With the US move towards reinforcement of the Pacific what can be done to get more counties to join the curse and ease the political pressure and cost on the US.

Sell the F-22 to countries that demand it.

Allow non-nuclear states to have 90% enriched uranium fuel to power their nuclear subs, even if they have to be refueld in the US.

Sell Growlers.

http://o.canada.com/2013/02/11/defence-officials-catalogued-pros-cons-of-f-35-competitors/

Defence officials catalogued pros, cons of F-35 competitors

The Swedish-built Saab Gripen required minimal maintenance and was considered “fairly stealthy” thanks to its small size, though there were concerns whether it could operate alongside U.S. fighter aircraft.

The Dassault Rafale was fast, manoeuvrable and had above-average range, but it also featured a clunky cockpit and the French company couldn’t say whether the jet’s two engines could operate in the cold Canadian north.

The Boeing Super Hornet was a solid, proven aircraft Canadian military pilots and mechanics would have little difficulty getting used to, but it was seen as a fall-back option at best.

And the British-led Eurofighter Typhoon was a powerful fighter with sophisticated sensors and excellent flight controls, but it still had developmental issues and purchasing it would require major changes at Canadian Air Force bases.

The reports, copies of which were heavily censored before being released to Postmedia News, highlight both pros and cons for each fighter under review.

“One remarkable aspect of (the) Typhoon at first glance is the sensor fusion,” reads one section of the report on the Eurofighter aircraft, which is being used by British, German, Austrian, Italian, Spanish and Saudi militaries.

“The Typhoon is a very capable aircraft in the air-to-air arena,” another section reads. “It is a very powerful aircraft with very effective flight controls.”

But the same report notes “interoperability is a key concern for Canada,” referring to the Typhoon’s ability to fly alongside U.S. and allied aircraft without any problems.

Similar concerns were raised with Sweden’s Gripen and France’s Rafale.

“From a strategic approach, purchasing an aircraft from a nation other than the United States needs careful consideration given the potential impact on Canada’s interoperability with the (United States Air Force) — an air force along which we’ve historically operated,” one report reads

Yet the documents also note various steps were being taken to address the concerns in the coming years, which could be key as National Defence goes back to the drawing board on the F-35.

Meanwhile, the engineering design of the Swedish-built Gripen “combined with anti-stealth materiel and its small size result in a very small radar cross-section, making the Gripen a fairly stealthy platform.”

Low maintenance requirements were also a bonus.

But in addition to the aforementioned interoperability concerns, officials noted the Gripen uses a system for emergency landings and landings on short airfields different from Canada, which would require changes.

Officials also raised concerns about the cost of changing existing maintenance facilities to accommodate Gripens, Typhoons or Rafales — though the concluding report that ultimately recommended the F-35 noted similar concerns about the stealth fighter.

Not only does the F-35 have more software than the space shuttle, which will cost a lot to maintain, the concluding report reads, but security upgrades at Canadian military bases “will likely be very expensive.”

Meanwhile, Boeing’s Super Hornet was praised as a larger, stronger, more capable version of Canada’s CF-18. The fact it is an American-made aircraft that is used by many of Canada’s allies was also a bonus.

“The (Super Hornet) is a credible and proven strike fighter system with a range of integrated weapons,” one document reads. “It makes several compromises between approach speed, weight and structure.”

The post-visit report notes “the Super Hornet seems to be a leading contender as a ‘back-up fighter’ for a few countries next to the (F-35) if the (F-35) does not meet promised budget and schedule requirements, etc.”

That assessment has turned out to be true as the U.S. navy and Australia, among others, have purchased Super Hornets in the face of continuing problems with the F-35.

I give up,

Your problem is that you do not understand the differences between the instantaneous load(for a few seconds) and the sustained load(for a prolonged period), and think that the instantaneous load could be sustained; but think why it was named the instantaneous load in the first place!

That 15 second+ 6.5 load that the USAF listed in the preliminary KPP is cleared the sustained load, well above the sustained load limits of existing M-346s and Hawks.

I am pretty sure it must have given some inspiration to the F-16 designers at General Dynamics.

You meant the Northrop YF-17.

Surely, the F-5b or a two seat version of the F-20 must have been conisdered for T-X, and rejected for some reasons.

Existing T-38s are too costly to rebuild, and any further development of T-38/F-5/F-20 cost money and presents risks.

I am pretty sure it must have given some inspiration to the F-16 designers at General Dynamics.

You meant the Northrop YF-17.

Surely, the F-5b or a two seat version of the F-20 must have been conisdered for T-X, and rejected for some reasons.

Existing T-38s are too costly to rebuild, and any further development of T-38/F-5/F-20 cost money and presents risks.

I give up,

Your problem is that you do not understand the differences between the instantaneous load(for a few seconds) and the sustained load(for a prolonged period), and think that the instantaneous load could be sustained; but think why it was named the instantaneous load in the first place!

That 15 second+ 6.5 load that the USAF listed in the preliminary KPP is cleared the sustained load, well above the sustained load limits of existing M-346s and Hawks.

There is one specific requirement for Blue Angels jets.

Need an afterburner to be able to make hard turns. Ditto for the Thunderbirds too.

You are still confused. An airframe is not designed for sustained g-load

Surely it is.

it is designed for the limit load factor of +8g.

Instantaneous load factor is for a few seconds.
Sustained load factor is for a prolonged period.

The only potential aspect is airframe fatigue in light of the T-X curriculum, this is a minor issue that can be addressed very easily at this stage (before series production rather than as a retrofit).

Except that the airframe reinforcement costs money and increases risks. The M-346 and Hawk would be going up against a competitor that doesn’t need a reinforcement.

So limit load is how strong the airframe is while sustained load is how maneuverable the aircraft is?

No, limit load is how long an airframe can take load for a few seconds without a damage. Sustained load is for a prolonged period.

More engine thrust = higher sustained load factor.

Sustained load factor is the property of the airframe design and nothing to do with the engine. If the engine thrust is strong enough to generate a load that exceeds the airframe’s design sustained load factor during a turn, then that airframe is damaged.

Another type of load factor is instantaneous load factor. This one cannot be sustained because your airspeed is bleeding off rapidly

It cannot be sustained regardless of the engine thrust because the airframe is damaged after only a few seconds.

3. Sustained load is not meaningless, it is a key air combat capability parameter. It is useful to know if you want to realistically train for air combat.

Indeed, sustained load is what matters, not instantaneous load.

koreans are strange. japan kill more koreans than chinese

Well, the last foreign troops that Koreans battled was the PLA and all the misery of North Korea is due to China’s support of Kim’s regime, so the hatred lingers on.

china protect korea from foreign invasions for thousands of years.

LOL, Is that what they teach you at school?(Actually I do know they teach that stupid non-sense at Chinese schools).

Just ask the question of why China fell to Mongol and Manchurian invasion while Korea stood, and why China didn’t even try to battle the European troops on its soil during the century of humiliation while Korea battled and repelled the French troops and US marines.

korea want to make these same things but need alot of help to do it

That’s the Korean way of doing things. Koreans have a high standard of doing things, and will bring in external expertise if none is available domestically or the domestic technology cannot yet compete with the world’s best, then run a parallel program to develop the domestic replacement. This contrasts with China’s acceptance of substandard domestic technology, largely because no foreign substitute other than Russian technology is available due to western sanctions.

and mostly from Americans so it is true that they do not have industrial base but need to rely on the industrial base of others.

When that was the case the KFX went nowhere for the most of last decade.

The recent push for the KFX is because the domestic content rate reached 87%, making it economically viable to push the project forward. When the KFX project was turned down by reviews of past presidents, the domestic content rate was only 30~40%, which would have driven the cost of the KFX beyond what was available off the shelf.

This was becoming very clear during the parliamentary debate held a week ago, where all major subsystem parts, including the AESA, EO, targeting pod, full-glass cockpit, avionics computer, and radio communication equipment were on display, all that was needed was an airframe to put those parts in.