Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Time For US To Sell Japan F-22?  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10425 times:

In lieu of recent news out of North Korea some analysts are saying that it's now time to accept the fact that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and in turn, the US needs to help Japan counter this threat by helping Japan become a nuclear-wielding Nation as well.

Whether or not that becomes the case, is it not a very wise time to discuss once again the prospect of selling Japan F-22's, especially since the US has evidently decided to purchase no further F-22's?

If the US has already sold them AEGIS cruisers and in fact might indeed help them wield nuclear weapons to counter the DPRK threat, what further possible security issue could there be with F-22's, especially if say perhaps they are agreed to be built in the US?



http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20090516a1.html

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10399 times:

I think so. The money is nice, we send a message to the Asian smurf, and improve our relations with Japan. I do think that we should only offer the F-22 to Japan and the UK (who probably wouldn't buy it) and that is it. Nobody else, especially not Israel.

I don't know about North Korea though. Something needs to happen. It might just be time to go blow something up. Personally, I could really use a nice long arms race.

I've probably posted this link before, but just to keep the mood light, here is one of my favorite YouTube videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nKuoNhihh4



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 961 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10361 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
in turn, the US needs to help Japan counter this threat by helping Japan become a nuclear-wielding Nation as well.

Japan needs no help. They have the most high-tech industrial and scientific base outside of the U.S. and could likely produce a nuclear weapon within 18-24 months of a program start. The only way we could "help" Japan develop their own nuclear capability faster would be to just give them some of our weapons.

In any event, this will not happen because:

1. It wouldn't make Japan any more secure given their relationship with the U.S.
2. It would require a dramatic departure from Japan's defense policy

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
Whether or not that becomes the case, is it not a very wise time to discuss once again the prospect of selling Japan F-22's, especially since the US has evidently decided to purchase no further F-22's?

This I do support. Selling Japan the F-22 is good, old-fashion jobs and exports at a time when we need them most. We have a tremendous relationship with Japan and they are a tremendous "western" influence in Asia. Making Japan stronger makes us stronger.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1541 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10351 times:

It may not have made it to the press in the USA but Australia tried to buy the F22 and were rejected.

Since the F22 is most likely, going out of production anyway, it would not cost much in terms of jobs to sell them to reliable allies. All the components would come from the USA and they would be assembled in Australia.
I believe that is what happened with the F111, and will happen with the F-18E/F, and the F35.

Cheers
Ruscoe


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10336 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hell yes. THey will just develop their own version without us (already started) and they are able to afford 30 or 40 of these things. A couple of squadrons would be a huge help to the US, since we're tied to their defence.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2898 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 10280 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
If the US has already sold them AEGIS cruisers and in fact might indeed help them wield nuclear weapons to counter the DPRK threat, what further possible security issue could there be with F-22's, especially if say perhaps they are agreed to be built in the US?

I disagree with the sale of the F-22 because of the AEGIS issues. Japan has proven to be unreliable with securing data. They don't simply habd it over to the chinese like the Israelis, but they have pathetic security protocols. Twice they've compromised the sysem in the past 18-24 months.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8403 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 10231 times:



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 5):
I disagree with the sale of the F-22 because of the AEGIS issues. Japan has proven to be unreliable with securing data. They don't simply habd it over to the chinese like the Israelis, but they have pathetic security protocols.

Japan is a strategic foe of China and NK. I agree the danger of compromised intelligence is there. But let's be realistic, the US is not good at secrecy either. The Chinese will have all the info they need on F-22, with or without Japan sales.

But, maybe it is best to at least slow the process down by denying sales to Australia or Japan. It could put China perhaps 5 to 10 years down the pike. But eventually, they will get the necessary information. The decision to keep the F-22 domestic (no Israel, no Japan... etc) is probably very wise with respect to Russia and China, even if it won't change things in the end.


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 10176 times:



Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 3):
Since the F22 is most likely, going out of production anyway, it would not cost much in terms of jobs to sell them to reliable allies.



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 5):
I disagree with the sale of the F-22 because of the AEGIS issues. Japan has proven to be unreliable with securing data. They don't simply habd it over to the chinese like the Israelis, but they have pathetic security protocols. Twice they've compromised the sysem in the past 18-24 months.

Then of course there was that incident several years ago with submarine silenting technology...



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 10009 times:

I say sell the F-22 to (almost) anyone who is willing to pony up the cash. China already has a few terabytes of data on the F-35, which takes a lot of tech from the F-22, why not sell it to Japan and Australia, maybe even Israel. The more F-22s flying around with friends, the better.

Japan doesn't need nukes for self defense. First, N Korea needs to build a rocket that can work, then make it more accurate... a thing they are having great difficulty doing (may have to do with the name 'dong'). Then, even if they get one hit in on Japan, N Korea will lose every capital military asset in short order.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 9959 times:

I think it would send a powerful message to North Korea as well as China (who strangely is not as mad about NK as they should be).

BTW does anyone know what type of jets NK's air force consists of?


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 9956 times:

I have said in the past that I thought we'd offer this aircraft to four countries: Japan, Australia, Singapore, and the UK. Boy, was I wrong!

However, I would support a sale of F-22s to Japan on two conditions:
1. They buy at least 24.
2. The terms are FOB Yakota AB--in other words, no co-productions, no offsets, no code, etc.

How bad would they want this deal? I suspect they wouldn't.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2898 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 9884 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
BTW does anyone know what type of jets NK's air force consists of?

MiG-21, -23, and -29s.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9830 times:

Japan may no longer be after the F-22 if they're planning to join the JSF program.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...s-to-lift-arms-export-embargo.html

Quote:
"It is becoming more likely that Japan will participate in the F-35 fighter program, and this may offer the vehicle that will mark Japan's return to the international armaments business."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9826 times:

The F-22 is a real ace in the hole for the US. While there is much information publicly available on the F-22, most key stealth information is probably still secret.

Nobody has anything that can match its stealth capabilities and probably won't for the next decade or so.

That advantage is worth significantly more than the cash from an international sale.



What the...?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8403 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9828 times:



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 11):
MiG-21, -23, and -29s.

The only meaningful armament NK has is against the civilians of Seoul. They might kill a lot of people in Seoul in the minutes before we eliminated all hostility in NK. If not, then there's no reason we would even negotiate with them. We could, as noted, eliminate all their military assets in just minutes. In retrospect maybe that is long overdue. The only problem is Seoul.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9786 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
The only meaningful armament NK has is against the civilians of Seoul.

In fact their artillery can hit Seoul; I have read that many of these guns are dual capable, i.e., capable of firing chemical shells.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
The only problem is Seoul.

As if that weren't problem enough, there would be the infiltrators that are already in the South, plus the special units that would make their way across the DMZ. I'm not sure it would be as easy as you suggest, unless Kim's army takes its cue from Saddam's and surrenders en masse.

No rational person wants to see war on the Korean peninsula. Baby Kim and his generals know this, which is why they will continue to take provocations step-by-step and short of war. There might be a skirmish or two, but I doubt they'll push across the DMZ with an invasion force. The casualties would be staggering, unlike anything since the last Korean War.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3516 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9643 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 15):
No rational person wants to see war on the Korean peninsula. Baby Kim and his generals know this, which is why they will continue to take provocations step-by-step and short of war. There might be a skirmish or two, but I doubt they'll push across the DMZ with an invasion force. The casualties would be staggering, unlike anything since the last Korean War.

True. This would be the first 21st century "classic" war of two states fighting each other, something which has rarely occurred already after WW2, for good reasons. This would probably see 20-30 million dead, and destroy the economy of South Korea, something which itself would be a very alarming blow to world economy, as well...

Lets hope this never happens. Unfortunately there are so many people in North Korea who make a profit in the current regieme that sending a Seal team to blow up Kim Jong Il won't help, either.,


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9617 times:

Which side would the russians and chinese be on this time?


What the...?
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9600 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 17):
Which side would the russians and chinese be on this time?

IMO, the last thing the Chinese want is a full fledged war on the Asian mainland. The Russians? Who knows? This isn't 1950 and Putin Inc now demands hard cash for weapons.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3516 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9558 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 18):
IMO, the last thing the Chinese want is a full fledged war on the Asian mainland. The Russians? Who knows? This isn't 1950 and Putin Inc now demands hard cash for weapons.

Actually some days ago Russian officials were cited that this nuclear test needed a hard answer from the international community. They even mentioned resolutions based on Chapter VII of the UN charta. While this was quickly toned down, the message is clear.

Chapter VII is the chapter regarding worldwide peace. Resolutions under this chapter allow military force used against the aggressor.

With other words, they are quite concerned about North Korea, and would likely back any steps undertaken against them.


User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 15):
In fact their artillery can hit Seoul; I have read that many of these guns are dual capable, i.e., capable of firing chemical shells.

Most artillery of at least 100mm is dual capable in that sense. It's the ammunition that's special, but it's fired from perfectly ordinary gun tubes.

A particular unit may require special training and facilities to handle chemical munitions, but nothing that really impacts the guns themselves.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9521 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
That advantage is worth significantly more than the cash from an international sale.

Cash is the only thing keeping other countries from building their own stealth fighters. Russia has samples of F-117 RAM and China has a few Terabytes of data on the F-35... they have the knowledge, not the money or time. They could do gen 4.5 fighters ala F-15SE, but not true stealth like the F-22 or F-35. Even with a F-22 for them to pick over, it would take decades for them to reverse engineer it, and it would still cost a load of money to make.

Having a few more squadrons under allied control is worth more than a few years of secret technology. Any potential adversary to the US and her allies knows they are not match tech wise, so how do you match tech? Numbers. China and N Korea have BIG numbers... so the more F-22s flying around, the better.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9510 times:

I think we could handle Kim's air force between Japan's own F-15Js and our F-22s at Kadena. That would be just to get things started until F-16s, B-2s, B-1s and possibly more F-22s (if needed by then) can get there. Let's not forget the cruise missile shower that would follow immediately after any aggression by Kim, probably catching much of his air force on the ground. That's not really my concern, though. I think Kim's smart enough to know he'd immediately get pounded into mud if he did something to Seoul or along the DMZ. What concerns me is the possibility of his sharing his new found nukes with the likes of Iran or worse, Bin Laden's bunch.

[Edited 2009-05-28 19:41:23]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9441 times:

It's hard to guess what kimmy would do...is he crazy or cagey...? I don't think any country is willing to sit by and let kim sell nukes to the highest bidder.


What the...?
User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9422 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 19):
Chapter VII is the chapter regarding worldwide peace. Resolutions under this chapter allow military force used against the aggressor.

Then Russia or China should do it.



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
25 JoeCanuck : True...they armed NK...if it needs disarming, they should be in there doing it.
26 BritJap : IMHO, this is highly highly unlikely. In fact I would say it is pretty much a guaranteed thing that this will not happen (at least anywhere in the ne
27 DL767captain : It's just getting a little entertaining to hear that North Korea will "mercilessly destroy" any invaders. I find that a little difficult when they won
28 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : I'd venture there is a longshot which may complete a menage a trois..... http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace...5se/images/28535/boeing-f-15se.jpg Ja
29 Michlis : No, but they have a hell of a lot of artillery and they could likely inflict serious damage and casualties on Seoul before it was all taken out.
30 BritJap : Even more than that, I don't think any variant of the F-15 has any real chance of success here anyway. I don't know how the JASDF would feel about it
31 QFMel : Yep- wanting a Mitsubishi F-22 would have to be a deal breaker as the production line for the F-22 in the US closes. That alone would be close to an
32 Baroque : Dunno about spot on!! I would have thought they could do it in about 2 months, maybe less rather than more.
33 QFMel : Well, come what may, they have an advanced manufacturing capability and it's likely they could weaponise with ease. Though we're still overlooking Ja
34 Post contains links AirRyan : Now that Japan has dropped their arms export ban, their a lot more open to anything the West may offer. Honestly I think they would have a good chance
35 BMI727 : Israel might use it, that's why. Maybe if they allow a Palestinian state and a UN peacekeeping force in between the two we could allow them some F-22
36 QFMel : Without getting overly political, it takes two to Tango. Or in this case, quite a few dance partners to be dancing. It's really not as simple as that
37 BMI727 : I don't think so. Giving Israel the F-22 would allow them to wreak all sorts of havoc all over the region if they want. The political risks are too g
38 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Not to veer too much off-topic here, but if IIRC, the justification given for the Super Hornet buy was that it would cost $40M less apiece than the S
39 QFMel : You're predicating your stance on the assumption that they can't do so already. It's not just their (comparatively and objectively) superlative platf
40 BMI727 : They most certainly can, but just because someone already has a shotgun doesn't mean it is okay to give them a machine gun. More importantly, allowin
41 QFMel : That much we can agree on, though I would qualify this by saying that Israel is not the 'problem' per se- the situation in the Middle East is a many
42 BMI727 : There is plenty of blame to go around, but the idea that Israelis are the victimized 'good guys' is not right. Sadly that is the image the US media p
43 QFMel : Goes too far the other way sometimes. Plenty of European media (and sadly, some Australian media) that presumes Israel is guilty until proven innocen
44 DEVILFISH : Ahh, pardon me then. It did bear a "striking" resemblance to a more recent procurement action. On this, there is no debate.
45 Trex8 : thats because they don't want 10 million North Koreans running across the border into China Apologies to our Aussie friends but Oz will never be able
46 BMI727 : You would if you want to bomb something. The fact remains that stealth aircraft are, and most likely always will be, offensive weapons. While I think
47 Lumberton : If the recent Rio Tinto failure is any indication, they might want to re-think this -- if that is their intention.
48 QFMel : For what it's worth, the United States isn't going to be able to buy enough Raptors to meet its long-term need for that aircraft. But again, here the
49 Post contains links Lumberton : This should end the discussion on F-22s for Japan. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/as...apans-f-22-dream-could-become.html
50 QFMel : And that's the end of that chapter.
51 AirRyan : Well those numbers certainly seem biased towards someone not wanting Japan to acquire the F-22, but still a single F-22 isn't quite worth two or thre
52 Oroka : And what is stopping them from bombing whatever they want out of existence now? And after air dominance is obtained, do you just park the F-22s? No,
53 Post contains links Lumberton : Japan MOD takes another tact. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...elay%20F-X%20Order&channel=defense
54 BritJap : I wouldn't say that yet.... It strikes me that way too. Or perhaps an attempt to see if they can get Japan to pay the costs for the opportunity to ke
55 BritJap : I was just thinking about it when I realised that MoD is indeed the correct description. It stopped being the JDA quite some time ago!! I don't know
56 QFMel : Depends whether you actually need it for that purpose, for a number of air forces who have this on their wishlist, it's not a role they might ordinar
57 Post contains links Lumberton : Gen Schwartz, the USAF Chief of Staff, gives three reasons why Japan most likely won't get the F-22. http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.as
58 Oroka : Looks like Japan is willing to swallow the $250m cost per airframe to still get the F-22. They are willing to take a reworked export model... sell the
59 BritJap : Perhaps in theory......... You can correct me if I am wrong here but Australia is now essentially committed to the F-35!? ie There no longer exists a
60 QFMel : Highly likely they'll go that way. If the change of Defence Minister or a rethink of the acquisition more broadly as a result of the Ministerial resh
61 Post contains links Oroka : Japan is still pushing for the F-22, even after a $250m price tag and 7-9 years for delivery. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...n-makes-another-
62 BritJap : Correct. Not the conclusion that I would draw. Think of these as unrelated incidents. Yes, Japan is still seeking to acquire the F-22, and that is a
63 Blackbird : I think the F-35's are just fine for most purposes... plus as far as I'm concerned they have a number of technological features that actually have the
64 Post contains links MCIGuy : Reuters: F-22s on stand-by in East Asia as tension with North Korea grows
65 Blackbird : Well, we have the F-22's and we can defend the Japanese... I still don't see why they need F-22's.
66 Wvsuperhornet : I disagree Jap[an does not need the F-22 to fend off North Korea the aircraft they have now will do the job, the north Korean Airforce is not that ad
67 BMI727 : There are three good reasons: 1. To make them like us. 2. A show of force against the North Koreans. 3. The Japanese might be willing to pay $250 mil
68 Lumberton : I suspect it's not North Korea that is the perceived threat--its China, an perhaps Russia (the Kuriles again). Given the apparent willingness of Japa
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Time For US To Sell Japan F-22?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Great Time For Usmc To Buy Super Hornets... posted Sun Jun 24 2007 20:09:58 by AirRyan
Crunch Time For Moffett's Hangar One posted Fri Aug 1 2008 14:00:17 by Psa188
RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground posted Tue Jul 1 2008 14:57:49 by GDB
US To India: We'll Throw In The Kitty Hawk posted Sun Feb 24 2008 19:27:34 by Atmx2000
U.S. Agrees To Sell F-35 To Israel posted Tue Jul 31 2007 09:32:18 by Playloud
New Helicopters For US Army Delivered posted Thu Jul 26 2007 06:44:39 by Zeke
Fokker F28 Carrier Tests For US Navy! posted Wed Mar 8 2006 23:05:24 by BuyantUkhaa
US Army Interest In V-22? posted Mon Feb 20 2006 18:05:43 by STT757
Company To Sell Trips Around The Moon posted Thu Aug 11 2005 05:33:10 by BaylorAirBear
N.A.S.A Sued For Upset To Cosmic Balance posted Tue Jul 5 2005 18:23:37 by Photopilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format