected to be a 20 or 30-year development program. I get the impression that time frame is what is being rejected, not the capabilities of a new airframe. I think they genuinely want to follow the B-21 development process and integrate mature tech with a new airframe. Selecting the new airframe is the sticky wicket.

The AF seems to suggest an additional year will inspire them to the proper mix of "speed and maneuverability, payload, and range for the platform." Perhaps this is politics. They definitely need to time to "prove" it's not viable to build more F-22's. They already know the payload and range they want. I'm sure they're hoping that AETP will give them the engines required. Maneuverability requirements probably aren't what they have with F-22 and supercruise is a given at ~M1.4+ unless there has been a breakthrough in aerodynamics and materials development.

So Jan 2017 the AF will start an AOA to see "what (they) can get short of a 20 or 30 year leap." They want a solution in place by 2025. Hey, guess what, this is the same timeline given by F-X (now called NGAD). I even think the name change is part of the politics.

None of this happens in a vacuum. The volatility of bad actors could accelerate DoD and Congress more than they anticipate even now. This is why I think it's critical for NG, LM and Boeing to kick their "NGAD" teams into overdrive. Be ready for Milestone A in 2018 and IOC by 2025.

 

[sublight_]

I'd much rather have the technology out of a F-35 than a F-22...any day!

You're thinking that the product of 25 year old computer technology is somehow as antiquated as 25 year old computing technology itself. There are many pieces of F22 that are currently "state of the art" that F35 does not possess.

 

[GTX]

Such as?

 

[sublight_]

Such as?

Many classified multi-spectral sensors and arrays that don't compromise its RCS.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 has an ESM from BAE also... just much newer.

next....

 

[sferrin]

The F-35 has an ESM from BAE also... just much newer.

next....

Still haven't heard a definitive, "yes, it's better than the ALR-94". Is that a "yes"?