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

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

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post14 Jul 2020, 22:11

jessmo112 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yes there are 45 F-35B suitable runways in Japan; but how about all the various landing techniques available to make any suitable road OK? And let us not forget other landing sites that can be prepared with aluminium matting or concrete etc.


It comes down to surface length and width and the minimum operating strip for the F-35B (call it 900 ft. x 50 ft.) vs.
the CEP and submunition effects of the anti-runway ballistic missile.

Assume the DF-16 can reach any Japanese runway hosting the F-35B; RAND estimates that it would take two
such missiles to cut runway width of 150 ft with a probability of 90%.

The number of cuts you need is then the (runway length / 900 ft) -1.
So 20 missiles to completely cut a 10,000 ft x 150 ft. runway with a probability of 90%.

Say on average, for all 45 runways you only needed 14 missiles per runway that's still 630 missiles
just to attack the runways assuming the Japanese could play a shell game with F-35B basing i.e.
the PRC would be compelled to attack any base that could host an F-35B.


So in theory China could attack soccer fields also.
Getting the BEE is almost a no brainer.
Having BEEs in mountain reventments and HAS would make Chinas Job almost impossible.



All true. But even the high sortie generation rate approach where you stay at established airfields
looks really good. So you don't have to appeal to redoubts or dispersion to fields or highways.

I should state that my assumption is that Japanese ABM/anti-cruise missile defenses are good enough to
protect a majority of their hardened aircraft shelters or off-base dispersion points.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2686
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 00:31

I'd never assume anything as far as interception of SSMs. They are just too slippery.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2318
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 00:51

I like this article.
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... nwc-review

For me, the uptake is

(1) rear area logistics buildup
(2) M-FARP for forward areas

A small number of Bees will cause a whole lot of hurt, not to mention a bee hive. With M-FARPs, the aggressor won't even know where to target as M-FARPs shift within the aggressor's OODA loop.

Japan's ryukus already offer 17 Bee runways within range of Taiwan, with pre-positioning potential and the ability to add numerous M-FARPs. I'd sell quick repair kits, bee runway matting and create ammo bases in or near Japan. That counts way more than just combat aircraft.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.
Ryukyu runways.png
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 01:22

weasel1962 wrote:I like this article.
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... nwc-review

For me, the uptake is

(1) rear area logistics buildup
(2) M-FARP for forward areas

A small number of Bees will cause a whole lot of hurt, not to mention a bee hive. With M-FARPs, the aggressor won't even know where to target as M-FARPs shift within the aggressor's OODA loop.

Japan's ryukus already offer 17 Bee runways within range of Taiwan, with pre-positioning potential and the ability to add numerous M-FARPs. I'd sell quick repair kits, bee runway matting and create ammo bases in or near Japan. That counts way more than just combat aircraft.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.


A central premise in Owen's article is that the Chinese are going to be reluctant to expend their
smaller number of MRBMs on a suspected M-FARP. That's not true for SRBMs.
And the Ryukyus are pretty much all within SRBM range.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2318
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 01:31

And if the Chinese are dumb enough to do that, then that's missiles expended on useless runways.

Quick repair kits, new runway matting replacement = M-FARPs back in operation within a day.

Trading RRRs/matting vs SRBM? Well worth the cost.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 01:38

weasel1962 wrote:And if the Chinese are dumb enough to do that, then that's missiles expended on useless runways.

Quick repair kits, new runway matting replacement = M-FARPs back in operation within a day.

Trading RRRs/matting vs SRBM? Well worth the cost.


The F-35B has to recover somewhere. Unless that's on a moving ship it's going to be a stationary target.
If it's not hardened it's going to be vulnerable to an SRBM with submunitions. There's probably little reluctance
to expend one or more SRBMs at a suspected F-35B flight recovery area since the bag of F-35Bs + support
is a pretty compelling exchange.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24476
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 01:43

In a pinch the F-35B can land anywhere. It may screw up the vertical landing site along with itself a bit but the aircraft is on dry land with hopefully pilot OK. Remember the F-35B has MANY landing approach options from maximum wheel speed which IIRC is 175 knts & minus 30 KIAS. Sure these are outrageous numbers but 'in a desperate situation' anything goes.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2318
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 01:45

How STOVL DSO could work. The main base of the Bee is in the rear. 1st sortie, tank to go further, hot refuel at M-FARP, then 2nd sortie, hot refuel at alt M-FARP. 3rd sortie RTB with variations of how many sorties between sorties 1 & 3 that the M-FARP can accommodate.

The main base in Japan's case would be the multiple runways on the mainland, with tanker support, defended by Patriots and the air force. Mainland is theoretically outside Bee combat radius but that's compensated by the proximity to M-FARP.

P.s....or it could be a LHD outside the SRBM kill zone.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 02:33

weasel1962 wrote:How STOVL DSO could work. The main base of the Bee is in the rear. 1st sortie, tank to go further, hot refuel at M-FARP, then 2nd sortie, hot refuel at alt M-FARP. 3rd sortie RTB with variations of how many sorties between sorties 1 & 3 that the M-FARP can accommodate.

The main base in Japan's case would be the multiple runways on the mainland, with tanker support, defended by Patriots and the air force. Mainland is theoretically outside Bee combat radius but that's compensated by the proximity to M-FARP.

P.s....or it could be a LHD outside the SRBM kill zone.


Assuming* the Chinese are willing to overfly their neighbors with SRBMs, then most of Japan
is within range (<= 1000 km). The Achilles heel of M-FARP is the the support aircraft since:

a. they are not stealthy
b. there are no hardened aircraft shelters for them
c. they need large (relative to the F-35B) minimum operating strips (say min 4000 ft).

Something like the V-22 would address b. and c. and certainly have lower signature than any other
support aircraft out there short of stealthy tanker/mobility aircraft.

* I have no evidence or intuition one way or the other on this aspect.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2318
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 03:00

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
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6695
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 03:39

weasel1962 wrote:How STOVL DSO could work. The main base of the Bee is in the rear. 1st sortie, tank to go further, hot refuel at M-FARP, then 2nd sortie, hot refuel at alt M-FARP. 3rd sortie RTB with variations of how many sorties between sorties 1 & 3 that the M-FARP can accommodate.

The main base in Japan's case would be the multiple runways on the mainland, with tanker support, defended by Patriots and the air force. Mainland is theoretically outside Bee combat radius but that's compensated by the proximity to M-FARP.

P.s....or it could be a LHD outside the SRBM kill zone.



We really need to expand the number of Ospreys within the Pacific Alliance. As it will be critical to the role...
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2318
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 03:42

I forgot. May not even need to land for resupply. Fuel LAPES.

https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/f ... 10_564.pdf
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 04:15

Corsair1963 wrote:We really need to expand the number of Ospreys within the Pacific Alliance. As it will be critical to the role...


What about the V-280? Bell has already demonstrated autonomous flight with the Valor. And if an autonomous V-280 doesn't have the payload necessary... it seems to me that the design may scale, esp. with RR potentially fielding 10,000 shp motors for an Osprey upgrade.
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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6695
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 05:41

steve2267 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:We really need to expand the number of Ospreys within the Pacific Alliance. As it will be critical to the role...


What about the V-280? Bell has already demonstrated autonomous flight with the Valor. And if an autonomous V-280 doesn't have the payload necessary... it seems to me that the design may scale, esp. with RR potentially fielding 10,000 shp motors for an Osprey upgrade.


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
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2318
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 07:00

Opportune time to highlight 1st V22 delivered to Japan.
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2020-07-14 ... y-to-Japan
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests