The USA invests in the F-22 and variants instead of the F-35 JSF

This is a major POD with limited consequences so far. (Since the USA hasn't had to watch the F-35 get blown out of the sky by modern Russian missiles and aircraft, as would inevitably happen if both sides had reasonably trained pilots.)

Instead of buying the F-35, pushing it onto allies (notably Japan which wanted F-22s and Australia which needed F-22s), and so what if the USA invested heavily into the F-22?

That is, export of F-22 technology to their closest allies (most importantly Japan and Australia, but probably also the UK and perhaps other European nations). Development of the F-22N navalized version instead of the stupid Super Hornet. Development of the FB-22 bomber variant instead of the F-35 to serve as an in-between solution between current bombers and the 2018-2025 B-2 replacement.


Given the cost of the JSF (closing in on that of the F-22 with around a third the capability) this would allow the the USA to field well over a 1000 F-22s (including variants) as well as letting partner nations field their own forces. Given the capabilities of the F-22 over the F-35 this would probably also represent a 2-3 times improvement in capability for the USAF.

(Left out: the Marines. I have no idea what they'd get without the JSF and with the F-22 lacking the features they want.)


And, before anyone brings it up, the USA has maintained a 32-34/32-34/30-32 split between the Navy/AF/Army since WWII so it isn't like the Army will ever be able to cut into the other service's budget for insurgency operations.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
This is a major POD with limited consequences so far. (Since the USA hasn't had to watch the F-35 get blown out of the sky by modern Russian missiles and aircraft, as would inevitably happen if both sides had reasonably trained pilots.)

Instead of buying the F-35, pushing it onto allies (notably Japan which wanted F-22s and Australia which needed F-22s), and so what if the USA invested heavily into the F-22?

That is, export of F-22 technology to their closest allies (most importantly Japan and Australia, but probably also the UK and perhaps other European nations). Development of the F-22N navalized version instead of the stupid Super Hornet. Development of the FB-22 bomber variant instead of the F-35 to serve as an in-between solution between current bombers and the 2018-2025 B-2 replacement.


Given the cost of the JSF (closing in on that of the F-22 with around a third the capability) this would allow the the USA to field well over a 1000 F-22s (including variants) as well as letting partner nations field their own forces. Given the capabilities of the F-22 over the F-35 this would probably also represent a 2-3 times improvement in capability for the USAF.

(Left out: the Marines. I have no idea what they'd get without the JSF and with the F-22 lacking the features they want.)


And, before anyone brings it up, the USA has maintained a 32-34/32-34/30-32 split between the Navy/AF/Army since WWII so it isn't like the Army will ever be able to cut into the other service's budget for insurgency operations.

My first thought going into this POD is, as with most PODs that involve equipment restructuring after WWII: what is this going to cost?

Despite what Japan and Australia may want, the F-35 had much more international backing than the F-22, and thus much more financial offsets. It was and will probably end up being much cheaper for the US since there are other countries already on board for export orders and the plane isn't even really proven yet.

Okay, well, I'm going to say that there would be a probable hole in the Marine capability (which you've already pointed out), and they'd probably want something like the Super Hornet anyway. If they're not going to get a next generation VTOL aircraft, they might as well get a next generation F/A-18. And besides, the Super Hornet was already in production in the mid-90s, at the same time as the first pre-production F-22s were just starting to get through the factory.

I personally think that there would be significantly less financial freedom attached to pursuing a solely F-22 project. That's my opinion.
 
I dunno what to add except...the only country that the USA had agreed to sell F22s to is Israel, IIRC, and even then it was a big deal...while Japan and Australia both requested access, it's still pending.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Why would you want stealth air craft, it's only halfway there to the realization that other powers have a spy network in the air force and can tell you where they are anyways. If the US tries to go this route wouldn't it only lead to the natural increase in the other as nations put more funds into being able to pinpoint them. Especially after America has been trying to sell this white elephant to its allies in order to well them, isn't the other entire half of properly keeping any plane stealth an entirely separate deal for these nations? Can Japan and Australia have enough money to spend on both to the extent that they can be useful and not restrict the flexibility of the other?
 
My first thought going into this POD is, as with most PODs that involve equipment restructuring after WWII: what is this going to cost?

Current estimates are 90M per F-35 and 140M per F-22. Obviously if one proposes to buy 1000+ F-22s instead of 187 those costs will come done. Also, the F-22 can operate in the face of modern Russian SA-21 SAMs, while the F-35 (as with all less stealthy aircraft) will get blown out of the sky at 200 NM.

Despite what Japan and Australia may want, the F-35 had much more international backing than the F-22, and thus much more financial offsets. It was and will probably end up being much cheaper for the US since there are other countries already on board for export orders and the plane isn't even really proven yet.

Technically speaking the USA pushed hard on the F-35, going so far as to intervene at above-Defence portfolio levels in order to sell the F-35. Oh, and the 90M cost is the fly away cost. If one was to bring other nations' aboard the F-22 project costs would fall further. (Incidentally the F-35 was sold to the European partners because the F-22 was too expensive. Over the next decade the F-35 climbed close to the F-22s cost.)

I'd add the British as the F-35 is a horrible plane for their new large carriers.

Okay, well, I'm going to say that there would be a probable hole in the Marine capability (which you've already pointed out), and they'd probably want something like the Super Hornet anyway. If they're not going to get a next generation VTOL aircraft, they might as well get a next generation F/A-18. And besides, the Super Hornet was already in production in the mid-90s, at the same time as the first pre-production F-22s were just starting to get through the factory.

That's what I was thinking. It turns out, on further reading, that the short field capability of the F-22 is way better than the JSF. Not to mention the possibility of navalized F-22s in support from off-shore carriers. Finally the the Royal Navy kept their Harriers around until 2003 IIRC—a better funded/higher priority F-22 project could probably convince the Marines to hold off.

I personally think that there would be significantly less financial freedom attached to pursuing a solely F-22 project. That's my opinion.

Probably. But the F-35 is proving to be comically expensive compared to the far superior F-22. Which is why I thought of this topic.

Also, as I noted the various services always receive the same split in budget. So if the USAF cancels the F-35 and invests in the F-35 the other services will not be able to steal money from them.

Why would you want stealth air craft, it's only halfway there to the realization that other powers have a spy network in the air force and can tell you where they are anyways. If the US tries to go this route wouldn't it only lead to the natural increase in the other as nations put more funds into being able to pinpoint them. Especially after America has been trying to sell this white elephant to its allies in order to well them, isn't the other entire half of properly keeping any plane stealth an entirely separate deal for these nations? Can Japan and Australia have enough money to spend on both to the extent that they can be useful and not restrict the flexibility of the other?

1) Modern Russian SAM systems (SA-21) can shoot/move within 5 minutes, as well as provide anti-air close-in defence against anti-radiation or other missiles, decoys, jamming, the whole package and engage out to 200 NM. This is inherently hard to kill except with modern F-22s or the 20 remaining B-2s in service.

2) The Russians have been working very hard to stop the F-22. So far their efforts have resulted in: modern SAM systems able to stop anything but the F-22/B-2; modern Flanker variations better than any Western fighter (if they're equipped with Western avionics) except the F-22 and on par with the Typhoon despite being far cheaper; better anti-ship missiles than anybody in the world with the result being it takes 4 or 5 to kill an Aegis ship and after that they're free to destroy the rest of the battlegroup.

3) Japan has long wanted the F-22 and given the money they spent on modified variants of Western fights in-house they surely do. Australia is planning to buy the F-35 but if they instead went with the F-22 they'd lose no more than one quarter of their planned buy and in return would receive a fighter that is: longer ranged, with superior stealth, better armed, and the same bomb capability as the F-35. Overall sorties would probably go down, but effectiveness in a shorter war or one conducted at longer range would climb quite a lot.

I dunno what to add except...the only country that the USA had agreed to sell F22s to is Israel, IIRC, and even then it was a big deal...while Japan and Australia both requested access, it's still pending.

In the 1990s under Clinton, and they probably won't do so IOTL.

The USA ran a study and concluded that selling the F-22 to the British, Australians, or Canadians will not see a higher chance of technology leak than the USAF itself. So that's out.


ETA: in terms of kinematic performance the F-35 will always be outclassed. Assuming Russian/American missiles are equal (currently Russian missiles are ahead except avionics…*which can and have been replaced) than the fact that Flankers can launch them at much higher speeds than the F-35 or Super Hornet gives them an automatic range advantage on the order of 30%.
 
Last edited:
Why would you want stealth air craft, it's only halfway there to the realization that other powers have a spy network in the air force and can tell you where they are anyways. If the US tries to go this route wouldn't it only lead to the natural increase in the other as nations put more funds into being able to pinpoint them. Especially after America has been trying to sell this white elephant to its allies in order to well them, isn't the other entire half of properly keeping any plane stealth an entirely separate deal for these nations? Can Japan and Australia have enough money to spend on both to the extent that they can be useful and not restrict the flexibility of the other?

What exactly are you trying to say here? Stealth is a tactical weapon, not strategic, so what exactly would it gain to know where the planes are based? All the tests show that stealth is a serious gamebreaker in any sort of stand up fight, with the F-22 being able to slaughter F-15s with total impunity until they run out of missiles, to the extent that it is described as "clubbing baby seals." Is that not a capability worth investing in?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I think this all goes back to what weapons systems (I.E. what operators) we'll be facing with these systems.

And that's an argument I've had over and over again with people on this board, and I'm frankly very tired of it.

My belief is that the countries and areas that we have a snowball's chance of coming in conflict with in the next 30 years (North Korea, northern Mexico, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, Cuba), don't operate the SAMs we're designing the F-22 to evade and defeat. Mostly it's because they can't afford it or are more interested in developing equipment indigenously that doesn't involve outside help.
And those things are normally one or two generations behind.

We do not have to design these things for air superiority missions over Germany, just like we don't need to buy a boatload of Paladin SPHs to shell insurgents in Iraq.

We bought the F-22s because we had to think about that chance that we'd be going up against Goas, Guidelines, etc. (I'm a fogey, I still use the NATO designations. :p)
But the F-35 was designed with the realization that some Al Aqsa martyrs brigade guy with an RPG-7 isn't going to be able to shoot down a fighter/bomber at 15,000 feet, so why spend the money to stealth it?

There's other things to spend that money on, like mismanaged CSAR bird procurement programs, or Social Security.
When it comes down to it, the Air Force has to appeal for funding just like everyone else. And in the kind of war that we're fighting right now, it's hard to look the Secretary of Defense in the face and say "Look, we have to be able to penetrate Baghdad and Kabul air defense."
Is that a dumb way to do things? Yes. But seeing as how we barely have enough for right now, we're lucky we have any cash to spend on later.

Though I do commend you on your ability to dig up numbers. Most people would've just started coming back with something about me supporting terrorists or something.
 
Last edited:

Sachyriel

Banned
You're technical knowledge of this stuff all sounds as good as any commercial, but it still doesn't tell me how they're going to prevent spies with digital-age technology from telling their controllers when they've launched and where they're going so they can be intercepted by flak? Millions down the drain because some guy had the idea to put a huge Coilgun on a railway and use it like a mobile Air Defence gun with buckshot.
 
Wasn't the F-22 a plane for the Cold War? For the US to invest more in the F-22, the Soviets would have to be far stronger. The JSF is more multipurpose (AFAIK), so it is has more backers and is more relevant for modern warfare.
 
You're technical knowledge of this stuff all sounds as good as any commercial, but it still doesn't tell me how they're going to prevent spies with digital-age technology from telling their controllers when they've launched and where they're going so they can be intercepted by flak? Millions down the drain because some guy had the idea to put a huge Coilgun on a railway and use it like a mobile Air Defence gun with buckshot.
It's a big world out there. Knowing roughly where something is going to be and putting flak there will net these OPFOR thousands and thousands of rounds of spent ammunition trying to cover several cubic miles of air for some time, and odds are the Raptors wouldn't be in the air at the exact second they fired anyway- spray-and-pray isn't a good option in a 3-D environment.

In addition, the spies will, in all likelihood, not have access to the operational plans- those are sent out daily, so nobody really knows where any one plane is heading until a dozen hours before it goes. These spies would have to be in the military, in the command posts, looking at the briefings. Sure, they could get a general angle- but a hypothetical spy watching from the runway would only know when it took off and what angle it was going, not the speed or the final target.


Anyway, the OP.

This is a major POD with limited consequences so far. (Since the USA hasn't had to watch the F-35 get blown out of the sky by modern Russian missiles and aircraft, as would inevitably happen if both sides had reasonably trained pilots.)
I only quote this becuase the implications are mildly disturbing- is this seriously saying that trained pilots would lead, inescapably, to war? Training pilots causes war? What?
EDIT: Okay, I'll admit, I likely misinterpreted something, but- what?

Anyway, a good POD for this is that the Multi-Role Fighter never gets cancelled. The MRF was basically the JSF project, only it wasn't going anywhere. After a few years and a few million dollars, it'd get cancelled, but it wouldn't have been cancelled right next to some other major projects, so the USAF would have at least one low-capability fighter project running-- basically, what I'm saying is that they needed something to sink money in to, and as long as it wasn't JSF, they'd get nowhere while spending little (comparative) money.



The Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, and JAS-39 get really popular as four-point-five/fifth gen fighters, and the Super Hornet enjoys moderate success. The UK will likely use (if no indigenous fighter comes around, and they don't decide to use the Rafale) the Super Hornet for its carriers, and EF-2000 for its land capabilities. A European lightweight fighter is not out of the question- all those Vipers have to be replaced somehow.

A USAF buy of 450+ vanilla Raptors in this ATL would be completed around 2011, and the FB-22 line (say, 150 birds) would run from around 2011 to 2014. F-22N (say, 250 birds) would go from 2010-2014.

International buyers would likely include Japan (say, 100-150) Israel (say, 70) and Australia (say, 40-70)- which would keep the main line open for another two to four years.

So, total birds, ~1100-1200, production lasting from around 2005-2014, total cost (vanilla bird) ~$50M-$70M.

The Marines are an interesting case. Maybe an AH-56-type project is initiated- a hybrid helicopter-plane, or maybe the AH-60- there;s several options, but nothing that really replaces the Harrier. They'll get Super Hornets, but the VTOL? Might be taken out of service.

(Neils Bohr) Very interesting.
 
Last edited:
I think this all goes back to what weapons systems (I.E. what operators) we'll be facing with these systems.

And that's an argument I've had over and over again with people on this board, and I'm frankly very tired of it.

My belief is that the countries and areas that we have a snowball's chance of coming in conflict with in the next 30 years (North Korea, northern Mexico, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, Cuba), don't operate the SAMs we're designing the F-22 to evade and defeat. Mostly it's because they can't afford it or are more interested in developing equipment indigenously that doesn't involve outside help.

Absolutely. However the Pacific Rim has been engaged in a sustained arms race for the last couple of decades. (I'd also note Venezuela has proposed buying 30 billion USD of stuff from the Russians which would certainly cover whatever they need to stave off the USAF for quite some time.)

In local conflicts even Indonesia having a few dozen Flankers would wipe out the Australian air force. Or the Indian AF would destroy Pakistan. Or a Chinese-Indian war would see similar tech but the Chinese having an edge on quantity. Or Taiwan blows up. Or the Chinese decide the shipping lanes throughout Southeast Asia are of critical importance.

We bought the F-22s because we had to think about that chance that we'd be going up against Goas, Guidelines, etc. (I'm a fogey, I still use the NATO designations. :p)

But the F-35 was designed with the realization that some Al Aqsa martyrs brigade guy with an RPG-7 isn't going to be able to shoot down a fighter/bomber at 15,000 feet, so why spend the money to stealth it?

Again, sure. But the F-22 (given a 1000+ plus airplanes) is going to match or beat the current JSF price which makes the problem of developing two planes rather silly.

If one wanted more sorties in-theatre it would make sense to buy more F-16s or F-15Es rather than the JSF. It's cheaper, carries more weapons, has longer range, and so on. The JSF is some kind of weird halfway between the F-22 and teen fighters. Like the Typhoon or Rafale in Europe it makes more sense to either develop the F-22 or buy a bunch of upgraded F-15s (as Singapore decided to do).

There's other things to spend that money on, like mismanaged CSAR bird procurement programs, or Social Security.
When it comes down to it, the Air Force has to appeal for funding just like everyone else. And in the kind of war that we're fighting right now, it's hard to look the Secretary of Defense in the face and say "Look, we have to be able to penetrate Baghdad and Kabul air defense."

As I've said the USAF is always going to get somewhere within a couple % of 33% of the defence budget. They don't have to care about the Army or the Navy. Given that since the post-war downsizing the US defence budget has steadily increased after that in spite of lacking real threats that need stealth destroyers or fighters or whatever, one might as well stick to the F-22 over the JSF.

Though I do commend you on your ability to dig up numbers. Most people would've just started coming back with something about me supporting terrorists or something.

Gracias. Frankly I think the F-22 is a stupid program (as with the JSF) and the defence money could better be spent or used as spending cuts to balance the budget or spent on social programs. But, we're stuck with an oversized military budget. In that context I believe it would have made/does make far more sense to just buy a whole bunch of F-22s and dump the JSF.

If you're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on planes of questionable utility you might as well be ahead of everybody else (the F-22) instead of a marginal step forward and in some senses a step back (the F-35).

You're technical knowledge of this stuff all sounds as good as any commercial, but it still doesn't tell me how they're going to prevent spies with digital-age technology from telling their controllers when they've launched and where they're going so they can be intercepted by flak? Millions down the drain because some guy had the idea to put a huge Coilgun on a railway and use it like a mobile Air Defence gun with buckshot.

??? If you can't see it, you can't kill it. The Serbians set up an ambush and downed exactly one F-117. Who cares, when you have a couple hundred F-22s in theatre. On the other hand the JSF is vulnerable to modern SAMs while the F-22 is not.

As for your "spies" the Pentagon data network has never been persistently hacked. A few intrusions, yes, but nothing that hits secure systems or critical infrastructure. Assuming there's a guy on the ground watching all he can tell is when it took off, which means next to nothing.

Flak is decades out of date. Even the best modern flak (the Russian ZSU-23-4) doesn't have much place on the battlefield if the SA-21 is engaging targets out to 200 NM while keeping a move/shoot time of 5 minutes as well as various countermeasures—including, with full equipment, the ability to engage incoming missiles (think Phalanx CWIS and imagine the problems attaching that SAM battery).

Wasn't the F-22 a plane for the Cold War? For the US to invest more in the F-22, the Soviets would have to be far stronger. The JSF is more multipurpose (AFAIK), so it is has more backers and is more relevant for modern warfare.

The F-22 can carry the same bomb load (eight) while still carrying four AAMs compared to two for the JSF, and remains well ahead in stealth technology. Block 20/40 F-22s let alone a purposed FB-22 far outpace the JSF in all areas (air or ground engagement).
 

The Sandman

Banned
IIRC, isn't the issue with the F-22s that as designed you blow the stealth capacity straight to hell if you want maximum bombload because you'd need to mount the bombs externally?

I mean, the only ways I can see of getting around that are either an expanded internal bay (which would presumably require a redesign of the aircraft) or some way of launching the external weapons from outside of enemy detection (and more importantly AA) range and then having them use either internal guidance or some other method to hit their target. Maybe miniaturized drones that basically act as beacons?
 
IIRC, isn't the issue with the F-22s that as designed you blow the stealth capacity straight to hell if you want maximum bombload because you'd need to mount the bombs externally?

I mean, the only ways I can see of getting around that are either an expanded internal bay (which would presumably require a redesign of the aircraft) or some way of launching the external weapons from outside of enemy detection (and more importantly AA) range and then having them use either internal guidance or some other method to hit their target. Maybe miniaturized drones that basically act as beacons?
External bombs are the way to go for large loads- JDAMS of the 500-lb variety, for example. However, SDBs- small-diameter bombs- are 100-lb bombs with guidance systems attached, and provide a significant amount of bang (though, obviously, nowhere near as much per bomb as a typical JDAM, but still, you don't need a 500-pound bomb for, say, an office building or a vehicle). The F-22, IIRC, can carry eight SDBs in the main bay, at the cost of several AMRAAMs.
 
External bombs are the way to go for large loads- JDAMS of the 500-lb variety, for example. However, SDBs- small-diameter bombs- are 100-lb bombs with guidance systems attached, and provide a significant amount of bang (though, obviously, nowhere near as much per bomb as a typical JDAM, but still, you don't need a 500-pound bomb for, say, an office building or a vehicle). The F-22, IIRC, can carry eight SDBs in the main bay, at the cost of several AMRAAMs.

Yep. Like I've said, both the JSF and the F-22 can carry eight SBDs. The key difference is that the F-22 retains 4 AAMs while the JSF (aside from being utterly outclassed by modern Flanker variants) can carry only 2 AAMs. And, obviously, the F-22 outranges the JSF by a rather wide amount.



ETA: Modelling

Against 400 Su-35BMs with 8 modern Russian beyond-visual-range missiles (the R-77, probably) and with the US either having the JSF—4 AAMs—or the F-22 with 6 AAMs.

The JSF force (450 of them) using standard Russian/American doctrine in 16 on 16 combat: 44 missions sees 401 destroyed to take out 331 of the enemy.

Deploying 350 F-22s sees 354 of the enemy force wiped out in return for 162 F-22s, after 31 missions.

However deploying only 150 F-22s (a reasonable estimation of the 187 total IOTL for combat duty) sees 25 missions with 135 F-22s lost and 295 lost for the enemy. Failure, in other words.
 
Last edited:

The Sandman

Banned
Yep. Like I've said, both the JSF and the F-22 can carry eight SBDs. The key difference is that the F-22 retains 4 AAMs while the JSF (aside from being utterly outclassed by modern Flanker variants) can carry only 2 AAMs. And, obviously, the F-22 outranges the JSF by a rather wide amount.

Hmm. Would there be any possibilities for having a group of F-22s with external missiles mounted launch them from outside of detection range and then have terminal guidance transferred to another group of F-22s that's up close to the target but fully radar-invisible due to only carrying internal weapons?
 
Hmm. Would there be any possibilities for having a group of F-22s with external missiles mounted launch them from outside of detection range and then have terminal guidance transferred to another group of F-22s that's up close to the target but fully radar-invisible due to only carrying internal weapons?
That's actually a very good idea, and I believe it's been discussed in higher circles at one or two points, but the problem here is that these are bombs. They have guidance fins, but they're still bombs, that fall. The plane dropping them has to be (fairly) close to the target.

This does not discount a bunch of external-weapon-mounted ones from zipping in and dropping full load really fast (which is why supercruise is so awesome) and then either hanging around and guiding them in or tag-teaming with other ships to guide them in.
 
The F35 has superior front sector stealth to everything short of the F22, certianly plenty enough to get well within engagement range of the stealthiest Flanker variant. All aspect stealth is not awesome but is a hell of a lot better than any possible rival. A rival would have to buy a hell of a lot of flankers, super SAMs, tankers, AEW&C etc to reliably deal with a force of dozens of JSFs with their own SAM, tanker and AEW&C support, and who's got that sort of cash?

What's more important is that the F22 is no bomb truck. SBDs, what the hell are they going to wreck? Australia for one needs something that can carry a load of those 2000lb explosive masonary nails, not a few bomlets.
 
Current estimates are 90M per F-35

And climbing.

Last estimate given to the dutch parliament put the recuring cost per unit above 95 million $ for mid production runs; pre-production ones above 150 millions.

I still remember when the recuring cost was stated to be 25 million $.

Inflation, you know :D:mad:;)


(Incidentally the F-35 was sold to the European partners because the F-22 was too expensive.

And that's where the F-35 totally succeeded in its actual target of killing European fighter industry. Various european states have invested so much money in the F35 that the rafale/eurofighter/supergrippen are going to be the last manned fighter airplanes devellopped in Europe. THAT is what pushing the F35 was about.

Edit : just like pushing the ISS was about tying European Space budget to ensure they cannot do anything major independently. Well, we can always hope F35 will backlash like ISS did. And given the price increase, it just may.
 
Minchandre said:
I dunno what to add except...the only country that the USA had agreed to sell F22s to is Israel, IIRC, and even then it was a big deal...while Japan and Australia both requested access, it's still pending.
AFAIK the USA hasn't agreed to sell F-22's to the Israeli's.
They'd be nuts to do so. For two reasons;
1) Most of the Israeli purchases of military hardware are invevitably mostly paid for by the American taxpayer. Why 'donate' f-22s to Israel if your own airforce could also fly them?

2) Nations don't have friends, they have interests.
In the past it has been in Israëls interest to sell technology, developed for a large part with or by the USA, of their Lavi-program to the Chinese. It's suspected now that part of that technology has found it's way in the Chinese fighterprogram.
The same thing almost happened with the AWACS aircraft Israel tried to sell to China years ago.
So selling F-22s to Israël might mean the USA only arms it's possible future adversaries with know-how of the latest American interceptor.

This is a major POD with limited consequences so far. (Since the USA hasn't had to watch the F-35 get blown out of the sky by modern Russian missiles and aircraft, as would inevitably happen if both sides had reasonably trained pilots.)

Isn't this rather subjective?
How is it possible for a revamped 4th generation 1980's heavy fighter to be better in everything then a true 5th generation multirole fighter?
It's also rather new for me that Russian missiles and aircraft are much better in almost everything then their western counterparts.

Instead of buying the F-35, pushing it onto allies (notably Japan which wanted F-22s and Australia which needed F-22s).
and
In local conflicts even Indonesia having a few dozen Flankers would wipe out the Australian air force. Or the Indian AF would destroy Pakistan. Or a Chinese-Indian war would see similar tech but the Chinese having an edge on quantity. Or Taiwan blows up. Or the Chinese decide the shipping lanes throughout Southeast Asia are of critical importance.

Australia doesn't need and doesn't want F-22s.
In the universe I live in, Indonesia barely has an airforce. :p
Enormous lack of funds has made sure the backbone of their airforce at the moment (apart from a single squadron of Flankers) is a handfull of F-16s and A-4s. To make matters worse they barely have weaponry for their fighters. The mentioned lack of funds also can't have done much good for the level of training their pilots have received the past few years.
How again are they going to be a threat to Australia with their airforce?

If anything, Australia needs a true multi-role fighterbomber like the F-35, not a specialized interceptor with secondary bombcarrying capabilities.

Development of the F-22N navalized version instead of the stupid Super Hornet.
Developing a F-22N version isn't going to work. For starters the F-22 hasn't been developed with any kind of naval role in mind.
That would make the program to develop a navalized F-22 much more extensive and timeconsuming then an aircraft which has been developed from the get go with naval operations in mind, like the F-35.


Given the cost of the JSF (closing in on that of the F-22 with around a third the capability) this would allow the the USA to field well over a 1000 F-22s (including variants) as well as letting partner nations field their own forces.
F-15 vs F-16 all over again.
If the USAF couldn't afford to go all F-15 during the Cold War then they can't afford to go all F-22 now.
IIRC about a third of the development cost of the F-35 have been paid for by the lvl I and II (and III) partners. These countries, while unable to afford F-22s or unable to get them can however contribute to a lower cost for the F-35.


Given the capabilities of the F-22 over the F-35 this would probably also represent a 2-3 times improvement in capability for the USAF.

I doubt it. Just like the F-15 always remained more expensive then the F-16 despite the large numbers built, the F-22 will also always be more expensive then the F-35. The USA doesn't need 100s and 100s of dedicated interceptors, it needs mostly fighterbombers to replace the F-16 at the moment.



Just like it's perhaps wise to take everything LockMart says with a pinch of salt, I'd take everything Kopp and friends at APA say with a bucketload of it. Just like LockMart they also have their own agenda except theirs is much less straight forward.
I'd advise you to look further for sources then APA alone.
 
Top