Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: BAE pitching Typhoon as F-22 eludes
maruben    6/12/2009 6:00:08 PM
Friday, June 12, 2009 BAE pitching Typhoon as F-22 eludes Europeans make move amid U.S. export ban on stealth fighter By JUN HONGO Staff writer Japan should consider adopting the Eurofighter Typhoon as its next mainstay fighter jet even if the U.S. lifts its ban on exporting the stealthy F-22 Raptor, representatives of a U.K.-based defense and aerospace company said Thursday in Tokyo. The Air Self-Defense Force is eager to replace about 50 of its aging F-4s with the high-tech F-22 for its agility and high stealth capabilities. But recent reports indicate Washington is unlikely to sell its latest and greatest airplane to just anyone, while others say the ¥25 billion plane is too expensive. Andy Latham, BAE System Inc. vice president in charge of Typhoon exports, told reporters that since the Typhoon costs only about ¥10 billion, it presents "an effective non-U.S. solution" with significant benefits for Japan. The Typhoon, made by a consortium of European manufacturers, is already used by the air forces in Europe. Although export of the F-22 would be strictly controlled to prevent its military technology from falling into the wrong hands, Latham said selling the Typhoon will take a "no black box approach." The biggest difference between the two planes will be the "ability to offer Japan's industry a significant package of work," he said, explaining that the consortium could allow licensed manufacturing of the fighter in Japan and integration with Japanese equipment. As for the Typhoon's lack of stealth capability, however, BAE System's Craig Penrice said stealth technology should not be considered an issue. "Stealth is not the silver bullet answer that some might have you think," the former Royal Air Force pilot said, adding that the Typhoon has overall countermeasures against radar detection, including reduced infrared emissions. By comparison, stealth is "not cheap, not low maintenance and not fully exportable," he said. In total, Tokyo is considering six candidates to replace its F-4EJ fighters, including the U.S. F-35, which is still under development. BAE has been pitching the Typhoon to Japan for years, although Tokyo and Washington have a strong defense alliance that leaves little room for non-U.S. bidders, Latham said. Despite recent reports indicating the U.S. is unlikely to provide the F-22 to Japan, Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada said Tuesday the fighter "remains an option that will be pursued." Japan's strong interest in the aircraft is based not only on its capabilities but also on its compatibility with the U.S. Air Force, which the ASDF would work closely with in the event Japan is attacked. Some observers also say Tokyo is eager to update its aircraft with the most up-to-date fighter available so it can claim air superiority over China, which is continuing to build its military power. Japan's current mainstay fighter is the U.S.-designed F-15 Eagle. P-3C patrols start Kyodo News A Maritime Self-Defense Force P-3C surveillance plane made its first patrol Thursday over the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden off Somalia, the Defense Ministry said. The aircraft is one of two P-3Cs dispatched last month on the first overseas mission by MSDF patrol planes. They are supporting the two MSDF destroyers that have been patrolling for pirates in the gulf since late March. The P-3Cs will gather information on suspicious ships to pass on to the destroyers and the commercial vessels they escort. The information will also be conveyed to navy vessels from other countries operating in the area, according to the ministry. After arriving in Djibouti late last month, the P-3Cs had been conducting training flights. The aircraft are using the international airport in Djibouti as their operational base. The destroyers have been escorting Japanese-related commercial vessels.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   NEXT
gf0012-aust       6/26/2009 6:17:27 PM

Fresnel lens with each ring having a different focal plane.

I can't see that working, you're actually better off with an AESA concept where each emitter/transmitter can be independantly managed. (eg, as in the insect studies done with respect to the common house fly and its "eyes".

I would imagine that trying to get each ring of a fresnel lens to act as a staged/incremental focal plane would be a nightmare, heat, mechanical and visual distortion , materials issues etc...  electro optical would be better if AESA was not viable for this tech set.  again.  IMO and with a filtered view of the issue!



 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/26/2009 6:32:37 PM

@ gf0012-aust : > thats a completely different development issue than designing and fielding a modified Oyashio (which is a modified US design)

slowman > Does the US operate diesel-electric subs? I didn't know.

gf0012-aust reply > they don't, but then like everything else you've discussed to date it appears that you don't know that the Oyashios are a legacy of the last US conventional design - they're based on a Barbell hull designed in the US.  

gf0012-aust > or a Hyuga

slowman > Hyuga has a Japanese air-defense system.

gf0012-aust reply > and the Hyuga is using core US licensed technology.  Guess who Mitsubishi pays?

gf0012-aust thats why they use US fighters, US helicopters, US AWACs, US air refuelers, US AAR technology, US sub designs, US combat systems, US military vehicles, US surface combatant designs, US guns. US comms systems, US missiles and US radars.
slowman > Japan imports only when 1. they must because they don't have the tech or due to schedule. 2. the quantity is small and an indigenous solution doesn't make sense.
Japanese order of preference.

1. Indigenous solution.
2. License production
3. Straight import.
gf0012-aust reply >  and going from my small and undetailed list (as I can expand it considerably) - they're externally buying more than they're internally developing and fielding
gf0012-aust > Boeing aren't in a position to say anything, unless Boeing get approval from State to talk about the F-22 then they can't.

slowman > I am not talking about Boeing supplying F-22 tech to Japan; I am talking about Boeing or EADS providing technical assistance in development of Japanese indigenous fighters, which they clearly are eager to do, based on their ongoing biddinig war on KFX project of neighboring Korea.
    gf0012-aust reply >  and Boeing cannot provide anything remotely related to 5th gen LO capability thats caveated by ITARs restrictions.       ie they can only sell and assist with export caveated tech
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/26/2009 6:39:44 PM


From Herald:


A proportional lead logic is still the best solution for an in your face pass through attack missile suffering such physical limitations since yoiu get NO RANGE GATE ON BEARING ONLY SCALAR DATA. You need a timed pulse return from a reflected signal from a radar to develop an intercept VECTOR solution.

 

From Warpig:


But because the IR missile can not tell from the IR signature how far away the target is, it can not really calculate the target's velocity (which is a vector, as opposed to speed which is a scalar) and therefore can not predict accurately where the target will be at any given time into the future, so it can not fly toward a predicted future location.


 

This clears it up a lot for someone whose expertise is not in missiles. However, it made me wonder about the possibilities of getting range data for an IR missile.

- One way would be to use 2 IR sensors and triangulate.


- Another way would be to measure the focus position of the lens used to get a sharp IR picture on the IR sensor (if that's what IR missiles do). You could then use that measurement to calculate range. (Maybe use it combined with a multifocal lens to reduce "tunnel vision".) If I'm not mistaken there are already distance sensors on the market based on this principle.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 
 
FJV,
 
You have reached the point that BW and FS were at a couple years ago when we argued circles around each other regarding the ability of the IRST and of the RWR on one (or more using datalinks) aircraft to measure distance and bearing to an aerial target.  I don't recall which thread or threads those arguments occurred in.  Bearing in mind how foolish in general it is to say "impossible" to just about anything we devote enough time, talent, and resources to accomplishing, I will just say, "seemingly very difficult and not presently done."
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/26/2009 8:31:03 PM
Herald12345    Interestimg.....   6/26/2009 5:02:49 PM
I wonder how you change a focal plane limit sharply from second to second to get a distance of separation as you close the object?. 

Just asking, because AFAIK we can't do that.
 
FJV    1st Thoughts   6/26/2009 5:14:50 PM
I would only use a part of the IR lens picture for distance estimation.
 
Multifocal lens with several focal planes.
 
Fresnel lens with each ring having a different focal plane.
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/26/2009 6:17:27 PM

Fresnel lens with each ring having a different focal plane.

I can't see that working, you're actually better off with an AESA concept where each emitter/transmitter can be independantly managed. (eg, as in the insect studies done with respect to the common house fly and its "eyes".

I would imagine that trying to get each ring of a fresnel lens to act as a staged/incremental focal plane would be a nightmare, heat, mechanical and visual distortion , materials issues etc...  electro optical would be better if AESA was not viable for this tech set.  again.  IMO and with a filtered view of the issue!
 
Now that is what I'm talking about. Insects see by scalar and not by vector. Their eyes measure a signal path across their cellular optic array and they more or less see and move by proportional lead logics. as the image skips across each cell subunit of their eyes giving them a motion path of a near object to either chase or flee.
 
For Humans to passive range gate we have to bu
 
Quote    Reply

SlowMan       6/26/2009 11:31:02 PM
@ Herald12345

> APAR is the result of a tri-national development, under Thales Nederland prime contractorship, involving governments and industries from the Netherlands, Germany and Canada.

Where is USA?

> Thales Canada AMERICAN technology. (RCA)

Since when has Canada become a part of USA?

@ gf0012-aust

> they're externally buying more than they're internally developing and fielding

No need to develop yourself what you are not going to field in volume, like AWACs. Stuff like missiles and naval radar and combat system, do it yourself.

> Boeing cannot provide anything remotely related to 5th gen LO capability thats caveated by ITARs restrictions.

Why do you keep insisting that Japanese are not able to come up with their own LO solutions? ShinShin already looks stealthier than F-35.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/27/2009 3:01:40 AM


gf0012-aust > Boeing cannot provide anything remotely related to 5th gen LO capability thats caveated by ITARs restrictions.

slowman > Why do you keep insisting that Japanese are not able to come up with their own LO solutions? ShinShin already looks stealthier than F-35.

Looks????  ROFLMAO.  Is that the best you can come back with.  Thats just as inance as the nonsene that bluewings was doing when he posted airshow footage as proof of life of combat capability.

I know I shouldn't, but please give me a technical summary of how Shin Shin the lineart wonder has functional benefit over a plane that is at least flying, has 13 partners, 10 countries, 10 different host streams, has been systems tested more than any other modern combat platform in  history (yes alice, they test all its systems on flying hybrid mules before they even looked at putting systems capabilities into the pre-prod test beds.)  I know you want to perpetuate the myth, but Japanese modern fixed wing combat aircraft development has been an unmitigated disaster.  They're bloody good at subs, and combat skimmers, but they're currently crap at modern combat jets.  Tell me where and how and what evidence there is that they've lifted their game since the debacle of the hotrodded F-16??

You're getting as bad as those Chinese kids who photoshopped USS Ronnie Reagen and embalazoned  chinese writing over the gantry as prrof of life of a chinese aircraft carrier.  In fact the more you discuss this topic, the more apparent that your rationale is motivated by your own bigotry, because you sure as heck have no idea about systems design and development and the complexity of whats involved in cradle to grave development of a modern weapons platform - esp when the issue of capability latency is somewhat in question.  It's one thing the chinese are good at, they know that they can't make the alpha variant straight away but are prepared to do small runs and do an iterative development.  They currently have an economy that allows them to do so.  The Japanese and Sth Koreans take a very different approach - and yes I've worked with both.

You'd have a whole lot more credibility if you stopped making things up - or at least turned off your virtual warrior mode.
Modern Japanese don't give a rats arse about fighting Sth Korea - they're more worried about China, Russia and Nth Korea.  Its always the kids who talk up fighting a war, speak to older Japanese and Sth Koreans and the last thing they want is to go to war again. Pause a little and fine tune your perspective.  Being tough on the internet is meaningless.  Talking about fighting Japan in a future war is displaying teenage testosterone at its worst.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I guess being a RoK   6/27/2009 3:10:52 AM

@ Herald12345



> APAR is the result of a tri-national development, under Thales Nederland prime contractorship, involving governments and industries from the Netherlands, Germany and Canada.



Where is USA?

> Thales Canada AMERICAN technology. (RCA)

Means you don't know where almost a third of third to half of the US military tech base is? Whwre do you think the FIRE CONTROL for a lot of US artillery comes? The fire control system and sights for our tanks for example?  Canada. Many of our jet enginea (Pratt and Whitney, Canada) come from there as well as a lot of our armor.  I bet you don't know how muck of French Thales technology that goes into our US subs comes out of such French provincers as Minnesota, Maine, Connecticut, Massachissetts etc. (SARCASM). The company may be called something disrepitable and the CEO thieves may be in Paris, nut the engineers and the giys who bend the metal, the factories and the labs, and men who designed it are in the United States.or Canada. It is OURS.     
 
Since when has Canada become a part of USA?

Corporate? Since World War II.

@ gf0012-aust

> they're externally buying more than they're internally developing and fielding

No need to develop yourself what you are not going to field in volume, like AWACs. Stuff like missiles and naval radar and combat system, do it yourself.

> Boeing cannot provide anything remotely related to 5th gen LO capability thats caveated by ITARs restrictions.

Why do you keep insisting that Japanese are not able to come up with their own LO solutions? ShinShin already looks stealthier than F-35.

Because you tried and we saw how you failed almost a decade ago. Much like the current EU failures I noted. The only ones who really have a clue are Britain and Italy. Go figure that . That's because, like Australia, they bought into the Sparky consortium  early and deep and they have good aviation engineers.who came onboard and looked at the program since birth.

BAE and Finmeccanica as well as Alenia and surprisingly Selex......
 
Or Boeing, Lockmart, General Atomics, NG, Cessna, Ryan, etc.
 
Not much to choose from if you want to go LO in the air, and get it to work right.
 
Herald

 
.  
 
Quote    Reply

SlowMan       6/27/2009 4:01:06 PM
@ gf0012-aust  

[quote]I know I shouldn't, but please give me a technical summary of how Shin Shin the lineart wonder has functional benefit over a plane that is at least flying, has 13 partners, 10 countries, 10 different host streams, has been systems tested more than any other modern combat platform in  history[/quote]
1. Undowngraded stealth
2. 3D Thrust-vectoring
3. 3-way AESA radar(Frontal and side)
4. Jobs for Japanese aerospace industry
5. Integration of Japanese missiles
6. Air-Superiority mission optimized unlike F-35
7. Exports

[quote]Tell me where and how and what evidence there is that they've lifted their game since the debacle of the hotrodded F-16??[/quote]
Shin Shin is not based on existing American plane.

[quote]esp when the issue of capability latency is somewhat in question.[/quote]
F-35's gonna get delayed, and going Shin Shin will mean capability latency of a few more years past F-35. Given the benefit of indigenous development and presumed rapid updates, it's worth the delay.

[quote]The Japanese and Sth Koreans take a very different approach - and yes I've worked with both.[/quote]
They changed.

[quote]Modern Japanese don't give a rats arse about fighting Sth Korea[/quote]
Tell that to the crew of 5,000 ton Japanese and Korean "coast guard" ships confronting each other in the disputed water for the past decade, armed and ready to fire; both side has committed 5,000 ton coast guard ships(Not destroyers, as this would be politically too risky) for the sole purpose of carrying out this naval standoff for the past decade, unknown to the western world. Doesn't sound too friendly to me.

[quote]speak to older Japanese and Sth Koreans and the last thing they want is to go to war again.[/quote]
It's that Honne and Tademae thing again that got you deceived.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/27/2009 7:24:29 PM

@ gf0012-aust   >  I know I shouldn't, but please give me a technical summary of how Shin Shin the lineart wonder has functional benefit over a plane that is at least flying, has 13 partners, 10 countries, 10 different host streams, has been systems tested more than any other modern combat platform in  history 
Slowman > 1) Undowngraded stealth
gf0012-aust reply > What undowngraded LO capabilities?  - where in the history of modern japanese military aircraft development have they even demonstrated remotely a comprehension and display of the principles of a modern LO platform beyond some clay model (have a look at the russians and the chinese, they trot out future designs faster than a particle beam accelerator - and none of them esist either.  A kid can make a model (I can point you to some good modelling sites if thats where you get your information on future designs  - unfort making a clay hybrid that includes everyones pet beliefs on what constitutes LO bleeding edge does not make it so.  Lineart and clay does not denote any actual competency
Slowman > 2. 3D Thrust-vectoring
gf0012-aust reply >  where is it on any japanese plane?  why do you think TVC on missiles is more attractive?
Slowman > 3. 3-way AESA radar(Frontal and side)
gf0012-aust reply >  again, where apart from clay and lineart - give me 2 minutes and I'll knock up side lobes on a vigilante - it doesn't make it so.
Slowman > 4. Jobs for Japanese aerospace industry
gf0012-aust reply >  thats a desperate appeal to support an argument - of course thats a given - the issue is jobs for license or jobs for indigenous.  I'm asking you to demonstrate with the technical responses where in actual fact they've demonstrated any of these skills.  Latency counts.  Otherwise your timeline will blow out.
Slowman > 5 . Integration of Japanese missiles
 
Quote    Reply

SlowMan       6/28/2009 10:44:43 AM
@ gf0012-aust

> What undowngraded LO capabilities?

ShinShin would not have any "intentional" stealth downgrades like the export version of F-35.

> where is it on any japanese plane?

The engine for ShinShin has 3D thrust vectoring.

> the issue is jobs for license or jobs for indigenous.

F-35 is not available for license production. Japanese intended to fill the high-end with imported F-22 and low-end with ShinShin to sustain their domestic aerospace industry. Filling high-end with ShinShin and low-end with imported F-35 is not what Japanese planned.

> what japanese missiles are under development for use on an aviation platform?

Mitsubishi AAM-3 & 4 A2A missiles, ASM-1 and ASM-2 anti-ship missiles, and a whole bunch of follow-up missiles. Integrating these into F-35 is problematic, as Israel can testify.

> there are 8 countries that will be using JSF for air superiority from day 1.

Those are NATO countries facing low-security threat. Japan is not in a low-security threat environment; it faces China, Russia, South Korea, and North Korea, all eager to "settle the score" with Japan.

> there are 2 that will use it as air superiority options "day 2"

And they would be using Typhoon as their primary air-superiority fighter.

> Unfort for some of those who carry on about JSF not being able to do air superiority, every one of the partners have run the Brawler sims, we actually do have real empirical information on the flanker family and its derivatives

Well, Japanese have to factor in PAK-FA, J-14, F-15K, KFX, and SM-2 launched from Aegis ships in their battle simulation.

> The israelis have got more aviation and weapons development experience than japan and sth korea even remotely have, and yet they know that building their own is an exercise in budgetary implosion.

Israel is a small country with a modest economy. Japan and Korea are industrial powerhouses committed to fostering their own aerospace industry.

> I you can't integrate into the JSF without recertifying core components and or system behaviours, then you sure as heck can't do it with the F-22.

Japanese would bend over to have F-22, like maintaining them in Lockheed Martin run facilities and using only US missiles, but Japanese would not extend the same to F-35, something that Japanese feel they could do better themselves.

> If the japanese want to get a new type fielded in time, then they either get Typhoon or they get JSF.

It's F-22 or Typhoon, not F-35. F-35 is out of question other than F-35Bs for their flattops.

> anything but JSF gives them a capability thats close to what they caurrently have with their F-15's, so why would they bother.

Typhoon is a superior Air-Superiorty fighter to F-35, the primary air-defense fighter of UK and Turkey that are also buying F-35s.

Typhoon = Air-Superiority mission
F-35 = Strike mission.

> You blithely pass comment on a new platform entering congested market place space, an already substantially committed/recommitted  market place (JSF, F-15 and Typhoon)  and think that the Japanese are not going to exercise commercial reality?

There is actually a market for countries that need an air-superiority fighter better than F-35.

> what exports?

WHy do you think Japan is lifting the weapons export ban?

> esp when the issue of capability latency is somewhat in question.

This is fine with ASDF as long as the capability upgrade is done locally and frequently updated.

> please let me know what IOC dates the japanese can even remotely hope to achieve against a JSF even if its slipped in the US by 18months?

First flight is scheduled in summer 2016.
A decision on entering mass production would be made after a couple of years of evaluation.

> you fail to understand that the reason why Sth Korea and Japan are in this pickle is because they tried Texas "Hold 'em" and the bluff failed.

You don't understand that those countries never seriously considered F-35 from the beginning, because they were always going to build their low-end fighters themselves, and import the high-end from the US, at least that was their weapons procurement policy since the 80s. Their indigenous fighters and F-35 could not co-exist, think about it.

> The Japanese are in a pickle of their own making.  Now they may well get a footprint (like the Israelis) if the Dutch defer for 18months, or if any other partners defer or reduce, in that case they can still only get a slot if th
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics