It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Caughtlurking
a reply to: Zaphod58
d both are excellent multi-role fighters and more than matches for su-27/30/35, especially BVR.
Senior USAF officers have recently told CA that re-starting F-22 production would be prohibitively expensive, and some even ruled it out completely.
Why would countries want to buy the F-22? Beats me!
Ask Japan, Australia, Israel....Likely much more suited to Canada than a single engine platform.
Defence analysis shows that the F-22 is not the right aircraft for Australia's air combat needs. The F-22 is without doubt a highly capable fighter aircraft, but we need a truly multi-role aircraft able to conduct the full range of air-to-ground as well as air-to-air combat missions.
Defence never has made a formal request to acquire the F-22. Nor have we ever asked US officials to start a process to lift the Congressional ban on selling the F-22. It is hardly unusual that the US should decide that some of its military technology is not for export, and hence the F-22 remains prohibited from export by US Congressional legislation.
I'm neither a fan of, nor anti-F-35. But if one looks at the performance levels of the two platforms and the fact that their costs are in the same 'area code', The F-22 flat out blows the F-35 away. It's not even close.
Now add in the technological advances that the F-35 enjoys into a new F-22 variant-plus advent engines, etc. and nothing would touch it for decades! (The bugs that the original F-22 suffered through would be largely avoided in a new variant, as well....)
There is nothing the F-35 can do that the F-22 can't, especially an upgraded version.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JimTSpock
Which is funny, because according to quotes by HASC members, one reason why they ordered the study is because of interest expressed by high ranking AF personnel. So someone is saying one thing and doing another.