JASDF may be in the market for more F-35s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2525
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 13:17

Corsair1963 wrote:
The V-280 will be a great asset within the Pacific Theater. Yet, in the case of the V-22 Osprey I was referring to it in the role of FARP.

https://news.usni.org/2019/09/13/how-to ... operations

FARP.jpg


If an autonomomous V-280 could haul, say, 10,000lb of gas, I was thinking V-280's could bring in the gas whilst the V-22's establish the FARPs.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 14:35

ASM-3.jpg
Meahwhile a new Japanese Missile was spotted.

https://alert5.com/2020/07/15/modified- ... -revealed/
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 18:24

weasel1962 wrote:That's why pre-positioning works to reduce logistical requirements. C-130s & C17s can also operate within those 17 runways spec to bolster the logistics. The article merely argues that C-130s will require more sorties to sustain, vis the C-17. Those flights will be escorted and the flights will not stay long on the ground (combat offload speeds). No shelter required.

C-17 takeoff and landing distance.
https://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-93-288R


The Owen article gives a MOS for the C-17 of 4200 feet vs. 2500 feet for the C-130. That's rather crucial to his argument
which is mainly a position piece for the A400.

We are talking about large transport aircraft operating in the face of Chinese AWACS and other threats.
Unless the Japanese are able to credibly destroy or neutralize Chinese ISR assets you are talking
about typical combat offload speeds that are still many multiples of the time-of-flight of the PRC SRBMs.
Last edited by marauder2048 on 15 Jul 2020, 20:10, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 350
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 19:16

I'm not convinced it's a new modification. The author is comparing it to the prototype XASM-3, not production ASM-3 which does feature a bulge fairing. The author also mistakes the expendable aerodynamic inlet cover for the inlet itself.
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 22:13

marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:That's why pre-positioning works to reduce logistical requirements. C-130s & C17s can also operate within those 17 runways spec to bolster the logistics. The article merely argues that C-130s will require more sorties to sustain, vis the C-17. Those flights will be escorted and the flights will not stay long on the ground (combat offload speeds). No shelter required.

C-17 takeoff and landing distance.
https://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-93-288R


The Owen article gives a MOS for the C-17 of 4200 feet vs. 2500 feet for the C-130. That's rather crucial to his argument
which is mainly a position piece for the A400.

We are talking about large transport aircraft operating in the face of Chinese AWACS and other threats.
Unless the Japanese are able to credibly destroy or neutralize Chinese ISR assets you are talking
about typical combat offload speeds that are still many multiples of the time-of-flight of the PRC SRBMs.



How many Chinese AWACS do they have? Im under the impression that Raptors and F-35s will kill them early.
Raptors have been rehearsing a long flight with combat sorties all the way from Alaska for years. Chinese awacs are dead.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 22:26

jessmo112 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:That's why pre-positioning works to reduce logistical requirements. C-130s & C17s can also operate within those 17 runways spec to bolster the logistics. The article merely argues that C-130s will require more sorties to sustain, vis the C-17. Those flights will be escorted and the flights will not stay long on the ground (combat offload speeds). No shelter required.

C-17 takeoff and landing distance.
https://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-93-288R


The Owen article gives a MOS for the C-17 of 4200 feet vs. 2500 feet for the C-130. That's rather crucial to his argument
which is mainly a position piece for the A400.

We are talking about large transport aircraft operating in the face of Chinese AWACS and other threats.
Unless the Japanese are able to credibly destroy or neutralize Chinese ISR assets you are talking
about typical combat offload speeds that are still many multiples of the time-of-flight of the PRC SRBMs.



How many Chinese AWACS do they have? Im under the impression that Raptors and F-35s will kill them early.
Raptors have been rehearsing a long flight with combat sorties all the way from Alaska for years. Chinese awacs are dead.


The large aircraft (where the C-130/A400/C-17 would fall) detection range is in the many hundreds of kilometers
for the radars that would fit on the J-11s. A lot of hostile ISR assets out there that would need to be neutralized
or seriously degraded in order for this scheme to be workable.
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post18 Jul 2020, 09:36

shipnr.jpg
I cant understand for the life of me how a ship thats only a few feet shorter can carry less than 1/2 of the compliment of fighter jets.

Maybe Japan needs a clean sheet design with
Displacement similar to a wasp
.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24480
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jul 2020, 09:40

Look at the relative tonnage. Then look at a profile or compartment plan of these ships to understand how big an LHA is.

IF length was the only measure of a ship then (I can't say because this is a family forum)....
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post18 Jul 2020, 11:05

LoL
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24480
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Jul 2020, 15:27

Decision 03 Jan 2019 about FACO here reversed: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24808&p=408422&hilit=Japan+FACO#p408422
Japan commits to local F-35 production
30 Jul 2020 Jon Grevatt

"The Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) has confirmed plans to continue the local production of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. The move reverses a decision in late 2018 to cease local production at Japan’s final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility in Nagoya and instead focus on the localised maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade (MRO&U) of F-35s. That move was previously prompted by the high cost of building the F-35s at the facility.

However, a spokesperson from the MoD told Janes that the new decision to continue building the aircraft at the Japanese FACO facility was influenced by the declining costs of producing the F-35 locally. Producing the aircraft locally, said the spokesperson, is now cheaper than importing the F-35 from the United States....

...The spokesperson said, “For the acquisition of F-35As in fiscal years (FY) 2019 and 2020… the Japanese MoD has decided to use domestic manufacturing at the FACO… It is confirmed that the unit cost of aircraft produced at the domestic FACO [facility] is less, compared to the unit cost of imported aircraft.”"

Source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... production
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests