crobatoLet’s see about evil Americans stealing Japanese composite technology…
F-14, boron epoxy, 1968
F-15, graphite epoxy, 1972
F-16, graphite epoxy, 1974
AV-8B, graphite epoxy, 1978
X-29, graphite epoxy, 1979
F-18, graphite epoxy, 1980
F-16XL, graphite epoxy, 1980
F-117, glass cyanate ester, 1980
Lavi, graphite epoxy, 1981
B-1, graphite epoxy, 1985
All had composites before the F-2 memorandum was signed in 1986.General Dynamics got paid to share technology with the Japanese and made profit from a few parts they built. This was the same deal they did for Taiwan’s IDF and South Koreas T-50. Funny how nobody accuses GD of stealing Taiwanese or Korean technology.
dj, stop your flag waving. You don’t seem to have any idea what cocuring is. It has nothing to do with composite material. It has something to do with the way you bond composites.
You have the GAO report to show you that the US was very interested and acquired composite cocuring bonding technology from the Japanese for the F-35.
Take it to the US General Accounting Office if you have a different opinion.
crobatoNot out of gratitude, but more likely the military advantages of shared logistics support, tactics, and training.
You’ve got massive amounts of US military hardware in Japan. If it came to war, the US and Japan could support each other if they were using the same equipment. That’s not possible in the European case.
As for the talk of corruption in military contracts, Lockheed is far from the only case. I recall that there has been a great deal of talk about the UK / Saudi military aircraft purchases. Are you suggesting that the only reason that Saudi purchased Tornadoes is that the UK offered kickbacks of some kind?
That theory is quite incorrect. How would you explain why the Japanese are using indigenous missiles that are not compatible with US systems at all, and why the Japanese systems are not compatible with US missiles at all? Logistics is a concern, the F-2 should have been based the F-15 instead, but no, the F-15 is a little too “powerful” to be given away to be converted to someone’s “indigenous” fighter.
Yes, Lockheed got caught giving kickbacks to the Japanese PM (Takeo Miki) to buy Starfighters. Not that I blame Lockheed—this is how you learn to do business in the East. The Starfighter scandals has been the subject of entire books. Did the UK give kickbacks to the Saudis to buy Tornadoes. Maybe—the arms business is decidely corrupt. You don’t play the arms trade business with boy scout ideals. It’s just the nature of the scorpion.
crobatoThe 2025 team used the creative but disciplined alternate futures procedure to describe various plausible future worlds, each separate and distinct, and each offering different security and planning challenges. In the first world, the U.S.’s military might is constrained by many world players with other forms of power. A second world depicts the extreme impacts of a future dominated by multinational corporate giants. A third world is a scary future in which information and biogenetic technology is dispersed, giving individuals and small groups untold power. In a fourth world, the U.S. loses its status as a superpower to an Asian colossus. A fifth future envisions a world marked by fundamental changes in the social structure, environment and the international security system, making it difficult for the United States to determine how best to exert its power and influence. The final world depicts how a major conflict in 2015 could shape events in 2025.
It reads like some science fiction books, even themes in some PC games.
crobatoHmm.. you play Generals? lol, I never imagined crobato.
Personally, the US’s Specter attack is great.
Not too good at it and only to pass the time. I do wonder how other people can build Scuds so fast. USA in all modes does not seem to be as popular with the hardcore. I get the impression that China Tank general is quite popular vs. China Normal and China Nuke. But the real tough guys are going GLA MWD/Toxin because they can build up a Scudstorm so fast and so cheap and blow your bases, leaving them oozing in glowing green slime. I suspect they must have found a cheat of some sort. Scudstorm beats all the other MWDs in the game e.g. carpet bombing, particle beam, etc,..
crobatooh, now they’re the same kinds as in your cell phones? :rolleyes:
This is why a cell phone is literally free yet most countries couldn’t keep a Tx/Rx module below $1000 for their radars. I thought that was very obvious…now bring in this stupid side things about cellphones when we’re talking about active phased array radars:rolleyes: My question is where is the MMICs developed and have you held one used for military grade radars. :rolleyes:
Learn about the fundamentals of electronics production befiore you whack your jingoistic “it’s better cause it’s invented here” syndrome.
The main reason why the military grade module cost high is due to the very low volume production. Since other countries do not have a high volume application for military grade MMICs, their per unit costs are very high. Commerical MMICs are cheap because of very high volume production, with lots in the millions rather than in the thousands. You can amortize the cost of the development and the masking over a far far greater number. Of course there are other factors, like having phase shifters on the chips, and higher output requirements, which also means lots of gigahertz—a MMIC in a cordless home phone may be running 2gig, a a military one is higher, and the highest of all are those for long range wireless networks and commerical communication satellites that can be running anywhere from 14 to 40gig. Mil standards are very strict, and acceptance requirements means a lot more of the chips have to be thrown away. But the main killer is volume production. If these commercial chips are only made in the thousands, their unit cost would go sky high. There are few US firms that actually fab MMICs, especially in California and in Santa Clara, but more and more US firms are just designing houses, then have them fabbed overseas.
$1000 to $2000 a chip ain’t that much for a chip using GaAs or InSb considering how much these materials cost more than silicon and how fast these chips run. When there are low volume chips—just using silicon—that can go for $3000 to $4000 a piece. The reason, production volume. The way to drop the cost of an element is sheer volume—start using them in as many applications as possible. For military grade ones, this includes both ship and ground based radars as well. Exactly why building more F-22s, or use more AESA radars on the other planes, even ships and ground, would greatly lower the cost. The volume process has begun ahead in the US. Then of course, you can use larger wafers. Making the same MMIC on a 3 to 4 inch wafer would cost you a lot more than if it is in a 6 inch wafer or even better on a 12 inch. Many Asian fabs are already in the 8 inch wafer size and going to the 10 or 12 inch. Another factor in the reduction of cost is reducing the micron size, so you get more chips per wafer. Again, increasing wafer size and decreasing micron size to produce more chips per wafer is a result of high chip demand and volume production. it is high volume that justifies the very measures.
The only reason why other countries don’t have those modules as you say is because they have not gotten the demand yet. Give them a reason for it, and prices would drop like a stone. Many of the chips that cost like dirt now used to be running in the hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a piece. That’s fundamental nature of electronic development and proliferation. But the technology that can enable the price drop is already there in the first place. It is not by cleverness or design that a chip is cheaper—it is by the manufacturing process, and all you need is to give that plant a reason by ordering truckloads. Let us put it this way, if your celphone MMIC is made only for a thousand units, while your active array module is made for a million units, guess who is going to cost a lot more per unit.
crobatoThe Emperor Overlord tank in China Tank General in Zero Hour is the best tank in the game. That’s the one with two cannons, and you can put a gattling gun on top to mow down the infantry. Sometimes I like to put a Helix helo (Ka-31 helicopter) or an Overlord tank with an armored bunker and put rocket infantry inside so the whole thing ripple fires missiles. For a real sense of anarchy I love those GLA Toxin Tractors.
crobatoA collection of J-10 two seater picts! Posted by Bomberman at CMF. This guy is like a living library of pictures!
There is like two or three pictures there I have not seen before, including the close up canopy and shot and the J-10B with the more defined camouflage.
crobatoI would love to see what reasoning you could have for this assumption.
You do know that lasers are not just employed for shooting things down, right?? Unless you want to contend that China has abilities only seen in computer games like C&C Generals and the US still has to plant its big THEL emitter in a building (MTHEL is HWMMV based, but still far larger), which is needless to say- absurd.
Also see the Airborne Laser program.
You got the wrong game. The faction in Generals using the lasers is the USA Laser General, which has laser equipped tanks. China Tank General does not have lasers.
It is in Earth 2150 and its expansion packs, that you have the Eurasian Dynasty (Russia+China+Mongolia alliance) that you have Chinese like tanks that shoot lasers.
crobatoI’m suspicious about that picture. I remember vaguely—I need to find the original—that there is a pic of MKK prototype 502 refueling in the mid air with exactly that same pose. It would be easy to alter the background, change the insignia and the remove the unit numbers as 502 has the same paintwork with the PLAAF Su-30MKKs.
crobatoCommercial engines are for brute power. There are commercial engines out there that can deliver more thrust than the engines of the F-22.
But the real difference of commercial and military engines lie in their power to weight ratio. Commercial engines simply do not match military engines on that regard. However, they have a much higher service life and even much lower failure rates. Military engines also have to concern themselves not just with power to weight ratio but also power to size, especially with diameter (China actually did very well with regards to thrust vs. diameter with their Kunlun II engines, did you know that?)
From what I know, there are still European firms making jet engines for airliners, including Rolls Royce, whose aircraft engine division is owned and run by BMW.
When I am referring that the Japanese might be developing a jet engine, I’m referring to a smaller regional sized jet.
The Japanese certainly did not have trouble developing a small turbojet/turbofan for their ASM series of antiship missiles. That’s a start, similar to the development of said engines by the Chinese for their Kraken (YJ-6) and C-802 antiship missiles.
Yes, freter, I also read that article. But an engine of that sized may serve as a theoritical basis for a more powerful engine. That particular engine seems fit only for a trainer or advanced trainer, and it seemed to me, good for technological demonstration that can lead to better and more powerful designs. If the Japanese wants to develop a new engine and a fighter to see service by 2020 or so, they should start now.
crobatoThat was an experimental engine, but it’s rather small, good for trainers.
Japanese shot themselves in the foot with a major shotgun by not attempting to develop a military class turbofan starting in the eighties, since it takes at least 10 to 15 years for an engine project to mature. Suffice to say it is too late now for them to start one other than for commercial jet applications.
crobatoHughes and Westinghouse were working AESA technology under company funded and government contracts in 1983. This was 4 years before the Memorandum of Understanding was signed that became the F-2.
Grumman, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Northrop, North American and Boeing were all working company funded and government contracts for composite aero structures in the late 1960s. This was 20 years before the F-2.
No, I do not think the evil American stole technology from the hapless Japanese :rolleyes:
The Japanese had something working however. The F-2’s radar is the first workable airborne AESA radar in the world. The US was also working on AESA on the F-22 and on the F-15 at the same time however.
Dj, why don’t you read more about the F-2 program? The Americans wanted many things from the Japanese, the AESA tech and the composite bonding technology among others.
Here is a copy of the GAO report.
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns97076.htm
12) two technologies that were initially of interest to
the U.S. Air Force and to Department of Defense contractors, the
co-cured composite wing and the active phased array radar, are now
generally considered too costly to produce; (13) however, Lockheed
Martin officials indicated that tooling techniques from the F-2 program
are being applied to the Joint Advanced Strike Technology program;
The United States also has access to Japanese indigenous or
“non-derived” technologies. Japan is to provide technical outlines
on non-derived technologies with sufficient information to enable the
United States to determine their value and usefulness. Those in the
United States who wish to use the technology can obtain it through a
licensing agreement from the originating Japanese company.The production phase agreements contain similar provisions regarding
flowback of derived technologies and access to non-derived
technologies.The development agreements identified four major F-2 components–the
active phased array radar, the integrated electronic warfare system,
the inertial reference/navigation system, and the mission
computer–as Japanese indigenous or non-derived technologies.
U.S. ACCESS TO WING
TECHNOLOGY DATA IMPROVES
———————————————————- Letter :4.2The co-cured composite technology used by both countries to produce
the F-2 wings, including materials, process specifications, and
tooling was designed by Mitsubishi and transferred to Lockheed
Martin. For the development phase, Lockheed fabricated five
left-hand wing box assemblies using Japanese materials and processing
techniques.The F-2 wings differ from the traditional F-16 aluminum wings in
several respects, but the most significant feature is the use of
co-curing technology whereby composite parts are bonded together
without conventional metal fasteners. In terms of performance, the
significantly lighter F-2 wings are expected to be more durable,
provide higher strength, and reduce flutter problems.In our August 1995 report, we stated that Lockheed was not at that
time receiving all of the wing data necessary to apply the composites
technology to other programs. The U.S. contractor and DOD program
officials have recently indicated that technology transfers from
Japan have been successful and continue to be effective and that
Lockheed is generally satisfied with the transfer of Japanese
technology.
Table 1
Summary of Technology Visits
Number of U.S.
companies
Technology Date of visits attending
—————————— —————— ——————
Active phased array radar May 1991 14
July 1993
November 1994Mission computer November 1991 DOD only
May 1993Integrated electronic warfare July 1993 10
system September 1994
December 1995Inertial reference/navigation November 1994 DOD only
system September 1994Radar-absorbing materials June 1995 DOD only
Co-cured composite wing March 1996 13
(symposium)Key objectives of the technology visits were to allow DOD to evaluate
technologies of interest for its own potential use and to introduce
U.S. companies to the F-2 technologies. It would then be up to the
individual firms to decide whether or not to enter into contractual
or licensing arrangements with individual Japanese companies.
Co-cured Composite Wing
A symposium was held in March 1996 to provide an overview to U.S.
industry participants of the wing in terms of materials, design,
processes, fabrication, and assembly. DOD and Commerce officials
told us that the participating companies have not indicated any
further interest in obtaining technical documents. The general
consensus among industry participants and U.S. Air Force officials
is that it is extremely costly to produce the wing structure by the
co-curing process. Lockheed Martin, however, has stated that the use
of tooling techniques from the F-2 program has contributed to
reducing the cost of manufacturing the composite bulkhead materials
for the Joint Advanced Strike Technology program.
crobatowhat’s this bs about MMICs? When is the first time you’ve seen MMICs…and where? Please stop this b.s. :rolleyes:
Have you ever seen an MMIC, eh?
Take apart any celphone and you will see one.
Guess who makes the most MMICs in the world.
Your comments really show the depth of your computer knowledge.
crobatoF-2 is a jobs program. If viewed as such, you can see why cost overruns and schedule slips were of minor concern.
F-2 does incorporate high frequency RAM that was developed indigenously.
Like every indigenous program, the F-2 is an industry development program, just like the LCA was to India. The F-2 also incorporated an AESA, an FBW system, and a unique composite bonding technology that all were developed indigenously. The F-2’s AESA was the first in the world, operationally.
However, the AESA and the composite tech had problems, and the planes performance wasn’t that good. I hardly hear any story praising the plane’s maneuverability.
Where the Japanese truly failed was to develop an indigenous military class turbine even when they had the tech. Whereas India and China had various programs, Japan did not. They would have to rely on getting the engine from the US, and that’s where the US is able to place demands.
Its true that China and India’s engine programs still have to come to fruition. But at least China had the Russians to fall back on. India still had to buy engines from the US, but their politicians had something that Japanese politicians never had—a genuine backbone.
crobatoI think it highly unlikely that France would be able to sell a Rafale to Japan.
There is no law that Japan must buy US weapons. The reason US weapons do so well with Japan is that, much like South Korea, the US actually defends Japan and has done so for the last half century. You see no commitment like that from any European nation and as such you see no subsequent Japanese interest in European military hardware.
The day you see a European country step up to defend asian countries is the day that you see asian countries take a stronger interest in European hardware.
US weapons doesn’t do well in Japan other than F-4s and F-15s. Much of their tanks, ships, subs, and all other stuff, are their own now, replacing stuff that used to be US sold. Even F-4s and F-15s have all have their electronics replaced (with their own radars and firecontrol systems) because the Japanese believed their electronics are better than the US. As a concession to the US, they buy from the US the gaps they can’t fill—e..g like the Aegis system—but they pretty much prefer to use their own stuff like their AAM-4 project over the AMRAAM.
Asian countries are taking a stronger interest in European hardware even without European countries trying to “protect” Asian countries. Singapore is taking a strong look at the Rafale and already modded their F-5s with Italian hardware. Taiwan bought Mirage 2000-5s and found them more preferable than the F-16s they also bought—they could have bought more Mirage 2000-5s even at a higher than F-16 price if it were not for Beijing pressuring the French. S. Korea already bought a number of Russian made choppers and tanks (T-80U). Malaysia bought Fulcrums and now Flankers. Indonesia also bought Flankers.
Don’t give me that Japan buys US stuff out of gratititude story. That’s far from the truth. The real truth is that Japan buys US stuff just to sort of politically correct their MASSIVE TRADE IMBALANCE with the US, in fear of US trade sanctions. I’m not going to mention that Lockheed also bribed Japanese governments to buy the Starfighter, the scandals having cost at least one PM his job.
Sign In
