Originally posted by jlvfr
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What is up with the F-35? Part II
Collapse
X
-
it is official.
Japanese industry may be hit by new fighter - FT.com
Japanese industry may be hit by new fighter
By Mure Dickie in Tokyo
In choosing the F-35 Lightning II as its new mainstay fighter, Japan has plumped for a weapons platform which lead manufacturer Lockheed Martin wolfishly boasts is of “unmatched lethality”.
But rather than allowing some hostile intruder into its territorial airspace, the first fatality to be inflicted by Japan’s purchase could end up being the nation’s ability to build its own fighters.
More
On this story
Japan opts for US F-35 fighter
Japan to buy Lockheed’s F-35 fighter jet
Japan poised to decide on fighter jets deal
GE and Rolls-Royce abandon F-35 engine
Procurement Sellers of fast jets target ageing aircraft fleets
On this topic
Tokyo eyes Chinese state bonds investment
Lex Japan budget
Japan prepares Y2tn budget for business
Inside Business Buffett’s optimism punctures gloom enveloping Japan
FROM Inside Asia
Qantas long-haul tactics are on solid ground
Inside Asia Rote learning stifles creativity
Asia pay TV market makes easy target
Inside Asia Tepco under pressure
The choice – which critics say was driven largely by the desire of Japanese air force officers to have the most advanced available aircraft – looks set to deal a heavy blow to an isolated and inefficient defence industry .
Japan is already facing its first fighter production hiatus in more than half a century, following the delivery in September of the last F-2 aircraft built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The defence ministry says MHI will have a role in making F-35 airframes, but US reluctance to share the technology behind its radar-evading stealth abilities and weapons networking is sure to limit the extent of Japanese involvement.
This could be the final blow for many of the hundreds of smaller manufacturers vital to Japan’s military aerospace manufacturing sector, says Shinichi Kiyotani, a Japanese defence writer who argues that the F-35 purchase could “trigger the collapse of our nation’s defence industry”.
Debate over the long-delayed choice of the “FX”, as the replacement for two squadrons of 1970s-era F-4 Phantom jets, has certainly highlighted the woes of Japan’s defence sector. Budget pressures and an informal rule keeping defence spending at about 1 per cent of gross domestic product has left little room for growth. Analysts say increasing numbers of small and medium-sized companies involved in making parts or specialist technologies have been going bankrupt or exiting the sector, in large part because, unlike larger contractors, they cannot balance military-related revenues with sales to the civilian sector.
But times have been hard even for big companies like MHI and heavy machinery maker IHI Corp, which the defence ministry says will help to make engines for F-35s sold to Japan. Traditional defence budget-setting means that contracts for even the biggest weapons sales tend to be parcelled out into small lots over many years. The first F-35 deliveries are not expected until 2016, for example, but the government plans to include the cost of four fighters in its budget for the year starting April 1 2012.
Such a system leaves procurement programmes vulnerable to change and makes it difficult for contractors to factor in upfront costs, such as those involved in research and development. Meanwhile, the erosion of once cosy ties with bureaucrats and politicians means contractors can no longer rely on the government.
Just two months ago, Toshiba Corp launched a lawsuit against the defence ministry over its cancellation of billions of yen in contracts related to the remodelling of some F-15 fighters. Last year, Fuji Heavy Industries also went to court over the government’s decision to cut its purchase of Apache attack helicopters.
Defence contractors’ problems are exacerbated by a legacy of Japanese post-war pacifistic principles that largely bars them from the kind of cross-border co-operation that is becoming the industry norm. Exports of almost all weapons systems are banned, meaning companies like MHI have no chance to play a full role in the sort of multinational programme that led to the F-35.
Combined with Japan’s past determination to maintain an autonomous defence industry, the result is small production runs and fiendishly high prices. Japan’s F-2, for example, reportedly cost about Y12,00bn – more than twice the price of the US F-16 on which it was largely based.
Given Japan’s increasing fiscal strains, it would not be unreasonable to simply decide to rely on imports for future air defence. Yet, the government is hardly entertaining such a shift. Instead, the defence ministry excitedly plans domestic development of a stealth fighter. An early test aircraft is scheduled to take to the air by 2014.
How feasible such dreams prove could depend in large part on Japan winning significant access to F-35 technology. Without it, Japan risks merely driving up the cost of the new fighter while leaving itself incapable of creating a successor.
Domestic media have already questioned a procurement process which appears to have favoured the largely untried F-35 over its rivals, Eurofighter’s Typhoon and Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, which are already in widespread service. Both had offered far more domestic involvement in manufacture. At least such criticism should lead to greater public scrutiny of future procurement. For sections of the domestic defence sector, however, it may already be too late.
Mure Dickie is the FT’s Tokyo Bureau Chief“the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson
Comment
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostApart from the Harrier, afaik, the last single-engined plane in the USN/USMC was the Corsair. Everything else had 2 engines: Intruder, F-18, F-14... and I'm willing to bet there are people not happy at trading 2 engines for 1, in the F-35C...
In addition to ARs mention of the A-4, there was the F-8 Crusader, A-7 Corsair II, A-1 Skyrader going further back the F-3H Demon,FJ-3 Fury,F4d/F-6 Skyray,F9F Cougar, and F-11 Tigercat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostIn addition to ARs mention of the A-4, there was the F-8 Crusader, A-7 Corsair II, A-1 Skyrader going further back the F-3H Demon,FJ-3 Fury,F4d/F-6 Skyray,F9F Cougar, and F-11 Tigercat.
I mention "last 25 years", and you go get post WWII planes? :(
Comment
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostGuys, come on... now you're puting me on...
I mention "last 25 years", and you go get post WWII planes? :(
Along those lines, the F-404 engine in the first-gen F-18 (and, we can assume, the follow-on F-414 for the F-18/E/F/G) was a deliberately conservative design that emphasized reliability over performance; the F-404 is definitely capable of more performance, but GE deliberately scaled-back the design to make the engine more reliable when they were designing it.
Incidentally, the same reasoning (redundancy) was used by the US Navy for specifying a twin-wheel nose gear on ALL naval aircraft; the twin nose-wheel on the F-111 (and the F-4) is a legacy of this requirement. There are NO single nose-wheel aircraft on an aircraft carrier!"There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostGuys, come on... now you're puting me on...
I mention "last 25 years", and you go get post WWII planes? :(“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jimmy View PostWhy would you launch a sortie with 6 A-G munitions when you can carry 20? If the answer is "because the smaller payload will allow a smaller RCS for penetration of an advanced IADS" then you are DOING IT WRONG. The mission this aircraft is designed for is not a mission the Marines will face alone.Ego Numquam
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stitch View Postmy father-in-law, a B747-400 pilot, used to joke that ETOPS stood for Engines Turn Or People Swim)
Originally posted by Stitch View PostIncidentally, the same reasoning (redundancy) was used by the US Navy for specifying a twin-wheel nose gear on ALL naval aircraft; the twin nose-wheel on the F-111 (and the F-4) is a legacy of this requirement. There are NO single nose-wheel aircraft on an aircraft carrier!
Anyway, here's a nice big article on the F35: Japan's purchase, plus much more (including problems...)
F-35 to Japan
Comment
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostooOOo! And I had always thought in had something to do with the design of the catapult gear *blush*“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chunder View PostThe only platform that will do that for you is the B-2. It's rare that a platform carries it's full warload. At either rate, it does have external hardpoints. But it's a VTOL aircraft, I'm not sure what sort of payload it can take off with anyway, so the point may be completely moot between the both of us!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jimmy View PostWell, STOVL, but I agree with the point. They're still not going to be able to load it up to the gills, probably.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostSame here, plus the overall beefiness required for carrier landings
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostooOOo! And I had always thought in had something to do with the design of the catapult gear *blush*Attached FilesLast edited by TopHatter; 21 Dec 11,, 19:30."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stitch View PostEarlier carrier-based aircraft, right up to the F-4, were originally launched from the catapult using a cable, or bridle, attached to the front wing-root, not the nose landing gear as in modern aircraft.
Originally posted by Stitch View PostIn the picture below, you can clearly see the bridle attached to the catapult shuttle and the aircraft:“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Comment