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: 2548
  • 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: 227
  • 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: 1389
  • 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: 354
  • 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: 227
  • 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: 1389
  • 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: 227
  • 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: 24755
  • 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: 227
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post18 Jul 2020, 11:05

LoL
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24755
  • 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
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24755
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Aug 2020, 05:54

Japan unveils plan to develop Mage Island into FCLP for CVW 5 and JSDF F-35Bs
08 Aug 2020 ALERT 5

"The Japanese government has unveiled its plan on how to develop Mage Island, off Kagoshima Prefecture, into a Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) facility for Carrier Air Wing 5 (CVW 5) of the U.S. Navy and Japanese F-35Bs.

Tokyo will pay $151 million to the owner of the island and an environment impact assessment will be carried out this fall.

There will be two runways, a hangar, and a fuel facility at the base. The main runway is about 8,00 feet long, and the secondary is about 6,000 feet long. About 150 to 200 Self Defense Force personnel are to be stationed there. Construction will take 4 years. The base will be resupplied by JGSDF MV-22s.

Currently, U.S. Navy pilots practise simulated aircraft carrier landings at the FCLP at Iwo Jima, which is 1,400km from their base in MCAS Iwakuni. The new FCLP at Mage will be cut the distance down to 400km."

Photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... an01ss.jpg

Source: http://alert5.com/2020/08/08/japan-unve ... more-83704


Similar story with added bonus: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ ... y4xa-R7lm8 "...The base is also expected to serve as a refueling and maintenance hub for defending the Nansei island chain as China continues to increase its maritime presence."
Attachments
512px-131027_Mage_Island_Nishinoomote_Kagoshima_pref_Japan01ss.jpg
MageshimaZOOM.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 03:40

Honestly, with the massive build up of the Chinese Military. Japan should just scrapped the planned F-15 upgrades and instead just buy/build more F-35A's.


As they need every "edge" they can get against the PLAAF....
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4153
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 16:33

Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, with the massive build up of the Chinese Military. Japan should just scrapped the planned F-15 upgrades and instead just buy/build more F-35A's.


As they need every "edge" they can get against the PLAAF....


I'd concur. I wonder then, what the rationale is?

Is there an "Eagle Mafia" in Japan as there is here in the US?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4927
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 17:19

mixelflick wrote:
Is there an "Eagle Mafia" in Japan as there is here in the US?

"Not a pound for air to ground" chest thumpers?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 Aug 2020, 01:52

Lack of runways spurred Japan’s F-35B purchase
https://www.airforce-technology.com/unc ... -purchase/

Japan’s 2020 ‘Defense of Japan’ White Paper cited the lack of appropriate runways as a driving reason for the country’s decision to acquire the F-35B jet and convert Izumo-class helicopter destroyers for fast-jet operations.

Out of 45 airbases and airfields available to the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF), only 20 are long enough to operate jets in the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) fleet. Of these 20, only one airbase in the Pacific Ocean at Iwo To (Iwo Jima) has a runway long enough to operate the F-35A, limiting operational infrastructure in the region.

Unlike the A variant, the F-35B can take off from a runway of around 100 metres, allowing Japan to operate the aircraft from all of its 45 airbases and airfields around the country, including the converted Izumo-class vessels.

Japan’s White Paper said that taking into account the ‘limited number of runways’ for a small country like itself, the self-defence forces took the decision to introduce the F-35B ‘in order to continuously secure air superiority’.

The F-35B is currently in service with the US Marine Corps, UK Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, as well as the Italian Navy and Air Force. The fighter has also been ordered by Singapore.

As part of Japan’s current Mid-Term Defense Programme – running from 2019 to 2023, the JASDF is set to acquire 18 F-35Bs.

In its White Paper, the Japanese Ministry of Defence wrote: “The neighbouring countries of Japan are making remarkable progress in the modernization of the air forces, for example by deploying the so-called fifth-generation fighter aircraft and the latest models of the fourth-generation aircraft.

“In order to secure the defence of Japan in this situation, it is extremely important for the SDF to develop a system that enables flexible operations, including flying aircraft from more airfields, so that air superiority can be constantly secured through the use of high-performance fighter aircraft.”

One of Japan’s main defence projects at current is the conversion of the JS Izumo to a light aircraft carrier, which will be used to host F-35B operations. The conversion will see Japan added to the list of countries operating F-35Bs from aircraft carriers which include the US and UK.

Japan’s regional neighbour South Korea also recently announced its intention to develop a new light aircraft carrier designed around F-35B operations.

Commenting on the Izumo conversion, the White Paper added: “In addition, in order to deal with the new security environment and to ensure a full-fledged posture to defend Japan’s sea and airspace, which includes part of the vast Pacific Ocean, while securing the safety of personnel, the SDF will refurbish the Izumo-class destroyers, which are multi-function destroyers, so that the F-35B can be operated from them when necessary.”
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests