HH,
I did say 'might' - I certainly wasn't privy to the deliberations of the USAF's export control people. Technology release was most certainly an issue. I did sit in on a conference where Lockheed proposed the idea of a sort of FMS 'lease', where the aircraft would be kept on US bases, controlled and loaded by the USAF, and all sorties to be approved by the USAF, under USAF tasking. Unsurprisingly, this idea got few takers.
However, the GAO reports on the F-22 programme make sobering reading - very long delays, huge production costs, really poor initial availability in service, and simply eye watering bills for getting a very limited air to ground capability. And with some airframe issues. I was reliably told that when the F-22 had its weight crisis (and it had a biggie) a sign went up in the airframe design area that read 'Not a pound for air to ground' - this was as the airframe was being cut back to remove every single piece of metal designed against an air to ground loading spectrum.
For what it's worth,. I see F-22 (and possibly Typhoon) as the last examples of the 'single role performance at any cost' combat aircraft of the 80s and 90s. Both of them are wonderful at their designed role, but both cost a simple fortune and both were (again only my view) too heavily optimised for their primary role. In both cases, affordability became a big issue. Honestly, I see PAK-50 and the Chinese equivalents as going down the same route.
Again, just my views. I know others will differ - I'm not trying to criticise or put any one or any aircraft down - just my view.
Best Regards as ever to those at the front line putting the kit to the best possible use,
Engines