Japanese stealth fighter

[Major Johnathan]

I did not mean to imply Europe/UN didn't give lives in the Korean War it's self. I do mean to point out peace was never achieved and it's been left soley to S. Korea and the U.S. to deal with it. Europe and the UN picked up their toys and went home a long, long time ago.

Anyway, my real complaint with Japan is we shouldn't be wondering wether they buy the F-22 or EF-2000 or Rafale. We should be wondering why, a country with the wealth, industry and highly skilled population that Japan has, why aren't they developing their own original home made designs? For that matter, how about S. Korea? If France and Sweden can make their own planes, why can't Japan and S. Korea? Japan and S. Korea dwarf most of the EU money and industry wise.(on a country to country basis I mean.)

Edited February 17, 2005 by Major Johnathan

[Nied]

Anyway,  my real complaint with Japan is we shouldn't be wondering wether they buy the F-22 or EF-2000 or Rafale. We should be wondering why, a country with the wealth, industry and highly skilled population that Japan has, why aren't they developing their own original home made designs? For that matter, how about S. Korea? If France and Sweden can make their own planes, why can't Japan and S. Korea? Japan and S. Korea dwarf most of the EU money and industry wise.(on a country to country basis I mean.)

Because they don't need to. They can just as easily sit back and let the gaijin develop all that stuff for them and then take thier pick of the best options, that way all they spend is money. They can then put all thier resources into building better electronics, automotive and other civil technologies which they sell back to the same gaijin for a handsome profit. It's a pretty sweet deal, why would they want to give that up?

Edited February 17, 2005 by Nied

[Uxi]

Japan's best bet is not their own self-defense fighter, but to fund a wing or two of USAF F-22 to be based in Japan.

[Sundown]

We should be wondering why, a country with the wealth, industry and highly skilled population that Japan has, why aren't they developing their own original home made designs?

Psst. Because all their engineering resources are devoted to making super secret GIANT KILLER ROBOTS! (That happen to dance and play the trumpet.)

-Al

[Major Johnathan]

I've waited over 20 years for Japan to unveil it's GIANT KILLER ROBOTS, and all they have is that Honda-bot.

Ironically, it's in the news today that the U.S. is putting 127 billion into unmanned vehicles (ground and air) and yes, robots. The biggest single contract ever apparently.

[ewilen]

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.

Of course, when you have targets which don't stand still, and there aren't any friendlies around to designate, sensors are essential. And you're also leaving out cost. Two to four F-35's for every one Raptor.

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 was before the other guys collapsed. Now we own the sky by default, and the rationale for the Raptor is gone. Again, that's why they have to bill it as the F/A-22.

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.

No, the Super Hornet doesn't need the Raptor, nor does the F-35C. By definition, the reason for operating carrier-based aircraft is that they can go places where land-based aircraft can't. The Navy has basically decided that whatever airborne threat it might face can be handled by Super Hornets and Aegis cruisers.

[Major Johnathan]

The Navy has basically decided that whatever airborne threat it might face can be handled by Super Hornets and Aegis cruisers.

Sadly, I don't believe the Navy (or Marines, A.F. or Army) have much say in what they're equipped with. That kind of decision making goes to congress/politicians.(and the corporations that bribe them the best.)

If I may stand on my soap box, Congress should determine the budget and leave the details of what weapons system's to buy to some sort of panel of retired military personal and civilian experts who have their finances audited to ensure they aren't being bribed too. Thus, the ACTUAL winner in a weapons competion might stand a chance to win the contract on the merits.

The military top brass who say, yes this aged, inferior equipment is just what we need! And please, cut our budget and close down our facilities! And we need fewer troops for more missions!, are just jockeying for another star on their shoulder. Nepotism I think they call it. That's also a severe problem.

But what's the military for if not pork barrel projects for greedy politicians?

[Nied]

Of course, when you have targets which don't stand still, and there aren't any friendlies around to designate, sensors are essential. And you're also leaving out cost. Two to four F-35's for every one Raptor.

The same could be said for the F-35 (it's primary arment is JDAMs too). While the F/A-22 does not have a EO or laser targeting system built in it is capable of getting target data from it's radar (while still maintaining stealth no less, the magic of AESA and LPI radar).

That was before the other guys collapsed. Now we own the sky by default, and the rationale for the Raptor is gone. Again, that's why they have to bill it as the F/A-22.

Up until now we've owned the sky because the other guys have forfeited it. Iraq chose not to use it's airforce, Yugoslavia's was decimated by civil war, and the Afgan air force consisted of two Mig-17s. The current list of potential enemies is full of countries with robust air forces who are quite willing to use them. Just because we've been picking the low hanging fruit so far doesn't mean we have a feast on our hands.

[Panzer]

what do they need one for? I didn't think they were allowed to have any kind of "offensive" military capabilities after WW2.

Even if its for intelligence recon they still shouldn't be doing that stuff..

[Godzilla]

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.

You are talking about China right? China with one of the worse human rights record. You know the China that massacred those students at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The same China that said only a few hundred students died to the world and said there was no massacre despite it being shown on live TV around the world? Yeah right NBC not a valid option for China. You are think any sane govt will not use NBC. China is not remotely close in that category.

As I said, China has 2 options, invade or destroy the support centers of Japan. That means naval resupply bases and airfields. And I am certainly not going to throw nuclear weapons out because I think China wil be afraid of some repercussions such as world sentiment. The Tiananmen square Massacre should give you clear indications that China is not afraid of world opinion. What did the world do after that? Protested and that was the extent.

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

By who? Japan has no nuclear weapons. United States? How sure are you that US will launch nuclear strikes? Somoa, Midway, and other US territories are within China's striking distance. Hawaii and Alaska would be the extent that China could "touch" the US. If Japan and the US has a treaty like NATO where one nation is nuked by communist bloc countries, Allies will respond in kind, sure. But policies have been known to change. And right now US Forces are stretched as is in Afghanistan and Iraq. You think US will help Japan secure those islands? The real question to be is the US willing to become the nuclear forces for Japan?

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

History already prove you wrong countless times.

Ok, let me explain the details. I said for both sides it will not be profitable. I am sure US, French, Russia, etc, will profit to some degree because everyone will buying arms for companies who makes them. But let's look at the Markets: When the US went to Iraq in 2003, markets went south. Markets are gonna dive. Look at US strikes in Afghanistan, markets got depressed. See any profit sharing? Yes, I am sure we will see profits in recovery after the war. But nowadays war is uncertainty and uncertainty is what markets do not like. This is not like WW2 where the US geared for war in its industry. These days there doesnt need to be "geared" for war because of smart weapons and advanced weaponry.

[ewilen]

Of course, when you have targets which don't stand still, and there aren't any friendlies around to designate, sensors are essential. And you're also leaving out cost. Two to four F-35's for every one Raptor.

The same could be said for the F-35 (it's primary arment is JDAMs too). While the F/A-22 does not have a EO or laser targeting system built in it is capable of getting target data from it's radar (while still maintaining stealth no less, the magic of AESA and LPI radar).

That's an interesting idea but I wonder what it would take in terms of development to feed the radar data to the JDAM. As well as how well the radar/avionics are programmed for ground targets. Certainly the AF was hoping to improve the ground attack capabilities after the first batch of planes, though the cost is uncertain and it now seems likely that any improvement would have to be in the form of upgrades (also cost uncertain).

If you're going to attack shipping, I don't see how you can do it with regular JDAMs. Here's an article I just came across--I've only skimmed it but it provides a nice overview of potential options for weapons and aircraft (including even the B-2 as an anti-shipping platform).

The current list of potential enemies is full of countries with robust air forces who are quite willing to use them.

Tell you what, pick the potential enemy with the most robust air force and then let's look at scenarios.

[Skull Leader]

Tell you what, pick the potential enemy with the most robust air force and then let's look at scenarios.

-Iran

-China

Both have a great deal of diversity in their aircraft. both in capabilities and abundance. Flankers, Tomcats, MiGs, (other) Sukhois, even Phantoms and Tigers... I'm sure the list goes on. Both air forces are well maintained and armed. In Iran's case, you also have pilots who have been trained by those who were blooded in the Iran/Iraq war... so a degree of ACM experience is being passed down. Also, although to a much lesser degree, I'm sure North Korea has enough airpower to defend it's interests at least over home plate.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Godzilla]

Tell you what, pick the potential enemy with the most robust air force and then let's look at scenarios.

-Iran

-China

Both have a great deal of diversity in their aircraft. both in capabilities and abundance. Flankers, Tomcats, MiGs, (other) Sukhois, even Phantoms and Tigers... I'm sure the list goes on. Both air forces are well maintained and armed.

Iran's Tomcats are maintained? Are you sure? Last I heard it was not.

[Skull Leader]

Any report is going to be nebulous at best, but there have been several magazine articles that have declared that they have the means of producing many of the spare parts they need to keep planes in the air. of the original 69 or so they had, I imagine 7-10 are probably still being used, with the rest either as hangar queens or mothballed. I know several of their planes were rendered inactive long before their airframe times were used up. I imagine they're sitting in a Hangar somewhere waiting for parts or just a reason to be re-armed. As of the Iran-Iraq war, the only things they could not produce indiginously were the tires and brakepads they needed for the mainmounts, although I believe since then that has been remedied. Of the total airframes that were sold to Iran, I would predict 20-30 still exist in some repairable form. I SO need to get Osprey's "Iranian Tomcats in Action" book. I'm sure many more details are laid out there.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Mislovrit]

You are talking about China right?

China isn't a superpower, the U.S. is. Using NBC weapons against the U.S. or its allies will result in nuclear retaliation.

By who? Japan has no nuclear weapons. United States?

Again, nuke an U.S. ally and you'll be nuke in turn.

How sure are you that US will launch nuclear strikes?

No choice in the matter.

Somoa, Midway, and other US territories are within China's striking distance. Hawaii and Alaska would be the extent that China could "touch" the US.

Your point, nuke U.S. soil regardless of where it is and the response will still be the same.

If Japan and the US has a treaty like NATO where one nation is nuked by communist bloc countries, Allies will respond in kind, sure.

Heard of SEATO?

But policies have been known to change.

This is not one of them.

And right now US Forces are stretched as is in Afghanistan and Iraq.

SAC isn't doing very much and the same for the Navy boomers.

You think US will help Japan secure those islands?

Against China yes, For everyone else willing to stick with diplomacy, it's Japan's problem not the U.S..

The real question to be is the US willing to become the nuclear forces for Japan?

The U.S. been the nuclear arm of Japan for some 50 years. Edited February 18, 2005 by Mislovrit

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

.

Somoa, Midway, and other US territories are within China's striking distance. Hawaii and Alaska would be the extent that China could "touch" the US.

Your point, nuke U.S. soil regardless of where it is and the response will still be the same.

I don't have the time to drag up the sources.

Chinese ICBM's should easily reach the west coast. Not sure about the East Coast. Maybe if they took the polar route.

China has at least 50-100 warheads in the 200 kilo to megaton range. Using the IRBMs they only need to use 10% to seriously screw up Japan. That leaves enough warheads for the USA. Not enough to turn it all into molten glass like the US can do to China, but enough to f*&K the whole world up still.

I wouldn't trust those reports of China having a measly 20-30 ICBMs. They have been in this nuke programme for long enough. Nukes aren't that expensive to make and China sure has the money (compare to the bajillions they have been spending on buildings and sports stadiums this past decade) to churn em out.

Point is, anyone starts lobbing nukes and the world is f^&ked seriously. China might lose 99% of its population and the USA 50% but the world is screwed 100 times over.

[Mislovrit]

Chinese ICBM's should easily reach the west coast. Not sure about the East Coast. Maybe if they took the polar route.

Iirc the polar route is still long a too range for moment.. Also there's the problem with the Russians who don't like foreigns nukes flying through their airspace.

China has at least 50-100 warheads in the 200 kilo to megaton range

Isn't that a bit less than what one U.S. boomer would carry?

That leaves enough warheads for the USA.

Use any on Japan and China won't no where near enough to seriously damage more then a dozen cities.

Not enough to turn it all into molten glass like the US can do to China,

but enough to f*&K the whole world up still.

Point is, anyone starts lobbing nukes and the world is f^&ked seriously.

How, assuming just Japan, China and the U.S. been nuked how would the world be ****ed?

China might lose 99% of its population

Doubtful as most if not all of the Chinese leadership would be dead or incapacited before reaching the 1% mark.

and the USA 50%

China ain't got enough nukes to put a major dent into Cali. population much less the rest of the CONUS.

but the world is screwed 100 times over.

How again would this happened?

[Zentrandude]

Chinese ICBM's should easily reach the west coast. Not sure about the East Coast. Maybe if they took the polar route.

Iirc the polar route is still long a too range for moment.. Also there's the problem with the Russians who don't like foreigns nukes flying through their airspace.

you can say that again i watched this documentary on the russian missile squad or some name and they was talking about how they almost launched a bunch of nukes to the US because they missidentified a flock of birds as a US attack.

[Nied]

That's an interesting idea but I wonder what it would take in terms of development to feed the radar data to the JDAM. As well as how well the radar/avionics are programmed for ground targets. Certainly the AF was hoping to improve the ground attack capabilities after the first batch of planes, though the cost is uncertain and it now seems likely that any improvement would have to be in the form of upgrades (also cost uncertain).

From what I understand radar targeting will be incorperated into the last development phase before new avioncis architechure is needed. Targeting via EO and laser (eiter through an add-on pod or integrated into the airframe) is beyond the current architechure.

If you're going to attack shipping, I don't see how you can do it with regular JDAMs. Here's an article I just came across--I've only skimmed it but it provides a nice overview of potential options for weapons and aircraft (including even the B-2 as an anti-shipping platform).

You forgott to paste the article. Anyway given the Japanese love for indeginous work I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to develop thier own custom architechure to allow for Harpoons under the wings.

Tell you what, pick the potential enemy with the most robust air force and then let's look at scenarios.

Well Iran and China have laready been mentioned.

Iran sprang most readily to mind. They have a large well euqiped air force, (half Russian and half American designs) and seem to have constructed quite a good logistics chain to supply it. Given that they're now constructing whole aircraft I find it har to beilieve that they're incapable of maintaining the more advanced aircraft in their inventory. If I had to guess I'd say they have about 20-30 F-14s operational, and maybe 60 Mig-29s, along with a motley crew of indeginous designs of various types. US forces could probalbly overwhelm such a force but not without considerable cost.

I actually wouldn't have mentioned China as little as a few week ago. But recent reports of thier more agressive stance toward Taiwan have me a little rattled. They do have a massive air force, led by J-11s (indeginous built Su-30s), and soon J-10s, add in the thousands of lesser aircraft and the PLAAF is pretty scary.

I'd also like to add in North Korea and Saudi Arabia. While the composition of the NKAF is similar to Iraq's there seems to be one key difference: Saddam Hussein never thought much of airpower and as such he put most of the IrAF into hardened shelters to ride out the war (without realising we had weapons capable of penetrating those shelters). Kim Jong Il reportedly wrote an essay on the mistakes Iraq made in the first Gulf War for his generals, one of his key criticisms was Iraq's failure to deploy its airforce. If we were to attack them I'd expect more resistance from the air than we saw in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia while nominally an ally is currently embroiled in a low level civil war that could easily lead to one of the most powerful air forces in the middle east becoming our enemy (maybe even being run by a King Bin Laden).

::Edited because I never remember to do simple proofreading before I post::

Edited February 18, 2005 by Nied

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Chinese ICBM's should easily reach the west coast. Not sure about the East Coast. Maybe if they took the polar route.

Iirc the polar route is still long a too range for moment.. Also there's the problem with the Russians who don't like foreigns nukes flying through their airspace.

China has at least 50-100 warheads in the 200 kilo to megaton range

Isn't that a bit less than what one U.S. boomer would carry?

That leaves enough warheads for the USA.

Use any on Japan and China won't no where near enough to seriously damage more then a dozen cities.

Not enough to turn it all into molten glass like the US can do to China,

but enough to f*&K the whole world up still.

Point is, anyone starts lobbing nukes and the world is f^&ked seriously.

How, assuming just Japan, China and the U.S. been nuked how would the world be ****ed?

China might lose 99% of its population

Doubtful as most if not all of the Chinese leadership would be dead or incapacited before reaching the 1% mark.

and the USA 50%

China ain't got enough nukes to put a major dent into Cali. population much less the rest of the CONUS.

but the world is screwed 100 times over.

How again would this happened?

Don't think they'll care what the Russians will think at that kind of point in time.

I said 'at least'. Yes, the US has way more warheads and delivery systems. But 50-100 warheads in that kind of 200-1000 kiloton range is enough to do crazy damage even if half get thru.

The rest of the world might not lose people directly, but the economy will be at the most screwed ever since Adam Smith and the ecological problems that kind of fallout will cause is going to screw everyone.

I am just saying that China having so many years and the money to build nukes won't build a force which can't assure some semblance of MAD with the Russians and USA. otherwise, whats the point?

[hellohikaru]

China's J-11 are licensed manufactured SU-27SKs not Su-30s. They also have Su-30MKK3 purchased directly from Russia plus Su-27 delivered from Russia.

AFAIK they halted production of the J-11. Most likely J-10 has prove satifactory or the J-12 project is going better than expected.

The J-10 is already in service for 2 years. I think there are like 40 of them but they may be more.

On paper they definitely overwhelm the ROCAF though ROCAF pilots have more experience with their F-16 and Mirage 2000-5 than PLAAF with their J-10s and Su-30s.

[Mislovrit]

Don't think they'll care what the Russians will think at that kind of point in time.

True though the chinese civilians will care especially if the Russians retaliate.

I said 'at least'. Yes, the US has way more warheads and delivery systems.

Thanks to squeamish attutide toward "collateral damage," number of warheads and delivery systems use would be kept to a minimum. At least until a major U.S. city is hit.

But 50-100 warheads in that kind of 200-1000 kiloton range is enough to do crazy damage even if half get thru.

Depends on where they land, and China needs to make every one of them count.

The rest of the world might not lose people directly, but the economy will be at the most screwed ever since Adam Smith

I was just thinking of only eco-damage.

and the ecological problems that kind of fallout will cause is going to screw everyone.

The potential fallout from the conflict is about as harmful as a fart in a hurricane compared to the fallout from an erupting volcano.

I am just saying that China having so many years and the money to build nukes won't build a force

China may have a lot compared to a minor nuclear power, but against either the U.S., Russia, U.K., and France (I think?) it is still far outclassed in numbers and more importantly quality.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I am just saying that China having so many years and the money to build nukes won't build a force

China may have a lot compared to a minor nuclear power, but against either the U.S., Russia, U.K., and France (I think?) it is still far outclassed in numbers and more importantly quality.

Nope, China is third. Ahead of UK and France in warhead numbers. Tech is debatable but so far the UK and France have not fielded ICBMs.

Number of warheads is sketchy. From low estimates of hundreds to several thousand (tactical and strategic up to 3 MT).

Edited February 21, 2005 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Nied]

*bump*

[buddhafabio]

China may have a lot compared to a minor nuclear power, but against either the U.S., Russia, U.K., and France (I think?) it is still far outclassed in numbers and more importantly quality

true but the last 2 presidential administrations Gave them the rtechnology to catch up. and the chinese now have the manufacturing compacity to increase production.

[Zentrandude]

China may have a lot compared to a minor nuclear power, but against either the U.S., Russia, U.K., and France (I think?) it is still far outclassed in numbers and more importantly quality

true but the last 2 presidential administrations Gave them the rtechnology to catch up. and the chinese now have the manufacturing compacity to increase production.

can't wait for walmart to start selling nukes at bargin bin price

[Project Phoenix]

*Raises hand* Mislovrit, didn't they already disbanded SEATO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEATO

[Zentrandude]

already? they was gone 3 years before i was born.

[Mislovrit]

*Raises hand* Mislovrit, didn't they already disbanded SEATO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEATO

Correct, and looking at the link you posted I was off the mark on who was and who wasn't a member of it.

[ewilen]

*bump*

Sorry about the delay getting back to you on that link and my response to the scenario...will be a bit longer on the latter. I'll be darned if I can find the former...

[Roy Focker]

What are we talking about again?