Jump to content


Photo

Guess The Japanese Are Getting Serious


  • Please log in to reply
408 replies to this topic

#401 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 07 November 2017 - 0750 AM

It wouldnt be the first time contractors cutting corners have killed a good aircraft. Look at the mayhem some structural problems in the Valiant bomber created for the RAF in the mid1960s.

 

Hope they sort it out, nice looking aircraft.



#402 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 07 November 2017 - 1257 PM

It wouldnt be the first time contractors cutting corners have killed a good aircraft. Look at the mayhem some structural problems in the Valiant bomber created for the RAF in the mid1960s.

 

Hope they sort it out, nice looking aircraft.

 

Were the problems with the Valiant down to contractors cutting corners - I thought the plane was simply not up to the switch to low level ops and started to suffer fatigue cracks? There was to have been a Mk 2 Pathfinder version that was designed for low level.



#403 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 07 November 2017 - 1303 PM

From what I understand of it (and I think there is a quote about this in the Haynes book on the Vulcan, or possibly the rather good one they did on the V force), they did an examination of the spar and found that contractors had used an incorrectly specced material to construct it. If the low level flight did anything, it may have brought the problem on quicker than normal. There wasnt a design flaw in the aircraft, and if anything it was designed to be deliberately simple to not cause any development problems.

 

A shame. It might well have been Victor might have lasted longer if a bomber if it hasnt took over the Valiants MR and Tanker role.



#404 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 09 November 2017 - 1745 PM

Thank you Stuart.

#405 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 November 2017 - 2251 PM

A few days ago, it was known that the MoD is considering delaying the decision as to whether or not to develop the F-3. Costs seem to be the biggest reason. That would put demand on increasing the amount allocated to the next 5 year mid-term plan. The current trend of +.08% to the defense budget each year for the past 4 years of the current 5 midterm plan seems to not be enough to include the development cost. So that would probably add to the demand to raise the defense budget some more. Giving that earlier, the 2% of defense budget requirement of NATO was referred to, there's probably a decent chance that the next mid-term plan will see enough of an increase to allow F-3 development. Another thing worth noting is that the plan to make the decision by 2018 was already in place before the first flight of the X-2 but the first flight of the X-2 itself was also delayed by about a year. So maybe the first delay may also be a factor. The reason for the first flight delay were technical reasons, not budget related. But anyway, to the article about the consideration to delay the decision:

Spoiler

https://www.reuters....m_medium=Social

 

 

Also there was a technology symposium by ATLA just now which included a part about whatever fighter the F-3 may be.

poster_full2017.png

Here's a PDF about the contents.

http://www.mod.go.jp...017_summary.pdf



#406 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,426 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2017 - 1123 AM

I am all for Japanese placeholder research in next generation fighter aircraft. One area of research I am hoping to see more active Japanese cultivation of is next generation medium and heavy bomber design, for both its domestic and export market potential.



#407 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2017 - 1147 AM

For long term sustainability, I think a balance needs to be maintained. A bomber program and subsequent deployment of a few would probably be too costly. I think it's better to leave it to the Americans to provide that functionality with their upcoming B-21. Would prefer other things first, such as an aircraft carrier or 2, a design around 40,000-50,000 tons with either F-35Bs or naval versions of F-3s along with E-2Ds. Carriers would serve better in keeping sea lines of communication open and for providing defensive deterrence to other smaller friendly countries throughout the Indo-Pacific region.



#408 Mr King

Mr King

    Major Washout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 20 November 2017 - 2006 PM

For long term sustainability, I think a balance needs to be maintained. A bomber program and subsequent deployment of a few would probably be too costly. I think it's better to leave it to the Americans to provide that functionality with their upcoming B-21. Would prefer other things first, such as an aircraft carrier or 2, a design around 40,000-50,000 tons with either F-35Bs or naval versions of F-3s along with E-2Ds. Carriers would serve better in keeping sea lines of communication open and for providing defensive deterrence to other smaller friendly countries throughout the Indo-Pacific region.

 

Let me first say I love my country, let me also say I am a realist. The last thing that Japan should do is rely solely on the US in the future for strategic defense. Whether Japan likes it or not, they are in an arms race with the Chinese, and the Japanese main ally against China, the US, is in a seriously compromised relationship with China. 



#409 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2017 - 2203 PM

 

For long term sustainability, I think a balance needs to be maintained. A bomber program and subsequent deployment of a few would probably be too costly. I think it's better to leave it to the Americans to provide that functionality with their upcoming B-21. Would prefer other things first, such as an aircraft carrier or 2, a design around 40,000-50,000 tons with either F-35Bs or naval versions of F-3s along with E-2Ds. Carriers would serve better in keeping sea lines of communication open and for providing defensive deterrence to other smaller friendly countries throughout the Indo-Pacific region.

 

Let me first say I love my country, let me also say I am a realist. The last thing that Japan should do is rely solely on the US in the future for strategic defense. Whether Japan likes it or not, they are in an arms race with the Chinese, and the Japanese main ally against China, the US, is in a seriously compromised relationship with China. 

 

 

From all your postings about racism, politicians, and so on in the US, I knew you did so not in a bashing way but in a way that comes from patriotism. I also think that China does mean business. By judging from their behavior in the SCS, I really do think that they want to develop a tributary system among all the surrounding countries in which China would have all the countries surrounding it by the balls and would squeeze whenever it wants one of them to keep in line to its interest. As a country that is ruled by a single party like the Communist Party of China, I think it is completely unacceptable for them to be in such position of control. And when looking at the whole Indo-Pacific region, the only country in the region that really has the capacity to keep them in check is Japan. Everyone else is too small or too weak. But Japan alone would not be stable enough even if they are on 3% gdp defense budget. China is too big and there is no guarantee that japan can always maintain a sufficient tech advantage for decades to come. So Japan absolutely needs partners. The US is needed in the region to ensure stability for decades to come. Japan prefers the US established world order of things. But I only hope that the US is able to continue to see it in its interest to stay involved. As you mention on compromise, to some extent yes, particularly with economics. In a way many major countries are including Japan, Australia, and much or Europe. In a way, the positive growth rates of these countries are dependent on the integration they have with the Chinese economy. I don't like this trend. But whenever I do listen to various talks about the geo-political scene, I feel confident enough that the US does see it in its interest to remain in the Indo-Pacific for decades to come. Other partner countries are also critical. But in some way, the behavior of China determines whether or not those other countries side with the US and Japan, stay neutral, or decide to side with China. In some ways, China did shoot itself in the foot with its behavior in the South China Sea and thus causing a reactive response from them to jump on board with the US and Japan, but not necessarily so much, and in time, economics and other kinds of pressure or events can have them reluctantly accepting a kow-tow position. Well I'm rambling on. I don't like this situation, naturally many people on both sides, including China, just want to live life, work, play with new earned fortunes, etc., but it is among this brewing geopolitical storm.

 

As far as the balance of power within the US-Japan alliance in the region, I think there is too much dependency on the US. Japan can defend itself quite well, but as far as security for the whole region, dependency on the US is too much and the US struggles a little to keep up with it as we see with strains on maintenance and crew in the USN. And also, for concerns of Japan's own security as you mentioned, even if the USN was not having these strains, it would be too much dependency on the US. Such as suppose the US goes isolationist, or in a different way, further goes the route of compromise and cuts a deal with China similar to that of what was done between Hitler and Stalin. Of if the US becomes incapacitated in some way, such as preoccupied  in a major war in the ME, or falls under major domestic chaos, then Japan and the rest of the Indo-Pacific region would be caught in a state of complete vulnerability. So I think there is, and I prefer to see, a greater portion of total power between the US and Japan in the region to shift more towards Japan. Right now, its probably like US90/JP10. Perhaps as high as US50/JP50 might be good. But something like US65/JP35 might be good enough. I wouldn't advocate Japan to have a balance of power that is more than 50/50 because for the interest of all the many smaller countries, they would probably not want to become so dependent on Japan. So it is good if they can balance the US and Japan against each other even through both are on the same side.

 

Well anyway, that was probably more text than you asked for.


Edited by JasonJ, 20 November 2017 - 2220 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users