Japan considering the F/A-22 and other airplanes to replace its F-4 fleet

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by FredT
That being said the short list of countries that may be offered the Raptor if it is approved for export is Japan, the UK, Australia, and Isreal. However, the latter two may not be able to afford it.

oh great!
if the israelis get it the chinese will have the whole thing copied in a years time.

No doubt. It was a pledge made during the Clinton administration that was non binding.

F-22 Raptor Sale to Israel Supported by Clinton
In an open letter to the Israeli people sent January 19, departing President Bill Clinton wrote he would support the future sale of the F-22 Raptor combat aircraft to Israel, pledging that he would recommend that Israel be "among the first, if not the first, foreign customer." Clinton's pledge, however, is not binding on President George W. Bush and is largely perceived as a symbolic gesture underscoring the U.S. commitment to maintain Israel's "qualitative" military edge in the Middle East.
www.armscontrol.org...

Would they really need the Raptor? Against what the Syrian Mig-25's?? Tech transpher issues would be a huge concern.

If they buy they will have to subcontract the plane to a Japanese company. It seems the Raptor has too many secrets. However the f-35 was designed from the start to be sub contracted...

Well the Japanese aren't a threat. They promised to stop fighting and going into wars after the nuke explosions, everybody knows that eh, so they don't have a army, (exept the air-force, ant alone it's not so powerfull...)

I personnaly think their go for the F-35 JSF because thats a joint country product, and by the time they chose it. They may be cheaper to produce.

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Well the Japanese aren't a threat. They promised to stop fighting and going into wars after the nuke explosions, everybody knows that eh, so they don't have a army, (exept the air-force, ant alone it's not so powerfull...)

Get a clue maybe?
You might want to re-think your assertions there, because I think that you will find a number of them in error.





seekerof

I think the F22 isnt the best choice thanks to its price also as the US would require some things to be secret. They will most likely depend on the US for replacement parts. Altrough they are good allies. I would rather be able to controll how replacement parts arrive or where they are created.

I think the Eurofighter is the best choice. It is cheaper. Makes it possible to have either more squads or less spend money. The EF is most likely better at AA and possibly at AG than the F35 because otherwise why would the UK research and build it because the EF is more expensive than the F35. Altrough not that more expensive.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
I think the F22 isnt the best choice thanks to its price also as the US would require some things to be secret. They will most likely depend on the US for replacement parts. Altrough they are good allies. I would rather be able to controll how replacement parts arrive or where they are created.

I think the Eurofighter is the best choice. It is cheaper. Makes it possible to have either more squads or less spend money. The EF is most likely better at AA and possibly at AG than the F35 because otherwise why would the UK research and build it because the EF is more expensive than the F35. Altrough not that more expensive.

1. The Lockheed was able to bring the price down to the 100 mil. $ per plane. (f-22) so it's not that expensive, especially if you consider that JSF is not ready so maybe it will cost more than originally estimated.

2. JSF is better than EF in AG and also in BWR combat, it has also longer range.

3. The Japan should get the best (F-22) because with Eurofighter they maybe would be forced to replace them in 10 years (when new gen china fighters or Pak-Fa enter service).

Why if the F35 is better are the Uk and several countries making the EF? Wouldnt it be handier to wait a bit so they have a better plane?

well, well. well, lets get real.....

the f22 is a good plane, but i think that some guys confuse and create a fictional politic-tech reason of the "i dont whish to sell" again with that argument of the superduperhyper plane, that only the US should use, when the reallity is that the other countries just "DONT WANT TO BUY IT"

also isnt only the cost per machine, the goverment have tried to help lockheed in some offers,lowering the cost to 100 millions lowering the price to find buyers, just marketing but that price was before the cuts to 180 planes, and maybe is just question of time to only a near 100 planes order,you cant keep that marketing strategy for long time-, also the maintenace and operative costs are a hell for that white elephant

the F35 better than the EF??, hmmm i think that is a match, the 35 wont have supercruiser its max speed is arround M1.5, the EF can reach M1.2-1.3, but think that is in a clean configuration so also isnt practicle, the 35 isnt stealth -just look the angle of their reflective surfaces, hell are even worse than the f22!!-, it will have a reduced RCS -RAM-,but not great stuff,also the 35 have lower operative heighs, the EF is better in AA, but
the 35 is better in AG -well, we must wait the final costs-

the buyers arent desperate for the f35-22, they have already analysed the offers, the tech and economic offers, they just wont wait for these planes

the tipical thinking of some guys is "well, it costs a hell.......so it must be great"

So the B-2 costs a lot but it’s not really that good?

Can anbody explain to me why the F35 is better than the EF in ground attack? Better radar for ground attack? I read that the EF is 5 million dollars more than the F35. The F35 will also replace the F18 a's and such and not the Super Hornet which is an older and most likely worse plane than the EF.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Why if the F35 is better are the Uk and several countries making the EF? Wouldnt it be handier to wait a bit so they have a better plane?

1. EF is completely domestically made - it brings much more jobs than JSF. It also brings experiance in advanced technology.
2. Indeed EF is better in something - in close combat and it can supercruise (although it's not certain how long and fast).

"So the B-2 costs a lot but it’s not really that good?"

ha, ask for the northrop stealth tests, they only achieved some stealth degree on static tests, the radar signature of the b2 isnt sooo small, is just like the same B1b case, all the guys said that the plane could reach an rcs of 0.0000...., but in real test the rcs was arround 0.4-0.5 of the b52, now what is the b52 rcs?????

for a such slow plane that only can operate in the night, that cant be used as a bomber unless all the nukes have destroyed the main radars, and can be easely tracked by the huge long wave radars and sattelites before a nuclear conflict begin, man i think that it cost is unworthy, also the b2 was easely tracked in some ocations by european radars in war and air-shows, dont start with "yes they were detected because the b2 want it", that should mean that they use active cancelation systems, but for that you need a bunch of radio emmisors frecuencies, and that thech have not been mastered -and is very hard to reach a funtional system-, also if the b2 use active cancellation they shouldnt have wasted time and resources in their shape and pasive stealth



[edit on 29-8-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by grunt2
"So the B-2 costs a lot but it’s not really that good?"

ha, ask for the northrop stealth tests, they only achieved some stealth degree on static tests, the radar signature of the b2 isnt sooo small, is just like the same B1b case, all the guys said that the plane could reach an rcs of 0.0000...., but in real test the rcs was arround 0.4-0.5 of the b52, now what is the b52 rcs?????

for a such slow plane that only can operate in the night, that cant be used as a bomber unless all the nukes have destroyed the main radars, and can be easely tracked by the huge long wave radars and sattelites before a nuclear conflict begin, man i think that it cost is unworthy, also the b2 was easely tracked in some ocations by european radars in war and air-shows, dont start with "yes they were detected because the b2 want it", that should mean that they use active cancelation systems, but for that you need a bunch of radio emmisors frecuencies, and that thech have not been mastered -and is very hard to reach a funtional system-, also if the b2 use active cancellation they shouldnt have wasted time and resources in their shape and pasive stealth

[edit on 29-8-2005 by grunt2]

Any links? So far I know B-2 RCS signature is HIGHLY clasisified and noone in public actually knows how high it is. So from where do you have this information?

well, well i acept that, sadly i dont have links neither know of the RCS b2s but that also goes for the guys that say its superstealth, anyway i know about the failures of the northguys in static tests and the detection reports -at loooong range- over europe

the b1b rcs failure was in a congress document


[edit on 29-8-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by longbow

3. The Japan should get the best (F-22) because with Eurofighter they maybe would be forced to replace them in 10 years (when new gen china fighters or Pak-Fa enter service).

Japan is not aggressively deciding its military roles with respect to Russian actions, at least thats what I think.
They're more wary of the chinese and the latest chinese venture is supp to be that J-XX something which i doubt will be superior to the EF..

how big is the raptors RCS?.

this new russian missile claims it can detect a 0.02m object. its called the Antey-2500

www.globalsecurity.org...

sounds kinda interesting

It is also very possible that Japan gets a highly downgraded Raptor .... perhaps they'll call it Japtor

Originally posted by grunt2
"So the B-2 costs a lot but it’s not really that good?"

ha, ask for the northrop stealth tests, they only achieved some stealth degree on static tests, the radar signature of the b2 isnt sooo small, is just like the same B1b case, all the guys said that the plane could reach an rcs of 0.0000...., but in real test the rcs was arround 0.4-0.5 of the b52, now what is the b52 rcs?????

for a such slow plane that only can operate in the night, that cant be used as a bomber unless all the nukes have destroyed the main radars, and can be easely tracked by the huge long wave radars and sattelites before a nuclear conflict begin, man i think that it cost is unworthy, also the b2 was easely tracked in some ocations by european radars in war and air-shows, dont start with "yes they were detected because the b2 want it", that should mean that they use active cancelation systems, but for that you need a bunch of radio emmisors frecuencies, and that thech have not been mastered -and is very hard to reach a funtional system-, also if the b2 use active cancellation they shouldnt have wasted time and resources in their shape and pasive stealth

[edit on 29-8-2005 by grunt2]

Then explain why hasnt a single b-2 been shot down on bombing missions across the globe