Akita

Dave Angel made a good point about the incredible differance in cost (of the Raptor) over the Viper. The problem is, many of our potential future adversaries now operate those high-block Vipers in some numbers.
It is not USAF policy to send it's crews into combat in aircraft equivilant to those of it's enemies. I have long suspected that the reason the Pentagon supported sales of the F-16 to Egypt/Pakistan/UAE/et all, was to force the transition to a new generation of hardware.
One of the problems with the F-15 was it's own reputation--a damned good one. Many in political circles in Washington, and in the media, had this attitude that Rodan, (what Viper drivers call the Eagle), was still top of the heap and there was no need to replace the fleet.
The Indian Air Force has helped dissuade those in the know of such fallacy. The IAF techno-Sukhois are better at air-air than the Eagle if they are flown by pilots with the training, verve and hours in the air that the Indians have.
Thus...the Raptor. It is better by a generation or more than anything, anywhere.

The question at the top of the page is not: 'who could afford to buy the Raptor?' It is, 'Should U.S. export the F-22?'
I still vote Yes...to the most dependable and loyal of our allies. It probably won't happen soon, it's too expensive for a nation with a $500 bln def bdgt.
In the short term, USAF will probably keep cross training at least the Brits on the Raptor. (They are already doing that). And perhaps Cannucks and Aussies.

Jimmy

I would be very surprised if Canadians and Australians dont make it into the Raptor very soon (assuming they havent already).

Blademaster

Raptors would become cheaper for US if produced in greater numbers and what better way to do it than selling them to your allies. Heck US sold top of the line during Cold War to its allies. What's so different about today?

B-52HBUFF

True, but we only need another 100 to go along with the 180+ we already have.

Those Raptors along with the F-15C, F-15E, F-16, and F-35's should be enough.

I still say we don't sale our best fighter just yet.....maybe in ten years from now.

dundonrl

Export it, and it's technology to Canada, England, and Australia.. those are very staunch allies, and even though we all might bicker a bit now and then, were brothers in the same fight.. and England is the "mother" of all of us..

FiRepower

I say No , for now

Officer of Engineers

We may be able to afford to maintain 1 fighter each.

__________________
Chimo

Stan

from what they keep saying.. maybe thats enough

F14Dude

No, they should not be exported. Look what happenned to the F-14's in Iran. The Soviets gained some of the F-14's tech! That could happenned to Israel. It could get conquered (possibly) and then bingo, they have a stealth fighter. After 15 years it can probably be exported.

Dago

We'll, at current procurement figures, I don't see any country operating the F-22 besides the United States. However, if enough resources were pooled, and widespread effort was made of procurement of a number of different countries then it may be affordable. Regardless, it would have to overcome many, many hurdles for such a export to be viable. Such as, domestic economical concerns over development, production and integration of systems and sub-systems and inherit backlash from lack of domestic involvement. The weighing of RISK-VS-NEED from the Pentagon. What policy would shape exporting the F-22? In response to what threat-environment? How much of a need would justify the possibility of jeopardizing a number of technological advantages, not purely from the military side aspect, but from the ability of the Defense industry to maintain and monopolize of such R&D achievements and the possible consequences of such knowledge becoming more wide-spread.

PROS-VS-CONS. As of now, with the current lack of threat environment and lack of financial flexibility capability makes it not much of a reality. However, personally, from my stand-point, I'd like to see Japan make a effort at the Raptor. As well as the United Kingdom, eventually. For a few reasons, (1) The ability of Japan, the second largest economy in the world and largest in Asia, have the ability to maintain and project independent of the United States which would enable us to loosen our commitments over any possible confrontation with China. With Japan being more then capable of being independent. (2) For the United Kingdom, th only other country besides the United States that is able to strategically project and well rounded to have a front-line fighter such as the F-22. However, considerations would have to be taken into account of the growing trend of British Defense industry more along the lines of European procurement with France, Germany, and other EU members.

As of now, though, no I don't think the F-22 should be exported. There isn't the need and frankly the full advantages of the F-22 shouldn't be exported. 2015. Sure. Depending on how the World looks.

glow

Yes since many countries went into help build it.

Stan

glow i think you are thinking of the f-35

VarSity

I would like to see the UK operating F-22's. They are a dedicated A2A, everything else we seem to have or are getting is multirole.

What would the cost be for say 50 F-22's? Im having trouble working out unit costs becuase of all the R&D info and costs.

taygone

I say no, for now as well. One con against on making the F-22 in the first place was it there isn't anything as sophisticated as the latest version of the F-15. No need to mass produce F-22s as they aren't needed yet.

BenRoethig

I would agree if you if it 15 years ago, but the Eagle is showing its age and to bring the eagle up to the stealth performance to planes like the Typhoon and Super Hornet would require a price tag 80-90% of what the raptor is.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.