The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[SpudmanWP]

The same can be said about the US's budget process and determining yearly program unit (and total) costs.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Where did the numbers come from (link please)?

I think he got from from the same place he sourced the frontal RCS of the Silent Eagle and F-35. In polite company lets just say its somewhere above the legs and bellow the hips where the sun don't shine...

 

[SlowMan]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A79cc8cc4-5121-4d54-a248-50734928efc9

LRIP 7 is slated to include 35 aircraft: 19 F-35As for the Air Force; six F-35Bs for the Marines ; four F-35Cs for the Navy and six international fighters. They include three F-35As for Italy and two for Norway. The U.K. is slated to buy a single F-35B in LRIP 7.

Turkey was set to buy its first two aircraft in this lot, but those have slipped two years.

The planned breakout for LRIP 8 is as follows: 19 F-35As for the Air Force, six F-35Bs for the Marines, four F-35Cs for the Navy, four F-35Bs for the U.K., two F-35As for Norway, four F-35As for Italy, five F-35As for Israel and four F-35As for Japan.

Lockheed is overestimating the F-35 order numbers, it seems. Italy is guaranteed to order far fewer units, so is UK.

 

[GTX]

Lockheed is overestimating the F-35 order numbers, it seems. Italy is guaranteed to order far fewer units, so is UK.

What makes you think this originates from LM? The JPO (which includes representatives from all JSF Partner Nations, including Italy and the UK) is an equal party to this negotiation and is the one who sets out the numbers being asked for.

 

[SlowMan]

Where did the numbers come from (link please)?

Since it was weekend, I finally had a time to google it up.

Unforunately, Yomiuri removed the 2011 news article that had the program cost figures.

So I will have to substitute for a Wikipedia article instead.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-X_(%E8%88%AA%E7%A9%BA%E8%87%AA%E8%A1%9B%E9%9A%8A)#.E5.80.99.E8.A3.9C.E6.A9.9F.E3.81.AE.E6.AF.94.E8.BC.83

F-35A ユーロファイター・タイフーン F/A-18E/F F-2（比較用）
価格 米軍調達価格で86億円以上[72][73][74] 開発国調達価格で40億円[75] 米軍調達価格で40億円 約120億円 (一括調達で約100億円）

F-35A : 8.6 billion yen/unit
Typhoon : 4 billion yen/unit
F/A-18E/F : 4 billion yen/unit

As for Korean pricing, the news article is still available.

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/skorea-fighter-replacement-program-goes.html

he Defense Acquisition Program Administration is expected to report the estimated budget of KRW 15 trillion for the F-X program to the presidential transition team, if the ROK is to procure 60 Lockheed Martin-made F-35s. The price tag is overwhelmingly beyond the initially proposed budget of KRW 8.3 trillion, as this implies that the F-X program could enter a new phase of discussing and change the program’s overall structure. One government source was quoted as saying that “The manufacturer noted the unit price of F-35 will be around KRW 213 billion (excluding armament and transportation options), and for 60 jets, the overall cost could soar to the KRW 15 trillion-level.” The source also said other jets, Boeing’s F-15 and EADS’ Eurofighter, will have a price range of KRW 10-11 trillion as well.

Silent Eagle : 10 trillion won($9.4 billion)
Typhoon : 11 trillion won($10.3 billion)
F-35 : 15 trillion won($14.1 billion)

BTW, even this is not a fair price because Lockheed's cheating by proposing to deliver 6 units in 2016 instead of 10 required, because delivering 10 units in 2016 and 12 units per year thereafter would push the prices beyond $14.1 billion. Boeing and CASA's prices assumes compliance with the required delivery schedule.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Sources or gtfo, seriously.

Do Wiki and a blog from a man who posted a false account of the VMFA-121 delivery count? You will also note that ELP gets the information from a "reader" (Gee, I wonder who?) who has also translated it (Who could it be?) , and there is no link to the original news release...

 

[SlowMan]

Do Wiki and a blog from a man who posted a false account of the VMFA-121 delivery count?

Sure.

BTW, Eric Palmer is merely carrying a translation of Korean newspaper article. Yes, $14.1 billion for F-35 is a front page headline on all major newspapers and TV news in Korea.

 

[SlowMan]

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20130127-00000070-san-pol

The F-35 is becoming the source of a major diplomatic dispute in Japan, because the US delivery of Block 3I instead of promised Block 3F is now formalized.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I see that this this is another "much ado about nothing" article that draws the attention of F-35 haters everywhere.

1. The first four F-35s for Japan will likely be Blk3F, not I. If they are delivered in 2017 and SDD is complete by 2016 (as it the current plan), then there is no reason why 3F will not be loaded. The latest IOT&E report states that 3I will be part of LRIPs 6&7. Since the Japanese F-35s are part of LRIP8, they are more likely to get 3F than 3I.

2. The first 4 F-35s will be in the US for training for at least a year, so even if they start at 3I, they will get 3F before going to Japan.

3. 3I is 2B on a the new tech refresh, not 2A as the article implies.

4. 3I has the same weapons as 2B, that being internal AMRAAMs, JDAMs, and Paveways.

5. Since 3I is on the same hardware as 3F, only a software upgrade is needed to go from 3I to 3F, a short an painless process.

6. Internal SRMs are not part of Blk3F.

 

[SlowMan]

1. The first four F-35s for Japan will likely be Blk3F, not I.

Block 3I confirmed. Hence the latest Japanese accusation of US and Lockheed defrauding them.

3. 3I is 2B on a the new tech refresh, not 2A as the article implies.

Yes, a marketing term intended to persuade potential buyers holding out on Block 3. Unfortunately for Lockheed, the potential buyers aren't that dumb.

4. 3I has the same weapons as 2B, that being internal AMRAAMs, JDAMs, and Paveways.

The article sites the lack of AIM-9X as the reason why it cannot be used for combat.

5. Since 3I is on the same hardware as 3F

Given all the daily modifications on the F-35, the Block 3I won't be same as Block 3F. Heck, each LRIP lots are different from each other.

6. Internal SRMs are not part of Blk3F.

The export-grade F-35's RCS profile doesn't change much with or without the presence of external Sidewinders. It matters for the US service versions, but it doesn't matter for export customers who are getting a downgraded stealth anyway.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Block 3I confirmed. Hence the latest Japanese accusation of US and Lockheed defrauding them.

Source (and not a "An unnamed inside source reported that".. type)?

The current plan is for SDD to be done by 2016 which will allow Blk3F to be installed on LRIP8 out the door. Obviously if there are further delays in the SDD program, this could slip.

However, since we are talking about a 2017 timeframe, the only thing we know for sure is ther we don't know for sure.

Yes, a marketing term intended to persuade potential buyers holding out on Block 3. Unfortunately for Lockheed, the potential buyers aren't that dumb.

What is a "marketing term"?? The differences in blocks are well defined and so are the "tech refreshes".

The article sites the lack of AIM-9X as the reason why it cannot be used for combat.

Internal 9x was never part of Block3F, so the Japanese are not getting short changed in anything. If you think that the lack of an internal 9X makes it incapable of combat might want to talk to all the F-22/AMRAAM victims.

Given all the daily modifications on the F-35, the Block 3I won't be same as Block 3F. Heck, each LRIP lots are different from each other.

Clearly you have no clue about the avionics or the the F-35 in general, as your next statement shows.

The export-grade F-35's RCS profile ....

Say it with me.. There is no such thing as an export grade F-35 (Especially in regards of the RCS).

Lockheed and F-35 programme officials, however, have criticised Boeing's assertions that the F-15SE offers equivalent front-aspect stealth as the JSF, and denied that an international release standard exists for F-35 stealth characteristics.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-applies-to-export-f-15se-to-south-korea-343636/



I seem to remember someone saying that no F-35 would be allowed to leave the US prior to IOC and that even produced from the Italian or Japanese FACO facilities would be flown back to the US. How does this jive with worrying about Japanese Blk3I F-35s in combat?

 

[SlowMan]

Source (and not a "An unnamed inside source reported that".. type)?

It's in the yahoo.co.jp article I linked. If you can't read, then too bad.

Internal 9x was never part of Block3F

Internal or not you need an IR missile to air patrol.

so the Japanese are not getting short changed in anything.

Block 3I units being delivered to Japan at a US base(Not to Japan) has no AIM-9X at all.

If you think that the lack of an internal 9X makes it incapable of combat

JASDF thinks so.

Say it with me.. There is no such thing as an export grade F-35 (Especially in regards of the RCS).

Surely there is. Your self-brainwashing denial doesn't make it not true.

 

[SlowMan]

Since you maybe too lazy, I will post the google translation for you.

１２年の年次報告書は国防総省試験評価局（ＤＯＴ＆Ｅ）が今月中旬、議会に報告したもので、日本へ引き渡す機種に搭載されるソフトウエアは、「ブロック３Ｉ」と明記。これでは至近距離での対空戦に不可欠の短射程空対空ミサイルを装備できず、実戦配備不能であることが明白となった。

Annual report of 12 years in which the middle of this month, the Department of Defense test and evaluation office (DOT & E) has been reported to the Congress, the software that is installed on the model passed to Japan, marked "block 3I". Can not be equipped with short-range air-to-air missile anti-aircraft essential to the war at close range, this would be a non-combat deployment when he became obvious.

 

[SpudmanWP]

External 9X is part of Blk3F which is what Japan will get.

The F-35's delivered for training to a US base MAY have 3I, but they will be upgraded to 3F before delivery to Japan.

However, 9X is not a "requirement" for combat. The AIM-120C7 minimum is about that of the 9X so there is no reason (nor is there a requirement) for it to be needed for air combat patrols.

Before resorting to personal attacks, try offering some recent OFFICIAL information about an "export" version of the F-35 in regards to RCS.

I'll apologize ahead of time, but while my step-mom is Japanese, I don't speak or read a word.

Sorry to break this to you , but this reporter's interpretation of the MOD requirements and the state of the F-35 program is failure on it's face. He completely misses the mark when comparing Blocks 2A to 3I and does not quote any official sources for any of his claims that the F-35 that will be delivered to Japan fails to meet any requirement.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I think its been made abundantly clear with Slowman that bad news is written in stone, and good news in invisible ink.

Just because this reporter messed up his facts is no reason not to go with it, after all just because Boeing retracted their statements about the F-15SE is no reason to stop posting about them. He can't even keep his own story straight. Its pretty clear he is just taking every piece of bad news throwing it against a wall and seeing what "sticks"

Japan is still buying the F-35. And since Slowman feels that sales=success who cares about the reporter getting his facts wrong? I will care about Japan if they cancel the F-35, and they are not ... so?

 

[SlowMan]

External 9X is part of Blk3F which is what Japan will get.

Not in 2016~2017. And we don't know if Japan will have to pay for the upgrade.

However, 9X is not a "requirement" for combat. The AIM-120C7 minimum is about that of the 9X so there is no reason (nor is there a requirement) for it to be needed for air combat patrols.

Typical JASDF combat scenario.

1. The Nanjing military region's jets approach the Diaoyu Islands.
2. JASDF F-35As scramble to intercept.
3. JASDF F-35s approach NMR's fighter jets and open a tracer fire to warn them
4. NMR's jets make a hard turn and engage, lock on its IR missiles.
5. Now it's an IR missile fight between two.

The F-35 is dead meat if it doesn't have the IR missile available at this point.

Sorry to break this to you , but this reporter's interpretation of the MOD requirements and the state of the F-35 program is failure on it's face.

It was the topic of a high-level meeting between defense ministry officials according to the article.

that the F-35 that will be delivered to Japan fails to meet any requirement.

Japan required the Block 3F, the US is officially delivering the Block 3I, so the US failed to meet the conditions of its original promise back in 2011 and the Japanese are fuming.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

*Yawn*

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20130129_33.html

 

[SpudmanWP]

@Slow... Still no official source that F-35s will have 3I when they reach Japan???

How close do you think the two will be when they fire?? AMRAAM is plenty!

we don't know if...

Just one thing among many I see

 

[chuck4]

@Slow... Still no official source that F-35s will have 3I when they reach Japan???

How close do you think the two will be when they fire?? AMRAAM is plenty!

we don't know if...

Just one thing among many I see

It is reasonable to expect that engagement in likely crisis Japan might face requires visual confirmation.

But I for one find it hard to understand how F-35 could fail to be able to use AIM-9X in some capacity? Maybe it won't be able to do lock-on after launch, but how hard can it be to launch it with convensional, forward quarter acquisition with the missile's own seekers?

 

[SpudmanWP]

There is nothing about a F-35/AMRAAM combo that precludes a VID (It has an IRST for a reason) before firing and nothing about a WVR engagement that requires a 9X.

In fact, the AMRAAM on the F-35 has a better chance of a WVR hit than on the F-22 since it can be fired LOBL from the door position.

The 9X is external on Block 3F and is planned for internal carriage in Blk4.

Exit question: Why would you want to limit yourself to 2xDual-mode missiles (AMRAAM BVR & WVR) and 2xWVR only (9X), when you could have 4xDual Mode AMRAAMs?

 

[chuck4]

Because AIM-9X probably has better maneuverability, shorter lock-on range and better off-bore sight capability. In fast closing short range engagement, AIM-9X probably gives better chance. Also, AMRAAM is likely to be substantially more expensive than AIM-9X.

I've seen some analysis which suggest that despited the claim of "no escape zone", Existing modern radar guided BVR missiles all have rather poor chances at any range for actually hitting modern fighter that knows it is being fired on and executes the correct evasive maneuver. On the other hand IR guided WVR missiles can truly be unescapable for a modern fighter, leading to suggestions of using AMRAAM motor as a first stage for a dual stage MR derivative of AIM-9X.

 

[SpudmanWP]

So you would rather give up a BVR shot from outside the target's detection range of you and move in closer to take a WVR shot?

Go ask a F-22 pilot if he would rather keep the 9Ms that he has or replace them with AMRAAMs (thereby going all BVR). I did and he said that he would go all BVR if he had the choice.

Life is not a videogame.

 

[chuck4]

So you would rather give up a BVR shot from outside the target's detection range of you and move in closer to take a WVR shot?

Go ask a F-22 pilot if he would rather keep the 9Ms that he has or replace them with AMRAAMs (thereby going all BVR). I did and he said that he would go all BVR if he had the choice.

Life is not a videogame.

You may not have a choice. Say it is peace, and the Chinese sends a flight of fighters over Senkaku islands in this 40 year old dispute, and F-35 is sent to intercept. Do you try to shoot them down from BVR and thereby possibly starting a war? Probably not. China is your number 1 trading partner. So what do you do? You try to escort them out by coming into visual range.

Now what? You feel comfortable approaching them with only AMRAAM? The Chinese fighter, say J-10, probably has IR missiles hanging under its wings. The missiles might be locked onto you and there is no way for you to know. They are passive. You take comfort in knowing you have 4 AMRAAM's in the weapon bay?

 

[SpudmanWP]

If he is using passive they you will not know that he is hostile till he launches... too late to use either a 9X or a 120.

Besides, the 9X will be on the Blk3F (external) and Blk4 (internal). The first non-training F-35 they get will be at least 3F so this is a moot point anyways.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The first non-training F-35 they get will be at least 3F so this is a moot point anyways.

Summarizes it perfectly. If it was that important to Japan they would specify it. It wasn't so they didn't. So if you want to think of 100 scenarios where an Aim-9X would be optimal, and I want to think of 100 scenarios where an AMRAAM is optimal we can play that game, but it will get boring fast.

And once again I would emphasize that it isn't canceled unless it is canceled. I am not going to latch on to every Japanese thought or emotional or meeting or press release as a prelude to the entire deal being off. :

 

[2IDSGT]

So you would rather give up a BVR shot from outside the target's detection range of you and move in closer to take a WVR shot?

Go ask a F-22 pilot if he would rather keep the 9Ms that he has or replace them with AMRAAMs (thereby going all BVR). I did and he said that he would go all BVR if he had the choice.

Life is not a videogame.

You may not have a choice. Say it is peace, and the Chinese sends a flight of fighters over Senkaku islands in this 40 year old dispute, and F-35 is sent to intercept. Do you try to shoot them down from BVR and thereby possibly starting a war? Probably not. China is your number 1 trading partner. So what do you do? You try to escort them out by coming into visual range.

Now what? You feel comfortable approaching them with only AMRAAM? The Chinese fighter, say J-10, probably has IR missiles hanging under its wings. The missiles might be locked onto you and there is no way for you to know. They are passive. You take comfort in knowing you have 4 AMRAAM's in the weapon bay?

I find it rather ridiculous that everyone on both sides of the debate is always trying to neatly divide combat between BVR and WVR, with the use of weapons likewise being neatly divided. A BVR engagement could end with the gun-kill of a completely unsuspecting combatant, or a furball could end with the AMRAAM kill of an opponent lost from visual contact in low-visibility conditions (weather factors are almost always ignored in these arguments).

Even if the F-35 has to close WVR (for one reason or another) and eventually get spotted, its pilots will still most likely "see" the other guys first; and from the lowest grunt on up, that has always been a HUGE tactical advantage, the sheer magnitude of which is generally lost on pundits/bean-counters clutching their copies of Jane's.

 

[kcran567]

So you would rather give up a BVR shot from outside the target's detection range of you and move in closer to take a WVR shot?

Go ask a F-22 pilot if he would rather keep the 9Ms that he has or replace them with AMRAAMs (thereby going all BVR). I did and he said that he would go all BVR if he had the choice.

Life is not a videogame.

You may not have a choice. Say it is peace, and the Chinese sends a flight of fighters over Senkaku islands in this 40 year old dispute, and F-35 is sent to intercept. Do you try to shoot them down from BVR and thereby possibly starting a war? Probably not. China is your number 1 trading partner. So what do you do? You try to escort them out by coming into visual range.

Now what? You feel comfortable approaching them with only AMRAAM? The Chinese fighter, say J-10, probably has IR missiles hanging under its wings. The missiles might be locked onto you and there is no way for you to know. They are passive. You take comfort in knowing you have 4 AMRAAM's in the weapon bay?

I find it rather ridiculous that everyone on both sides of the debate is always trying to neatly divide combat between BVR and WVR, with the use of weapons likewise being neatly divided. A BVR engagement could end with the gun-kill of a completely unsuspecting combatant, or a furball could end with the AMRAAM kill of an opponent lost from visual contact in low-visibility conditions (weather factors are almost always ignored in these arguments).

Even if the F-35 has to close WVR (for one reason or another) and eventually get spotted, its pilots will still most likely "see" the other guys first; and from the lowest grunt on up, that has always been a HUGE tactical advantage, the sheer magnitude of which is generally lost on pundits/bean-counters clutching their copies of Jane's.

Heaven help the F-35 pilot lacking a close range IR missile who somehow finds himself with one or two opponents in guns range that also has an high off boresight missile capability like the Aim-9x and guns too.

Lockheed is just baiting the Russian pilots to get in close range exactly where a drooling T-50 Pakfa would have a decisive edge against the portly F-35.

But I should take that back because in the real world the F-35 would always win, even in close range armed with AMRAAMs.

I should take that back too, the F-35 will get ALL of its kills at long range. No fighter will ever be able to get within IR missile range.

 

[SlowMan]

Go ask a F-22 pilot if he would rather keep the 9Ms that he has or replace them with AMRAAMs (thereby going all BVR). I did and he said that he would go all BVR if he had the choice.

Life is not a videogame.

Exactly, life is not a videogame and these pilots are flying in specific protocols, which requires that the JASDF pilots wold fire warning tracer shots before taking any actions.

A JASDF F-35 making a BVR kill is exactly what the Chinese would ask for, since "Japan fired the first shot" and the PLA now has a perfect excuse to launch a full-blown assault.

Summarizes it perfectly. If it was that important to Japan they would specify it.

Japan specified the Block 3F.
The US unilaterally changed to Block 3I because they could under the FMS sales term.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A JASDF F-35 making a BVR kill is exactly what the Chinese would ask for, since "Japan fired the first shot" and the PLA now has a perfect excuse to launch a full-blown assault.

Which is why AMRAAM can be used within the range parameters after firing the warning shot.

“No soup for you; next!”

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

they could under the FMS sales term.

And?

If the 9x is that important, Put the -9x on an external pylon. If you are not war you don't need to be stealthy.

Why is this hard? do we really believe Japan isn't smart enough to create new ROEs if needed? Instead its oh my god WWIII because the japanese pilot will just kill them with AMRAAMS!! DURRR

Heaven help the F-35 pilot lacking a close range IR missile who somehow finds himself with one or two opponents in guns range that also has an high off boresight missile capability like the Aim-9x and guns too.

And yet the F-35 will have off boresight missiles and a gun... :-\

in the mean time though it will be a blind guy with a knife versus a man with a gun and great vision... and a knife of his own.

 

[Arjen]

Newsworthy in all this: the first Japanese F-35 delivered wil probably have Block 3I software. Which should not be a big surprise with first delivery to Japan slated for 2017, and Block 3F software planned for a 33-month developmental flight test period starting in late 2014 (page 35 in DoD 2012 JSF Development update report).

 

[Arjen]

From page 36 in DoD 2012 JSF Development update report

The successful execution of the detailed schedule developed this year was dependent on:
- The ability of the program to deliver mission systems capability required to start weapons integration in April 2012
- Adequate margin in the test schedule to accommodate repeated testing, cancellations due to weather, range assets, and operational support
- Reliable instrumentation and range support

None of these assumptions have proven true, adding risk to the execution of the overall schedule. Deferrals of mission
systems capabilities to later blocks and delays for corrections to test instrumentation and data recording have removed the 36
F-35 JSF schedule margins. The impact of these delays will potentially require an additional 18 months added to the schedule for
weapons integration events.

What I'm reading: weapon integration could take another 18 months.
<edit>Is that on top of somewhere-in-2017 for Block 3F flight testing to finish? If so, weapons integration could be expected as late as 2019.

 

[SpudmanWP]

If it's one thing that I have learned recently is that DOT&E hates concurency. Even thought the F-35 program is ramping up a huge weapons integration schedule for the first part of this year, it looks like DOT&E does not want to test the system piecemeal. They want a finished complete bird before they even begin IOT&E.

This is not the JPO's original plan for the F-35.

RE: additional 18 months..

This leads to another major problem that I have with the way the program is scheduled and funded. When they know that there will be problem meeting a schedule, they are more apt to spend money extending the schedule rather than spend that same money increasing assets to meet the schedule.

 

[jsport]

Dear Low Observable,
saw your Commander's Intent article in 28 Jan AW&ST
"No more time"
"We need an F-35 IOC date and a debate."

last line being..

"If that's too much to ask after 11 yrs it's time for sometime to get fired."

the question is who shoudn't be fired...and the debates need to be larger than this program.

 

[SlowMan]

Which is why AMRAAM can be used within the range parameters after firing the warning shot.

“No soup for you; next!”

AMRAAM has a lower kill rate in WVR combat relative to heat seekers.

More F-35 problems in Japan

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130130p2a00m0na010000c.html

Possible U.S. exports of F-35 stealth fighter has Japan gov't tied in knots

An F-3510+件 Lighting II fighter plane is seen in this image provided by Lockheed Martin.
拡大写真
Japan10+件-United States negotiations over the Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF)'s next-generation fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, hit serious turbulence after the U.S. government demanded Japan take a stand on exports of the warplane to third countries.

Three basic principles governing Japan's weapons exports forbid sales to communist nations, countries covered by United Nations arms embargoes, and nations involved in or at risk of an international conflict. In 2011, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)-led administration relaxed the principles to open the way for Japan's participation in joint development and production of weapons with allies on condition that such weapons do not contribute to any military conflict.

If the United States began shipping the F-35 -- which includes Japanese parts -- to nations at war, however, this would clash with the third rule, and Japan10+件ese officials are struggling to resolve the potential conflict.

The U.S.-made F-35 is a state-of-the-art stealth fighter, and Japan plans to buy 42 of them for the ASDF. Furthermore, to promote Japan's defense industry, funds have been allocated in the fiscal 2013 draft budget for the domestic manufacture of F-35 parts and airframes under license from Lockheed Martin.

However, "It's possible F-35s containing Japanese parts could be shipped to countries like Israel," Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told reporters during a Jan. 29 news conference. "We'd like to consider what arrangements we can make on the issue."

When the weapons export principles were set by the Cabinet of Prime Minister Eisaku Sato in 1967, Japan imposed an outright ban on exports to nations covered under its three tenets. This ban remained in force all the way to December 2011, when the DPJ-led administration of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda softened the three rules to allow Japan to participate in multinational weapons development projects with allies, as long as "promotion of international conflicts can be avoided."

One nation likely to buy the F-35, however, is Israel -- which critics have said could very well attack Iran over the latter's suspected nuclear weapons program. Israel has also repeatedly bombed areas controlled by the Islamic fundamentalist organization Hamas. In other words, Israel is the very sort of country Japan is banned from sending weapons to under its three export rules.

To resolve this problem, Japan has asked that Lockheed Martin set up a separate production line for Japan-bound F-3510+件s, and make sure that Japan10+件ese-made parts are used only in these planes. However, "The U.S. has said that would be difficult," a Defense Ministry official told the Mainichi.

When the DPJ administration softened the three export rules, New Komeito -- now a governing coalition partner -- called the move hasty and vigorously opposed it. This is one reason for the current Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)-led government's reticence on the issue.

"We must hold careful discussions on the F-35 if the U.S. is going to export the plane to third countries," a senior New Komeito official stated. "We would not be able to approve any shipments to Israel."

Meanwhile, domestic production of the Mitsubishi-Lockheed Martin F-2 fighter wound down in 2011. With the F-2 project at an end, Japanese manufacturers are pinning their hopes on F-35 parts production to maintain the domestic defense sector. With pressure coming from both the United States and Japan10+件ese defense contractors, the government is facing a difficult decision on the export issue.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Um, IIRC Japan is making more parts that are to be used on it's F-35s. This was part of the offset deal.

:

Japanese planning fail

 

[SlowMan]

Um, IIRC Japan is making more parts that are to be used on it's F-35s. This was part of the offset deal.

:

Japanese planning fail

Not the first time.

The SM-3 missile can't be sold to other countries due to the Japanese refusal to issue an export license.

This would mean that Japan would refuse to issue F-35 export license to Israel or Korea <= This country is actually having a territorial confrontation with Japan at the very moment.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Good luck holding up F-35 exports since that authority was not part of the deal as was the SM-3

 

[Abraham Gubler]

AMRAAM has a lower kill rate in WVR combat relative to heat seekers.

But it’s just a shoot down of an aircraft penetrating sovereign air space. The aerial version of shooting fish in a barrel. Apart from weapon failure AMRAAM and Sidewinder would both achieve 100% kill.

Further the source for your claim is probably the insane combat use to date arguments put forward by Air Power Australia to try and defame the AMRAAM. There were enough holes in that analysis to fly a Spruce Goose through it. So:

“No soup for you! Come back one year. Next!"

 

[bobbymike]

AMRAAM has a lower kill rate in WVR combat relative to heat seekers.

But it’s just a shoot down of an aircraft penetrating sovereign air space. The aerial version of shooting fish in a barrel. Apart from weapon failure AMRAAM and Sidewinder would both achieve 100% kill.

Further the source for your claim is probably the insane combat use to date arguments put forward by Air Power Australia to try and defame the AMRAAM. There were enough holes in that analysis to fly a Spruce Goose through it. So:

“No soup for you! Come back one year. Next!"

AG ;D ;D ;D 3X Hilarity luv it!