Japan deploys first DOWNGRADED F-35

[HannibalBarca]

Like how F-22 proven in what similar aerial combat? Bombing some stone man?

Same apply.to F-22... we don't know... so if someone says it's supperior to J-20..; that guy is also in the wrong...

He's saying you're an idiot, because the F-22, F-35, and J-20 have never engaged a stealth fighter in combat.

All three are equally unproven against other stealth fighters.

The irony is that YOU were the one to compare...and I was the one saying you can't know the result..;since no one is combat proven against each others...
try harder next time

 

[Beast]

So... we still have ppl speaking about J-20 effectiveness... When it never Went in actual battle...
What a joke sometimes...

For all the big mouth out there... Wait to see a J-20 coming back from a fight with a F-35/F22 and then you can talk...same for the other side...

As if F-22 has proven against itself?

 

[Martian2]

Same apply.to F-22... we don't know... so if someone says it's supperior to J-20..; that guy is also in the wrong...

No, you're wrong.

The performance specifications of the F-22 is known. It flies at a maximum of about 66,000 feet.

The F-35 is only capable of 50,000 feet due to its single weak engine.

It is absolutely correct to say the F-22 is vastly superior to the F-35.

Similarly, it is correct to say the J-20 is vastly superior to the F-35.

No one disputes the known performance specifications, except you. You just keep saying "we don't know anything" and that is simply NOT TRUE.

The lateral maneuverability of the F-22 and J-20 are both known to be 9G. The lateral maneuverability of the F-35 has been reduced to 5G, because of weight issues. These are KNOWN FACTS.

It is known that the F-22 can supercruise. The F-35 is specifically stated to be incapable of supercruise.

Everyone agrees the F-22 outperforms the F-35.

The US Congress has banned the export of the F-22 by law, because of its superior performance. Only the inferior F-35 is permitted to be exported.

 

[HannibalBarca]

No, you're wrong.

The performance specifications of the F-22 is known. It flies at a maximum of about 66,000 feet.

The F-35 is only capable of 50,000 feet due to its single weak engine.

It is absolutely correct to say the F-22 is vastly superior to the F-35.

Similarly, it is correct to say the J-20 is vastly superior to the F-35.

No one disputes the known performance specifications, except you. You just keep saying "we don't know anything" and that is simply NOT TRUE.

The lateral maneuverability of the F-22 and J-20 are both known to be 9G. The lateral maneuverability of the F-35 has been reduced to 5G, because of weight issues. These are KNOWN FACTS.

Are you reading yourself? really? are you?
Since when telling me that one fly faster or a little above the other makes him the winner in a fight?
Are you really jumping in that road? COme on Wake up a bit...
ae they fighting with lasers.stones????

And where did you see me putting F-35 and 22 in the same category?

 

[Suika]

All exported F-35s are downgraded. Exported F-35s have an RCS (radar cross section) of a beach ball on radar.

Only AMERICAN F-35s are not downgraded and their RCS is the size of a marble.

Japan has spent a fortune to buy 42 DOWNGRADED F-35s. I don't know why they bothered. Downgraded F-35s are easily detected on radar and shot down.

Australia, Canada, and Japan are buying the same downgraded beach-ball RCS F-35s.

Japan just deployed its first downgraded F-35 and no one cares. It's a sitting duck for China's J-20 stealth fighter.

Japan's first operational F-35 gets deployed amid rising threat from China | Business Insider (February 2, 2018)
"Just before the end of January, the Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) announced that it had deployed its first operational F-35 at Misawa Air Base.
...
The F-35 will be the most advanced fighter jet in the JASDF arsenal. Nine more F-35s are planned to be deployed by the end of the 2018 fiscal year.

In all, Japan intends to field at least 42 F-35s over the next few years. The first four F-35s were made in the US, and the remaining 38 will be assembled by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan."
----------

Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters | The Sydney Morning Herald (March 14, 2006)

"A crucial aspect of the fighter's 'stealth capability' - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from 'very low observable' to 'low observable', according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a 'marble and a beach ball' on enemy radar.
...
Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.

But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. 'There is no reason to pull it from there,' she said.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: 'We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision.'"

It's an article from 2006.. 12 years old. Got a newer one?

 

[Martian2]

Are you reading yourself? really? are you?
Since when telling me that one fly faster or a little above the other makes him the winner in a fight?
Are you really jumping in that road? COme on Wake up a bit...

And where did you see me putting F-35 and 22 in the same category?

A fighter that flies at 66,000 feet can shoot its missile a lot further, because it coasts downward on its missile wings.

A fighter that can only fly at 50,000 feet cannot shoot very far, because its missile has to climb against gravity.

By analogy, a person standing on a 16,000 foot mountain can throw a paper-airplane much farther than a person standing on the ground.

Do I really need to explain that an air-to-air missile fired from 16,000 feet higher can travel much further and destroy the enemy aircraft first?

It's an article from 2006.. 12 years old. Got a newer one?

The Canadian government documents are from February 1, 2012. That's only six years ago.

 

[Cybernetics]

Pretty sure Japanese F35s are just a stop gap. They will make their own aircraft in future.

The Japanese from the start wanted to create their own indigenous jet 5th gen jet. Due to lack of technology accumulation especially in the engine department, they sought for a stop gap like the F-22 but was rejected.

They have their parallel programs like X-2 ShinShin心神 and eventually a F-3 fighter that they plan to produce in 2027. Their hope is that domestic assembly of F-35 will allow them enough insight into system integration to upgrade their existing program. It's why they were willing to spend the exorbitant amounts of money for the F-35, more than it costs other nations due to the local assembly.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/06/05/business/mitsubishi-heavy-unveils-first-f-35-stealth-fighter-assembled-japan/#.WnUll6inGUk

 

[The SC]

Becos US are delusion thinking China military hardware are utterly useless. They think a downgraded F-35 is enough to challenges PLAAF. There is no contradiction in his statement. US has many times underestimate China capability. Like Gates bragging about how a China 5th gen fighter will not appear until 2020...

It’s more like you cant accept US sell monkey version hardware.

The only problem with the F-35 export grades is with the shared network computer.. Italy among other European nations is (are) asking for their own gates, that they can shut and open when needed..not to be always linked to the US network.. The UAE and Saudi Arabia were also negotiating about this problem..as of the latest news..
For the RCS.. either the US is lying about it (which is what Canada found out!) or it is the standard for everyone.. because many other nations have participated in building the F-35 and there is no change in the frame, radar or avionics per se..

 

[Martian2]

The only problem with the F-35 export grades is with the shared network computer.. Italy among other European nations is (are) asking for their own gates, that they can shut and open when needed..not to be always linked to the US network.. The UAE and Saudi Arabia were also negotiating about this problem..as of the latest news..
For the RCS.. either the US is lying about it (which is what Canada found out!) or it is the standard for everyone.. because many other nations have participated in building the F-35 and there is no change in the frame, radar or avionics per se..

That is not true.

There are plenty of examples where the US government downgrades military equipment that is exported.

It is standard practice for the US government to downgrade exports of its M1 tanks and Electro-Optical Targeting Pods.

Global Security says the Japanese Aegis ships are downgraded.

There used to be another Global Security article where they flat-out said that parts of the American AEGIS system was not installed on the Japanese "AEGIS" ships.

By selling downgraded equipment, the US protects itself from reverse-engineering. If a country fully reverse-engineers exported American military equipment, it is still a vastly inferior copy. It is not the real thing.
----------

DDG Kongo Class | Global Security

"The [US Navy] responded to these concerns with ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS on the transfer of technology [to Japan]."

 

[Kai Liu]

Like how F-22 proven in what similar aerial combat? Bombing some stone man?

The so-called "real combat experience" is the last straw these poor westerners and their servants can use to degrade our weapons. Not every country goes to war like America, and its "real combat experience" against these weak weak guerrillas are useless in the real hardcore war between big powers. Such "real battle" can easily done by some drones like our CH series drones in Saudi Arabia, or even DJIs in the hands of rebels. If you use a F-22 or F-35 to bomb some guerrillas, it proves nothing...

 

[Suika]

Okay, you're definitely an idiot.

A fighter that flies at 66,000 feet can shoot its missile a lot further, because it coasts downward on its missile wings.

A fighter that can only fly at 50,000 feet cannot shoot very far, because its missile has to climb against gravity.

By analogy, a person standing on a 16,000 foot mountain can throw a paper-airplane much farther than a person standing on the ground.

Do I really need to explain that an air-to-air missile fired from 16,000 feet higher can travel much further and destroy the enemy aircraft first?

Seriously, you are a complete moron.


The Canadian government documents are from February 1, 2012. That's only six years ago.

So why do you link a 12 year old article but not link something 6 years old?

 

[Martian2]

So why do you link a 12 year old article but not link something 6 years old?

I did link it. See post #11.

 

[Martian2]

US only exports DOWNGRADED aircraft

When Japan asked the United States if it could buy the F-22, Japan never asked to buy the REAL THING.

It is understood that the REAL THING is not available for export. A foreign country can only buy a downgraded version of advanced US military technology.

Japan asked the United States government for permission to buy a DOWNGRADED F-22. That request was DENIED.
----------

Japan’s Next F-X Fighters: F-35 Wins Round 1 | Defense Industry Daily (December 4, 2017)

"Japan clearly wanted them, and the Raptor was a topic of diplomatic discussions in several venues, including a 2007 summit meeting. In the end, however, US politics denied export permission for DOWNGRADED EXPORT VARIANTS of the F-22, and its production line was terminated."

 

[Suika]

I did link it. See post #11.

Where exactly are these quotes?

 

[Martian2]

Where exactly are these quotes?

When I was researching the issue years ago, those quotes were made by the people who originally posted the Canadian government documents. The website that existed years ago is defunct.

The analysis is in quotes, because I didn't make that logical reasoning. They did.

If you want to dispute the claim that a fourth-generation fighter has an RCS of 5m2, we can discuss it. For example, the Mig-29 has an RCS of 5m2. I don't have a problem with the reasoning in quotes.