hopsalotGiven that USA refuses to condemn Israel however gross its behaviour towards the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip and West Bank and however much it flouts UN resolutions, why would it supply Gulf countries with a low observation strike aircraft capable of being used to strike back at Israel?
I will leave Arab/Israeli politics out of this thread and just say that the US has supplied a great deal of extremely advanced equipment to allies in the Gulf in recent years, including the most advanced F-15s and F-16s in the world. (F-15SA, F-16 Block 60)
You have a point. Not sure how well that holds up if you want to carry 8 weapons on your aircraft.
In a comparison between the F-35 and a 4th generation aircraft, the 4th generation fighter’s advantage is greatest when both are clean. The F-35’s advantage is greatest when carrying a full internal load. If you start adding external weapons to the F-35 it will begin trading away performance as a 4th generation fighter would.
hopsalotYes, I have read it. They are considering evaluating the plane. What’s so strange here?
That after years of aggressive sales pitches by various 4th generation fighter manufacturers and governments they may choose to wait until a 5th generation aircraft is available.
BTW, the fact that F-35 is unexpectedly available even for Gulf States from the very start indicates that the sales are not progressing according to plan and LM are becoming desperate to sell to anyone willing to buy. Few decades ago they would have had mouths full of “protection of national interests” and “strategic balance in the region” and would have nicely served Israel, then Europe and Australia, then maybe some Asian allies (Thailand, Singapore, Korea) and only after some years they would have started thinking about squeezing some petrodollars back from Arabs.
Actually, if you read the article they made it quite clear that the F-35 is not yet available for export to the region. That will change at some point but it isn’t clear when. What is noteworthy is that the Gulf buyers clearly hope the policy will change.
US (and European) exports to the region have been steadily evolving, particularly since 1991. The Gulf states have increasingly bought top of the line equipment and have demonstrated the ability to operate it as well.
You are obviously somewhat slow in grasping, so let me rephrase. They don’t want the F-35. They want that “almost F-22” plane from Lockheed’s presentations. That is not the same.
:stupid:
As usual, you know something nobody with actual knowledge seems to know. Funny how that works isn’t it?
It’s like stating that F-15 can go M2.5 or Su-24M can go M2.0+. Theoretically they do.. except the resulting range/damage penalty is so huge that they practically don’t..
When flying the F-35, if you need to engage A/B to full setting, then wait forever to jump over the transonic hump to somehow barely crawl to M1.2 and then push the speedometer with your eyes as it sloooowly passes every M0.1 dot while frantically checking the fuel gauge as it descends with the speed of a free fall, then you have to ask yourself inevitably: was THAT even worth it?
You are once again making a mess of things. 4th generation aircraft carry external loads, which impacts their performance significantly. An aircraft like the Super Hornet or Rafale with a top speed of “Mach 1.8” can not achieve that speed under real world conditions with a combat load.
The difference with the F-35 (all three variants) is that even with a full internal load it is capable of reaching its maximum speed of M1.6, meaning that in real world conditions the F-35 is every bit as fast as most 4th generation aircraft. (especially when you are talking about the F-35A, which has less drag than the B and C versions)
This really isn’t that complicated and I would have thought that by now you would be able to grasp the concept. Perhaps this is another case of your wishful thinking overriding the logical portion of your brain.
hopsalotA truck load full of wishful thinking. The aircraft they really want doesn’t really exist… well, if we don’t count LM company specsheets showing the F-35 as “almost F-22”.
How silly to try to deny reality. Reality is stubborn. Reality is that which remains when you refuse to believe it in.
The quote is right there in the article:
“Talk about selling the plane to the United Arab Emirates and other U.S. allies in the Gulf came into the open during the Dubai air show last month, with potential buyers weighing whether to buy existing planes or wait for the U.S. government to release the new radar-evading F-35.”
Keep telling yourself that nobody really wants the F-35, it is cute in a way.
This time it won’t be that easy to gain a client based on promises and KPs which will never be fulfilled, this time the clients will want to test the real thing before they buy. If Sheiks found Rafale too lousy, I can’t wait to see them excited about this thing which can’t even go supersonic.
Can’t even go supersonic?
You should know better than to try outright lying on a board like this. :stupid:
From almost exactly two years ago:
Some 15 months ago I blogged that the boss of JSF testing at Edwards AFB, U.S. Air Force test pilot Lt. Col. Hank “Hog” Griffiths, had flown faster in an F-35 than anyone else.
At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.
Griffiths, who is 461st Flight Test Squadron Commander and F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) director at Edwards AFB, was the pilot of one of the two F-35As flown to the desert base in May 2010 for the start of developmental test and evaluation (DT&E). However, unlike 2010, when the slower pace of testing meant Griffiths’ record stood for a while, his latest moment of supersonic glory was eclipsed barely a day later when another test pilot took an F-35A to 666 KCAS.
From now on, with the exception of going for higher speed test points in the 660-700 KCAS range, the bulk of envelope expansion is focused on the “the lower right, higher dynamic pressure, corner” says Griffiths. “At least we’ve shown we can go to design limits.”
…
The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.
hopsalotA pic says more than a hundred words they say
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223506[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]223507[/ATTACH]
@seahawk: the day will come when thrust take over control, but not yet
Still trying to milk that picture huh?
hopsalotAs stated by LM official, no briefing on confidential capabilities of F35 was held…
Not sure your point here. Just because there was no briefing at the air show does not mean no information has been shared at any point.
hopsalotDec 6 (Reuters) – Strong demand from Gulf countries for Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-35 fighter jet has prompted Washington to grapple with the thorny question about releasing the jet to the region sooner than expected, a senior U.S. defense official said.
Washington has already approved sales of the new stealth fighter to a range of allies, including Turkey, South Korea, Japan and Israel, but sales to the Gulf require a deeper review given U.S. policy guidelines that call for Israel to maintain a qualitative military edge in the Middle East.
Talk about selling the plane to the United Arab Emirates and other U.S. allies in the Gulf came into the open during the Dubai air show last month, with potential buyers weighing whether to buy existing planes or wait for the U.S. government to release the new radar-evading F-35.
…
The senior U.S. official said the depth of interest in the new fighter – the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program – from Gulf countries came as a surprise to some in the U.S. government.
“We in the Defense Department now recognize that there is significant interest there,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. “We knew eventually we were going to have to face that question, but it’s come upon us a little sooner than we thought and we’re going to have to deal with it.”
Decisions about releasing sensitive technologies for sale to foreign countries are made by the State Department in consultation with the Pentagon and other government agencies.
“Eventually we’re going to have to make a decision. We have a very structured process in place for doing that. And it takes a little bit of time,” said the official. “But we are going to have to make decisions on a tighter timeline than we thought.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/06/lockheed-fighter-gulf-idUSL2N0JL29A20131206
Looks like we have our answer on why there were no major fighter buys in Dubai this year… everyone seems to be holding out hope that they can get what they really want.
Naturally this is bribery, or maybe propaganda…. I lose track what the excuse of the day is. 😎
hopsalotChina holds a vast majority of the U.S.’s debt. If they really want to stir the soup, they could just start calling in the notes and deal a blow to the U.S. without ever firing a shot.
This is a common misconception. What China holds are bonds which entitles them to payments on a specific schedule. China can not simply “call in the notes.”
hopsalotI want to agree with you, but there’s too much bad history to let this stupid islands dispute be resolved amicably. What Japan wants is for china to give up its claim over the islands completely. What China wants is to have both sides agree that the territory is disputed.
What would you say if Germany announced that it regarded the ownership of Alsace to be “disputed” tomorrow?
China’s clear goal is to expand its territory at the cost of Japan. Japan has nothing to gain by offering to negotiate over islands it has controlled since the 19th century.
hopsalotAnd, as you read from the article, USA is still planning and actively working on increasing its EEZ and author is very proud and excited about this 🙂
…and as I made clear in my previous post the US is not seeking to deprive any neighboring country of their territory. Examining the different ways in which EEZs can be determined is one thing… laying claim to your neighbor’s territory is another.
It is not a fair to try paint China an expansionist or aggressive power when Japan has its own ADIZ as seen on the map which covers whole East China Sea. If you can define Japan is expansionist or aggressive, you can do so for China too. If you cannot see this, you are not objective in my opinion. Think it this way, Cuba, a country about the size of Japan, had an ADIZ as large as Japan what would USA do?
China is an expansionist and aggressive power. This is seen in many areas, not just the Senkakus.
Again, establishing an ADIZ over a neighboring country’s territory is aggressive. An ADIZ by itself is not necessarily a hostile act, but announcing an intention to patrol a neighboring state’s airspace is.
Also it is ironic that USA is fully supporting Japan now. The reason why these forces have been in that region at first place was WW2 and Japan’s attack to basically everyone else and determination of USA to suppress Japan’s military. History and politics are fun… 🙂
So? Alliances shift. The US has fought wars against the UK. The US fought a war on the side of the USSR. etc
In the first half of the 20th century Japan was clearly the aggressor, but that is not the case this time.
And when you look into those tiny rocks, It is acknowledged by USA during and after WW2, they are part of Taiwan. Japan supposed to return invaded (stolen was the actual word used) lands to China including Taiwan after the war. However CCP won the war in China and Taiwan become almost independent and these rocks somehow remained in limbo. It is quite clear to me that these island are part of Taiwan because before the invasion of Taiwan by Japan, they were not under Japan rule.
The Senkakus were hardly in “limbo,” they were under Japanese control. Regardless of who might have controlled them prior to the Japanese in the late 1800s the fact is that they have been under Japanese control (or US control following WWII) for well over 100 years.
For China to try to shift their control now is aggression.
hopsalotI’m less interested in the minutiae of this particular flashpoint than in the structural forces at play. The United States’ support for Japan alters that nation’s strategic calculus, inviting it to take more oppositional stances than it otherwise would, and therefore increasing the likelihood of conflict. Any mature reading of both the Korean War and the development of the Cold War in Europe demonstrates the power of peripheral actors to compel actions by great powers. One hopes that there is substantially more going on behind the scenes in terms of the US-Japanese relationship than is visible in the public statements of full, uncritical support.
Japan is a US ally, but it is a significant power in its own right and could be expected to defend its territory with or without US backing.
Japan has the world’s 5th largest defense budget, its 3rd largest economy, and is the 10th most populous nation.
It is in question because China says it is in question. That’s how power works; ‘law’ simply reflects a particular accommodation arrived at between particular parties under particular circumstances at particular times. If Mexico were far more powerful, and the United States far less so, the southwestern United States would quickly become disputed territory. That the US and its allies have — by virtue of history — arrived at a distribution of power and influence acceptable to them does not in any way oblige rising powers to respect that arrangement. Indeed, it would be historically unprecedented for them to do so.
:stupid:
You are running late for class I think…
What China is doing is called “aggression.” The world is full of countries with power disparities, that does not entitle the more powerful state to simply shift borders to their liking. The US is not seeking to annex Canada, or Mexico, or anyone else at this point. The same is true for essentially all the world’s industrialized powers.
hopsalotThe South China Sea dispute is a result of the nine dot line that Chiang Kai Shek drew in the ROC, and when the PRC assumed control of China they inherited that territorial claim.
To this day the ROC (Taiwan) still claims the same waters the PRC does in the South China Sea.
Anyone with a map and a brain can see that there is no possible validity to any such claim. It doesn’t matter one bit where the goofball claim first came from, it is the current government that is still pursuing it.
I won’t look at the historical justification for the ROC’s original drawing of the nine dot line, because personally I believe the waters of the South China Sea needs to be resolved with all sides losing a bit of their claim, China included. The SCS is far too crowded and important and it is impossible for any one nation to even lay claim to half of it.
I would like to see the various South China Sea claims resolved, but by those countries with an actual claim, meaning those states that border the regions of the South China Sea in question.
(My reference to “imperial powers” was to the foreign invasions of China in the 19th century, leading to an inability for the country/empire to properly defend its territorial sovereignty both in terms of territories seceded to foreign powers in the “unequal treaties” as well as an overall weakening of the state and the inability to control more anciliary territories which led to a few decades of pseudo-independence for various regions such as Tibet, and various outlying islands, to name a few. Whether you agree with me basically depends on whether you agree that the foreign invasions of China in the 19th century were legal or not, and that is the rub of it.)
The legality of things that happened in the 19th century really have no bearing any longer. It doesn’t matter a bit whether one war or another somewhere in the history books was “legal” by today’s standards. It matters even less what hypothetical actions China might have taken if history had unfolded differently.
And China says the islands were taken from them in the first sino-japanese war and should have been returned under the potsdam declaration and cairo declarations.
If you do not recognize that there is a territorial dispute then obviously there is no need for further discussion because you would see the ADIZ as an aggressive act.If you understand that the island’s sovereignty was always under question then you’d recognize that Japanese moves in the last few years had led to this present stand off.
Regardless of what China thinks should have happened following one treaty or another, the fact is that Japan has retained control of the Senkakus for better than 100 years. Take a look at what Europe’s borders looked like at the end of the 19th century. Imagine what would happen European states decided to start laying claim to all the territory they lost somewhere in the 20th century… It doesn’t matter if the wars and treaties of the last 100 years were “legal” or “fair.” The fact is that they happened and for better or worse for the most part the borders are now settled.
By any reasonable standard the ownership of the Senkakus is not in question.
hopsalotYes, China has territorial disputes with many of its neighbours. It would be strange if it didn’t given it neighbours among the most countries with land borders and just as many at sea, and the colonial settlements by imperial powers basically screwed over the pre-existing borders with little to no agreement with the relevant nations or were made with the barrel of a gun at the head.
China is the imperial power now and China is the one creating conflict by claiming territory it has no right to. What “imperial power” can China blame for its claims in the South China Sea? If we were talking about Hong Kong or Macau then you might have a point, but there is no similarity between either of those and China’s current disputes.
I’m not trying to portray China as the victim but you are also in the wrong if you think an ADIZ is unjustified. An ADIZ isn’t a NFZ nor is it a claim that the ADIZ is territorial airspace.
The covering of the ADIZ over the disputed islands with Japan, however, is a deliberate move, and I suspected it was a move to try and get the Japanese to negotiate — something which they’ve effectively been rejecting the last few years because they do not even recognize the islands are in dispute. How are we supposed to de-escalate if they can’t even agree that?
Creating an ADIZ over a sovereign state’s territory is a hostile act, and the Senkakus have been part of Japanese territory for over 100 years. (a portion of which the US administrated them following WWII along with Okinawa and some other islands)
If these islands were inhabited with a Chinese population then perhaps there could be some discussion, but given that they are uninhabited and have been a Japanese possession for the entire 20th century then their ownership really isn’t subject to negotiation.
One might debate whether uninhabited islands should generate a massive EEZ, but that is a separate question and unrelated to the current conflict.
hopsalotLol, read the recent (November, 2013) issue of National Geographic magazine, please 😀
I have actually.
There are different ways to interpret territorial waters/EEZs in the open ocean leading to some inconsistency in claims. The US does have vast territory in the Pacific but the US is not seeking to steal territory from any other sovereign state, unlike China, and the US’s claims extend from islands that are indisputably US territory, many of which have large populations, again, unlike China.
What China is doing is the equivalent of if the US announced that all of the Caribbean, including all of its islands and resources from Trinidad and Tobago to the Florida Keys were US possessions.
Though off topic, here is the article for general reference:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/new-america-map/ballard-text
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223364[/ATTACH]
Note that the US claims extend from:
Hawaii: Pop 1.4 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii
Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands: Populations of 160,000 and 54,000 respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mariana_Islands
American Samoa: Population 55,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa
The Aleutian Islands, part of Alaska: Population 1,500.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands
…and the United States Minor Outlying Islands: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island, some of which host small more or less permanent populations of research or military personnel, but none of which house true self sustaining populations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Minor_Outlying_Islands
Only this last grouping of islands are really open to any debate as they are not truly inhabited, but none of them are subject to any ongoing territorial disputes and all of them have been under US control for more than 100 years, so if uninhabited rocks and islets count, then these are fair game.
Also worth a look, largest claimants of ocean territory:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/new-america-map/underwater-holdings-map
#1 USA
#2 France
#3 Australia
#4 Russia
#5 UK
#6 New Zealand
hopsalotLol the longer an internet discussion about China continues, the more likely it is to feature tibet ot 1989.
Hey Mig, let’s stick this discussion to the ADIZ, yeah?
The ADIZ is quite a separate issue to the SCS territorial disputes too.
The fact is that China has territorial disputes with most of its neighbors, a product of its decade long quest to expand its borders. The ADIZ is just the latest in a long string of aggressive actions by China along its borders. To try to portray China as a victim here requires a complete ignorance of history.
hopsalotNations are asking their commercial carriers to comply with China’s demands to avoid the risk of a trigger happy PLAAF pilot shooting down a civilian aircraft like what happened to that Korean 747 a few years back. But in my opinion there is going to be an incident anyway. China does not have the experience of controlling a distant ADIZ and is trying to learn as they go along. With warplanes mixed in with commercial traffic it is only a matter of time before an accident will occur.
Add to this that China has painted itself into a corner with the establishment of this ADIZ with such rigid restrictions, the opportunity for misunderstandings are just waiting to happen. Just like what happened to that collision between that Chinese J-8 and that EP-3E off of Hainan island a replay is bound to happen sooner or later.
Finally consider the fact that Japan has shown no inclination to honor the Chinese ADIZ and has in the last few days sent aloft F-15s supported by tankers and an AWACS some clash will happen.
My question is how will the end game play out? China at this point cannot back down. They have placed their national pride on the table. On the other hand Japan and others have decided that they also will not back down due to their own policy reasons which leads to the two scorpions in a bottle scenario.
This shows a tremendous lack of maturity on China’s part. Many years after most of the world has moved beyond such attempts to expand their territory China is jumping in without any apparent long term thinking.
Disputes with India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/China-reiterates-claim-on-Arunachal-Pradesh-through-mouthpiece/articleshow/26644947.cms
Disputes with Philippines: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/learning-the-lessons-scarborough-reef-9442
Disputes with pretty much everyone on the South China Sea for that matter:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223362[/ATTACH]
On what basis can China possibly claim ownership of uninhabited rocks/reefs thousands of kilometers from its shore that are right off the coast of various other countries? This is nothing but an old fashioned territory grab that can only lead to violence when someone is finally forced to defend their borders.
This may not be as dramatic as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, but make no mistake, this is aggression backed by the threat of force.
Sign In
