Japan to buy at least 20 more F-35A stealth fighters
reuters.com
reuters.com
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/spy-f35s-s...
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="//s7.addthis.com/js/300/addthis_widget.js#pubid=lockheed" async="async"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.optimizely.com/js/12345678.js"></script>In some technologies, it has surpassed it"
https://www.economist.com/news/china/21737074-some-technolog...
"in two years’ time, if not before, America is likely to lose its monopoly of radar-beating stealth combat aircraft with the introduction into service of China’s Chengdu J-20. This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
"At least as worrying for American commanders in the region is the dramatic upgrading of China’s inventory of air-to-air missiles (AAMs). The short-range PL-10, which was introduced in 2015, is regarded by military analysts as comparable in performance to Western equivalents, such as the Sidewinder II. This year, the PL-15, a radar-guided “beyond visual range” missile (BVRAAM), should enter service. Carried by a J-20, the PL-15 can destroy an aircraft 50km away that is trying to evade it. “The Military Balance” believes that a version of the missile is in the works that will have a cruise speed of Mach 3. "
*https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-afghanistan-war-timeline-...
Conversely, any land war in North Korea I feel would end disastrously for them - as it arguably did the first time around.
According to a former US State department official (I heard on a recent podcast interview), China never cared to take Taiwan. If they wanted to, all they need to do is cut off access to fresh water from the Chinese mainland.
The US might be able to prevent a ground invasion or counter-attack missile batteries, but the island will fall quickly if China put it's mind to the task.
Well other than the 'carrier killer' missiles like the DF-21D.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-ch...
For a fraction of that I'm pretty sure we could be well under way of self-sustaining colonization of other Solar System bodies.
They've made 3 posts here, all of which are quoting pro-chinese military articles with minimal contributions of their own.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=wrg91237
Not the first time I've seen stuff like this.
> "Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data."
This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
In the 21st century, serious threats to warships abound. However, when it comes to China, the real question for the US is how well the US can keep China contained, curtailing China's projection of power towards Taiwan, Japan, and other parts of the region. Superior weapons can help, but distance and logistics are still huge factors, which can work to China's advantage sometimes, and against it other times.
In other words, the issue is a lot more complex than who has the "best" stealth fighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
One should be a little skeptical of these kinds of deals and how they are made given their past skeeziness.
I might get my wish soon, as the Israelis just lost an F-16I in the Syrian theater and they might start sending F-35s in for better survivability.
Its equally disturbing to those of us who detest war, and war machines, and their 'glorious application' towards inhuman goals.
Honestly, its repulsive to have to deal with the notion of 'shiny death machines being pit against each other for fun and profit', and not let a protest be said, in kind.
For the cost of a single death machine, the will for war could be bought: you just use it to deliver books and medicine and food, instead of death and mayhem and misery.
We've done that for decades with North Korea, and you see the result: North Korea armed with thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems that can reach most of the world.
Human nature, and competition for resources, guarantee war for the foreseeable future. Sorry to say, a strong deterrent is the only way to preserve the peace.
The argument "food doesn't work, so we'll just kill them" is heinous. Not gonna bother with your other points for that reason.
No one said, "we'll just kill them". The good thing is that NK is unlikely to kill us, since if it tries it won't survive as a political entity.
That is called "deterrence".
Congress then reneged on the deal. Three years later, Bush gave his famous axis of evil speech, and invaded one of the countries on the list.
Unsurprisingly, having taken one look at what happened to Saddam Hussein, and because it's not ran by suicidal morons, North Korea resumed their nuclear program.
Have we all collectively forgotten the past 19 years?
Major reasons for the breakdown of the Agreed Framework was that DPRK was never abiding by it to begin with. I mean it really shouldn't be up to the United States to bribe DPRK into not pursuing nuclear weapons; North Korea should just respect its preexisting agreements with South Korea and rely on its relationships with China and Russia for nuclear deterrence the same as South Korea relies on the United States. It's no coincidence that talks broke down at around the same time that the North Korean famine started to subside.
That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK. The reason Saddam got invaded was because he deliberately mislead people about his weapons programs. If North Korea was a less belligerent entity, they would be having a much easier time dealing with the United States.
The United States also should not be making demands of the DPRK at gunpoint. If some agreement could not be reached, it would have bombed the Yongbyon reactor.
The NNPT is a voluntary agreement - one that its key signatories are arguably in violation of.
> That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK.
The belligerence was not in a void. The country underwent a devastating war, and was subjected to decades of economic and political marginalisation, with the constant threat of another war hanging over it.
If the United States was less belligirent towards North Korea, they would also have a much easier time dealing with them. This is, of course, not a notion that is even entertained by the Department of State.
Pretty much everyone involved in this cesspool is smeared in shit. No-one comes out looking good.
If by 'decades of economic and political marginalisation' you mean it was on the Soviet side in the Cold War, then you are correct. But during that time DPRK had a strong alliance with the Soviet Union which provided them with enormous resources. Their economy was almost on par with the South. It wasn't until the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the 90s, that this changed and it was Korean belligerence in the 90s and 2000s that lead to the current state of affairs.
"The country underwent a devastating war"
Using the Korean war as justification for current North Korean foreign and domestic policies is as morally bankrupt as using the First World War as justification for Hitler's foreign and domestic policies. The DPRK has been the aggressor from the beginning.
"The NNPT is a voluntary agreement - one that its key signatories are arguably in violation of."
They signed other agreements... https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/KR%2...
"The United States also should not be making demands of the DPRK at gunpoint."
That strongly depends on the kind of demand being made. If the United States was demanding economic concessions, you'd be right, but that's the situation. The situation is that North Korea is making demands at gunpoint and is attempting to make even more devastating threats. In these negotiations, the United States has never threatened to attack North Korea's civilian population, nor has it threatened to use nuclear weapons. North Korea however, has done exactly the opposite.
There is no parity between North Korea's and the United States' actions here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Perhaps NK shouldn't have been the aggressor and gotten a bunch of citizens killed... How many South Koreans do you suppose would rather NK had won?
Not only was North Korea the aggressor in the Korean War, it was not the United States acting unilaterally that opposed it but the United Nations. This was one of the only times in history that the United Nations declared war on a nation acting as a clear aggressor. Had the United Nations not intervened, then we would see an entire Korean peninsula run as foolishly and cruelly as the North is.
The DPRK's mythologizing of the war has done nothing but dig the North Korean people in general and the Kim regime in particular, into an ideological hole that they can't really get out of.
North Korea is not what you think it is or how people in North Korea see things. The goal for both Koreas is the same as it was for 'both Germanies' - unification. However, North Korea sees the war as very much imposed by America. The USA is the country seen as keeping the two Koreas apart. The arrangement sought by North Korea in this united kingdom is very much like how the deal goes for Scotland in the UK - devolution of sorts, albeit 'Juche' flavoured.
The leadership gig in North Korea is very much like what the Japanese imposed with a holy emperor type of person having absolute god like authority. This was the model for the Kim dynasty to follow.
So what is wrong with a united Korea?
In a matter of a generation a united Korea would be a GDP powerhouse with ample natural resources and great people. Korea would be unstoppable to become bigger than everyone except one or two others when it comes to global clout. Really there would be no excuses for not giving Korea a seat at the UN, plus their currency could be up there with the Euro as a currency to trade in.
So it serves the interests of everyone else on the UN to have Korea divided. And occupied in the South by good old 'global policeman' Uncle Sam.
We live in a Western world of Full Spectrum Dominance, discussion of North Korea is skewed so that we imagine these hordes from the North flattening all those big cities in the south with their cruddy armaments and dirty bombs. However, any understanding of the North Korean position and any appreciation of their goals puts out of mind these silly Western fears. It is just propaganda, a shaping of Western minds, a filter bubble that has been going on for 75 or so years, inescapable.
Anyone in the West that attempts to read the words of the North and try to understand their position is to be scapegoated and regarded with suspicion. In the West our views have to be suckled from the teat of the TV news, there is no scope for listening to the other side. We have our news journalists to not do that for us so we don't have to either.
I also think you're kind of glossing over the fact that the DPRK is a profoundly brutal totalitarian regime that holds hundreds of thousands of political prisoners in concentration camps, along with numerous other human rights violations. You don't think that might be the reason the country is hated globally? Or at least contribute to it?
> We live in a Western world of Full Spectrum Dominance, discussion of North Korea is skewed so that we imagine these hordes from the North flattening all those big cities in the south with their cruddy armaments and dirty bombs.
Have you read up on the DPRK military? They have thousands of artillery positions throughout the country, most of which are capable of reaching Seoul, along with key military installations. It's crappy artillery, but there's a lot of it and they can really make it rain down on civilians. Studies have suggested that even if the US devoted the entirety of its air power in the Pacific to destroying those artillery positions, it would take a week to remove all of them. During which time they could fire indiscriminately at population centers. Even an Iron Dome-like defense system wouldn't be able to handle that volume of artillery.
North Korea wouldn't win any war with the US, but they could take a lot of South Koreans down with them.
> In a matter of a generation a united Korea would be a GDP powerhouse with ample natural resources and great people. Korea would be unstoppable to become bigger than everyone except one or two others when it comes to global clout
[citation needed]
> Really there would be no excuses for not giving Korea a seat at the UN
North Korea has been a full member of the UN since 1991
> In the West our views have to be suckled from the teat of the TV news, there is no scope for listening to the other side. We have our news journalists to not do that for us so we don't have to either.
This sort of ad hominem attack on the abstract concept of "the West" really doesn't add anything to your argument.
I mean, at the same time we convinced Gaddafi to quit his nuclear weapons program and then pounced on him as soon as we could without international backlash. We sent a clear signal that we only respect the sovereignty of nuclear powers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/in...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order/exclusive...
Of course they will be much more efficient shiny war machines because they won't have the same human limits of G-forces, heat, oxygen, etc.
> I might get my wish soon, as the Israelis just lost an F-16I in the Syrian theater and they might start sending F-35s in for better survivability.
I am very fond of military technology, as it usually pushes a lot of boundaries, but I'd rather having it as a deterrent instead of put to use.
They have to be lethal too. They're not just enforcing American law, they're enforcing International order by keeping shipping lanes open and international waters, well, international. Admittedly this capability is being challenged in the South China Sea right now, but it's important to keep the lifeblood of international trade flowing (shipping!) and America is pretty much the only player on this front.
IMO it's pretty fucked up to be eagerly awaiting killing of others, regardless of reason. It may, in this world, be deemed "necessary" by politicians and generals etc, but to derive pleasure and eagerly wish for it to happen really doesn't sit at all well with me.
Soldiers are a sacrifice they are willing to make to prove that point, particularly as war becomes less about the soldiers and more about the equipment the soldiers operate. Actually let me take that back, war has always been about the equipment that soldiers operate, from spears to guns, from trebuchets to tanks, and from ballistae to ICBMs.
The soldiers serve two important roles here: 1. to operate the piece of equipment they are charged with effectively to accomplish their roles within a mission environment and 2. to occupy a piece of dirt with their continued, loyal and obedient, presence until their CO tells them to move along to the next piece of dirt down the road.
Until war is obsolete, so until life comes to an end on Earth basically, there are going to continue to be people eagerly awaiting the next battlefield to prove their points.
The carriers are deterrents, not weapons. They will be among the first major casualties of any true, open warfare. Carrier-defeating tech has been out for years; therefore they're only ever useful for policing actions - not full, symmetric war.
Any country powerful enough to challenge a US carrier strike group in true, open warfare, isn't a country that is fighting a full symmetric conventional war with the United States. They're fighting a nuclear war.
They are weapons, powerful, effective, government-toppling weapons, and that is what makes them such effective deterrents. For the non-Chinas and non-Russias in the world, a carrier strike group is probably sufficient. If one won't do, how would you like two?
Or ASMs [1] if carrier air or seaspace is breached, carriers are heavily escorted though.
If nuclear deterrence (god forbid) is broken, then I guess aircraft carriers are pretty much sitting ducks.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile
If its not a weapon, it can't work as a deterrent, either.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/four-of-the-most-exper...
I think this quote from a Marine F-35B pilot regarding an exercise pretty well says it all:
"I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s. We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out. All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well. Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there."
The F-35B in particular is an amazing piece of engineering, and a vast improvement over any other STOVL aircraft.
From the Wikipedia article on the J-20:
"In October 2017, Chinese state media reported that the designs of J-20 had been finalized, and is ready for mass production as well as combat-ready."
...however...
"As of March 2017 there are still a series of technical problems that need to be tackled, including the reliability of its WS-15 engines, [the aircraft's flight] control system, stealth coatings and hull materials, and infrared sensor."
The Russian Su-57 is equally questionable:
"In December 2014, the Russian Air Force planned to receive 55 fighters by 2020.[41] Yuri Borisov, Russia's deputy minister of defence for armaments stated in 2015 that the Air Force would slow production and reduce its initial order to 12 fighters and retain large fleets of fourth-generation fighters due to the nation's economy."
Both China and Russia are almost entirely dependent on their 4th Gen fighters at this point, and I expect the F-22 and F-35 will easily handle the J-20 if necessary. Regardless, 99.99% of potential adversaries are 4th Gen.
"At least six J-20s are in active service, with tail numbers 78271-78276 identified. Another six were believed ready to be delivered by end of Dec 2016.[86] On 9 March 2017, Chinese officials confirmed that the J-20 had entered service in the Chinese air force.
In September 2017, the J-20 officially entered military service with PLAAF, making China the second country in the world after United States wielding fifth-generation stealth aircraft, and the first in Asia.[87][87][88][16]
In January 2018, Chinese media reports that J-20 is in full operation-ready deployment.[89]"
https://www.economist.com/news/china/21737074-some-technolog...
"in two years’ time, if not before, America is likely to lose its monopoly of radar-beating stealth combat aircraft with the introduction into service of China’s Chengdu J-20. This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
"Another system, yet to be named, would provide China with an ability to knock out targets as far away as 400km, a far greater range than any other air-to-air weapon in service. It would threaten aircraft that currently operate safely from a considerable distance, such as tankers and planes used for airborne surveillance and control. "
In September 2017, the J-20 officially entered military service with PLAAF, making China the second country in the world after United States wielding fifth-generation stealth aircraft, and the first in Asia.[87][87][88][16]
In January 2018, Chinese media reports that J-20 is in full operation-ready deployment.'
Yeah, that all sounds great as propaganda. It's clear to any knowledgeable observer that the J-20 likely still has significant issues. As I mentioned before, it's also not at all clear how stealthy it is as well. There's a reason no other stealth aircraft has canards...
"in two years’ time, if not before, America is likely to lose its monopoly of radar-beating stealth combat aircraft with the introduction into service of China’s Chengdu J-20. This has a much longer range than America’s new F-35 fighter and will be a serious threat to American warships in the Pacific."
Carrier based F-35s will be in service soon (or already are in the case of the F-35B), countering the range advantage. All that said, the F-22 is the true counterpart to the J-20 and will likely mop the floor with it if necessary.
It's worth noting that for strike aircraft like the F-35, the main goal is avoiding detection to bomb targets. Stealth aircraft have no advantage over any other aircraft at detecting other stealth aircraft - making the J-20 no more of a threat than any Gen 4 aircraft.
"Another system, yet to be named, would provide China with an ability to knock out targets as far away as 400km, a far greater range than any other air-to-air weapon in service. It would threaten aircraft that currently operate safely from a considerable distance, such as tankers and planes used for airborne surveillance and control. "
Yep, that's interesting. I wonder how our jammers, anti-missile missiles, and directed energy weapons will fare against it...
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/
This will handle Air combat quite fine.
"The short-range PL-10, which was introduced in 2015, is regarded by military analysts as comparable in performance to Western equivalents, such as the Sidewinder II. This year, the PL-15, a radar-guided “beyond visual range” missile (BVRAAM), should enter service. Carried by a J-20, the PL-15 can destroy an aircraft 50km away that is trying to evade it. “The Military Balance” believes that a version of the missile is in the works that will have a cruise speed of Mach 3. It is similar in design to the European Meteor, the best BVRAAM in the West’s inventory, which is only just entering service."
As you say J-20 will be used to deter aircraft carriers and warships.
"A 2015 RAND report noted the J-20’s “combination of forward stealth and long range could hold U.S. Navy surface assets at risk, and that a long-range maritime strike capability may be a cause for greater concern than a short-range air-superiority fighter like the F-22.” The J-20’s size and weapons configuration may, however, preclude it from functioning as an effective strike fighter in either context. Importantly, the mission types Chinese pilots are trained for may determine how the J-20 is eventually utilized."
"The U.S. Naval War College suggests that the J-20 could be an “effective surface-attack platform for out to several hundred nautical miles at sea.” Air Power Australia notes that the J-20 would be a suitable choice of aircraft for operating within China’s “first island chain” and “second island chain.” Should China integrate aerial refueling aircraft with the J-20, the stealth fighter’s operational range would extend even further across the Asia-Pacific."
Also note China is expected to deploy hypersonic weapons that are excellent for first strikes against naval forces.
Pardon me for my ignorance, why is that important? (My impression was "4th Gen adversaries" characterizes most, if not all, of the F-35's present adversaries.)
The F16I was shot down over Israel not over Syria despite Syria having the capability to shoot down aircraft over the entire territory of Israel pretty much except for it's most southern parts it was always assumed that they would never fire at Israeli jets inside Israel's territory.
Last time when Syria fired at Israeli jets within Syrian territory Israel has uses it's missile defense system to shoot down the Syrian AA missiles however it seems that this time it didn't happen, likely due to the positioning of the jets within Israel.
So for the most part what would happen is that Israel would start taking evasive measures when flying combat sorties even in it's territory, likely go back to the same path it used to take which is fly low over the med then cross into Syria from it's coastline or through Lebanon via the Baalbek valley.
Israel would also likely push more ABM/AM batteries into it's northern parts to provide additional cover to it's air assets as well as potentially start using it's ground based standoff weapons rather than relying solely on air deployed munitions.
More to the point, many of the capabilities and their effectiveness of each fighters on both sides are probably shroud in secrecy. Engagement would reveal a lot of secrets between both sides, so they are likely to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/misjudgment-not-negligence-beh...
That's not a decision which implies a tactical switch to the F-35 for that sort of mission.
fuck the motherfuckers who think any of this is good, and fuck what they stand for. murder subjugation and all the rest of the shit is what humans have been up to forever, and I think we should stop.
alternatively, somebody comes up with a valid reason why it's good for us... then maybe we all agree to start doing it intentionally, and vigorously, and ceaselessly... and we achieve the final solution for all humanity.