Japan considers the Eurofighter

[Eric2020]

Perhaps early shopping for the Japanese since Austria cancelled their Typhoons, and also possible to buy from the RAF so they can have their final Typhoon version early, since the Saudi's have ordered Typhoons as well in an big deal, and is getting former RAF typhoons.

[Rapier01]

MAO... no offense but the services do not give to the budget cutters... they come in and hack our budget. Now, our Admiral used to try and play with money and numbers but he was told what his budget would be. The budget is set by the civilians (Congress) and the services have to do what they can with it.

Umm, actually the services ask the OSD (Offfice of the Secretary of Defense) for a certain budget request (which is the step where I'm saying the USAF has to hold the line), the Pentagon cvilians then decide if they like it or not- sometimes they'll add or delete stuff. The Pentagon then asks (or rather is dictated to a lot of the time) the Office of Management and Budget at the Whitehouse, who then decides if the that is kosher with the President's budget and if adjustments are required- OMB usualy lets the department know well ahead of time what it is they are willing to propose. The Executive then sends the bill to the Congress- who then tinkers with it in two separate bills in 4 separate commitees- the authorization and appropriations bills. If the bills from the House and Senate don't match, that has to be resolved by a conference commitee- and the whole thing has to be signed or vetoed by the Presient. That's the gist of it, so it's a bit more complex then that I would say.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Rapier01

[Flex]

I don't doubt the 1700 planes is never going to materialize. I do hope the SECAF and CSAF hold the line on the 1763 number becuase if you give the budget cutters even a single millimeter, they'll take a mile. If the Air Force and DoN hold hte line on the current numbers hopefully we get atleast 2/3 of the planes currently planned for.

Funny that the so called budget cutters are painted almost like enemies of the state. The number of aircraft should reflect current and possible future needs in the first place, not to serve aviation fanboys who love to stick to the highest possible figure at all costs without considering reasons or consequences. Finally, the cut funds are not thrown into the ocean, but are saved to serve much better interests than + another 1000 F-22s rotting on the apron waiting for non-existing enemy. Edited March 20, 2007 by Flex

[Rodney]

Umm, actually the services ask the OSD (Offfice of the Secretary of Defense) for a certain budget request (which is the step where I'm saying the USAF has to hold the line), the Pentagon cvilians then decide if they like it or not- sometimes they'll add or delete stuff. The Pentagon then askes (or rather is dictated to a lot of the time) the Office of Management and Budget at the Whitehouse, who then decides if the that is kosher with the Presidents budget and if adjustments are required- OMB usualy lets the departments know well ahead of time what is they are willing to propose. The Executive then sends the bill to the Congress- who then tinkers with it in two separate bills in 4 separate commitees- the authorization and appropriations bills. If the bills from the House and Senate don't match, that has to resolved by a conference commitee- and the whole thing has to signed or vetoed by the Presient. That's the gist of it, so it's a bit more complex then that I would say.

Well, maybe I simplified to much. I guess I just disagreed with the "hold the line". The Pentagon can still hack it and then Congress can add or cut for its own interest. We put in our request but it does not mean we will get it. Especially right now with the war tax and many programs being hit pretty hard (if not cancelled).

I gotta agree, it is a complex and convoluted process.

Rodney

[Rodney]

Funny that the so called budget cutters are painted almost like enemies of the state. The number of aircraft should reflect current and possible future needs in the first place, not to serve aviation fanboys who love to stick to the highest possible figure at all costs without considering reasons or consequences. Finally, the cut funds are not thrown into the ocean, but are saved to serve much better interests than + another 1000 F-22s rotting on the apron waiting for non-existing enemy.

I don't know that they are the enemy... but sometimes/often times, they are looking for money for their own projects/areas. I think the aviation 'fanboys' know the number of aircraft they need based on the scenarios dictated to them (two wars, Taiwan, Korea, etc). I have never seen where they wanted 1000 F-22s (high 300s seems to jog my memory right now).

Rodney

[GreyGhost]

I agree Flex, we don't need 1,000+ F-22s in our inventory but I do think we should purchase more than the 180 or so examples that are currently allotted for ... 400-450 would be a nice number ...

Gregg

[Dmanton300]

How much is enough? L.O. isn't a free ride, like anything else you sacrifice other capabilities to get it, primarily weapons load. Regards,

Murph

As far I can see Murph nothing has been sacrificed in the F-22 for it's role. . .it's clearly streets ahead of everything else out there in it's intended role. I guess you could argue that numbers have been sacrificed, but that's about it surely?

I'm still of the opinion that the JASDF will probably end up with F-22's in due course, but that's just a gut feeling, nothing substantive to back it up.

[Aggressor Supporter]

In the latest Airforces magazine, the LM JSF program managers alludes to another six countries being interested in the F-35. I wouldn't be surprised if Japan was one of them for replacing it's F-4 fleet. It gives them LO and they may be able to get into the production/work share part of the program.

Agree. Them getting the F-35 would be a good choice and makes sense. I also see the F-35 giving them an unprecedented level of capability over any threat in the region and little to no problems integrating with our and allied assets. I believe the Eurofighter would do the same thing, but I see more integration and infrastructure problems. But if they want it, go for it. Imo, the Raptor shouldn't be in the conversation.

Also, I believe in the same article, they talk about Congress still not authorizing F-22 for foreign sale

Rodney

[4scourge7]

The advantage of Eurofighter to the Japanese is that it is coming off the production line now with a promise that future block mods will be retrospectively fitted to early production airframes. I am not aware of Austria cancelling their order, last I heard they had only reduced it, and the Saudis won`t be getting ex-RAF airframes, they will get airframes diverted from the production line that were destined for the RAF, as happened with Tornado in the eighties.

Cheers, Ian

[Keith Diamond]

Well lets see, You've got the current Su-30 flava, F-22, F-35, F-15K (I would guess that if the stealth duo couldnt get past Congress then Boeing would try selling them upgraded mudhens), Rafale, Typhoon, Superbugs. . . Did I miss anything?

Gripen

It was mentioned that this maybe partly a political move to help give the US incentive to allow F-22s to be exported. If Japan is not openly considering the Rafale or Gripen, maybe that fact also points to this being a political move?

[Aggressor Supporter]

The advantage of Eurofighter to the Japanese is that it is coming off the production line now

Agree, and a notch for the Eurofighter. And going back a little, any obstacles in integration and infrastructure if the Eurofighter is chosen can always be overcome by the almighty dollar, or in their case, yen.

[Rapier01]

I support the 381 number because that is what analysis has repeatedly shown is required by the USAF. That gets the Air Force 10 squadrons of 24 PAA + 2 attrition reserves and enough jets to support training, testing and the weapons school.

I also support getting as many JSF's as possible, not because I am a "fanboy", but because of China. China is rising fast and they are an aggressive government who will inevitably challenge us in the Pacific. The Navy in particular needs this jet in order to punch through their defenses and I'm not convinced even 381 Raptors is going to be enough to deal with that many Flankers. That's why I prefer to see all 1763 USAF F-35s built along with all the DoN JSFs. We're going to need them if it ever turns into to a shooting war with the Chinese.

This is where I disagree with Murph, even with Raptors taking down the IADS of a country like China, they have a very large force it'll take time. If the F-35s and B-2s can get in there before the defenses are rendered inoperative so much the better. No version of the F-15 or F-16 is going to cut it against a wall of 200+ Flankers and J-10s. And the Chinese are likely going to be building these planes by the hundreds- which I believe they are already doing.

Also the China is pouring money into buying a massive and sophisticated IADS with SA-10s ect. And they are going full steam working on ways to defeat the US, it is the central focus of their planning... We can't take them lightly.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Rapier01

[Just call me Ray]

Perhaps early shopping for the Japanese since Austria cancelled their Typhoons, and also possible to buy from the RAF so they can have their final Typhoon version early, since the Saudi's have ordered Typhoons as well in an big deal, and is getting former RAF typhoons.

Austria cancelled their Typhoons?

Well, I always thought the Typhoon was a bit excessive for a nation with a strict neutrality policy and has never fought a war as an independent nation, and I always thought the Gripen would make much more sense since it's a smaller, (presumably) easier plane to support and they've been a Saab customer in the past. Heck, provided that they continue to age well the F-5s should continue to serve them very well for a few years to come.

As for Japan, well, once again the F-22 strikes me as excessive, and the Japanese having a stealth plane of the calibre of the F-22 could prove to be a regional political boondoogle (especially as far as China is concerned). On the other hand, I don't think the F-15, even in its SLAM Eagle form, is any longer an adequete platform for Japan's future defense needs, and from what I heard the Japanese people are getting tired of funding defense programs that will never get exported and built in relatively limited numbers with disporportionate, skyrocketing costs. Thus, I think something along the lines of the Typhoon or maybe Rafale would be most suitable, or wait until the F-35 comes on line (which would make a great F-2 replacement).

[gary1701]

Hi,

Austria has not cancelled it's Typhoon order. The new goverment pledged it would, and has come out with some soundbits for the Austrian public indicating that it would still like to but the programme is well advanced now. The first batch of aircraft are in assembly and these early deliveries are aircraft diverted from existing Tranche 1 orders (including two from the UK's batch).

Gary

[janman]

I also support getting as many JSF's as possible, not because I am a "fanboy", but because of China. China is rising fast and they are an aggressive government who will inevitably challenge us in the Pacific. The Navy in particular needs this jet in order to punch through their defenses(...)

Wow. This is supposed to be an international forum with clear prohibition for country bashing and political posts. Okay, that was not necessarily country bashing, but at least it was politics.

Also, the thread was about Japan and its (possible) intentions in buying Eurofighters - which was a news for me.

[Rapier01]

How did I guess? I guess I will have to use the ignore user function after all.

[ChernayaAkula]

Austria cancelled their Typhoons?

Well, I always thought the Typhoon was a bit excessive for a nation with a strict neutrality policy and has never fought a war as an independent nation, and I always thought the Gripen would make much more sense [...].

They may have not fought a war yet as an independent nation, but if I recall correctly they're very active in supporting UN missions and have a great reputation in doing so.

The gripen would be a logical choice indeed. Not only because they flew a lot of Saab designs, but because the Czechs also fly the Gripen. And I belive the Czechs and Austrians are co-operating on a military level quite nicely. If I'm not mistaken, the Czechs had been asked to do Austrian air-policing a while back. Oh, I almost forgot the Hungarians, as they also fly the Gripen.

How did I guess?

There goes the thread.....

[Vesper]

Gripen

It was mentioned that this maybe partly a political move to help give the US incentive to allow F-22s to be exported. If Japan is not openly considering the Rafale or Gripen, maybe that fact also points to this being a political move?

While the discussion here has been on the TFX2, if the new fighter is to replace the F-4 AND the F-15, then I would thing a long-legged twin engine beasty would be the way to go.

Now if Saab is offering that Gripen version proposed to Norway, that might be interesting.

Ves ;)

[Keith Diamond]

How did I guess? I guess I will have to use the ignore user function after all.

I found that the ignore user function is not really worth it. First of all, you still see that they posted, it's just that you can't read the post. Second, sometimes I have error messages pop up when I try to respond to a thread that they have responded to, even if the response has nothing to do with their posts, or even if the response is pages after the ignored user's post. Third, it doesn't work when you're logged in (obviously)

I understand your frustration.

While the discussion here has been on the TFX2, if the new fighter is to replace the F-4 AND the F-15, then I would thing a long-legged twin engine beasty would be the way to go.

Now if Saab is offering that Gripen version proposed to Norway, that might be interesting.

Ves B)

There was no mention of a requirement of 2 engines, and since the Gripen is part of the latest generation of aircraft coming out, it was worth mentioning.

[Rapier01]

I'm finding that also. I can just use the old fashioned ignore user I suppose.

[Trigger]

There goes the thread.....

1..2..3..4.. I DECLARE A FLAME WAR!!!!!

Now if Saab is offering that Gripen version proposed to Norway, that might be interesting.

How is it different from the standard off-the-shelf Gripen?

[Vesper]

Gripen-N disc. on Whiff

Try that. My point was that if the Japanese are looking for an Ego replacement, it would be logical to assume that they want something that could compete with what. . . Uncle Wei has on his lot ;)

Ves ;)

[ChernayaAkula]

How is it different from the standard off-the-shelf Gripen?

It is called Gripen N (N for, you guessed it, Norge - Norway) modified to have greater internal fuel, changing the looks of the aircraft a bit. An uprated engine is also part of that "upgrade".

The only pics I found, and only artists impressoins at that, are in THIS THREAD.

THIS PDF also has some more info.

EDIT: Vesper was a wee lil bit faster! ;)

Edited March 21, 2007 by ChernayaAkula

[janman]

How did I guess? I guess I will have to use the ignore user function after all.

Whatever.

No need for flame wars here. Your comment just was out of line if we consider the ban of political posts. Your post was geo-political and had nothing to do with the original topic - and even less with modeling.

If we all start declaring our views and fears for certain countries, then this forum would be nothing than a constant flame war. You must agree with me if you think about it.

About the topic. It's a shame that Flankers (or MiGs) are probably the last option for Japan.

[Just call me Ray]

They may have not fought a war yet as an independent nation, but if I recall correctly they're very active in supporting UN missions and have a great reputation in doing so.

I was under the impression Austria had a strict "no war" policy like Switzerland; hell, I heard a while back they were recently just allowed to have air-to-air missiles, period. Thus, I pretty much got the idea their military was strictly a Japanese-style self-defense force, but I could be mistaken.

Either way, I think especially given the size of their country, the Gripen would be a more logical choice.

Woah, the Lantrin sure demonstrates just how small these buggers are!

Edited March 21, 2007 by Just call me Ray