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
Herald12345       6/25/2009 3:35:57 PM

Each missile should be optimized to use its most energy efficient profile to use its intercept logic. IR missiles use proportional lead logics and CHASE  the target. Radar seeker missiles use a predict lead where they either race to meet or are dropped to meet the target depending on the target's future  predicted position. The missile is either a chaser or a meeter.

Seems like the reason stated here for an IR missile to chase a target is to take full advantage of that nice hot IR emitting exhaust nozzle on jet fighters.
 
Making an IR "meeting missile" should be possible IMHO, but at what costs? An IR seeker can detect a flaming hot jet nozzle from a much further distance, than an airplane 10 to 20 degrees warmer than the surrounding sky.

Here you must understand that a 20 degree temperature difference between an aircraft and ambient air at 50,000 meters depends on friction effect as the drag resistance is translated into heat and is meaningless at sat 7009+ meters separation. However: the difference is more like 200 to 500 degrees Celsius for very fast jets. Yes; its possible to develop sensors that look for hot spots on the leading edges of an aeroshell under those real conditions, for in your face shots, and these missiles with those sensors do exist. But the missiles are short ranged and so are the sensors the missiles carry, No more than 15,000-20,000 MER in most cases today as the guaranteed detection threshold separation under average dry air clear sky conditions. A proprtional 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 newed a tomed pilse retyrn from a reflected signal from a radar to develop an intercept VECTOR solution.  .   

There is not much point in designing an IR missile with a state of the art expensive sensor and then have it's sensor detection range severely limited, because you insist on an predict lead logic. IMHO.
 
For radar and missile engineers  to not understand scalar chase and vector intercept logics in an A2A weapon is the height of STUPIDITY.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/25/2009 3:41:17 PM
Each missile should be optimized to use its most energy efficient profile to use its intercept logic. IR missiles use proportional lead logics and CHASE  the target. Radar seeker missiles use a predict lead where they either race to meet or are dropped to meet the target depending on the target's future  predicted position. The missile is either a chaser or a meeter.

Seems like the reason stated here for an IR missile to chase a target is to take full advantage of that nice hot IR emitting exhaust nozzle on jet fighters.
 
Making an IR "meeting missile" should be possible IMHO, but at what costs? An IR seeker can detect a flaming hot jet nozzle from a much further distance, than an airplane 10 to 20 degrees warmer than the surrounding sky.

Here you must understand that a 20 degree temperature difference between an aircraft and ambient air at 50,000 meters depends on friction effect as the drag resistance is translated into heat and is meaningless at sat 7009+ meters separation. However: the difference is more like 200 to 500 degrees Celsius for very fast jets. Yes; its possible to develop sensors that look for hot spots on the leading edges of an aeroshell under those real conditions, for in your face shots, and these missiles with those sensors do exist; but the missiles are short ranged, and so are the sensors the missiles carry, No more than 15,000-20,000 MER in most cases today is the guaranteed detection threshold separation under average dry air clear sky conditions. A proportional lead logic is still the best solution for an in your face pass through attack missile, suffering such physical limitations since you 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.  .   

There is not much point in designing an IR missile with a state of the art expensive sensor and then have it's sensor detection range severely limited, because you insist on an predict lead logic. IMHO.
 
For radar and missile engineers  to not understand scalar chase and vector intercept logics in an A2A weapon as a design function is the height of STUPIDITY.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/25/2009 4:50:53 PM
FJV, I hope I am not telling you something you already know, and I hope I am able with my limited knowledge to avoid saying something wrong, but Herald is using the words "chase" and "meet" to mean something other than what I think you think he means.  For one thing, he doesn't mean that chase is necessarily from the rear hemisphere and meet is from the forward hemisphere.  IR missiles like MICA and AIM-9X and many others certainly can intercept from all aspects, as I'd bet you do know, but they still "chase" the target (to use Herald's term).  The distinction is along the lines of what he started to get into in his last post, where the IR missile sees the target is somewhere down a line on a given azimuth and elevation from the missile seeker, so it flies down that line (with some lead compensation built into all modern IR missiles).  This means it is always flying toward where the target *is now*, except again that usually there is a lead bias built in in order to try to add in a psuedo-prediction of sorts of where the target will be sometime in the future.  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.  Thus, it must in effect be perpetually chasing where the target was, instead of flying to where the target will be (although, again, this is attempted to be offset somewhat by trying to add some amount of lead into the guidance command).  A radar-guided missile is able to constantly compute (or the fighter guiding it can, in the case of a semi-active radar homing missile or in the case of a datalink updated missile) the target's position and velocity so it is able to make an actual prediction of a future state (position and velocity at a specific time in the future) of the target, and thus calculate an optimized trajectory designed to merge the missile with the target at that future state.  This is what Herald called meeting the target.  To some extent an IR missile--if it receives datalink updates--can also benefit from an improved trajectory and to some extent "meet" the target instead of only "chase" the target... until it locks on with its IR seeker.  This is the way to truly extend the range of an IR missile into the tens of kilometers, assuming it has the kinetic energy available to fly out that far/long.  But to do this requires the launch aircraft to have accurate range data as well as azimuth and elevation, and at those distances this so far still means the fighter must use its radar to obtain the necessary degree of accuracy in its prediction calculations.
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/25/2009 7:25:02 PM

gf0012-aust  > - No money for indigenous development to develop that platform in the threat cycle

slowman > That's an odd comment. You have Japanese indigenous replacement for Aegis system partially implemented in Hyuga and fully implemented in 19DD destroyers. You have an assortment of indigenous Japanese  A2A and anti-ship missiles. You have Japanese indigenous replacement for P-3(No, Japanese are not buying P-8 Poseidon) and C-130. You have Shin Shin. See, Japanese like their indigenous stuff even if it costs more than imported weapons and dislike importing unless they absolutely have to.

gf0012-aust reply > so you are going to ignore all the Japanese ministery comment since the financial meltown, ignore all the commentary coming from their thinktanks?  There is no money to spend on a 5th generation high technology platform.  This is not a Kawasaki dump truck designed to carry torpedoes or pallets, this is about a 5th gen manned combat  solution designed to deal with an emergent threat.  The reason why they?re making public comment is because their own programs have been cost negative.  They?re pragmatists.  I'm talking about a 5th gen manned aircraft - thats a completely different development issue than designing and fielding a modified Oyashio (which is a modified US design) or a Hyuga (which is an extrapolation of their ship building and design skills, something that they are already world leaders in.  You have this remarkable propensity to introduce strawman examples to further your argument.  It's disingenuine - and weakens your credibility IMV because they are a defelection from the course of the debate.  

Of course they dislike importing, 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.

gf0012-aust  > - No inherent capability to build and deliver a 5th gen without considerable assistance at the systems integration level

slowman > EADS and Boeing say hello.

 gf0012-aust reply > Boeing aren?t in a position to say anything.  You can carry on and repeat your claims in here as much as you like ? unless Boeing get approval from State to talk about the F-22 then they can?t.  Considering how much money Boeing have been fined in the past for ferking up on ITARs, I think they might have a clue that they won?t talk without the releases.  Show me anything from State or Congress releasing Boeing onto the playing field about the F-22 and you might start to look as though you know what you?re on about.  At this point, you are spruicking ? and badly

gf0012-aust  > - Outside of nukes, they can already belt the chinese into machine dust. Thats at a naval and airforce level.  man for man at a landforces level,

 slowman > Navy, yes. If Japanese fleet manages to avoid 55 Chinese subs lurking around.

Airforce, not so much and this is their motivation for importing F-22.

Army, hell no. Japanese GSDF is the joke of the region.

 gf0012-aust reply > ROFLMAO.  The Japanese airforce (or SDF element) could belt the Chinese all over the shop.&nbs

 
Quote    Reply

SlowMan       6/26/2009 10:25:22 AM
@ gf0012-aust

> so you are going to ignore all the Japanese ministery comment since the financial meltown, ignore all the commentary coming from their thinktanks?

I don't read Japanese government comments in English; I read Japanese government comments and publications in Japanese. Please go and read the concept of Honne and Tatemae < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honne_and_tatemae > before talking about Japan's true intentions.

>  There is no money to spend on a 5th generation high technology platform.

Sure there is. This is why Shin Shin was given the greenlight to fly.

> thats a completely different development issue than designing and fielding a modified Oyashio (which is a modified US design)

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

> or a Hyuga

Hyuga has a Japanese air-defense system.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> The Japanese airforce (or SDF element) could belt the Chinese all over the shop.

Now we know you clearly don't understand Japanese defense strategy and requirements. ASDF's likely air battles will be fought over the skies of Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands, which is far away from Japanese mainland but much closer to mainland China, where ASDF F-15s from Okinawa would face Chinese fighters 10 times their number taking off from 30 airbases(USAF describes similar problem when facing Chinese over Taiwan Straight). Guess whose gonna win in such air battle.

> Your comment on the Japanese comes with zero credibility because you're obviously racially motivated.

You have demonstrated zero credibility on this issue by praising the GSDF, which is indeed the laughing stock of North Asia. Unlike elite Maritime SDF and half-decent ASDF, GSDF started out as a converted police force unit back in the 50s to fill the void of US 8th Army moved to Korea, poorly equipped, fielded by poor-quality recruits(social rejects who have no other prospect of employment), and don't get any respect even in Japan. Why is the quality of GSDF so poor? Because Japanese defense policy calls for stopping the enemy at the sea and do not really envision enemy landing on Japan, so Japanese government invests heavily on MSDF and ASDF, while letting GSDF languish. GSDF troops aren't real soldiers, they feel more like armed policemen in military uniform.

>  I've seen enough rabid sth Korean kids in my time to see that they're just as bad as Chinese kids when it comes to the Japanese.

Thank you for explaining yourself why Koreans are arming up for a naval showdown with Japan.

> and they don't have any of the demonstrated requirements to get an indigenous 5th gen platform up and gold within the opportunity window before the Chinese start flexing their muscle in 2020.

Shin Shin will start flying in 2016 and be ordered by 2020 if ASDF decided to go with it.
 
Quote    Reply

maruben    GSDF   6/26/2009 11:28:28 AM
As half japanese I find your comments on GSDF totally brainless.
 
Maybe I should tell you, for instance, about JGSDF Northern Army, especially the JGSDF 2nd Division at Asahikawa, who was there just to deal with the expected Soviet invasion from Kamchatka Peninsula.
 
If the JGSDF 2nd Division was good enough to deal with the Red Army at its best, I can not see why they should fear or worry about other foe who are not and will not be at the level of the Soviets.
 
They are the best of the Japan GSDF.
 
You say that you can read Japanese, thus there is huge posibility that your Chinese. Nothing wrong with that but you are biased about what the Japanese Self-Defence Forces are.
 
Just for your information http://www.mod.go.jp/gsdf/nae/2d/ in JAPANESE.
 
 
Quote    Reply

maruben    GSDF   6/26/2009 11:42:05 AM
As half japanese I find your comments on GSDF totally brainless.
 
Maybe I should tell you, for instance, about JGSDF Northern Army, especially the JGSDF 2nd Division at Asahikawa, who was there just to deal with the expected Soviet invasion from Kamchatka Peninsula.
 
If the JGSDF 2nd Division was good enough to deal with the Red Army at its best, I can not see why they should fear or worry about other foe who are not and will not be at the level of the Soviets.
 
They are the best of the Japan GSDF.
 
You say that you can read Japanese, thus there is huge posibility that your Chinese. Nothing wrong with that but you are biased about what the Japanese Self-Defence Forces are.
 
Just for your information http://www.mod.go.jp/gsdf/nae/2d/ in JAPANESE.
 
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Regarding teh Japanese GSDF   6/26/2009 11:51:15 AM
One of my Field Service Team was at Yakima last year with a Ft Lewis Unit while the Japanese were there doing large scale combined arms ops.  His take was that they looked very proficient and formidable.  As an ARNG Artillery Officer I consider his opinion on these type of matters pretty valid ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/26/2009 12:15:53 PM

@ gf0012-aust



> so you are going to ignore all the Japanese ministry comment since the financial meltdown, ignore all the commentary coming from their think-tanks?

I don't read Japanese government comments in English; I read Japanese government comments and publications in Japanese. Please go and read the concept of Honne and Tatemae <link > before talking about Japan's true intentions.

Smoke and mirrors. The coincept is not exclusively Japanese, nor does it actually mean much, when the tech base and the money isn't there. 

>  There is no money to spend on a 5th generation high technology platform.

Sure there is. This is why Shin Shin was given the greenlight to fly.

Cite two goveernment sources please..


> thats a completely different development issue than designing and fielding a modified Oyashio (which is a modified US design)

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

We do (lease) and you don't need to know specifics.

> or a Hyuga

Hyuga has a Japanese air-defense system.

FCS-3 specifically is unknown to me, but ESSM IS. It  takes an AEGIS style architecture either active or passive electronic scan so that missile system is  (current originally RCA) Lockheed Martin radar or SMART L APAR coded architecture . The Japanese system would have to conform-so I guess its an AESA  DUTCH version of  AEGIS (APAR)  since that is what the Dutch use to operate ESSM.
   

> 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.

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.

Its usually 1
underlined.

Japanese order of preference.

1. Indigenous solution.

2. License production

3. Straight import.

> 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.

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 bidding war on KFX project of neighboring Korea.
 
Boeing is the junior guy in a LOCKHEED MARTIN fighterWhat criticals are there are LockMart.

> The Japanese airforce (or SDF element) could belt the Chinese all over the shop.

Now we know you clearly don't understand Japanese defense strategy and requirements. ASDF's likely air battles will be fought over the skies of Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands, which is far away from Japanese mainland but much closer to mainland China, where ASDF F-15s from Okinawa would face Chinese fighters 10 times their number taking off from 30 airbases(USAF describes similar problem when facing Chinese over Taiwan Straight). Guess whose gonna win in such air battle.
 
The Sukhois have the legs but they don't have the Mainstay support. Nor do they have the rockets yet.  As to who will win? WE will. Its not a numbers game, its an EW game.
 
> Your comment on the Japanese comes with zero credibility because you're obviously racially motivated.

You have demonstrated zero credibility on this issue by praising the GSDF, which is indeed the laughing stock of North Asia. Unlike elite Maritime SDF and half-decent ASDF, GSDF started out as a converted police force unit back in the 50s to fill the void of US 8th Army moved to Korea, poorly equipped, fielded by poor-quality recruits(social rejects who have no other prospect of employment), and don't get any respect even in Japan. Why is the quality of GSDF so poor? Because Japanese defense policy calls for
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/26/2009 12:18:41 PM

One of my Field Service Team was at Yakima last year with a Ft Lewis Unit while the Japanese were there doing large scale combined arms ops.  His take was that they looked very proficient and formidable.  As an ARNG Artillery Officer I consider his opinion on these type of matters pretty valid ;)

Had a chance to see JSDF units deployed in support of OIF and they were very professional and competent. That Rising Sun insignia still looks very impressive IMHO. When it's appropriate I may upload some photos and video...


-DA 
 
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