Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

PhillyGuy wrote:

Does Japan really need Raptors? Wouldn't say 100-150 or so F-35A's make more sense economically, capability, and security wise? Also, it'll be a sad day if Israel gets the F-22, it's bad enough that they're getting the F-35.

Need? Probably not. But Japan didn't need F-15s either back then, they could have bought F-16s. But they bought the biggest F-15 fleet outside of the USA. The important thing to remember is that Japan -- despite is constitutional restriction not to spend more than 1% of its GDP on defence nonetheless as the world's #2 defense budget in dollar terms. In otherwords, the question should be whether Japan can afford 50~100 Raptors at say 200 million each ($10~20 billion total) over the next decade out of an annual defence budget in excess of $50 billion. And the answer is yes.

F-16.net Sponsor

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

Phillyguy

Quote:

Does Japan really need Raptors? Wouldn't say 100-150 or so F-35A's make more sense economically, capability, and security wise? Also, it'll be a sad day if Israel gets the F-22, it's bad enough that they're getting the F-35.

Well quite possibly they do. What will the next round of missiles fired OVER Japan do to their thinking? I suspect, "all things considered it would be a big mistake to consider us lightweights. We will not sit idly by" Nobody's fired missiles over our territory, yet how do you think we'd react if someone did?

Along with F-22's you may see a quick order for the Israeli Arrow ABM system plus others. (Followed by F-35 orders down the road to replace the bulk of their F-4's and F-15's, creating a F-22, F-35, F-2 mix)

As for Israel, if they do get them, it wouldn't be for a while. No need for now.

Go Eagles!!! (and I don't mean F-15's)

I'm just saying that if the F-22 deal never materializes the F-35 seems like a good alternative option to me. They will still have the most capable jet in the region and they can buy more F-35's without serious security hassles. Just as a side note, I'm curious, does anyone know why Japan never expressed any interest in the F-35 (JSF) program to begin with?

Quote:

Well quite possibly they do. What will the next round of missiles fired OVER Japan do to their thinking? I suspect, "all things considered it would be a big mistake to consider us lightweights. We will not sit idly by" Nobody's fired missiles over our territory, yet how do you think we'd react if someone did?

Along with F-22's you may see a quick order for the Israeli Arrow ABM system plus others. (Followed by F-35 orders down the road to replace the bulk of their F-4's and F-15's, creating a F-22, F-35, F-2 mix)

As for Israel, if they do get them, it wouldn't be for a while. No need for now.

Go Eagles!!! (and I don't mean F-15's)

It is unlikely that they'll spur for the Arrow. What is more likely is that they'll buy the THAAD or -- if they want the longest range and widest coverage system -- some kind of land launched version of the SM-3.

I wonder if the deployment of F-22's to Okinawa is to give Japan a little look at its ture capabilities? Applause

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

Quote:

It is unlikely that they'll spur for the Arrow. What is more likely is that they'll buy the THAAD or -- if they want the longest range and widest coverage system -- some kind of land launched version of the SM-3.

Normally I'd agree, but my feeling is that the Japanese are on a bit of a hair trigger. What has happened since NK launched missiles over Japan last? NK had a successful atomic test. I can't imagine that in any circumstance the Japanese public wouldn't demand protection and an all out effort from their military should another round be fired. If anybody knows the horrors it's them.

The SM-3 makes obvious sense, but the Thaad is problematic. The Arrow is deployed and generally accepted as a very good system. Here I see one issue that comes to the forefront: get a system, any system now! "We (they) can argue about it later, but lets get Tokyo protected today!" I don't know if a landbased SM-3 is better or faster to produce than the Arrow or not, but whichever is fastest will possibly be chosen first as a stopgap. The Thaad still has a long way to go to get into production, (though I haven't looked at it lately) My thinking is SM-3 for their Aegis, possibly Arrows initially then the THAAD when available if it proves to be better. The Arrow then becomes a integrated second tier system followed by Patriots as a last ditch effort. The Arrow has been updated like everything else, it's much longer range and more effective than before. I'm not saying it will happen, but don't be surprised if it does.

Quote:

Normally I'd agree, but my feeling is that the Japanese are on a bit of a hair trigger. What has happened since NK launched missiles over Japan last? NK had a successful atomic test. I can't imagine that in any circumstance the Japanese public wouldn't demand protection and an all out effort from their military should another round be fired. If anybody knows the horrors it's them.

The SM-3 makes obvious sense, but the Thaad is problematic. The Arrow is deployed and generally accepted as a very good system. Here I see one issue that comes to the forefront: get a system, any system now! "We (they) can argue about it later, but lets get Tokyo protected today!" I don't know if a landbased SM-3 is better or faster to produce than the Arrow or not, but whichever is fastest will possibly be chosen first as a stopgap. The Thaad still has a long way to go to get into production, (though I haven't looked at it lately) My thinking is SM-3 for their Aegis, possibly Arrows initially then the THAAD when available if it proves to be better. The Arrow then becomes a integrated second tier system followed by Patriots as a last ditch effort. The Arrow has been updated like everything else, it's much longer range and more effective than before. I'm not saying it will happen, but don't be surprised if it does.

The Arrow is not a comparable system to the SM-3. The SM-3 is a 600km interceptor with a 200km intercept altitude. It also has absolutely no capability against anything flying within the atmosphere as it is exclusively a space intercept system.

The Arrow has a few troubling facts surrounding it. The most significant one being that it has a warhead and relies of blast fragmentation to destroy its targets. This possibly indicate that it is not accurate enough to be a hit-to-kill system. As the PAC-2 has shown us, blast fragmentation simply doesn't work. Yes, you'll hit it with multiple fragments. Yes, you'll damage it and possibly break it up into multiple chunks or mangled it enough to prevent it from hitting its intended target. But no you can't stop the ballistic missile that way. The missile is essentially falling out of the sky at a very steep angle at greater than Mach 7 and in the case of IRBMs at high as Mach 12. Break it into 3 or four pieces, or wreck it into a mangled mess and it still crashes down on you. If the aim point is the center of a city, it'll still fall within the city or the suburbs. This is exactly what happened in GWI. PAC-2s had an interception rate of >90%, but SCUDs (or at least huge chunks of them) still fall out of the sky onto the cities they were protecting or the surrounding areas. In short, if you want to kill a ballistic target you have to ram it with mass of the interceptor at a closing speed in excess of Mach 15 to ensure pulverization. Otherwise, its ineffective.

BTW, THAAD just entered production. $619 million worth of THAAD missiles are coming off the production line. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=18091&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

Yes, initial LRP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about a 2009 operational deployment date? There are also issues with the THAAD that aren't fully addressed with this production lot. I wouldn't assume this means an operational THAAD is available to the Japanese for a few more years. My point about the SM-3 is yes, it goes on the Aegis, but will it sit in Tokyo harbor? (Yes I know it doesn't actually need to be there). Where is the fixed base component? How long to adapt it? Is that faster than waiting for the THAAD? As I said, the best short time frame system possible is likely the SM-3 aboard the Aegis, Pac-3's and possibly the Arrow to fill the gap until Thaad is actually available to Japan. I'm not saying it will happen, but don't be surprised if it does. If you were japanese, wouldn't you want every concieveable defensive measure taken? Lastly, you're then created a 3 layer tiered system, with the Arrow being the middle component. Certainly not a waste of money when you consider the risks if even one missile gets through.

The Arrow 2 is a very good system if pressed can be fielded in likely a year and a half or so, maybe less. I don't care a whit if I'm right or wrong on this, I'm just saying 1) It's the best DEPLOYED system out there with a PAC-3 as a low altitude back up 2) I suspect you'll see some panic from the Japanese the next time NK pulls that trick and that may inturn force them into decisions they might not otherwise make. What if they could get protection 6 months or a year sooner? How about two years? In the normal course of events it might seem like it's a good gamble. To Isreal they believed they couldn't afford to wait. Japan is in the crosshairs of NK, not the US (yet). That tends to effect your thinking.

I know of course that it will be a while until NK can build a warhead so that buys some time, but we're talking about a very high risk poker game. The Arrow may not be a royal flush but the Arrow combined with the Pac-3 may be a full house with Jacks over sevens. Still a pretty good hand, and it sure beats only a pair of sevens (Pac-3's). Not a bad hand while you'll waiting for your aces to be dealt.

I'm not saying it will happen, but don't be surprised if it does. (and NK is full of surprises)

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

And by the way, they all have troubling facts surrounding them.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

I'll give you one thing to ponder, what if the Cuban missile crises happened today? How many missile defense systems would you want?

If Cuban missile crises happened today, the US will play chicken with the country that give cuban the missile. Samething that happen with the Cuban missile crises. This is something that Japan can't do.

The sm-3 can't be land base. You will need a bigger missile if it land base, because sm-3 is use of in space interception unlike PAC-3.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

I think you're being too literal.

skyward wrote:

If Cuban missile crises happened today, the US will play chicken with the country that give cuban the missile. Samething that happen with the Cuban missile crises. This is something that Japan can't do.

The sm-3 can't be land base. You will need a bigger missile if it land base, because sm-3 is use of in space interception unlike PAC-3.

I am sorry what you said doesn't make sense. Land or sea basing will not affect the SM-3's performance at all. It'll still be a 600km missile with a 200km ceiling capable of intercepting SRBMs, IRBMs with the possibility of limited ICBM intercept capability.

The only difference is that the SM-3 will not protect as large an area as say a NMD battery. But the SM-3 will nonetheless protect an area ~4x larger than THAAD is capable of and ~20x larger than the PAC-3. About 3 or 4 SM-3 batteries will be able to shield most of the metropolitan areas in Japan. The only difference is that you won't be able to sail the Sm-3 to whereever you want to protect even if it is oceans away. However, unlike an AEGIS destroyer parked off the coast you'll be able to position it to better protect inland targets.

BTW, a larger SM-3 is already on the way. The current SM-3 uses a 21" booster, but a 13.5" 2nd and third stage. The SM-3 Block II will be 21" for all three stages allowing it to reach higher velocities and altitudes, and deliver a heavier and more capable kill vehicle. The Sm-3 Blk II is estimated to be capable of at least 1200km intercepts at altitudes in excess of 400km. If the payload is light enough it'll probably even attain orbital velocities.

I wonder if the deployment of Raptors to Okinawa isn't to give Japan a closer look? Salute

PhillyGuy wrote:

Does Japan really need Raptors? Wouldn't say 100-150 or so F-35A's make more sense economically, capability, and security wise? Also, it'll be a sad day if Israel gets the F-22, it's bad enough that they're getting the F-35.

On what grounds do you object to Israel getting the F-35 and/or F-22, both of which will happen, by the way?

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Will Japan be the first export customer?