Japan deploys first DOWNGRADED F-35

[AndrewJin]

Yes, I think a war will be limited to China and Japan.

The US bases will be bombarded with missile attacks and the US will be knocked out of the war.

The US navy can be easily disabled with EMP strikes. Just a bunch of useless floating steel hulls in the ocean.

What can the US possibly do in response? Its logistics lines are 10,000 miles long. Reinforcement will always be months away.
----------

Israel is an exception. The US has granted Israel permission to modify its aircraft. Also, the US provides budgetary and technical support to Israel for the modifications.

Israel is in a privileged position, because it represents white people and their interests in the oil-rich Middle East.

Israel is the master of Muricano.

 

[Martian2]

I guess f35 equal to j31.

Definitely f35 can't match j20.

The Chinese J-31 is superior to the American F-35 in one very important performance parameter.

The J-31 flies at 66,000 feet. The F-35 only flies at 50,000 feet. This means the Chinese J-31 air-to-air missiles can glide 16,000 feet to attack an F-35.

In contrast, an F-35 missile has to expend energy to fight gravity and climb 16,000 feet to reach a J-31. This extra fuel consumption to fight gravity will reduce the range of an F-35 air-to-air missile.
----------

From the Australian government's Royal Air Force website, it clearly states the F-35 has a service ceiling of 50,000 feet.

F-35A Lightning II | Australian Royal Air Force

----------

Shenyang J-31 Stealth Fighter, China | Airforce-Technology

"The service ceiling of the [J-31] aircraft is approximately 20,000m." (or 66,000 feet)

 

[Beast]

Does this mean the Israeli f35 are also downgraded? Is this why they want to buy additional f15I

Israel F35 may not be downgraded as large number of US Senators are Jews. Israel is closier to US compare to Japan and australia.

 

[The SC]

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]."

They talk about transfer of technology my friend.. they will sell you anything ..but the most sensitive parts are sealed.. furthermore, there is this contract you have to sign with the US if you want the full fledged systems (still with sealed sensitive parts to be opened only by US technicians..either for repair, maintenance or replacement..) it is called CISMOA.. If you don't sign it, you don't get the latest tech nor the latest weapons..
South Korea has also asked the US for some sensitive parts technology of the F-35..and it was refused..because SK has also a 5th generation project like Japan.. and they get the system but not the ToT..

 

[Martian2]

They talk about transfer of technology my friend.. they will sell you anything ..but the most sensitive parts are sealed.. furthermore, there is this contract you have to sign with the US if you want the full fledged systems (still with sealed sensitive parts to be opened only by US technicians..either for repair, maintenance or replacement..) it is called CISMOA.. If you don't sign it, you don't get the latest tech nor the latest weapons..
South Korea has also asked the US for some sensitive parts technology of the F-35..and it was refused..because SK has also a 5th generation project like Japan.. and they get the system but not the ToT..

You can believe whatever you want. I don't care.
----------

Moving on, I want to explain why the F-35 has a service ceiling of 50,000 feet.

The United States had no intention of exporting the F-22, which flies at 66,000 feet. Being too clever for itself, the United States planned on exporting inferior downgraded F-35s that had an inherently subpar performance.

Even if a country reverse engineered an F-35 and upgraded it, an "Americanized real-thing F-35" is still far inferior to an F-22. Thus, the United States easily maintains air superiority.

However, the United States never imagined China would build the J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters. China has no incentive to cripple its own J-31. China plans on fighting wars in Asia and needs fully capable J-31 stealth fighters.

Due to overly clever planning and the inability to foresee the development of Chinese stealth fighters, the specification of the F-35 was intentionally set at 50,000 feet in 1992.

"F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter program."
----------

The Chinese J-31 is a smaller version of the J-20 stealth fighter. Both jets have a service ceiling of 66,000 feet.

If the US wanted to design and build an F-35 with a service ceiling of 66,000 feet then it can be done. However, this would be inconsistent with US policy.

If the US built a twin-engine "enhanced" F-35 that can fly at 66,000 feet then it would basically be a small F-22. If a foreign country took the design plan of the "enhanced" F-35 and enlarged it then the result would be an F-22. However, the export of the F-22 was strictly forbidden by the US Congress.

The United States would not leave a backdoor path to building an F-22 by allowing a foreign country to scale up an "enhanced" F-35. This leaves the currently inferior F-35 with a service ceiling of 50,000 feet.

Reverse-engineering the current F-35 would still result in a plane with a service ceiling of 50,000 feet, which can be easily shot down by an F-22 flying at 66,000 feet. Unfortunately for F-35 buyers, the J-20 and J-31 can also shoot down the F-35 from 66,000 feet.

 

[Menthol]

F22 and F35 software:

Where the J-31 is likely to fall short is on avionics—the aircraft’s radar, infrared search and track, data-links and especially sensor fusion. It’s comparatively simple perfecting individual pieces of hardware, but fusing all of the data from a multitude of sensors and off-board platforms is extremely difficult. Even the F-22 didn’t fuse Link-16 data with the rest of its onboard sensors until its Increment 3.2A software upgrade. It’s one of the reasons Lockheed has fallen behind on developing the F-35—and why Air Force and Joint Program Office officials continuous state their concerns about the jet’s software.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...nt-strike-fighter-vs-chinas-j-31-f-15sa-17767

I wonder whatever j20 and j31 have those?

Does someone have the article?

 

[faithfulguy]

Yes, I think a war will be limited to China and Japan.

The US bases will be bombarded with missile attacks and the US will be knocked out of the war.

The US navy can be easily disabled with EMP strikes. Just a bunch of useless floating steel hulls in the ocean.

What can the US possibly do in response? Its logistics lines are 10,000 miles long. Reinforcement will always be months away.
----------

Israel is an exception. The US has granted Israel permission to modify its aircraft. Also, the US provides budgetary and technical support to Israel for the modifications.

Israel is in a privileged position, because it represents white people and their interests in the oil-rich Middle East.

Israel can update the software. But how certain in the public domain that Israel would not get the export version vs domestic non downgraded RCS version

 

[gambit]

Thus, we can only compare the fighters based on their published specifications.

And this is why people who know and have actual military experience -- like me -- laughs at people like you.

Comparing hardware is only half of the equation. The pilot is the other half. Many would say the better half and I am in that group.

If hardware makes the difference, then how do you explain this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo

In a SINGLE engagement, the mechanically inferior F-4s shot down 5 mechanically superior MIG-21s.

You did not merely make hardware comparisons but outright predict outcomes based upon your own fantasies. You are why I hope the PLA is filled with people like you.

Not every country goes to war like America,...

Which makes your China far less experienced than the US in real combat.

...and its "real combat experience" against these weak weak guerrillas are useless in the real hardcore war between big powers.

So if we have combat experience against 'weak guerrillas' while China has none, what make you think the PLA can handle US ?

When was the last time the PLAAF shot a missile in anger ?

In the past, air combat celebrates air-to-air victories. Today's air combat celebrates air-to-ground victories, so when was the last time the PLAAF patrolled genuinely hostile airspace, hostile from both air and ground threats ?

Big powers ? Big in terms of what ? When a pilot flies a combat mission, his country's economic potential is irrelevant for the situation at hand. He does not care if his country can build one or ten or one hundred jets in one month. His focus at that time is to survive a fight. If he die in combat, it may take one day or one week or one yr to replace him and his jet. Even so, his replacement may not be as good as he is.

So if you want to talk about 'big powers', you have to talk about what is available IMMEDIATELY for war.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/powerhouse/airwing.asp

At any time of the yr, the US have 9-10 aircraft carriers deployed, that means around 40 F-18 squadrons readied for battle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_aircraft_squadrons

So just the US Navy alone can give the PLAAF two black eyes, two broken arms, and two broken legs. Now you want to add in the USAF ?

 

[Kai Liu]

And this is why people who know and have actual military experience -- like me -- laughs at people like you.

Comparing hardware is only half of the equation. The pilot is the other half. Many would say the better half and I am in that group.

If hardware makes the difference, then how do you explain this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo

In a SINGLE engagement, the mechanically inferior F-4s shot down 5 mechanically superior MIG-21s.

You did not merely make hardware comparisons but outright predict outcomes based upon your own fantasies. You are why I hope the PLA is filled with people like you.


Which makes your China far less experienced than the US in real combat.


So if we have combat experience against 'weak guerrillas' while China has none, what make you think the PLA can handle US ?

When was the last time the PLAAF shot a missile in anger ?

In the past, air combat celebrates air-to-air victories. Today's air combat celebrates air-to-ground victories, so when was the last time the PLAAF patrolled genuinely hostile airspace, hostile from both air and ground threats ?

Big powers ? Big in terms of what ? When a pilot flies a combat mission, his country's economic potential is irrelevant for the situation at hand. He does not care if his country can build one or ten or one hundred jets in one month. His focus at that time is to survive a fight. If he die in combat, it may take one day or one week or one yr to replace him and his jet. Even so, his replacement may not be as good as he is.

So if you want to talk about 'big powers', you have to talk about what is available IMMEDIATELY for war.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/powerhouse/airwing.asp

At any time of the yr, the US have 9-10 aircraft carriers deployed, that means around 40 F-18 squadrons readied for battle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_aircraft_squadrons

So just the US Navy alone can give the PLAAF two black eyes, two broken arms, and two broken legs. Now you want to add in the USAF ?

Wow, wow, wow, we are so scared ... Your eyes, arms and legs are healed from Korea and Vietnam, and now ready to walk again, then why not? just send you fleet and do it, since you showed no hesitation to bomb Iraq, Afghanistan, I don't think you are showing some mercy...Come baby... we are waiting... will you? Got no balls?

 

[gambit]

The thread topic is Japan's downgraded F-35.

The thread topic is not "comprehensive system warfare between China and the US."

This is not a discussion of US strategy and China's A2/AD counter-strategy.

And it would be stupid to exclude it.

The days of single aircraft engagements ended in WW I. Even in WW II, mano-a-mano fights were the exceptions, not the rule. That means for JPN's F-35s, she will not fight alone. Her F-35s will be supported by that 'second to none' combat support system, the kind that your China do not have.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

And it would be stupid to exclude it.

The days of single aircraft engagements ended in WW I. Even in WW II, mano-a-mano fights were the exceptions, not the rule. That means for JPN's F-35s, she will not fight alone. Her F-35s will be supported by that 'second to none' combat support system, the kind that your China do not have.

Indeed the man to man combat is over, nowadays the fight is big scale of combine high tech weapon system, the nation will become the main battle ship of the war, for China we can sustain the great hit but I can't say the same about Japan: it only take China to hit Japanese sensitive tectonic plate to invoke the Tsunami or drop few bomb into the Fuji mountain, none of combat support system will save Japan. in WW2 Japan is beyond China's reach, they could drop bomb to kill our civilian but we have nothing to retaliate but not now, as a Nation sitting at the critical tectonic plate and ring of fire, China can harm Japan with unimaginable ways unprecedentedly even by conventional weapons,I think Japanese should care of their fragile land than to fight a high tech war against China.

 

[Nan Yang]

I am not a military expert but isn't the F22s based in Guam and needs 3 air refuel to reach the Taiwan theater ? So it needs total 6 big refuel tankers to fly back and forth....Right ?

And in other news......
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popsci.com/amp/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile

So much for old very skill pilots.

 

[antonius123]

When you have big balls, show it.

So since your PLA have no actual combat experience and its soldiers are so far good only for the parade grounds, of course the PLA would not show its balls -- it has NONE.

Let me know when you are ready to debate the subject in an adult manner.

Where were you when north korean history lesson taught? China sent 300,000 troops to support north korean, and finally US withdrawn their soldier.

Now china has sent troops to afghanistan and syria.

And it would be stupid to exclude it.

The days of single aircraft engagements ended in WW I. Even in WW II, mano-a-mano fights were the exceptions, not the rule. That means for JPN's F-35s, she will not fight alone. Her F-35s will be supported by that 'second to none' combat support system, the kind that your China do not have.

Then please include the DF21 and DF26 into these equation as well. Let's see what happen.

Those second to none will be fought with asymetric warfare.

 

[Martian2]

I am not a military expert but isn't the F22s based in Guam and needs 3 air refuel to reach the Taiwan theater ? So it needs total 6 big refuel tankers to fly back and forth....Right ?

And in other news......
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popsci.com/amp/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile

So much for old very skill pilots.

The F-22 has a short combat radius of 470 miles.

The F-22 requires multiple refuels to reach the battlefield. This means China's J-20 (with a combat radius of 1,200 miles) can use missiles to shoot down the large non-stealthy American fuel tankers and not have to bother with the F-22 in combat.
----------

Seven Reasons that F-22 has a much shorter combat radius than Chengdu J-20

The Chengdu J-20 has a combat radius of 1,200 miles. The F-22 has a combat radius of 470 miles? Why?

The short answer is the Chengdu J-20 was designed for long distance. The F-22 was designed for super-maneuverability at the expense of distance.

The Chengdu J-20 was designed to fight in the South China Sea. The F-22 was designed to fight in Europe.

Let's go through the design differences that affect the combat radius.

1. Chengdu J-20 uses the canard-delta wing design for efficient transonic and supersonic flight. This has to do with the shockwave. The Eurofighter, French Rafale, and Gripen follow the same efficient canard-delta wing shape. The F-15 uses a modified delta-wing design. The F-22 is an odd duck with its trapezoidal wings.

The J-20 canard provides balance to the center of gravity of the aircraft. In contrast, most of the lift for the F-22 is centered behind its center of gravity. This means the F-22 has to adjust its control surfaces to compensate. This is inefficient.

2. The Chengdu J-20 has a leading-edge wing angle of 43 degrees. This is conducive to supersonic flight. The F-22 has a less efficient angle of 47.5 degrees. This means more air friction. The air molecules can't slide along the wing as easily.

3. Despite being a noticeably longer plane, the Chengdu J-20 has the same wing area as the F-22. The F-22 has a massive wing area for its size, which is great for maneuverability. However, the massive wing is terrible for fuel efficiency. The F-22 also has massive vertical stabilizers. This entails more friction.

4. The Chengdu J-20 has a blended fuselage and air inlet. In contrast, the F-22 has an air gap between the fuselage and the air inlet. This means more turbulent airflow and friction for the F-22.

5. The Chengdu J-20 has DSI to smooth the airflow into the air inlet. The F-22 uses a heavy cumbersome mechanical air adjustment device. The airflow into the F-22 inlet is less smooth, because the edges of the mechanical air adjustment device will create vortices.

6. The F-22 has stealthy 2D TVC horizontal nozzles. This imposes a 15% fuel penalty on the F-22. The Chengdu J-20 has no such impediment.

7. The Chengdu J-20 probably has a higher bypass ratio than the F-22. Bypass ratios are relative. The Chengdu J-20 engines are probably designed to trade some performance for fuel efficiency. On the other hand, the F-22 was designed to go all-out in Europe.

The F-22 engines probably traded fuel efficiency for more performance. Evidence for the F-22 tradeoff can be seen in a YouTube video, where the F-22 went almost straight up after takeoff. You can obtain an incredible climb rate out of the F-22 engines, but fuel efficiency was probably a secondary concern in the design. Performance and efficiency are tradeoffs. That's the way engineering works.

In conclusion, there should be no argument over the short F-22 combat radius of 470 miles versus the Chengdu J-20's much longer combat radius of 1,200 miles. The reasons (as stated above) are well known. The two aircraft were designed for different intended roles.
----------

Lockheed Martin F-22 site states combat radius of 410 nautical miles

With a short combat radius of 472 miles, the only viable airbase is Kadena on Okinawa after you add external fuel tanks to the F-22. However, the short distance means China can easily wipe out Kadena with ballistic and cruise missiles. The F-22's short combat radius renders it almost useless in the Pacific.

Source (Lockheed Martin): F-22 Raptor Team Web Site: Technology - Flight Test Data

----------

Source (AviationWeek 2014): http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/12/asd_12_04_2014_dossier.pdf

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Nice picture, over dependent of US is not Israel's interest, also be friend with Arab nations, China and Russia is the future.