Japanese stealth fighter

[hellohikaru]

Japan can use the F-22J Sushi Raptor as a F-15JKai replacement. It has the range needed to patrol a long peninsula surrounded by oceans like Japan unlike many of the other fighters. I don't think cost is the major concern since they purchased their F-15 and F-4 at about double price or more. Remember their F-15J were without many sensitive components like electronic warfare equipment. The stealthy airframe is only part of the package so the US might allow it.

Another note is that Japan doesn't have time to develop a new fighter and the F-15J will not last forever. So they can't even do another F-2 stunt.

Maybe they should make them into F-15J Active Kais give them canards and tvc

As for the F-2 replacement if that is urgent, the shortlisted candidates look somewhat like this:

Rafale- Not likely since it is French and Japan doesn't use much French equipment if at all. What about license production, how much will Japan get ?

Typhoon- Powerful counter-air fighter with A-G capability down the road. Also breaking with tradition here. Maybe EADS can allow Mitsubishi participation in the assembly program. The Japanese will always insist on some level of tech transfer.

F-35- Could join the partnership but what benefit other than becoming a money cow for the program ? F-35 not the ideal air combat fighter but powerful ground attack.

Shortnet/F-15 Strike Eagle- Boeing would most probably allow license production for either type. F-15 tooling already exist. But both designs are already like 3 decades old. Japan needs to progress as well since those designs are not much better than the F-2 and F-15J currently at hand.

[hellohikaru]

Shin

The Phillipine AF should get more CAS types like a A-37 or something since thats the more likely task they will get. Maybe YAK-130 can fit the bill ?

Even RMAF Hawk 200 can chase away PAF aircraft and nothing can be done about it.

btw i heard something about the Austrian Typhoon deal. Apparently the cost of the Gripen was only like 4% less than the EF while projected flight performance is like 30% or more less. Gripens aren't cheap.

[Dan Palacios]

F-22 is being down size in the U.S Air force. The production order was reduced in numbers because of budget constraints for a second or third time. The raptor would most likely not replace the F-15 but be used in tandem with the F-15. The F-22 would conduct SEAD missions to clear the way for non stealth fighters like the F-15. The F-35 would replace the F-15 in the Air force and the F/A-18 in the Navy. I read some where that the F-35 would even replace the F/A-18E&F as soon as production starts to catch up with the demand in the next decade or two. The F-35 would be sold the U.S. allies such as the RAF. Even U.S politicians consider the F-22 over kill since the F-15 can do the same job as the F-22.

[ewilen]

Yeah, we've discussed a lot of this in the airplane vs. thread and others.

I want to clear up some misconceptions. First the Super Hornet is not a three-decade old design. It's a massive redesign of the original Hornet; many would argue it's an entirely new plane that just looks like a Hornet to fool the politicians.

Second, I'd like to see a source on the claim that the F-35 will replace the F/A-18E/F. My understanding is that the F-35 will replace the baby (non-super) Hornets only; the Super Hornet has a long life ahead of it (for better or for worse).

Third, let's get all this political crap out of here. (Not directed at Dan Palacios.)

Fourth, if "progress" means buying half or fewer aircraft, readiness and operational capacity will suffer. Hellohikaru, I understand that the F-15J's will wear out eventually, but I've yet to hear from you why Japan needs better air superiority fighters.

Finally, please note that Japan's need to purchase a new fighter is due to the cancellation of the F-2, which itself was a multirole fighter intended primarily for sea control, i.e., surface attack. The Raptor as currently configured does not have a robust ability to attack moving targets like shipping; adding that capability will only increase the cost.

In conclusion, the Raptor is unsuited to Japan's needs. If Japan needs a plane right away, it should probably buy the Super Hornet or possibly an F-15E or F-15K variant; if Japan can wait a few years, the F-35 may be the best choice, subject to how the program progresses.

[Godzilla]

I dont think Japan has anything to worry about China. China maybe a threat but they are not stupid. Firefox is right, they want money. Also I dont think N. Korea wants to attack Japan. They have their own problems of feeding their own ppl and S. Korea.

China is more worried about the break away Taiwan. Taiwan is considered renegade province of China and China has yet to deal with them unless Taiwan does something drastic that really pisses off Chinese leaders. In that case, China would most definitely invade Taiwan but US will have CVBGs (Carrier Battle Groups) and USMC there to counter them.

Why would China and N. Korea attack Japan? They would only attack to invade if they want Japan. Japan does not have the resources needed for war. Japan has most of it resources imported in to create goods for export. Moreover, China and NK navies needs to be huge to bring that much troops and armored units to invade Japan. It would be tactically stupid on the Chinese and/or NK to invade Japan since neither have the resources to invade Japan.

Besides, China's and NK's pilots are not so well trained unlike Japanese pilots. Yes the Flanker is nothing to sneeze at but the Japanese fighter pilots have better training which means they could very well capable against the Flanker.

Oh yeah, to Yellowlightman's comment on the Japanese suffering some of the most wartime atrocities. No offense but I don't think so. They deserve what they got. You forget (or not heard) the undocumented atrocites the Japanese army (Which Japan still denies) commited in China. (Watch the Last Emperor.) You thought the Nazis were bad to Jews, Polish, and Russian ppl, the Japanese were just as bad but we will never know since record keeping wasn't at its best in that region. They killed countless Chinese in experiments and massacres. My father's nanny watched the Japanese soldiers forced her husband, son, and the rest of men in her village dig their own graves and to be summarily shot.

Edited February 15, 2005 by Godzilla

[Mechamaniac]

My father's nanny watched the Japanese soldiers forced her husband, son, and the rest of men in her village dig their own graves and to be summarily shot.

Like the Japanese, or the Germans were the only armies ever to do that?. You think American soldiers never made Germans and Japanese dig their own graves back in WWII?, think again.

Besides, war is war, war is hell, and in ANY war, atrocities abound on both sides of the conflict. Just because we have come out in the W column in most of the wars we have fought doesn't mean we didn't commit atrocities to do so.

It just so happens that history is written by the winners, and we have undoubtedly chosen to omit some of our darker moments. Like when we used OUR OWN GUYS to test the effects of radiation from the atomic bomb?.

Since 1945, the U.S. military conducted more than 700 atomic weapons tests in New Mexico and Nevada and in locations in the Pacific Ocean, the complaint states. Some tests involved detonations above ground; others, underwater. All were monitored and cleaned up by members of the U.S. military. According to the federal suit, about 220,000 troops and civilian personnel were ordered to take part in the operations. The goal of the tests was to study the impact of atomic weapons on military personnel and equipment, the suit states.

LINKY

[yellowlightman]

Oh yeah, to Yellowlightman's comment on the Japanese suffering some of the most wartime atrocities. No offense but I don't think so. They deserve what they got. You forget (or not heard) the undocumented atrocites the Japanese army (Which Japan still denies) commited in China. (Watch the Last Emperor.) You thought the Nazis were bad to Jews, Polish, and Russian ppl, the Japanese were just as bad but we will never know since record keeping wasn't at its best in that region. They killed countless Chinese in experiments and massacres. My father's nanny watched the Japanese soldiers forced her husband, son, and the rest of men in her village dig their own graves and to be summarily shot.

Please don't misinterpret what I said. I didn't say anything about the Japanese being right or wrong in the war, or anything about them "deserving what they got" or otherwise. All I was stating was that the Japanese experienced wartime attrocities (this is true) and that, combined along with other factors has lead to a modern Japanese society which is generally opposed to war.

As for "deserving what they got," I'd question your logic as to the justification of innocent children being killed (Japanese or otherwise) but that would be more off-topic than we already are.

[Sundown]

Like the Japanese, or the Germans were the only armies ever to do that?.  You think American soldiers never made Germans and Japanese dig their own graves back in WWII?, think again.

Besides, war is war, war is hell, and in ANY war, atrocities abound on both sides of the conflict.  Just because we have come out in the W column in most of the wars we have fought doesn't mean we didn't commit atrocities to do so. 

I don't think there was ever a widespread case of Allied troops committing these sorts of atrocities in equally large numbers, sanctioned and possibly encouraged by the government. On civilians en masse, no less.

Atrocities abound in war, from all sides. But just because one side isn't completely innocent of such crimes doesn't mean all other sides are only equally complicit. There is such a thing as scope, magnitude, extremity, sanction, and widespread acceptance of atrocious practices. Ignoring scope because no parties have clean hands can lessen the true gravity of all attrocities.

The Japanese and German armies viewed certain groups of those they had subjugated as sub-human, and thus, treated them as vermin and pests, fit only for extermination or for their personal amusement. This happened on a massive scale. I would not put the goverment sanctioned Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust on the same level as atomic testing on one's own troops and any war crimes certain Allied units may have commited in WWII. The latter however, are still inexcusable.

The only issue I have with Japanese culture in regards to WWII is that it continually brings Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the forefront, highlighting the suffering that ensued-- which is extremely tragic, to be sure. But there is hardly ever an acknowledgement of the events, situation, and attrocities committed by the Japanese government that lead to that fateful day... or why Truman, whether wrong or right, had deemed it necessary. The subject of Japanese war crimes has been supressed in Japanese history classes, left off from history texts, and thus, such awareness is below the consciousness of the Japanese culture at large, even today. Every Japanese reference to WWII and the atomic bomb that I've ever been exposed to completely omits the subject of Japanese complicity and responsibility. And only recently has Japan issued a still-vague apology to China for what occured in Manchuria 60 years ago. It might be said that writing of history doesn't lie solely with the winners.

This contrasts highly with German sentiments regarding WWII. They are painfully aware of what occured under Hitler's regime.

It is rare to find Japanese arguing that they weren't entirely innocent, when the subject of the atomic bomb is brought up, as we are doing here in regards to the Allies now. Even for victors with the power to "revise" history, the U.S. is rather conscious of their own faults, mistakes, and missteps. I think this is one of the things that defines America (and many of her allies): that Americans will hold other Americans accountable. This thread may be case in point.

-Al

Edited February 15, 2005 by Sundown

[Godzilla]

Oh yeah, to Yellowlightman's comment on the Japanese suffering some of the most wartime atrocities. No offense but I don't think so. They deserve what they got. You forget (or not heard) the undocumented atrocites the Japanese army (Which Japan still denies) commited in China. (Watch the Last Emperor.)  You thought the Nazis were bad to Jews, Polish, and Russian ppl, the Japanese were just as bad but we will never know since record keeping wasn't at its best in that region. They killed countless Chinese in experiments and massacres.  My father's nanny watched the Japanese soldiers forced her husband, son, and the rest of men in her village dig their own graves and to be summarily shot.

Please don't misinterpret what I said. I didn't say anything about the Japanese being right or wrong in the war, or anything about them "deserving what they got" or otherwise. All I was stating was that the Japanese experienced wartime attrocities (this is true) and that, combined along with other factors has lead to a modern Japanese society which is generally opposed to war.

As for "deserving what they got," I'd question your logic as to the justification of innocent children being killed (Japanese or otherwise) but that would be more off-topic than we already are.

Ok, I might have been a little upset when I said they deserved it. I am not saying it was right I said since I was in an emotional state of anger. Still it doesnt mean it was right thing to say.

The Japanese do not even acknowledge that it did happen. It is my understanding that the rest of Japan did not know they were at war till the atomic bombs were used but they had to know if their country was at war if they were reaping the spoils of war. To me, they turned to blind eye without questioning the spoils. As Sundown said, the Japanese text does not even teach there was the war nor the crimes against humanity but they received the atomic bomb and how they suffered. It just gets me in a pissed off mood when someone said Japanese suffered just as worse when they damn well inflicted suffering. The Japanese were not kind to POWS as well. They did torture, starvation, etc. Look at the Phillipines with Death March. And it was back by the Japanese govt. They knowingly did it. Only the German govt acknowdleged what they did was wrong in WW2 and we had the Neurnburg trials. Was there ever one held for Japanese atrocities? Hell no. Only recently Japan admitted to forcing Korean women to be comfort women for the Japanese army and a subdue apology to China. You'd think they were the sufferers of Allied aggression b/c of the nuclear bomb if you read their history books when they damn well planned and executed the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor while "negotiating" in Washington DC.

Yes I know any war is an atrocity. But everyone involved is to be held accountable and more importantly learn why this happened. Look at the Massacre at Me Li (sp?) in Vietnam but there were trials for that. We take responsiblity. No one is ever immune to war but I have never seen Allied govt condone to crimes against humanity. Yes I can see there are isolated incidents. But there were trials. Look at the current trial at Iraqi prison abuses.

Regardless I was wrong in my statement and I apologize AND I damn well went well-the-hell off topic.

[Major Johnathan]

I'd throw in that Japan actually pioneered the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations/i.e. trying to wipe out entire cities. That started in the early 30's against China, then Germany demonstrated it's effectiveness against Poland,Russia and tried it out on Great Britain. So, it's hard to work up much outrage when the allies paid the axis back in kind.

I do recognise a great many 'innocents' were wiped out in allied bombing, but when you declare total war (and in japan's case, laugh at the Geneva convention, which they did not sign.), you can hardly expect those countries attacked to respond in a freindly manner. Remember, the Japanese and German civilians were just loving WWII, till they started losing.

I actually like the handling of the Dresden commemeration. My first thought was, why commemerate anything? But the Germans handled it well, they said the allied bombing of Dresden was a horrible thing, but acknowledged Germany invited such attacks and condemned their Nazi past. The Japanese have yet to show such maturity, they still just consider themselves the hapless victims of WWII, like America just dropped a couple A-bombs out of the blue.

People talk about the 'Rape of Nanking', like it was one city and one short period of time, but it was a years long policy that spanned all of occupied China. Nanking stands out because enough foreign media were there to report it, but most places in China had no one to 'observe' what was happening. Take the Doolittle raid for example, the U.S. fliers were sheltered by the Chinese, so Japan 'retaliated' by massacring some 200,000 Chinese civilians. How many Japanese today even know about that little chapter?

[Sundown]

It just gets me in a pissed off mood when someone said Japanese suffered just as worse when they damn well inflicted suffering.

What I've noticed is that the Japanese culture tends to treat the matter of war as an entity to fear, to guard against, to avoid at all costs. Hence the pacifistic streak ingrained deep into the modern Japanese psyche. It's in this context that they bring up the suffering they incurred as a result of the atomic bomb, usually bringing up the fact of the bomb as a clinical fact, a tragic and unspecific consequence of "war".

It may be because the moment they actually place blame and cause upon a specific national entity, or upon a specific person or persons-- if the game of cause, effect, and responsibility is played and placed on live human beings-- the unavoidable conclusion is that wartime Japan was itself resposible for even greater atrocities and for a more prolonged period of time. That many of its actions, provocations, and aggressions lead to the eventual allied response, right or wrong.

I see this same sort of treatment of wartime suffering by Japanese civilians in Graveyard of the Fireflies. The allies are shown briefly, as impersonal planes firebombing and strafing civilians. The rest of the film follows the suffering of the main character and his sister as a result of that. Never once does the film raise the question of why Japan was under attack.

The director only leaves two possible interpretations for one trying to "explain" or place blame for suffering's cause. It's either the impersonal Allied war machine, or the evil of a unspecific "war" itself. There is no hint that these attacks might have followed unprovoked Japanese aggression... decisions of Japan's government to put their own citizens in harm's way.

Now I realize that a common theme in anti-war movies is that some things are just unexplainable-- non-sensical-- beyond even our attempts, and thus allowing us to come to the conclusion that war is futile. But that's entirely different from avoiding any attempt, because of what those attempts might reveal.

As a result, even while pitying the protagonists' sufferings, it was very difficult to symphathise with the director's use of his characters or his message -- that war is "bad", that suffering will result, and that it's to be avoided mainly on that basis. Rarely do I see argued that unprovoked aggression might be a moral wrong, regardless of its consequences on one's own people. Japan's hesitance to acknowledge many of its actions in the past may have created generations that are unable to dialogue about the atomic bomb and WWII except in these constrained ways.

-Al

[Mislovrit]

Overgeneralizing a bit aren't you? Not to mention it reads awfully like the rhetoric the peaceniks were saying during Vietnam.

I'm surprise nobody mentioned what the Japanese did to the Koreans, Vietnamese, Thai, Burmese, and etc. in addition to atrocities commited to the Chinese.

Edited February 15, 2005 by Mislovrit

[yellowlightman]

Overgeneralizing a bit aren't you? Not to mention it reads awfully like the rhetoric the peaceniks were saying during Vietnam.

Yeah, seriously. War rocks.

[Zentrandude]

Overgeneralizing a bit aren't you? Not to mention it reads awfully like the rhetoric the peaceniks were saying during Vietnam.

Yeah, seriously. War rocks.

only if your winning

[striderhiryu]

regardless if your side is winning, only when you loose a relative or someone close you open your eyes wide and see that it sucks. or when you have awareness of the suffering of other actual living human beings, wether they're military or civilians.

[Major Johnathan]

Well stated post Sundown. What you see in so much of anime is an ever present message that war is evil, period. No other conclusions are really allowed.

You see these messages in so many shows, Macross, Patlabor, Trigun etc, or in video games like Metal Gear etc. (I happen to enjoy all of them, without embracing the political/moral conclusions, strangely enough.)

It's like some message of war = insanity, or war = futility or violence is wrong is mandatory. BUT, then they get into kick-ass battle scenes , Earth gets pulverized , giant robots armed to the teeth , hero's who resort to violence or killing to win

Japan wants it known they are 100% peaceful, and detest war and violence, yet vast portions of the entertainment they make is about war and violence. How many Samurai films/anime have they made over the years, where a Samurai fights for honor or to protect the weak or just plain fight evil. How do they justify revering Samurai, when it always ends in the samurai lobbing off a bad guy's head or splitting his guts open? Doesn't that right there tell you deep down, Japanese don't really buy into that pacifist mind set?

My thought is for japan to really be at peace with WWII, they have to face the fact they started a war and for the wrong reasons and behaved very brutally and battered their own sense of honor in the proces. But life does go on, WWII was a very long time ago and reputations and honor can be restored in time. Cloaking it all in the pacifist 'all war is wrong' and indulging in a sense of victimhood only slows Japan's recovery. The 'all war is wrong' philosophy is a convenient way to avoid responsibiltiy, this way America and the allies were equally wrong for engaging in the evil of war, never mind who started it or why either side was fighting, if all war is wrong it doesn't matter. (Of course I would argue war is a good option if your your cause is just. Ghandi and MLK were great men, their peaceful tactics admirable, but they weren't facing for example, Nazi's or Islamic terrorists. People have tried those tactics against them and they've never been heard from again and we'll mostly never know their names. Sometimes, war is truely the best option.)

Edited February 15, 2005 by Major Johnathan

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Hey lets get to talking planes (I do think the Japanese need to face history though).

I am still awaiting the results (due out in a few months) of the F-15K vs EF2000 vs Rafale competition for the Republic of Singapore Air Force. I wouldn't bet 2 cents on the Rafale. F-15K vs EF2000 seems like political ballgame. Most of the RSAF equipment is US made though.

[F-ZeroOne]

I'd throw in that Japan actually pioneered the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations/i.e. trying to wipe out entire cities. That started in the early 30's against China, then Germany demonstrated it's effectiveness against Poland,Russia and tried it out on Great Britain.

I'd just like to point out here that Germany didn't intially try to attack British cities deliberately (and I'm speaking here as a Brit) - the list of targets for the Battle of Britain were originally restricted to military installations or production facilities - or at least, tried to; the technology of the time and the unavodable cock-ups that war brings resulted in quite a few incidents of what are now called "collateral damage". Hitler, in fact, respected Britain and actually wanted a settled neogiation. He was rather surprised when Churchill, effectively, raised two fingers to him...

It was only in the latter part of the Battle of Britain that attacks were switched to London, in an attempt to do enough damage to break the will of the British government to resist before the autumn weather came in and made a German invasion impossible (theres quite a bit of evidence that such an invasion was pretty much impossible anyway, the German surface Navy at the time being almost pathologically awed by the Royal Navy).

The night "Blitz" was a different matter; by the end of the Battle of Britain, the gloves of the various combatants were coming off in a big way.

The RAF, on the other hand, had strategic bombing in mind even before the outbreak of World War II, and while it took a while to learn some very painful lessons and build up Bomber Commands effectiveness, once it reached that effectiveness, it "sowed the whirlwind" in a manner even Hitler probably didn't believe possible (this in contrast to the Luftwaffe, where tactical support of the Army was mostly its purpose, and strategic bombing a secondary function - and the Luftwaffe never did produce a successful aircraft in the same class as a Lancaster).

Please note that I am not trying to defend German actions, just to point out that, at least to start with, Germany wasn't actually trying to wipe out Britsh cities as a deliberate war aim.

Edited February 15, 2005 by F-ZeroOne

[Godzilla]

Overgeneralizing a bit aren't you? Not to mention it reads awfully like the rhetoric the peaceniks were saying during Vietnam.

I'm surprise nobody mentioned what the Japanese did to the Koreans, Vietnamese, Thai, Burmese, and etc. in addition to atrocities commited to the Chinese.

I mention Koreans as well. Read above. Japan apologized to the Korean women used as comfort women during WW2 for the Japanese Army. Nobody in Asian theater of war was immune. If you want to take a step further, no one mentioned the millions of Polish, Russians, etc that the Nazis put in the death camps with the Jewish population. We are not highlighting plights of specific races during the WW2. I only mentioned the fact with Chinese because I am Chinese and my dad's nanny (who is still alive at nearly 90 and still with my grandparents) was the one who told me her story. She treated my father like he was her own.

I mean if want to go further, North Koreans tortured UN troops in the Korean War.

My thought is for japan to really be at peace with WWII, they have to face the fact they started a war and for the wrong reasons and behaved very brutally and battered their own sense of honor in the proces. But life does go on, WWII was a very long time ago and reputations and honor can be restored in time. Cloaking it all in the pacifist 'all war is wrong' and indulging in a sense of victimhood only slows Japan's recovery. The 'all war is wrong' philosophy is a convenient way to avoid responsibiltiy, this way America and the allies were equally wrong for engaging in the evil of war, never mind who started it or why either side was fighting, if all war is wrong it doesn't matter. (Of course I would argue war is a good option if your your cause is just. Ghandi and MLK were great men, their peaceful tactics admirable, but they weren't facing for example, Nazi's or Islamic terrorists. People have tried those tactics against them and they've never been heard from again and we'll mostly never know their names. Sometimes, war is truely the best option.)

Well said Major. Also I have noticed in anime, when they portray Americans as war mongers, American Empire (GitS: SAC), world policeman (Full Metal Panic), etc. Is it me or are the Japanese have warped sense of view how the United States is?

[Mislovrit]

regardless if your side is winning,

Something the losing side would say.

only when you loose a relative or someone close you open your eyes wide and see that it sucks.

Why only the dead? Especially when the living veterans (wounded or not) themselves can do a far better job showing why war sucks. I've lost distant relatives in WWII so I have a basic understanding what it's like to lose someone.

or when you have awareness of the suffering of other actual living human beings, wether they're military or civilians.

It's a two-way street, worrying about the other side only goes so far if they worry about you and civilians too. Case in point the insurganies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Phillipines and eleswhere.

[Sundown]

It's like some message of war = insanity, or war = futility or violence is wrong is mandatory. BUT, then they get into kick-ass battle scenes , Earth gets pulverized , giant robots armed to the teeth , hero's who resort to violence or killing to win

Japan wants it known they are 100% peaceful, and detest war and violence, yet vast portions of the entertainment they make is about war and violence.

I've noticed that too. And I think it highlights Japan's tension and struggle between two powerful and opposing cultural sentiments, a tension that they have difficulty resolving because they have difficulty unabashedly facing and grieving their past actions. They have both a powerful war culture from days past and the notions of thrill and honor in battle hasn't fully been extinguished by WWII. Yet, they have experienced great suffering, disillusionment, and shame as a result of their defeat.

So you get what we see-- an almost schizophrenic portrayal of war: it's evils, it's futility, the stubbornness of warmakers... but all set against a backdrop of war's novelty and glory, with lavish and loving attention paid upon epic battles and its weapons of war.

Their only reconciliation between these two opposing cultural values is by apealling to the following notion: war is justified only if it is a war upon war itself.

So the ideal of a "just" and necessary war doesn't seem to sit high in Japan's thinking. But in recent times, they have not been forced to fight against unprovoked agressors, either on their own or another nations' behalf. And in the most notable war of this century, they were the aggressors themselves. Until Japan can come to terms and make peace with their actions in the past, they will only be able to speak of war in vaguarity, and speak of mistakes and suffering incurred in the past as the automatic result of them simply having "signed up for war"-- placing indirect and complicit blame upon her past enemies as well.

The difference between Germany and Japan's understanding to WWII is a little like the difference between two former bullies: One suffers a retaliatory thrashing and it dawns on him that as painful and hurtful his own beating was, it's a greater evil to strike out at others without cause-- regardless of whether retribution occurred. The beating only served to teach a lesson and principle he never otherwise would have learned.

The other suffers the same thrashing and concludes that all physical violence is evil, period, absorbed in memories of pain and humiliation. The subject is too hurtful to discuss with candor, and he's unable to examine and fully come to terms with who he was and what caused him to lash out. Parts of the lesson are lost upon him, being focused only upon the avoidance of pain and misery.

Both have similar external behaviors. But the two differ somewhat in internal attitudes.

-Al

[Kerr Avon]

I am still awaiting the results (due out in a few months) of the F-15K vs EF2000 vs Rafale competition for the Republic of Singapore Air Force. I wouldn't bet 2 cents on the Rafale. F-15K vs EF2000 seems like political ballgame.

These things are always political. Korea recently chose the F-15 over the Rafale and other competition not because the American plane is better (it certainly isn't) but just because of intense American pressure.

[Kerr Avon]

Although future development, if it ever happens, is supposed to produce a more robust air-ground ability. And I forget if someone said it here or on another forum--if an F-22J needs modification for political or other reasons, that will drive the cost up further.

You are not going to see a large improvement in F-22's ground attack ability. It was first designed "not a pound for air-to-ground" as the F-15 designers used to say. When the Soviets imploded, they needed to add air-to-ground ability to the F-22 to justify it. However, the problem is that its internal bays are just too small. It can only carry two specially designed 1000lb bombs, and that just is not enough for much. Besides, there are still big problems with the moving nozles on the thing. We haven't seen the end of the price increases with that beast. The AF should have picked the F-23.

The X-35 is a lot better. It can carry 2 2000lb weapons internally, and way more outside if it needs to. And with up to 4 internal A2A missiles, stealth, and longer range than the F-16, it is a pretty good in the intercepter role as well. A stealthy plane carrying good missiles combined with Japan's AWACs aircraft are going to beat non-stealth world-class dogfighters every time.

(By the way, I don't think the X-35 will be called the F-35. The X and F numbers don't match up anymore. It will probably be the F-25.)

[Kerr Avon]

I dont think Japan has anything to worry about China.  China maybe a threat but they are not stupid.

China will never attack the Japanese mainland. But the two might very well fight over disputed islands. Both nations import oil and natural gas, and as the world supply of them dwindles, pressure will get intense. There are yet-to-be expoited areas that both nations (as well as other, weaker nations) claim. And while this airplane talk is interesting, let me tell you that naval spending by both nations has absolutely exploded in recent years.

Here is a recent article:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10907131.htm

Edited February 16, 2005 by Kerr Avon

[Major Johnathan]

These things are always political. Korea recently chose the F-15 over the Rafale and other competition not because the American plane is better (it certainly isn't) but just because of intense American pressure.

"It certainly isn't"? No planes in existance can best the F-15 over-all, maybe match it. The F-14, the Flanker and the F-22 are it's only serious competion, maybe you Euro's would throw in the EF2000? The Rafale is good, but it's French.

Also, why should S. Korea buy Euro designs? (Russian designs go to N. Korea of course) Is the EU or France risking so much as a single pinky toe on the Korean peninsula? Will they come to the rescue if the North invades?

And it's always wise to have your main ally share the same machines in case you need parts or mechanics in a pinch.

[Nied]

I think Israel's recent activities with the Chinese, in all honesty, has nixed its chances of getting a F-22. And the US would likely say no anyways because it does not need the fighter because nobody has anything remotely comparable to it. I think the Japanese, who does produce some of the F-22 components is probably the only country that may have a chance to buy the fighter, but given the Avionics rebuild that is required for a second flight of F-22s, I doubt that will happen either.

Actually I would imagine that Israel would be interested in buying the F-22. Currently they are surrounded by countires using equipment with very similar capabilities to thier own, most of whom don't exactly love Israel. Egypt is one of the largest operators of the F-16 oustide of the US, Saudi Arabia has a large fleet of F-15s, and Iran has a interesting mix of advanced Russian and American types (F-14s and Mig-29s).

[Nied]

The F-22's attack capability is no more than a JDAM launcher. And the JDAM is pretty much a guided dump bomb.

In other words a guided bomb.

Edited February 16, 2005 by Nied

[Skull Leader]

I would say the existence of Iran's still-viable airforce would be a wonderful reason for Israel to seek out a new Air-Superiority fighter. They fly a wide variety of aircraft and aren't an air force to be snuffed off. Don't forget... they have Tomcats. They may be A models, and they may be 30 year old airframes, BUT... they've been experimenting with implementing russian technology of different sorts in there to upgrade them (I remember talk of testing some flanker engines in one, but I don't know if that was just a rumor or what... I know they were also seeking a Russian-made equivilent to the AIM-54 Phoenix... they used up all the ones we sold them back in the Iran/Iraq war). What's more, they've learned to manufacture their own spare parts. So long as they have 10-30 flyable airframes (and they may somehow still have more than that, though I imagine most of them are parts-cows now), they're a force to be reckoned with in the air.

Then there are the F-5s and F-4s, still used worldwide... I think that's good enough justification.

I also agree that Japan should consider altering it's constitution. They've kind of backed themselves into a corner with their current policy on military hardware and troop deployments... although, no one else seems to adhere to any rules regarding national guards... why should Japan? Rulers have been using loopholes in national guard numbers and deployments since Prussia in the french revolution (Napoleon had told Prussia that they could only have 250,000 active-duty soldiers... they countered this by having soldiers spend a mandantory time in active duty and they would then be relegated to the "national guard", which became quite a large force before it was said and done... using their active military as a "training" cadre basically)

Edited February 16, 2005 by Skull Leader

[hellohikaru]

These things are always political.  Korea recently chose the F-15 over the Rafale and other competition not because the American plane is better (it certainly isn't) but just because of intense American pressure.

"It certainly isn't"? No planes in existance can best the F-15 over-all, maybe match it. The F-14, the Flanker and the F-22 are it's only serious competion, maybe you Euro's would throw in the EF2000? The Rafale is good, but it's French.

Also, why should S. Korea buy Euro designs? (Russian designs go to N. Korea of course) Is the EU or France risking so much as a single pinky toe on the Korean peninsula? Will they come to the rescue if the North invades?

And it's always wise to have your main ally share the same machines in case you need parts or mechanics in a pinch.

I believe Non-US EU troops were in Korea during the 50s and with a UN mandate they will most probably travel over again should a full scale war break out.

I don't think F-15K would be a good choice since it would probably cost just as much as the EF and it is an much older design that might not cope well with future threats.

The problem with buying the Rafale is its high cost, lack of match with other ROKAF equipment and the French sometimes screwing with their expensive spare parts and weapons.

Maybe more KF-16s upgraded to block 60 or F-35 would do better if they must insist on US hardware so much.

[ewilen]

Although future development, if it ever happens, is supposed to produce a more robust air-ground ability. And I forget if someone said it here or on another forum--if an F-22J needs modification for political or other reasons, that will drive the cost up further.

You are not going to see a large improvement in F-22's ground attack ability. It was first designed "not a pound for air-to-ground" as the F-15 designers used to say. When the Soviets imploded, they needed to add air-to-ground ability to the F-22 to justify it. However, the problem is that its internal bays are just too small. It can only carry two specially designed 1000lb bombs, and that just is not enough for much. Besides, there are still big problems with the moving nozles on the thing. We haven't seen the end of the price increases with that beast. The AF should have picked the F-23.

The X-35 is a lot better. It can carry 2 2000lb weapons internally, and way more outside if it needs to. And with up to 4 internal A2A missiles, stealth, and longer range than the F-16, it is a pretty good in the intercepter role as well. A stealthy plane carrying good missiles combined with Japan's AWACs aircraft are going to beat non-stealth world-class dogfighters every time.

No argument here. I've been saying essentially the same thing over in the airplane vs. thread. (Except for the YF-23 thing. I'm agnostic on that issue.)

(By the way, I don't think the X-35 will be called the F-35.  The X and F numbers don't match up anymore.  It will probably be the F-25.)

Well, the military services already refer to it as the F-35 (F-35A, F-35B, F-35C). What is funny is that it deserves the F/A designation far more than the F/A-22 does.

[Mislovrit]

I believe Non-US EU troops were in Korea during the 50s

from TROOP STRENGTHS

    * Peak strength for the UNC was 932,964 on July 27, 1953 -- the day the Armistice Agreement was signed:

    * Republic of Korea 590,911

    * Columbia 1,068

    * United States 302,483

    * Belgium 900

    * United Kingdom 14,198

    * South Africa 826

    * Canada 6,146

    * The Netherlands 819

    * Turkey 5,453

    * Luxembourg 44

    * Australia 2,282

    * Philippines 1,496

    * New Zealand 1,385

    * Thailand 1,204

    * Ethiopia 1,271

    * Greece 1,263

    * France 1,119

  with a UN mandate they will most probably travel over again should a full scale war break out.

Why wait for a mandate when the S. Koreans already have allies (U.S. ANZAC, U.K., Canada and etc.) who act now to help them.

don't think F-15K would be a good choice since it would probably cost just as much as the EF and it is an much older design that might not cope well with future threats

The F-15K only needs to last long enough for most or all of the bugs in the F-22 and F-35 to be worked out. Edited February 16, 2005 by Mislovrit

[Godzilla]

I dont think Japan has anything to worry about China.  China maybe a threat but they are not stupid.

China will never attack the Japanese mainland. But the two might very well fight over disputed islands. Both nations import oil and natural gas, and as the world supply of them dwindles, pressure will get intense. There are yet-to-be expoited areas that both nations (as well as other, weaker nations) claim. And while this airplane talk is interesting, let me tell you that naval spending by both nations has absolutely exploded in recent years.

Here is a recent article:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10907131.htm

A bigger question is that would engagements just be limited to those islands? We all know the answer. The shooting will not be confined to those islands... it will expand and quickly it will. Sure missile and bombs strikes on support centers on both Japan main island and mainland China to hinder each others abilities to conduct combat operations. But to effectively prevent use of ports and support centers, you have to control them or wipe it out. The implications are clear: invasion. Nuclear and chemical weapons would be a viable option for China but the ramifications and fallout is too great. And more importantly, both capitals are within striking distance for both sides for cruise missiles.

China is more like corporate greed. They want money and money is what makes the world goes round. But are willing to risk a war? War will not be profitable to both sides in the long run. Markets would tumble, investment for both countries will halt, companies and corporations from abroad will pull out in both countries, and economic recession will unsue for the world (in Japan's case worsen). US will try to prevent this as much as possible as US economy is tied to both. If it does become war, Japan will continue to be the only to be nuked because of China's nuclear capabilities because knowing the some of the hardliners, they will use it if this becomes a full fledged shooting war.

China has enough problems on its hands. Feeding its billion people, human rights violations, Taiwain's verge of claiming independence, NK's nuclear weapons arsenal, China's WTO violations, etc.

Now, here is an interesting topic. Who would the US would support if war does come?

[Mislovrit]

The implications are clear: invasion.  Nuclear and chemical weapons would be a viable option for China but the ramifications and fallout is too great. .

NBC is not ever a valid option against a superpower who is more then capable of solving China's overpopulation problem with a few very well place nuke strikes of it own.

War will not be profitable to both sides in the long run. 

History already prove you wrong countless times

If it does become war, Japan will continue to be the only to be nuked because of China's nuclear capabilities

Once Japan is nuke, China will be a glowing parking lot.

Now, here is an interesting topic.  Who would the US would support if war does come?

U.S. will support Japan.

[Nied]

Although future development, if it ever happens, is supposed to produce a more robust air-ground ability. And I forget if someone said it here or on another forum--if an F-22J needs modification for political or other reasons, that will drive the cost up further.

You are not going to see a large improvement in F-22's ground attack ability. It was first designed "not a pound for air-to-ground" as the F-15 designers used to say. When the Soviets imploded, they needed to add air-to-ground ability to the F-22 to justify it. However, the problem is that its internal bays are just too small. It can only carry two specially designed 1000lb bombs, and that just is not enough for much. Besides, there are still big problems with the moving nozles on the thing. We haven't seen the end of the price increases with that beast. The AF should have picked the F-23.

The X-35 is a lot better. It can carry 2 2000lb weapons internally, and way more outside if it needs to. And with up to 4 internal A2A missiles, stealth, and longer range than the F-16, it is a pretty good in the intercepter role as well. A stealthy plane carrying good missiles combined with Japan's AWACs aircraft are going to beat non-stealth world-class dogfighters every time.

(By the way, I don't think the X-35 will be called the F-35. The X and F numbers don't match up anymore. It will probably be the F-25.)

I haven't heard of any problems with the F-22's TV nozzles before, care to be more specific? As for ground attack capabilities while it is restricted to 1,000 lb JDAMS at the moment (which are in no way different than the 1,000 lb JDAMs used by the rest of the US military by the way), it will have the ability to carry quite a few SDBs as soon as they come online (with no modification to the avionics I might add), and a simple modification to the weapons bay doors would allow it to carry 2,000 lb weapons. The current FB-22 proposal uses the same basic fuselage as the F/A-22, but with bulged weapons bay doors so give clearance to for 2,000 lb JDAMs, I can't imagine why ne bay doors couldn't be fitted to the current F/A-22A fleet. No avionics upgrade would be required since the 2,000 lb JDAM uses the same tailkit as the 1,000 lb flavor.

with the exception of sensors, whne it's a question of who's a better strike platform the F/A-22 is far and away superior to the F-35. It has much longer range, much more speed (the F-35 can't supercruise), and it's stealthier. Add in bulged weapons bay doors and it carries a larger payload (2 JDAMS + 2 AMRAAMs + 2 Sidewinders) further faster.

I have defended the F-35 before, it is an excelent strike plane that in a pinch could hold it's own until help can arrive. The problem is that help was supposed to come in the form of a Raptor, the F-35 becomes mighty vulnerable if it has to rely on help from another F-35 or Super hornet. In fact the entire procurement structure for the US military was built around the F-22 owning the sky so that the rest of our forces could attack. That's why the F/A-18E/F doesn't need the same A2A performance as the F-14, and the F-35 doesn't need to be any better than a F-16, their vulnerability was to be made up for by the Raptors dominance. The fact that it can be turned into a very potent deep strike platform with very little modification is just gravy.

[Nied]

Another thought that just popped up into my head as I submitted my post. Japan's defensive stance give further reason to purchase such an overwhelmingly superior aircraft like the Raptor. Unlike most countries which can go on the offensive to degrade thier enemies ability to strike at them (striking airfields and such) Japan is not able to do that and as such a strike plane like the F-35 is of little use to them for anything more than maritime controll. They would however need an efective BARCAP to fend off enemy strike planes. Considering that such planes would be launching from pristine bases they would be somewhat more effective than planes laucnhing from airfields under constant threat of attack (like USAF raptors would be facing). The F-35 would not be able to do this more effectively than even an F-15 let alone a Raptor, they'd be better off going with one of the eruo-deltas like the Rafale or Typhoon if they arent' going to buy the Raptor.