Slashdot Mirror


Japanese Stealth Fighter Announced as 'Return of the Zero'

reporter writes "According to a news article by the Associated Press, Tokyo has begun developing an indigenous stealth jet fighter that will be deployed in 2016. Mitsubishi, the prime contractor, has already developed a full-scale model, of which several pictures have been accidentally leaked to the press. The model is named 'Mitsubishi ATD-X"'. A laboratory of the French government has evaluated the "stealthy-ness" of ATD-X, and given it a high rating. Will ATD-X achieve air superiority over the F-22, which Washington refuses to sell to Tokyo?"

526 comments

  1. Tech issues and socio-political issues. by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, given that the F-22 has made more than one appearance in Japan, I am certain the Japanese government is interested. However, this raises more than a few issues, specifically related to technology and sociopolitical issues as well. The JDAF (Japanese Defense Air Force) has been so named as it has been a Japanese Constitutional issue that their armed forces are for defense only and not aggression. The interesting thing about stealth technology however, is that it is almost exclusively used for aggression rather than defense if you play your strategy according to tradition.

    I got a quick tour of the F-22, but no pictures allowed of the F-22 during my last visit up to Hill AFB and the F-22 is making the rounds and is being explored for possible basing in other countries, but there are technology sales issues with the aircraft as it will be almost impossible to strip the sensitive technologies out of the aircraft and make it "saleable".

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by GregPK · · Score: 1

      Japan's new model might have air superiority in close range combat, but I seriously doubt it'd be able to shoot down a F-22 let alone see the damn thing before it was shot down itself.

    2. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing about stealth technology however, is that it is almost exclusively used for aggression rather than defense if you play your strategy according to tradition.


      That may be the historical case, but stealth technology is very useful for defense. I mean, if you're going to defend your home land, I doubt you will want your defenses shot down by an aggressor before they go after civilian infrastructure.
      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by GoMMiX · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree, I don't particularly see any real visibly innovative changes in design on this plane. That said, despite some bad history -- Japan is hardly a country I have any concern about -- personally, considering their neighbors - I'm surprised they don't do more with their Military. I think they are counting on their somewhat innocent attitude to bring the US to the rescue should they be forced into a war.

    4. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by rachit · · Score: 1

      The best defense is a good offense!

      But seriously, if someone attacks you / declares war on you, you can send these planes to take out their key C&C / supply centers + infrastructure such that the guy attacking you has trouble sending his stuff against you.

    5. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's obvious - you really don't have to be an expert or even see the real aircraft's specifications. Americans just have larger dicks.

    6. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This of course has nothing to do with the fact that the US forced them to cripple their military and rely on US for support.

    7. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The F-22's radar is impressive, but here is the deal... You have to go active to see targets, particularly well concealed targets and that makes you "visible" as well. If the new JDAF fighter can remain "unseen" until it gets up close and personal and is a lighter, smaller and more nimble aircraft, the F-22 may have a problem.

      Smaller, faster and quieter can oftentimes triumph over larger and more complex as demonstrated in at least one Naval wargame where an entire US carrier battlegroup lost the game to a couple diesel electric subs built by the Germans.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    8. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by MonorailCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While the stealth=aggression argument is a slam-dunk for bombers, I would disagree with this assessment for a fighter. A non-stealth fighter would have great difficulty successfully defending against a stealth-capable agressor. I don't think this aircraft will encounter treaty difficulties.

    9. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan's new model might have air superiority in close range combat, but I seriously doubt it'd be able to shoot down a F-22 let alone see the damn thing before it was shot down itself.

      Any evidence to support this or did you use the "pulled facts/assumptions out my ass" method?

    10. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by BWJones · · Score: 0

      I mean, if you're going to defend your home land, I doubt you will want your defenses shot down by an aggressor before they go after civilian infrastructure.

      1) Thus my invocation of "traditional strategy". See my other post where I discussed strategy involved in stealth defense.

      2) Can I tell you how much I hate the term "homeland" as a description for everything from national defense to internal security? It is such marketing speak...

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    11. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by heinousjay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Weird how we react when attacked, huh? You'd think we would just roll over and take it, instead of unleashing holy hell. At least it seems that's what people think we should do.

      I'm not much a fan of military response, but it's not exactly unknown that as a country, we will fight back, often with excessive force and utter disregard for anything but our own interests.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    12. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 0

      sounds like it has similar stealthiness to an F22... and this is just the MODEL. The kicker is that if they really wanted air superiority, they could stop selling the USA the high tech sensor arrays used to detect stealth aircraft in the first place. most of that stuff is made in Taiwan or Japan now.

    13. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm surprised they don't do more with their Military. I think they are counting on their somewhat innocent attitude to bring the US to the rescue should they be forced into a war.

      I think the US rather insisted on that. Pacifism got written into the Japanese constitution after the war, more or less at Washington's dictate. They're not allowed to spend more than some tiny percentage of GNP on defence, either.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    14. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by bwen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be a bit premature to gauge air superiority while we just have a few pictures of a model of the plane.

    15. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      unless you happen to be a small country the USA wants to attack and they shoot at YOUR planes with missles from 100 miles away before your pilots can even see the other planes. Once both sides have stealth, it's back to man-vs-man... like it should be.

    16. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read in an Air and Space mag a while back on the F22, and one of the pilots said that engaging the enemy was like "clubbing baby seals".

      Japan would simply be clubbing any baby seals that start any shit in their airspace.

    17. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The best defense is a good offense!

      Actually, the best defense lies in making your positions as unassailable as possible (there are a variety of ways to do this). Victory is found by waiting for the other guy to screw up and exploiting his mistakes while trying not to make exploitable mistakes of your own.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    18. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Funny

      it's back to man-vs-man... like it should be

      True, but this time with "Predator like" cloaking technologies. Thanks to the University of Tokyo, big strides have been made in this area.

      My solution would be to cover yourself in mud... Hey, it worked for Schwarzenegger!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    19. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Frankly, at this point, I think it's rather key to encourage Japan to begin building up its military. She's one of the West's key allies in the region.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    20. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by el_coyotexdk · · Score: 1

      "The best defense is a good offense!" Someone didnt read Sun Tzu... :)

    21. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not going to blame the US for the disarmament of Japan. It was a necessary thing to do in 1945. It was also necessary to make all the reforms, including a constitution which enshrined the peaceful nature of the Japanese military.

      But that was 62 years ago, and in the meantime, Japan has become one of the US's most important allies and economic partners, and with the rise of China and the re-rise of Russia, I think it's important to consider that Japan may want to modify the nature of their military, and that maybe it's really in our best interests to allow them to do this.

      The Japan of today is not the Japan of the 1930s, and even if it were, it simply is no longer in any position to do much about it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by NeilTheStupidHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stealth technology is both offensive and defensive. If you have a fleet of aging, non-stealth aircraft, say soviet era MiGs, you'd think twice about attacking a country that has invisible aircraft patrolling its skies. Stealth is a force multiplier for an air force because, since you can't track them, they could be anywhere.

      --
      Lose: misplace or fail || Loose: not bound together
    23. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by JumboMessiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's as much a defensive weapon as it is offensive, as quoted:

      "I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

      On other fronts, the F-22 represents our leading edge technology (even though it's essentially 1990's tech) and is what gives us an advantage. It's not surprising the technology isn't up for export. The F-15 and F-16 both were in the same position when they were introduced, but eventually were considered for export after there advantage subsided a bit (or "lower" tech versions of them were available).

      As well, the F-22 is really expensive. The United States is one of the few countries (or groups of countries) that can pull off such an endeavor. This also naturally limits its export capability, there's simply few others that could afford to buy it.

      IMHO, Japan will end up with export variants of the F-35 (the USAF already has F-22 stationed in Okinawa). And continue with their F-15 and possibly be allowed to construct a variant of the F-15E to replace their aging F-4s (though their limited production of F-2 can already fulfill this requirement).

      Japan has tried this move before, they eventually canceled production of their F-2 program (basically a modernized F-16) and are looking to persuade the United Stated to open up more tech for them to acquire (again, probably the F-35, though possibly future F-22 export variants).

      All Japan produced planes, so far, have been based on US tech. Any other home grown R&D project would be too expensive to survive in the political arena. There's no reason to believe this ATD-X project will find the same fate.

      Finally, IMHO, it wouldn't be able to beat the F-22 is most engagements. Physical performance is only one aspect of why the F-22 is the best air superiority fighter in the world. Avionics, radar, and weapon load out represent some of the others. The ATD-X would just be too expensive to match the F-22 in all areas, if it sees flight, major compromises will have to be make.

      This post coming from a guy who just saw the F-16, F-15, and F-22 fly back to back at the Gathering of Mustangs and Legends.

    24. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by BWJones · · Score: 1

      See my other prior posts on this topic regarding why I agree with you... As to treaties for the proposed new JDAF fighter, I also agree that there will likely be no problem so long as the technology in it is home grown. There may even be some technology assistance that could be provided in terms of testing data and such, but the problems I was talking about have to deal more with F-22 sales to other countries than any home grown efforts.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    25. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Satorian · · Score: 1

      Depends on the metrics of the radar's LPI quality.

    26. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      You realize that Japan already occupied islands off the North American continent before we even attacked them right? They were already showing their version of a manifest destiny and had control over much of the pacific, from islands off the coast of Canada and Alaska(then Russian controller) to the South Pacific.

      It was a tremendous error in judgment for the Empire of Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, although it was a political play by US leaders to goad Japan into an attack that could be used to rally support for the War in the US.

      The US had threaten to prevent Japan's further expansion into the Pacific, and the US repeatedly denied any sort of conference to negotiate any sort of peace that would enable the Empire of Japan to gather much needed resources to fuel their war machine. I doubt US leaders knew that 2000 lives would be lost from taunting Japan into an attack, but I do not doubt that they were aware that Japan would attack so they could move into Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, etc for the industrial resources they had. (I forget the names of these places during the War, the names are new)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    27. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      How exactly would they know? The F-22 has not been used on a capable airforce yet.

    28. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1
      according to tradition?

      The history of every major galactic civilization has passed through three distinct and recognisable phases: those of survival, inquiry, and sophistication. Otherwise known as the 'How', 'Why', and 'Where' phases. For instance, the first phase is characterised by the question: "How can we eat?" The second by the question: "Why do we eat?" And the third by the question: "Where should we have lunch?" The history of warfare is similarly subdivided though here the phases are retribution, anticipation, and diplomacy. Thus, retribution: "I'm going to kill you because you killed my brother." Anticipation: "I'm going to kill you because I killed your brother." And diplomacy: "I'm going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it." Meanwhile, the Earthman Arthur Dent, to whom all this can be of only academic interest, as his only brother was long ago nibbled to death by an okapi, is about to be plunged into a real intergalactic war. (hitch-hiker, Fit the Sixth.)
      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    29. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The interesting thing about stealth technology however, is that it is almost exclusively used for aggression rather than defense if you play your strategy according to tradition.
      So if, for example, China decided to attack Japan, and a wave of Chinese strike aircraft were on their way to bomb Okinawa, there would be no advantage for the defenders if the attacking aircraft were not able to detect the fighters sent to intercept them?
    30. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mha · · Score: 1

      So how does all of this expensive and incredible technology that only the US can (and wants to) afford help you in Afgnanistan and Iraq?

      Calm down please. I know tech. is impressive. I LOVED my time in the (German) army. The best pictures I keep in my head are from a group battle tank attack at night, really nice. Given the choice I'd prefer not to see such a display again, thinking about the 1700 DM (the price now in Euro is probably higher) spent on every single shot.

      Couldn't we build an impressive space ship instead of impressive weaponry that's only useful against RICH countries anyway, since the poor fight with other means and don't care about destroyed infrastructure nearly as much as some contry that actually got something to loose?

    31. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by JumboMessiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't be so quick to think that an active AN/APG-77 automatically opens up the F-22 to detection. The AN/APG-77 is a statically mounted phased array radar, with electronic beam stearing capability. This coupled with the fact that it has the ability to frequency hop about a 1000 times a second gives it a very low probability of intercept. Short pulses at varying frequencies and (probably) varying pulse duration, timing ,power, etc., keep it from being detected by the enemy's RWR.

      I have been told that F-15C pilots at Red Flag could not detect the F-22's scanning them at beyond visual range (BVR). Nor could the F-15C's APG-63 radar detect the F-22 at BVR. They kill numbers would confirm this, but I have no official links to back it up (other than message board postings).

      [Granted the F-15C and it's avionics don't represent the top of the line in modern technology anymore, so it's a grain of salt example. But I'll also point out that the F-15 has never been beaten in an actual air to air engagement to date.]

    32. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1
      No pictures of the F-22? Seems kind of odd since the Air Force F-22 demo team performed in front of a couple hundred thousand people in Columbus, OH last weekend at the "Gathering of Mustangs and Legends" air show. That included taxiing past the grandstand and lots of fly-bys (both low speed and high speed) along with a banked pass that had the weapons bay open. You can find coverage at both Air Show Buzz and at The Columbus Dispath (several pics of the F-22 as well as other GML coverage).

      The F-22 demo was very impressive since the demo team also showed off its thrust vectoring capability to do several things that even a Harrier can't do (better avionics means that the F-22 doesn't just rely on pilot skill to stay stable when vectoring). Expect to see quite a few pictures since the Sunday "Heritage Flight" had all three demo team jets (F-15, F-16 and F-22) flying in formation with a Mustang which matched the "Heritage Flight" patch for the first time ever.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    33. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mha · · Score: 2

      Wrong. The best defense is to make sure the other guy actually has something to loose.

      That means the best defense is to make sure your enemy is rich - because THEN he/they WILL fear airstrikes. The poorer they are the less they fear your attack, because it's only the life - a miserable one - which they've to loose. It's *mostly* the poor guys who're recruited as suicide bombers...

    34. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mha · · Score: 1

      > ...fear airstrikes...

      make that "fear war"

    35. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mangastudent · · Score: 1

      You have to go active to see targets, particularly well concealed targets and that makes you "visible" as well.

      Define "visible".

      Knowing that at one point in time there was a plane at a particular location in 3 space (or maybe just along a vector) is far different from being able to lock on to it, get a firing solution, and have your weapon actually hit it.

      Knowing that there's an essentially invisible plane or planes out there, somewhere, that you can't hit unless you can use your canon, is ... not going to do anything good for the morale of your side.

    36. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      But the thing is we aren't *really* threatened by Afghanistan. Putting more tech into saving soldiers lives there is a good thing, but it isn't really going to effect the overall safety of America the country. The only countries big and powerful enough to really do that are the ones we'll need an F-22 to be able to compete with.

    37. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by ewhenn · · Score: 1
    38. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by JumboMessiah · · Score: 1

      I am calm :) and no offense taken to your post. What I would guess (by your post) is that we have a lot in common. I hate war, but I love aerospace and technology. It's unfortunate that things like the SR-71 and F-22 satisfy my cravings for such.

      As for Afghanistan, I feel the US abandoned that war for the push in Iraq. Especially when Iraq had no WMD's and nothing to do with 9/11. Now both countries are in a mess, with Afghanistan left to NATO.

      To specifically answer your question, the F-22 gives us no advantage in Afghanistan and no advantage in Iraq. Such tech gives way to a lot of chest pounding, but really nothing else in terms of non conventional war.

      A better question would be to list the last conventional wars fought (Falklands/82) vs non conventional (Vietnam) and compare the outcomes.

      You'd think the world would of learned by now...

    39. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by pato101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      , but here is the deal... You have to go active to see targets
      Unless you have AWACS tracking the targets and emitting their positions to you.

      I've been told here in slashdot that the F-22 which get run out of ammo do go away from the battle field and act as AWACS for the rest of still fighting F-22s.

      So the F-22 is a very powerful weapon, specially when combined with AWACS.

    40. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      I saw that air demonstration. Really a beautiful day, and watching the F-22 fly... thing accelerates straight up in the air, then just starts turning completely around in place :) Truly an amazing aircraft.

    41. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Dude+McDude · · Score: 0

      Yeah, on their foreheads.

    42. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mha · · Score: 1

      Come on, you're joking? The US isn't threatened by Afghanistan? When was the last time you listened to Bush - but others too would probably tell you the old stories about 9/11 and how that came from that country and that was why it had to be invaded? Or what else are US soldiers doing there? Just helping out in a friendly neighborly way without any benefit for the US?

    43. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by hawk · · Score: 1

      No pictures of the F-22? Seems kind of odd since the Air Force F-22 demo team performed in front of a couple hundred thousand people in Columbus, OH last weekend at the "Gathering of Mustangs and Legends" air show /me nods sagely

      Yep, that's what they tell people (even the people at the show). However, none of those couple hundred thousand saw or heard anything due to the stealth technology. :)

      hawk
    44. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by BWJones · · Score: 1

      Dave,

      I've seen and photographed many an F-22 in flight. However, the no pictures rule for the F-22 when I was up there was because the plane was in the maintenance hangar with access hatches open and various sensitive gear visible. Those kinds of "looks" are not encouraged right now...

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    45. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by alshithead · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Wrong. The best defense is to make sure the other guy actually has something to loose."

      I'm trying, I really am. BUT, WTF!!! Do you mean "LOSE"? How can you post an otherwise reasonable reply and not know the difference between "lose" and "loose"? I don't mean to loose the grammar Nazi buried in me on you but I can't stand it! I guess I have a screw loose in that area. Even more excruciating, your post WAS otherwise insightful. I guess I have nothing to lose but karma. :)

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    46. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by The+Dobber · · Score: 2

      Isn't it the Japanese Constitution that restricts what their military is allowed to do?

      Honestly, for the amount of shit (rightfully so in some situations) that we've taken for having bases in the region, I'd opt for letting them beef up their offensive and defensive capabilities. Let them pay for the $600 hammers for awhile.

    47. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mha · · Score: 1

      I'm not a native speaker and after having lived in the US for 7 years I *still* make many HORRIBLE errors - that is why I have given up learning more than one other language (Russian) at all (and without plans to learn it WELL). At least I didn't mix up "their" and "there" for a couple of years, or at least no one pointed it out to me :-)

    48. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Smaller, faster and quieter can oftentimes triumph over larger and more complex as demonstrated in at least one Naval wargame where an entire US carrier battlegroup lost the game to a couple diesel electric subs built by the Germans."

      Really? Where's the evidence of this? I've found no credible source that backs this statement up.

    49. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by sapgau · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe striking first is the best defense. Just ask Israel.

    50. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Hence my post in response to him.

      Even then, I got someone telling me how wrong I was despite the fact that making possible enemies fear combat with you is one possible part of being unassailable (but by no means the only method that should be employed).

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    51. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``The interesting thing about stealth technology however, is that it is almost exclusively used for aggression rather than defense if you play your strategy according to tradition.''

      Maybe they plan to carry out preemptive strikes.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    52. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't it the Japanese Constitution that restricts what their military is allowed to do?
      Sure is -- but its terms were written by US military lawyers under MacArthur's directions. Which is not to say that it hasn't worked out remarkably well.
    53. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Enrique1218 · · Score: 0

      Sometimes a good defense is a good offense

      --
      You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    54. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The best defense is to make sure the other guy actually has something to loose.

      I'm going to cut you a little slack because you claim to be a non-native English speaker.

      As I said, there are many ways to be unassailable. In fact, it is generally achieved through a variety of simultaneous methods.

      Making any potential foes fear the thought of going to war with you is a possible *part* of that strategy, but if that's what you're relying on, you're going to find a whole lot of enemies who think they're bigger and badder than you are or who are willing to take the retaliation from you until they are able to tear you apart.

      Over-reliance on brute strength by an over-confident foe is why guerilla tactics work so well.

      Good strategy depends on a number of things all working together and the only way to attack someone successfully is if they leave you an opening to do so.

      Hence my statement that the best defense is in making yourself as unassailable as possible while waiting for your opponent to screw up so that they can be successfully attacked.

      Hate to tell you this, but it's been a successful strategy for a very long time. In fact, it's a paraphrase of part of the teachings of Sun Tzu and has been used to great effect by a large number of people - including myself.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    55. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by alshithead · · Score: 1

      You know...that's exactly why I put the smiley face at the end of my post. I briefly looked over your home page and saw you were multi-lingual but it wasn't readily apparent if you were a native English speaker or not. I bow to your ability to learn other languages! It's also why I wrote a couple of sentences using "loose" and "lose" correctly. I had a sneaking suspicion that I might be pinging someone who didn't necessarily deserve it but I wasn't sure. I just couldn't overcome the need to spew about "lose" and "loose" when I see so many native English speakers using it incorrectly. My step-son's generation seems to be around 90% illiterate. God help us all when they take control.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    56. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole stealth thing has been out of the bottle for a while now. So France, Russia, and even China are probably coming up with their own means to develop and utilize the technology in the future. Japan is making their own to try to keep some edge against China...

      As for not wanting to sell the F-22, that probably has a lot more to do with the powerplant and supercruise capability. And it's quite likely some aspects of the fly-by-wire and avionics are things that we'd rather keep to ourselves for the meantime as well.

      There could be a dumbed down F-22 made, but I'd guess that it would compete directly with the F-35 (JSF). So why bother?

    57. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I *love* to be corrected and take no offense - it is the only way to learn after all! I'll be eternally grateful to a colleague who taught me the correct "th" because at some point he couldn't stand it any more :-) NOT to say anything is what's bad.

    58. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 3, Informative

      The interesting thing about stealth technology however, is that it is almost exclusively used for aggression rather than defense if you play your strategy according to tradition.

      That "tradition" has nothing to do with stealth technology and everything to do with historical accident. The first two stealth aircraft were a light bomber and a heavy bomber. And both of them are produced by a country that hasn't had to defend its own territory since the nineteenth century. Anyway, the predominant military doctrines adopted by the Western world have been based more on attack than on defense ever since after WWI, because (a) defensive strategies proved useless and wasteful in WWI and (b) everyone in the West read von Clausewitz, and Clausewitz's idea of defense turns out to be regrouping and counterattack.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    59. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Runefox · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wouldn't call it an AWACS, since the radar only scans a cone-shaped, forward-looking area, and there's only one pair of eyes looking at it, at that. However, using [url=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/jtids.htm]JTIDS[/url] and other datalinks the F-22 has available to it, its sensors augment the sensors of the other aircraft capable of receiving the information. It's the next best thing to an AWACS, all the same, but no substitute by any comparison. Having that capability built-in is one of the major reasons the F-22 has a high probability of survival in an air battle, since situational awareness is, for all intents and purposes, the number one key to actually succeeding in air combat. If you've got the ability to go in close with an enemy aircraft, fly around and burn away your energy while tracking that guy and keeping an eye on any other guys in the area thanks to your wingmen and their sensors, you've got a major advantage to last-generation aircraft. The other advantage is, as has been stated, the F-22's radar system is classified as an LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) radar which rapidly fluctuates its radar pulses to avoid detection while having the advantage of still being able to actively scan for threats and targets. While it's definitely possible to intercept the radar, not much of this generation of radar technology can actually do that.

      The Russian Su-35/37 employs a similar technology, with the addition of having a rearward-facing radar as well as its standard forward-looking one. Whether or not that's a really big thing hasn't been seen yet, since even though exports for these are available, very few of them are being built (I'm not sure if either has been in active duty). The Flanker series of aircraft, however, have always played the role of an air dominance fighter, the Su-27 being very similar to the F-15 in capabilities. The Su-35/37 is closer to the F-22 in performance and exceeds it in payload; However, it has none of the stealth capabilities its Western counterpart has, and is designed primarily as a BVR-equipped dogfighter/interceptor. The MiG-35/29OVT, to touch on the Mikoyan-Gurevich offering that's way more likely to be exported and used in modern military forces, is more or less a multirole dogfighter with a lesser payload than the Sukhoi, and compares to the F-22 most directly in close-in combat, but carries an extremely low price tag. The biggest thing is, I guess, that the Russian technology is meant to be augmented by an A-50 Mainstay AWACS or ground radar, and I don't think either of those would be very good at detecting small groups of F-22's, save for perhaps the A-50's powerful radar system, which would suffer degraded performance versus conventional planes...

      All told, considering that the Japanese aircraft is also going stealth, one can draw the conclusion that the Chinese/Korean technology (heavily borrowed or outright stolen/licensed from Russia) that it would be directly competing with would have a harder time detecting it, aggressor or not. One very important trait of current-generation fighter aircraft happens to be stealth technologies, or at least any combination of minimization of emissions, radar-absorbing materials, LPI radar technology, and "stealthy" airframe designs (though all of those things together more or less defines stealth aircraft as a whole). There are radar technologies that can detect stealth aircraft rather easily, but they either require three ground-based installations, or use of the atmosphere to bounce radar waves down onto aircraft from above (exposing their reflective canopies). Since the Japanese would likely only have to worry about the Czechoslovakian-built triple-installation technique, their defense fighter would have tremendous survivability in any role, most especially in anti-shipping, one of the F-2's current major roles.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    60. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by rachit · · Score: 1

      Someone didnt read Sun Tzu... :) Sun Tzu never played Starcraft. What does he know? :)
    61. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by kisielk · · Score: 1

      Not to nit-pick, but the Japanese military is actually called the JSDF (Japan Self Defense Force), and the air division is the JASDF (Japan Air Self Defense Force).

    62. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem *I* have (so take all I say with an added "IMHO") with ANY of those strategies is that in the end they don't work. Well, of course they do and that's why they don't... what I mean is displayed (rather unscientifically) in a (60s? 70s?) movie where some kid breaks into the military super computer they had just turned over all control of their nukes to and starts a game, without knowing what kind of machine he's connected to. The end scene of that movie is that when they cannot turn that thing off they let it play tic-tac-toe and the computer finds out there is no winning strategy.

      That's what game strategy tells us too: there is no winning strategy, there's ALWAYS another one that beats whatever your playing - without necessarily being better, because it's a circle and not an eternal buildup of strategy.

      What I mean is that yes, you CAN continue building more and more and bigger and bigger arms and "new" strategies. In the end all you achieve is making the accidental extinction of humans as a species more likely, because the earth is somewhat limited as to how big a catastrophe is survivable. And all for what? The risk of war is too high, because it CAN'T be controlled once started. So war IS a feasible "solution" only as long as at least one of the parties involved has weapons that are too small to risk the earth itself.

      On the other hand, if current trends continue, more and more players are inevitably going to acquire the ability to mass-destruct ourselves, with more and more technologies getting smaller, cheaper and more readily available. You can't eternally prevent most everyone else from getting certain chemicals, germs or Uranium.

      But if you keep using strategies and thinking of an age when war was small-scale this WILL lead to catastrophe. I don't say it must, but you know... imagine 200 years from now, when even more incredible tech. is available then today. All it takes is ONE nut case, one depressed individual, rejected lover, whatever... oh my god.

    63. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by ijzer · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to some info about those naval games you are talking about?

    64. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The interesting thing about stealth technology however, is that it is almost exclusively used for aggression rather than defense if you play your strategy according to tradition."

      It HAS been used that way, but it is highly suitable for defense. Being hard for an attacking aircraft to locate is just as desirable as being hard for defending systems to locate.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    65. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh! Military buzzwords! Just as bad as IT ones.

      Lesseee...

      "Phased array" means "we can do better with more emitters/receptors and a bunch of DSPs". "Frequency agile" (which you refer to) is "Frequency hopping, but more often". "Frequency hopping" is a 60 years old idea. "Spread spectrum" (which you forgot) means "same power, but on several frequencies instead of just one". RWR is like "server", everybody has one, but that doesn't say anything what it is you have. BVR is your boss throwing ERP to make you "know" he's been reading the literature about the subject. "Statically mounted" means "it doesn't move", it's not a new idea, the new idea was to *make* it move!

      Anyway. The GP's (entirely correct) point is that with radar to detect you have to transmit, and since it's much easier to detect the ping than to make sense of it (for one thing, you got 1/d^2 the power to work with, whereas the other guy's got 1/d^4, for another you're just trying to find out if you've been pinged, the other guy wants to know where you are), that 20 years in development AN/APG-77 has about 2 years before everybody who can afford the R&D can detect it just as well as anything else.

      I f*cking hope the F22 can snuff out F15 like flies. There's 30 years in development time in between! Plus the 22 got the full thrust of Moore's law! Can you imagine riding into WW1 with a FW190, or a mustang? Or into WW2 in a Phantom with a full complement of Sidewinder and Sparrows? And an onboard radar?

      I've long argued that instead of paying the premium (read: 10 times) for state-of-the-art gizmos, the military should buy "just better than the enemy's" now, with a provision to upgrade everything 5 times in the lifetime of the product. AN/APG-70 is outdated? Upgrade! Air-battle C^nI system? Upgrade! Airframe unstealthy? Upgrade (keep everything else)! Dunno of that would fare with congress and Boeing, tho.

    66. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by proxy318 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I heard about that. Here's the documentary on it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116130/

      --
      Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
    67. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we learned in World War II that being lighter and quicker did not help. The US aircraft at the time was able to take a pounding but the Japan model could not; allowing, in part for the win. In which case, failure to learn from the past might help the US out in the future, if the relationship changes with Japan or they sell the aircraft to someone we might fight.

    68. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Wow. Way to totally misread "Unless you have AWACS" there, champ.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    69. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Runefox · · Score: 1
      Dude.

      I've been told here in slashdot that the F-22 which get run out of ammo do go away from the battle field and act as AWACS for the rest of still fighting F-22s.
      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    70. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, nobody really knows for sure what the F-22 can do. Next, the new Japanese one isn't even a final design yet... literally *nobody* knows what it will be able to do *if* it ever gets produced.

      Next, while all this matters in a 1v1 engagement, the simple fact is that what will matter is how much money each country is willing to spend on its aircraft... 10 F-22's and a high-powered AWACS in the back will take out 3 of the new japanese ones no matter how good they are (within modern technological limits). Same with the reverse. Of course, 3 F-22's (or the new japanese ones) will probably take out 10 chinese migs even with AWACS support.

      Not to mention I kinda hope Japan has learned its lesson a bit as far as wars of aggression go. Their last one didn't end well. Japan and US get along fairly well right now, and I don't see that changing, not with China a few miles offshore and Japan making all the high-tech crap Americans want.

    71. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Informative
      I've long argued that instead of paying the premium (read: 10 times) for state-of-the-art gizmos, the military should buy "just better than the enemy's" now, with a provision to upgrade everything 5 times in the lifetime of the product.

      Depends how much you value the lives of your pilots, and the prestige that comes from an aura of invincibility.

      Right now, the US air force has a reputation for being unbeatable. Nobody can compete with the US in the air. I don't think the Iraqi air force even bothered to leave the ground during the last war. What would be the point? It's suicide. That gives you a big bonus advantage - if your kit is that good, suddenly it doesn't need to be, because nobody's even going to dare try it on. Same thing happened back in the Falklands: the Argentines feared to engage Harriers in air combat, and that meant the British got away with only having about a dozen of them on site.

      If you give the enemy a chance, he'll go for it. He'll take risks for his country or his ideology or his faith or his friends; he'll accept the likelihood of death for the chance of bringing down a Yankee imperialist. Sure, you'll still win. Your planes are still better than his. But no longer so much better that nobody tries to take them on. You get casualties. You get pictures on the news of American planes as burned wreckage on the ground, you get pilots dead or captured, you get this much more often. Depending on your priorities, this may well be worth the extra money to avoid.

      After all, for the likes of America, or Britain, or indeed Japan, people are very expensive and need to be preserved. Recruiting is very hard right now, but building planes is comparatively easy - so build the best plane you can, to protect the few pilots you have. If you're China, with people in huge numbers willing to go to war for low pay, the equation might come out differently.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    72. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by enrevanche · · Score: 1

      They're not going to attack the US, they're afraid of being attacked by the US. As US administrations have no qualms about using any sort of lies and deceit in order to justify war or covert intervention, most countries, even some of our allies, are very concerned about US military capability. China is rapidly developing high technology and will probably catch up within 25 years. Japan knows that it cannot rely on the US unless it suits them. The only reason Japan canceled programs in the past is due to massive pressure by the US government.

    73. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Japan of today is not the Japan of the 1930s, and even if it were, it simply is no longer in any position to do much about it."

      I wouldn't be so quick to say that. Today's Japan is the Japan that continues to refuse to apologize for its crimes during the WWII and before (esp. during the occupation of Korea, China, and other S.E. Asian countries). Today's Japan is very much the Japan of the 1930s, culturally, and perhaps even politically. Heck, it even has the same (well, at least of the same lineage) emperor. Just because a wolf wears a sheepskin doesn't make him a sheep. He's still a wolf inside.

      If you would like to see an equivalent comparison, look at Germany, and see how its political culture has changed. Nobody in their right mind would think there would be another Nazi Germany, not with the word "nazi" being considered a greatest insult you can throw at a German. However, given the chance, Japan would become the same Japan it was more than half a century ago. There is not a single Japanese (O.K., maybe a conscientious few) who regard their parents' and grandparents' deeds during the first half of last century with shame. To them, the only shame was losing the war, not what they did during the war.

    74. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      On other fronts, the F-22 represents our leading edge technology (even though it's essentially 1990's tech) and is what gives us an advantage. It's not surprising the technology isn't up for export. The F-15 and F-16 both were in the same position when they were introduced, but eventually were considered for export after there advantage subsided a bit (or "lower" tech versions of them were available). As well, the F-22 is really expensive. The United States is one of the few countries (or groups of countries) that can pull off such an endeavor. This also naturally limits its export capability, there's simply few others that could afford to buy it.

      This might be the reason the Japanese are showing off their plans to build their own plane. If that doesn't work, if the Americans still won't sell them F22s, then... well, while they're over there in Europe, I hear there are Typhoons coming off the production line in substantial numbers now... maybe they should make some inquiries... Oh, what's that, Mr Bush, you've reconsidered? What a pleasant surprise.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    75. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stealth is a (buzzword warning!) "force multiplier" against late 20th century air forces. Stealth does *not* mean "invisible". "Radar cross section of a honey bee", means just that *at the right wavelength*. WW2 battle of Britain metric wavelength radars would have no trouble at all picking up an F22 or B2.

    76. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Matt_R · · Score: 1

      But it has got an awesome record against USAF F-15s in exercises, and you have to remember that the not a single F-15 has been lost to air-to-air combat yet (and it has been in a few wars).

    77. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe striking first is the best defense. Just ask Israel. By definition, striking first is not defense. This is especially relevent to a country whose constitution binds its armed forces to defensive actions only.

      So maybe you're right, but "the best defense is a good offense" is utterly and completly offtopic.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    78. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      The hard part is not killing the people we want to protect. If we were threatened by Afghanistan as a whole, the country would be a parking lot, and with the MOAB, we could do this without turning it into a glass parking lot.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    79. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Short pulses at varying frequencies and (probably) varying pulse duration, timing ,power, etc., keep it from being detected by the enemy's RWR."

      And it has to put one of those pulses at the correct frequency at every position in the area of sky it's interested in searching, to get even an indication of where some targets might be. Repeat many times to find out exactly where the target is and where it's going.

      Oh, did that expose you to ECM? Too bad for leaving the radar on long enough to actually do a scan ...

    80. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      What I find interesting is that the US occupation of Germany and Japan have been basically wildly successful. Both economies rebounded, yes with plenty of circumstantial help, but also the commitment of the US military from the top level policy makers to the people who moved their families there to live their lives out.

      Occupation is a dirty word, but the successes of Japan and Germany suggest that you really have to make a long term commitment to a country you attack if you want to rebuild them with good intentions.

      Japan is a feel good story for the US military and despite the domestic misgivings another poster alluded too, this is how the world would rather see countries involved in wars with the US turn out. In that respect, its hard to fault the US for having a role in turning a bad situation into a healthy, globally involved nation.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    81. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Recruiting is very hard right now, but building planes is comparatively easy - so build the best plane you can, to protect the few pilots you have. One F-22 costs ~$361 Million.
      181 of them costs $65.4 Billion.
      It costs somewhere less than $5 Million to train a pilot.

      You can offer million dollar signing bonuses for pilots, expand your training program up the whazoo and buy gobs of older, cheaper planes with $65.4 billion.

      F-15s cost ~$30M & F-16s cost ~$45M
      Even if you go 300% of those values, to accomodate spare parts, training ground crews, hanger space, flying costs, etc etc etc it is still a bargain and you can have a vastly expanded Air Force.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    82. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mha · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't take offense in this statement.
      I *DO* take offense when such stupid bully statement gets modded up. The worst part is not that it's arrogant - I'm arrogant myself often enough. But it's stupid - and I can accept arrogance only in conjunction with intelligence. So if your intention was to get me mad - and I'm sure that's what it was rather than the deep desire to make a lasting contribution to mankind in form of a well thought-out statement - you succeeded, with the help of someone with mod points (you alone could not have done it).

    83. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by hyfe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe striking first is the best defense. Just ask Israel.
      Maybe striking first is a really bad defence. Just ask Israel.
      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    84. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by kd5ujz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can bet that everything we know about military technology is outdated, They will only show us the unclassified stuff. The F-22 is cool, but what is the LATEST aircraft we (USA) have? The F-117a made it's first flight in 1977, but only a handful of people knew of it's existence until it was declassified in 1988.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    85. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by kd5ujz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am just stating the obvious. The US Shows quite a bit of self restraint given the weapons we have. If someone is attacking you, and you have a pellet gun, and a grenade, but choose to use the pellet gun for fear of injuring the innocent with the grenade, but at the cost of possibly not killing your enemy, what would call that?

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    86. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Anyway, the predominant military doctrines adopted by the Western world have been based more on attack than on defense ever since after WWI, because (a) defensive strategies proved useless and wasteful in WWI and (b) everyone in the West read von Clausewitz, and Clausewitz's idea of defense turns out to be regrouping and counterattack.

      You're half right. The deadlock and strategically short-sighted warfare that resulted in WWI has actually been blamed on the "cult of the offensive" which formed after eager and not-too-bright officers misread Clausewitz. Every state intended to fight on the offensive in a quick devastating escalation, but was not prepared for the result, which turned out to be defensive trench warfare. So, after WWI, a lot of the cult of offensive was dropped, although the possibility of mechanized blitz warfare (first theorized by a Brit actually) took its place, at least for the Germans.

    87. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is that suppose to mean? I have been living under a rock the past year. Seriously, no news.

    88. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      More or less? The draft was written by two U.S. Army officers and very few changes made. You can't get much "more" than that. :)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_constitution#Drafting_process

    89. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      Maintenance panels off is a different animal. Just when you said "no pictures" it was a little too broad. Lots of /.ers think they're seeing something forbidden with the photos of the Japanese stealth fighter mock-up. What I know about stealth technology (e.g., what I read in Ben Rich's "Skunk Works" plus working a few radar software projects back in the 1980s, etc.) indicates that materials, coatings, shape and burying things like engines are all involved. The F-117A demonstrated the possibilities but with a plane that is very difficult to maintain. There's probably a lot of hands on engineering in the F-22 to make it easier to maintain that the Japanese still have to learn.

      That is really an amazing airplane. The demo team performed quite a few "non-aerodynamic" manuevers that are simply impossible with a conventional airplane. The F-15 and F-16 demos were impressive but when the F-22 pilot hovered and did a "standing back flip" (think of it as a loop but in place), I was just awestruck.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    90. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by XdevXnull · · Score: 1

      > They're not allowed to spend more than some tiny percentage of GNP on defence

      I sure wish that was a provision we had in our constitution. Here, the cap is at something like 220%.

      --
      "I'm a Laver, not a Phyto[plankton]"
    91. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by SorryTomato · · Score: 1
      stealth technology however, is that it is almost exclusively used for aggression rather than defense if you play your strategy according to tradition.

      I would actually argue the other way around. Stealth is inherently a passive defensive technology. It's primary purpose is to protect the aircraft (or ship or tank or grunt in his camo). Now this defensive advantage can easily be used for offense (sneak in and bomb, setup an aerial ambush or make locking on by enemy missiles harder).

      Previously the primary protection used to be either superior mobility (hit and run before being hit back) or superior damage resistance (armoring, redundant systems etc). Stealth is just another element of protection - avoid being hit at all.

      And stealth isnt something revolutionarily new - low observability has always been a military factor in the form of camoflague, emission control, acoustic damping etc with partial radar transparency being the new hotness now.

    92. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by yppiz · · Score: 1

      That "tradition" has nothing to do with stealth technology and everything to do with historical accident. The first two stealth aircraft were a light bomber and a heavy bomber. And both of them are produced by a country that hasn't had to defend its own territory since the nineteenth century. While the US hasn't been invaded in some time, it has built significant defenses since the 19th century. For example, the US deployed the Nike missile system around many major US cities (not just coastal ones - Chicaco too) beginning in 1953. At Nike's peak, there were 240 launch sites in the US, and many remained in operation until 1974.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Ajax#Nike_Ajax

      Soldiers stationed at these sites received combat pay, and, at least for the coastal installations around San Francisco, the sites were probed by Soviet fighters and bombers.

      So I would say that, even post-WWII, the US has at times deployed significant resources to defend its territory.

      --Pat
    93. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by i41Overlord · · Score: 4, Informative

      One F-22 doesn't cost $360 million. That's a figure that's thrown around a lot, but that's including the cost of the entire program divided by the number of aircraft produced. Let's say that you had a program where you designed a new car. You spent $100 million in R&D. You plan on making 100,000 of the cars, and the R&D costs will be absorbed by the number of cars produced. If you make 100,000 cars, $1000 gets added to the cost of each car. If the car cost $10,000 to produce, it's now $11,000.

      Let's say production is halted and you only make 10,000 cars. Now that R&D cost only gets amortized across 1/10th of the number of vehicles. Instead of the vehicle costing $11,000, it's now $20,000.

      If this were being sold to consumers, the company would have to eat the cost because nobody would want to pay that much for a vehicle worth half the price. But for military projects, the military ends up footing the bill.

      In reality, each F-22 costs about $120 million. The R&D and tooling cost was already spent.

    94. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not allowed to spend more than some tiny percentage of GNP on defence, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures
      Hmm... Fifth largest military expenditure in the world. I'm not sure if I would call that "tiny".
    95. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Nexx · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's somewhere south of 2% of GNP.

    96. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by fbjon · · Score: 1

      for the amount of shit (rightfully so in some situations) that we've taken for having bases in the region, I'd opt for letting them beef up their offensive and defensive capabilities. I'm more worried about what N.Korea might have to say about that: "The Japanese are arming themselves for another invasion of a free country. The imperialists aggression will not be taken lightly by the just and righteous leaders of the blaha-blaha DPRK! Yada.."


      Of course, that's what they're saying about the US right now, so perhaps not much would change...

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    97. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Nexx · · Score: 1

      They're not allowed to spend more than some tiny percentage of GNP on defence, either.

      That cap has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with legislative policies. The expenditures, as a percentage of GNP, has been creeping up higher and higher.

    98. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You guys are missing a critical fact here. The US and Japan both operate AWACS, leaving the active scanning to those aircraft until firing position is achieved, and perhaps not even that when modern datalinks are factored into the equation. Nobody cares if they're blasting the skies with a radar signal that the entire theater can see, because they're doing it from so far beyond missile range that anyone that tries to pop them will be seen by the AWACS and intercepted by intervening escorts aircraft which are vectored in without using their own radars until the last moment. It's like the days of old, standing high up on a hill, out of range of catapults and archers, and directing the battle in relatively high safety.

      In modern air combat where AWACS are involved, by the time you're lit up by the enemy fighter's radar, it's too late, and you'd better be praying that your chaff, evasive action, and your ejection seat work.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    99. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      I agree completely, alas while you seem to understand this, the US government seems to willfully ignore it with regard to Iraq. Such a shame.

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    100. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by smilindog2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few points to your post and grandparent... We didn't unleash hell on Japan until well into the war, in fact not until Japan absolutely convinced our leadership and most Americans that they would fight to the last woman and child. Why nuke them? Why burn their cities? Well... it was a good start on killing them all. Apparently, they thought we didn't have the stomach for genocide. Wrong, wrong wrong... Actually, we did resist in similar bombing of Europe... we don't seem to enjoy mass killing, if at all avoidable. It seems that we misread the Japanese, and they misread us. I feel that Middle East terrorists have similarly misread us.

      I tend to believe that MacArthur had a lot to do with the recovery of Japan, just as I believe that Japan and Germany should get most of the credit themselves. For example, MacArthur forbid troops form eating any Japanese food, and had a black and white policy for the troops treatment of the Japanese: no punishment for any crime, except death. The idea was that eating Japanese food while the Japanese were starving would cause great resentment. Also, MacArthur knew that American troops would fail miserably at the delicate balance of Japanese justice, so there was only one punishment, and the Japanese decided to avoid it. I believe most of the recovery of Japan and Germany had to do with their own cultures, the same cultures that nearly dominated the world.

      In comparison, Iraq is basically screwed. Instead of MacArthur, we've got Bush running things (not good - duh). As for the people, it's no coincidence that the most famous childhood story from Iraq known to most Americans is "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves". It was so stupid to invade... with 20-20 hindsight.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    101. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by 10Neon · · Score: 1

      So you're saying it's really South Korea we have to watch out for?

      --
      The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    102. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by guabah · · Score: 1

      If scoring a kill with the F-22 is like clubbing baby seals, then someone needs to make a new Ready to Fall video with the Raptor shooting other planes then.

    103. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is actually quite right.

      US is quite capable of simply annihilating country like Afghanistan and there would be NOTHING anyone could do about it.

      It is purely matter of restrain and civility and knowledge that deeds like that would not be in the best interest of US.

      On the other hand, perhaps it doesn't matter - for spending billions of dollars on rebuilding places like Iraq and Afghanistan seems to make no difference ... people simply don't give a shit and have no problem equating Bush to Hitler , claiming that US engages in a premeditated genocide etc etc ...

      This is nothing new really ... I mean one just needs to look the way Europeans treated Reagan - it is s a fucking deja-vu.

    104. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Beatlebum · · Score: 1

      Wrong, the F-22 does not have to go "active" (visible) to see targets. It can passively detect reflected energy from other active radars.

    105. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's pretty obvious why they don't have a military. They about usurped our asses out of the Pacific over WWII. Now that they've been told no big military for you they know something the rest of us don't. Senseless waste of cash on military posturing. It's why Japan is one of the top economies right now.

    106. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by badasscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in the meantime, Japan has become one of the US's most important allies and economic partners, and with the rise of China and the re-rise of Russia, I think it's important to consider that Japan may want to modify the nature of their military, and that maybe it's really in our best interests to allow them to do this.

      "In our best interests" to "allow" them to do this? Who the hell do you think we are?

      Japan is perfectly able to make their own decisions. Not only that, but they act in their own best interests, not ours. They do not exist solely as "our ally", they are a sovereign nation with their own issues to deal with.

      I think it's both strange and a little sad to see Americans - and it's not just you - talking about Japan modifying their military as if it's both our decision to make, and a decision to be taken lightly. You don't understand Japan's domestic or international issues. You don't understand their constitution or their history. You've really got no place to be commenting on what they should or shouldn't do in our best interests. Japan will and should continue to act in its own best interests.

      The Japanese public has shown little interest in modifying their military. They just voted out en masse the party that was in favor of doing so, and forced their nationalistic prime minister to resign in part because he was more concerned with things like modifying the military's constitutional basis than he was in fixing things like pensions and wage disparities. Why would they want to go down the same road that led them into WWII, go down the same road that's led the US into Vietnam and Iraq, down the same road that's led to the division of Korea? Why would they want to do that given the economic prosperity and success that they've built with both all the money they've saved and all the goodwill they've built up over the past 60 years by not employing an offensive military?

      And how is this not intuitive to people outside of Japan?

      Japan has had thousands of years of history dominated by war; they're experts in it. They look at us and see us as absolute beginners. They've now had 60 years of history dominated by peace and they've become one of the richest, best-educated and most technologically advanced countries in the world, with among the longest lifespans. They see the correlation between the two, why don't you?

    107. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      You can still see targets using someone else's radar. :)

    108. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The F-22's radar is impressive, but here is the deal... You have to go active to see targets, particularly well concealed targets and that makes you "visible" as well. If the new JDAF fighter can remain "unseen" until it gets up close and personal and is a lighter, smaller and more nimble aircraft, the F-22 may have a problem.

      Smaller, faster and quieter can oftentimes triumph over larger and more complex as demonstrated in at least one Naval wargame where an entire US carrier battlegroup lost the game to a couple diesel electric subs built by the Germans.


      All the planes don't have to have their radars turned on. Here is how I understand it works. Let's say have a group of three planes. The first two fly ahead of the third, quietly. The third, that stays behind, turns his radar on. Of course, he is going to stand out like a whore in church, but who cares because he is out of range. Now the first two planes can see the radar returns from the third plane's radar, as well as communicate between the three planes to make sure everyone one is on the same page and sharing all data.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    109. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      Correct, the Iraqi AF did not leave the ground at all during the second war, and a lot of em flew to Iran of all places during the first one rather than face the USAF.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    110. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by larkost · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you look at the history of USAF Aircraft you would know that this is a silly thing. The only aircraft that was ever revealed out of the mists of secrecy with more than a handful of flying aircraft was the F-117, and that was only ever a one-trick pony where every single one was different from the last (read: it was never in "production"). In order to bring a fighter to main-line production level requires such a large industry that you might as well try to hide building an aircraft carrier.

      And it does take an inordinate amount of time and development effort to come out with a fighter. The current round that we are working on is the JSF project (an attempt to create common components for an airframe to be shared amongst the US armed forces). This project will produce fighters that will be less capable than the F-22 as a pure fighter, but cheaper and more tailored to their respective missions.

      There is little point to produce a better-than-the-F-22 fighter: no one can currently come close to beating it, and even more than that: no one is anywhere near being able to produce enough fighters to compete in a resource war with the US. Remember in WW2 just about everything that the US produced was inferior to both what the Germans and Japanese produced. The only reason we were a major factor in winning those wars is because we produced more of everything. We overwhelmed them with numbers. And right now we are massively overwhelming in the air and what we have is technically superior to anything any one else can field, plus we are right up there with training. we are not invincible, but have the power to push over anyone when it comes to a war.

    111. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      Funny, I was allowed to photograph them up close about two years ago. I would have been allowed to sit in the cockpit had they been flying that day and had the ladders out.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    112. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised they don't do more with their Military.
      __________

      Getting nuked a couple of times can do that to you.

    113. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      More famously, we worked with Canada to create NORAD, building the DEW (Distant Early Warning) line in the Canadian Arctic to detect incoming Soviet bombers. The Mid-Canada and Pinetree lines ran south of the DEW line. Interceptors were also housed in the United States, along with the ground-based air defenses you mentioned. Eventually the main threat moved from bombers to missiles, and it became illegal by treaty to deploy missile defenses. (By that point our main defense had become the mutual-assured-destruction concept anyway.)

      But, aside from that, we devoted most of our efforts into how to fight World War III with the Soviets, in Europe.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    114. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by RazorDaze · · Score: 1

      First off: Iraq is geographically nothing like Japan. Japan is an island, and therefore easier to contain and control, compared to the open land borders on all sides of Iraq that insurgents can stream across willy-nilly, and it's smaller.

      2nd: When we took over Japan, the first thing we round up everyone who was in charge of business and government during the war, and then put them back in charge to get / keep the infrastructure up and running. Going back to the island thing again; they are culturally homogeneous. Whereas we have Sunnis and Shiites and what have you trying to kill each other in Iraq in the vacuum of infrastructure collapse, and all the people that were running things before are probably either dead, or terribly unpopular.

      3rd: All that being said, just because Japan calls itself a democracy, and even though we wrote their constitution, that doesn't mean that they're like us. Our impact on their culture and government has been mostly superficial, defined by nepotism, one-party politics, conformity, and scarred by repeated scandals. This is the result after how many decades of occupation?

      There's just simply no comparison, and any conclusions that can be drawn is that things will be harder in Iraq.

    115. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid you're missing my point.

      State of the art technology is very cool, except for one thing: it's not state of the art anymore the second it goes into production.

      I am more than aware than people lives are very expensive, both from a moral point of view, and a monetary point of vies (i.e. training). But that brings the point home!

      As far as I know - feel free to correct me-, the F22's advantage over the F15 comes from: better radar, "air battle" avionics suite, better airframe (stealth and maneuverability - although I'm not aware of dogfight tests between the two) and better paint (i.e. radar absorbent material). Oh, yeah, better engines (supercruise and maneuverability, extended range/reduced weight due to better efficiency).

      The problem is that nobody wondered how to make the most of the -15 (yeah, it did get a radar upgrade), the all-new, all-different -22 just packed everything in. What happens if you put out -15s with an AN/APG-77 and RAM paint against -22s? Nobody knows. -22s with AN/APG-70 against -15s? -15 against -22 airframes with -15 everything else? And so on... Any of those technologies could have been designed, tested and deployed 10 or 15 years ago, if the specific lackings of the 15 had been known and prioritized; as far as I'm aware, the delay with the -22 come from the fly-by-wire soft (i.e. the airframe), and the advanced "battle" avionics suite - again feel free to correct me -.

      Thankfully no air battle against a competent air power happened in that interval. But if it had, a few pilot lives would have been saved had have had better engines, or a better radar, or whatever. And the same thing will happen with the -22 *again*. *Right now* it is the best thing. But what happens 15-20 years from now when the Chinese or the Russians, or whoever the enemy is then, when they have radars that can detect a -22, more maneuverable fighters, and better stealth while Boeing, Hughes and so on are busy on the net American best fighter (or UAV) for 30 years from now?

    116. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by ricegf · · Score: 1

      as far as I'm aware, the delay with the -22 come from the fly-by-wire soft (i.e. the airframe), and the advanced "battle" avionics suite - again feel free to correct me -.

      OK. I understand that the primary delay with the Raptor came from congress cutting the budget every year (almost), causing much of the program schedule to be spent reworking the program schedule. The repeated schedule extensions allowed many of the electronic components to go out of production, forcing "mid-life" redesigns for initial production. The delays domino like that, absorbing the "cost savings" claimed by congresscritters for "budget cuts".

      Fly-by-wire software wasn't an issue (F-16 worked out those issues). Avionics software did cause a few problems (most famously the computer crash when crossing the dateline en route to Japan), but those delays were small compared to the impact of the constant budget cuts.

      Previous generation aircraft are updated often - for example, F-16 has been through many versions, the latest ("Block 60") including features such as "glass cockpit" color electronics and dramatically extended range. But no revision will ever make an F-16 or F-15 stealthy, or super-cruise enabled, or capable of vertical takeoff and landing, or carrier capable. For that you need a complete redesign - thus the F-22 and F-35.

      The allied military spends heavily on war games and studies to determine the effect of these new capabilities on the modern battlefield. They are very stingy with their budgets - if they are willing to do "battle" in congress to fund new aircraft, it's because the games and studies show dramatic improvements for them.

      This I surmise from reading a lot of industry trade rags and such. And likewise, feel free to correct me if you feel I've misunderstood the situation in any respect.

    117. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Senseless waste of cash on military posturing. It's why Japan is one of the top economies right now.

      That's one reason. The other reason is because they can depend on someone else spending lots of cash on "military posturing" to defend them.

      There are a lot of peacenik kooks out there that like to try to adopt some holier-than-thou attitude that presumes that any military "posturing" is "senseless." The reality is that the world has always been--and continues to be--a very dangerous place. Feel free to hate Bush all you want. Feel free to think that Iraq was a bad idea. But be under no illusion: The world is every bit as dangerous today as it was in the 1930's--probably more so. Yes, it sucks that we have to spend so much money on our military and so many of our "allies" get relatively free rides. But the cold hard truth is that the free world does need to be defended and often fought for. I wouldn't mind some help doing so, but I'd rather we make the investment ourselves than that no-one make the investment.

    118. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by ricegf · · Score: 1

      This [JSF] project will produce fighters that will be less capable than the F-22 as a pure fighter, but cheaper and more tailored to their respective missions.

      Your kinda-sorta imply that the JSF (actually F-35 now) is a subset of F-22 capability, but that's only true of the "A" (Air Force) variant. The "B" (Marine / Royal Marine) variant can take off and land vertically; the "C" (Navy) variant can operate from aircraft carriers. The F-22 has no "B" or "C" capability at all.

      Just to be very clear. ;-)

      And it does take an inordinate amount of time and development effort to come out with a fighter.

      Exactly. If Japan has a full-scale model, they're only 15 years away from production. "Will ATD-X achieve air superiority over the F-22, which Washington refuses to sell to Tokyo?" Probably not for a few decades - but by then, US aircraft won't require pilots...

    119. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful


      You argument makes no sense. That $360 million per copy is money that didn't go to other weapons systems and its money that got tacked on to the national debt or taken out of tax payers pockets. THAT IS WHAT AN F-22 COST US, and you can't spin it any other way. Just because its sunk cost doesn't change the fact is money tacked on to the national debt, for which we the U.S. had to borrow money and is paying interest. The F-22 R&D program went on far longer than it was supposed to, suffered huge overruns, pretty much the standard procedure for every big Lockheed contract.

      At the moment that kind of money would have been better spent on patrol vehicles for Iraq designed to withstand IED's. It could better go to repairing all the M-1's and Bradley's that were completely worn out in Iraq. If we actually needed an armored fighting force for an emergency right now, the U.S. doesn't really have one. The Army and Marines are completely broken with most of their working equipment tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the rest in depots in the U.S. broken down and and worn out.

      The problem with the Air Force is that it has completely outstripped every adversary to the point they are mostly just squandering money competing with themselves. Russia and China are the only two potential adversaries that could even remotely challenge the U.S. in the air. The odds of China and the U.S. going to war now are really slim. China is every Republican businessman's wet dream, a gigantic pool of dirt cheap labor to profit from. China is bleeding the U.S. white in trade deficit the old fashioned capitalist way. They are so mutually dependent economically a war is the last thing on their minds. Russia is getting rich off its oil and gas reserves. It has no reason to throw all that away in a foolish war. It can control Europe just by threatening to turn off the gas pipelines in the middle of winter.

      So who exactly is the F-22 or B-2 needed to fight? They are ridiculously expensive cold war relics, which are almost completely worthless in a world in which all of America's enemies are using unconventional warfare, like hijacked planes, suicide bombers and IED's. No one is foolish enough to go one on one with the U.S. in a conventional war, everyone has figured out its really cheap and easy to tie the U.S. up in knots with unconventional methods.

      They are also to expensive and to big a trophy target to risk them by sending them .. some place....dangerous....like a war. One lucky hit, or a mechanical problem over enemy territory and that F-22 and all that top secret technology is in an enemies hands.

      The A-10 is probably the most useful airplane the U.S. has in the real wars the U.S. is fighting now, its ancient and dirt cheap but it does the job that needs done in the real wars American is fighting now.

      That Red Flag exercise was really telling, it was mostly F-22's beating F-15's. F-15's have had complete air superiority in every war they've been in. At this point the Air Force is just beating itself at enormous expense to the American tax payer. No on else is really even trying any more. Most fighters being built by other countries are for potential wars against countries which aren't the United States and to maintain some pretense that they could defend their air space against the United States if they had to when they probably couldn't, even against F-15's, F-18's and F-117's.

      --
      @de_machina
    120. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "and all the people that were running things before are probably either dead, or terribly unpopular"

      They were ALL painted with the "loyal Bathist" brush and sacked on the third day of the invasion and as you say that created a power vacum that sucked in the various factions and random opportunists from all over the place. Up until that point I was willing to give some credit to the US for attempting to rid the ME of a lose cannon that they (along with the UK and France) had created. The British on the other hand seem to have made good on the promise they made to the Shia in the south before the first invasion but had dropped when the UNSC stopped short of removing Sadam with force (with terrible repurcusion for the Shia in the 90's). The US would have had a much worse situation if it wasn't for this tacit agreement between the UK and the Shia to keep both the Sunni's and the US out of the south.

      The British are packing up and leaving the Shia largely intact and in charge of themselves, 80% of Iraqi's and 70% of American's want a peacefull, orderly withdrawal and I would imagine the Shia in the south see themselves becoming as autonomous as the Kurds in the north. Once the last of the knucklehead hawks are gone from the whitehouse the US will calm down enough to be politically able to take up Iran's repeated offers of dialogue and make peace with the ordinary Sunni's who (unsurprisingly) feel betrayed by their former sponsers - wether they do or don't is a different question.

      A similar "favoured tribe" senario is what lead to the Rawanda genocide after colonial rule, Iraq's population are better educated but given the right circumastances...

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    121. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, lots of Germans run around with the "Don't mention the war" attitude. As to the Emperor, he's a figurehead. The Americans castrated the Emperor (whose powers even in the 1930s and 1940s is still debatable). Japanese society is considerably different, and even if it weren't, who precisely is it going to invade now?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    122. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      Given the fact that North Korea has fired missiles over the tip Japan, and their nuclear weapons program it is no wonder that Japan wants a first strike weapon. Japan is very concerned about North Korea and would like to have the ability to take out N. Korea missile platforms. A stealth fighter-bomber will give them a serious option against North Korea.

    123. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      There's nothing sadder than watching comic book-educated people lecturing on these sorts of things. The WEst has had just as much experience with war as Japan (what a severe ignorance of European history to say otherwise). And as it is ultimately the Americans that imposed that constitution on Japan, it's ultimately the Americans who will give the ye or nay. The vibes coming out of Washington for several years have been they'll let the Japanese decide, but don't for a moment think that if such an amendment were in the works, the Japanese ambassador, if not even higher level individuals in the Japanese government, would be in direct communication with the President and Congress.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    124. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by kir · · Score: 1

      You're an ignoramus.

      "It's pretty obvious why they don't have a military."

      They don't have a military. Really?

      http://www.mod.go.jp/asdf/
      http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/
      http://www.mod.go.jp/gsdf/

      "Now that they've been told no big military for you they know something the rest of us don't. Senseless waste of cash on military posturing. It's why Japan is one of the top economies right now."

      1) No one has 'told' them they cannot have a military for a long time (unless you count themselves).
      2) If Japan's economy is one of the tops, then by your logic, the economies in the U.S. and China should be in the shitter.
      3) You know nothing of Japan. Anime doesn't count. Bakayaro. Shinde onegaishimasu.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    125. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by arktemplar · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the U.S.A needed to disarm Japan however, the manner in which they did it is what you should object to rather than the ends acheived. To nuke some one to get them to submit wasnt a "necessary thing to do". Atleast thats what I think.

      --
      blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
    126. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Good point, and the Japanese are real good at pushing a tech base.
      Just from TFA, they are comparing it to the Zero fighter from WW2. That was the Pacific Theater 'Air Superiority Fighter' for the first couple of years back then. Don't put it past Mitsubishi to pull this off like they did with the original Zero.

      "... You have to go active to see targets, particularly well concealed targets and that makes you "visible" as well. If the new JDAF fighter can remain "unseen" until it gets up close and personal and is a lighter, smaller and more nimble aircraft, the F-22 may have a problem."

      Yeah, guided in by something like our own AWAC's or Aegis (sp?) class ships, that could be very effective, and by now via joint exercises I imagine they have this down pat.

      I don't really see us getting into any armed conflict with Japan in the foreseeable future, but we do have a habit of trying to keep our hole card hidden.

      No real surprise on the war games though...diesel-electric subs of modern design are only 'noisy' on the surface (or snorkel depth) when recharging the batteries with the diesel engines. Diesels are loud by nature, that's hard to work around, but our atomic powered subs still emit some noise where the diesel-electric boats have the potential to be even more quiet when submerged.
      I don't know what happened, but it would seem to me that the carrier battlegroup commander did not foresee this and thus did not plan/allow for this threat.
      "The backbone of surprise is fusing speed with secrecy." Karl von Clausewitz and some quote about surprise only being in the mind of the commander that failed to plan for whatever happened. (horribly mangled paraphrase, but the basic concept is there- a quick, inept google search did not provide a remedy)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    127. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by ralewi1 · · Score: 1

      Agree that the U.S. made a mistake in rushing into Iraq, but it did not abandon Afghanistan, it just isn't getting much press. Even with ISAF (NATO and other European partners) taking over most of the country, having recently taken over the volatile south, the U.S. still maintains a large contingent in the eastern provinces.
      I'll add that the F-22 will likely never fly over Afghanistan - the battles that happen on a daily basis require Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (mostly Predator) and CAS - Close Air Support (mainly A-10 and AC-130). If Raptor ever flies there or Iraq, it will be to drop a JDAM in a CAS role.

    128. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Finally, IMHO, it wouldn't be able to beat the F-22 is most engagements."

      The Japanese aren't trying to beat an F-22 They are just looking for a fighter that will beat the current and future Chinese, Russian and North Koreans models which are substantially less than an F-22. Chances are that could be done with a jet much less sophisticated and much cheaper than the F-22. A key problem with the F-22 is it was so long in development its not exactly state of the art in some areas. Japan could well reverse engineer a lot of the advances in the F-22 for a lot less money than it took the U.S. to do them the first time over the last 20 going on 30 years. The basic shape is out there for everyone to see and stealth techniques aren't exactly secret anymore. I imagine people are also figuring out where the engines get their power for supercruise. The radar might be hard to match but who knows, the U.S. doesn't exactly have a monopoly on engineering and electronics talent any more. Thrust vectoring is also not something the U.S. has a monopoly on.

      All the Japanese have to do is develop jets better than the ones they have, and the ones their potential adversaries have, or yank America's chain hard enough they will cave and let them have F-22's or F-35's. The one and only way to offset the staggering R&D costs of the F-22 is to start exporting them. I can't really see any country outside the U.S. being foolish enough to spend $120-$360 million a copy for them though when they could build a good enough jet for half or a third the price which seems to be what they are exploring.

      --
      @de_machina
    129. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there was one actual fact in that post. And it actually got modded to 2, unbelievable. Yeah, the US taunted japan into war so they could have the industrial resources of indonesia. Whatever, Idiot Was that before or after we occupied Venus in order to goad the people of jupiter into a war so we could have access to the vast reserves of "industrial resources" on pluto.

    130. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Army & Marines completely broken? Sorry, you're being way too pessimistic.

    131. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the cold hard truth is that the free world does need to be defended and often fought for.
      Yet, for some strange reason it looks like those free countries are being gradually less free. Like cameras on every crossing, federal agencies can spy on you whenever they want. Of course everything is done to fight with terrorism and to maintain freedom. It is one big propaganda now. I've seen one program on discovery about the newest weapons USA have. And one thing struck me. USA doesn't have enemies anymore. They fight only terrorists. Every new weapon (like sniper rifle shooting cal 15 rounds over 1.5km) is made to fight with terrorists. Terrorists want for other countries to be less free and to be scared. It looks like they have already won.
      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    132. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...Same thing happened back in the Falklands: the Argentines feared to engage Harriers in air combat..."

      Not that I saw, as a Brit participant in the C&C side of the war. The Argies were professional. They had limited fuel loads, and orders to engage enemy shipping, NOT aircraft. Since we had poor (read 'no' in practice!) Early Warning radar, their tactics were appropriately to avoid contact with the CAPs, engage our ships, and get out fast so they could do the same tomorrow.

      And they did that very competently. If their logistics and weapons maintenance skills had matched their pilot's skills, we could have been looking at a different result. As it was, quite often their ordnance failed to explode.

    133. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "Every new weapon (like sniper rifle shooting cal 15 rounds over 1.5km) is made to fight with terrorists."

      Yeah, that's why we have FA-22 Stealth Raptors and two-billion dollar Sea Wolf submarines and thousands of M1A1 Abrams tanks. Why we're developing new automated field artillery pieces and box launch systems. And so on. All to fight "terrorists".

      Funny how with all of that advanced hardware our getting people keep getting killed with IEDs. But hey, if Bin Laden ever takes to sea and attacks the US via submarine, we'll at least have a fighting chance...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    134. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "First off: Iraq is geographically nothing like Japan."

      Yeah, Japan didn't have a boatload of oil or other natural resources for our US-based corporations to lust after...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    135. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      "In our best interests" to "allow" them to do this? Who the hell do you think we are? A country that defeated Japan in WWII forced them to demilitarize afterwards and has had troops there ever since? For better or worse the US does have a say in this stuff.

      And I agree with the GP BTW that the US should encourage Japan to normalize their constitution as an ally to the US and a counterweight to China.

      I think it's both strange and a little sad to see Americans - and it's not just you - talking about Japan modifying their military as if it's both our decision to make, and a decision to be taken lightly. You don't understand Japan's domestic or international issues. You don't understand their constitution or their history. You've really got no place to be commenting on what they should or shouldn't do in our best interests. Japan will and should continue to act in its own best interests. Yes of course, but the US can support one side of the debate in Japan, the one that wants to take out the more pacifist bits of their constitution. The US admin could also support them by selling them F-22s, handing over responsibility for defending Japan to the Japanese and partnering with them on missile defense - i.e. essentially by making the relationship between the US and Japan more one between equals rather than occupier/occupied as it has been since then end of WWII.

      In fact Japan is a natural US partner for that since they are in range of North Korean missiles and a plausible target for North Korea to strike in a war. They also have the technical and economic base to be useful and they are unlikely to gain any technology that they don't already have, or use it in a way that is counter to US interests.

      The Japanese public has shown little interest in modifying their military. They just voted out en masse the party that was in favor of doing so, and forced their nationalistic prime minister to resign in part because he was more concerned with things like modifying the military's constitutional basis than he was in fixing things like pensions and wage disparities. Why would they want to go down the same road that led them into WWII, go down the same road that's led the US into Vietnam and Iraq, down the same road that's led to the division of Korea? Why would they want to do that given the economic prosperity and success that they've built with both all the money they've saved and all the goodwill they've built up over the past 60 years by not employing an offensive military?

      And how is this not intuitive to people outside of Japan?

      Japan has had thousands of years of history dominated by war; they're experts in it. They look at us and see us as absolute beginners. They've now had 60 years of history dominated by peace and they've become one of the richest, best-educated and most technologically advanced countries in the world, with among the longest lifespans. They see the correlation between the two, why don't you? All that seems like a good thing to me - the fact that a majority of Japanese public is pacifist makes if hard for a future Japanese government to try some sort of 1930's style adventurism and thus it makes them easier to trust as a long term ally. It seems unlikely that the Japanese democratic system will be unstable too - even in the 90's deflation it seemed to be remarkably stable.

      In fact Japan is almost a best case ally for the US.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    136. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-read the details on the wargames exercise you mentioned. You'll find that the carrier group was forced to operate with severely reduced ASW activity, and had its course set to run directly over the subs, which knew that this would happen and thus sat perfectly silent and waited.

      Essentially, it was an exercise in 'what would happen if all of our defenses are down and we run into a perfectly placed ambush under condition of extreme asymmetry of tactical information in the enemy's favor'?

      Wargames are not designed to be fair. They're not even necessarily designed to present currently plausible situations. They're a tool for the military to explore possibilities, as well as provide something of a 'reality check' if used to test new tactics and strategies. Truly accurate representations of tactical capabilities are rare, as all participants try to derive maximum benefit without disseminating too much information about themselves.

      Additionally, getting back to your particular example, Koboyashi Maru-esque exercises serve as a reminder to congress that our military is not invincible, and perhaps requires additional funding in order to deal with such situations should they appear in a real conflict.

    137. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by shmlco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It was so stupid to invade... with 20-20 hindsight."

      Who the hell needed hindsight? One had only to look at how well the Soviets had faired in the region to predict with high degree of accuracy what would happen if we stuck our noses in. (And not just Russia. Historically speaking, the same thing had happened to pretty much any other invader.)

        But no, Bushy-boy had a bee in his bonnet for Saddam and was certain that once we demonstrated that might of the US that everyone would drop their weapons and tremble in fear. "Shock and awe", indeed.

      And true to form, the military got their one set piece battle during the invasion. And won. And then things degenerated into the kind of guerilla fighting that screwed the Soviets and that we demonstrated we could handle so well in Vietnam.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    138. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by tashammer · · Score: 1

      yes and fight back without thought, good sense and ignoring the Geneva Conventions. Lets face the US has always been a self-serving nation and doesn't give a damn about the sovereignty of other nations if it gets in the way of the shop-keepers and moneygrubbers. But it must be a right sod to invent a plane that is too expensive and too secret to sell - bet that some folks crying into their whiskeys over that boo boo. As for the return of the zero. Zero = nothing, nil, zilch, yes? So nothing came back? So we have zero to worry about, yes?

    139. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Actually, the "numbers" part of your argument doesn't wash. Our planes and tanks are so technically superior that to a large degree it really doesn't matter how many planes or other tanks you send against them. They're just targets.

      Now, let's say that Japan (for example) develops a working onboard LASER that can defend against incoming missiles and attack enemy planes off-bore at long distances. Now the technological tables are reversed, and it doesn't really matter HOW many planes we can build. They're just targets to the dozen or so Jap planes. Nor can we overwhelm them with numbers, because WE don't build them that way anymore. We build fragile, sophisticated, machines that are so EXPENSIVE to make that we HAVE to rely on our technology.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    140. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I live in Japan; and let me just say, I do not want Japan re-arming into a wannabe military superpower so they can become the US's henchman in its future ill-conceived wars around the globe. I'd much rather Japan played a good, peaceful neighbour to China and Russia rather than an antagonistic bully like their "ally" across the ocean. It's much better for everyone that way.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    141. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is a minor danger to individual Americans, but it isn't an invasion, they aren't going to take over NYC, or anything like that. They've managed one successful strike that did about as much damage as a single bomber run using conventional weapons from a real country would have done.

      That's an act of war that demands retribution, but it isn't a legitimate *threat* to our way of life except for how its political impact on our country.

    142. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Considering actual defense is next to useless except as a delaying tactic against a good opponent in Starcraft, obviously quite a lot.

    143. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by towermac · · Score: 1

      "80% of Iraqi's and 70% of American's want a peacefull, orderly withdrawal"

      Not sure about Iraqis, but I'm pretty sure that the % of Americans who want a peaceful, orderly withdrawal as soon as possible approaches 99%.

    144. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Dan100 · · Score: 1

      The F-22's radar is a "low probability of intercept" set - that is, it is very hard to detect, and even harder to get a meaningful range and bearing on. However the F-22 doesn't actually use it's radar that much - at the very least, F-22s operate in pairs or fours. Only one will operate it's radar (and even then only in brief bursts), and will then distribute the information to the other F-22s in the flight via a datalink. F-22s also use an Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) device, which can pick up large Russian fighters at about 100 km, and is entirely passive. Finally, they'll normally operate with an AWACs aircraft behind them, and will be fed situation information from it, so the F-22s don't need to turn their radars on at all.

    145. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      what would call that?

      Supporting the pellet gun industry?

    146. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Descalzo · · Score: 1

      This is the result after how many decades of occupation?
      Less than one decade of occupation. The occupation officially ended in April of 1952.

      The occupation of Germany ended in 1955 (at least for West Germany).

      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    147. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Grave · · Score: 1

      Yes of course. We should've invaded with ground forces and allowed the Soviets to do the same. North Japan would've been another Communist regime, and South Japan would be a prosperous democratic country. A few hundred thousand more people (on all sides) would've lost their lives, but at least we'd have that whole split country thing again! Yeah, screw nukes!

      Seriously, anyone who believes Japan would've surrendered in the face of invasion doesn't have an understanding of their mindset at the time. They figured we didn't have the stomach for the loss of life (on both sides) that an invasion would bring. The only reason they accepted a surrender was precisely because we demonstrated we didn't have to invade to kill them all. With little to no loss of life on our account, we could exterminate their population (of course, they didn't know we were pretty much out of nuclear material for more bombs at that point).

      Just because it was "nukes" doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to do. A lot more people died in the firebombing of that country, yet Japan remained defiant because it did not have the shock of total destruction that nukes are so renowned for. Most of us have grown up in a world where nuclear weapon use pretty much means the end of civilization as we know it (or at least catastrophic loss of life in the tens or hundreds of millions). At the time, it was a single bomb dropped from a single plane that did more thoroughly in a few seconds what once took hundreds of planes and tens of thousands of bombs over many hours or days. It was something that was so unfathomable to most people that it shocked a lot of Japanese leaders (especially the Emperor) into accepting surrender.

    148. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by dajak · · Score: 1

      The US had threaten to prevent Japan's further expansion into the Pacific, and the US repeatedly denied any sort of conference to negotiate any sort of peace that would enable the Empire of Japan to gather much needed resources to fuel their war machine. I doubt US leaders knew that 2000 lives would be lost from taunting Japan into an attack, but I do not doubt that they were aware that Japan would attack so they could move into Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, etc for the industrial resources they had. (I forget the names of these places during the War, the names are new)

      You mean the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia) and French Indochina (in Southeast Asia). Singapore belonged to the British Empire. Retelling it from the Dutch historical perspective:

      Before WWII the Netherlands and Japan traditionally had a cordial relationship, even to the point of the US refusing, even after the Netherlands in Europe was occupied by the Nazis, to sell weapons to the Netherlands because a Netherlands-Japan alliance was a potential threat to the American Phillipines etc. The Netherlands Indies and the US were the major exporters of oil to Japan, and the Netherlands Indies was its major source of metals and rubber. The Netherlands Indies was also its major export market. Japan has no appreciable resources of its own as is generally known.

      After early 1940 the Netherlands and France were occupied, and Britain was obviously otherwise engaged, making their colonies sitting ducks, and Japan and the US the only relevant powers in the area.

      The Netherlands and Britain had good reason to try to induce Japan into a war with the US since this would give Roosevelt an excuse to proclaim war on the Nazis. The method was simple: Japan was to be convinced that there was a defence alliance between the European colonies and the US, and when Roosevelt at some point started an oil boycott against Japan the Netherlands Indies immediately followed, leaving Japan without oil imports and just a few weeks to react before oil supplies ran out.

      We know the result: Japan struck at Pearl Harbor first and then started an attack in the direction of the Netherlands Indies oil refineries.

      There are a few mysteries: 1) was the US goverment an active participant in the attempt to draw the US into the war, a passive accomplice, or was it simply naive? 2) What was the point of concentrating US forces in Hawaii?

      On the second point which has in the past given rise to conspiracy theories in the Netherlands: The Dutch and British obviously wanted the US to take on Japan before it conquered colonies, as they realized that getting colonies back from the US could turn out to be a problem. In the case of the Dutch the loss of the Netherlands Indies effectively made it irrelevant as a partner to the other allies as it losts its resources, its last industry, and its last military units (including its fleet which was lost in the battle of the Java sea). So their preferred scenario was obviously that the US would concentrate their forces in the Phillipines and succesfully defend it.

      The most obvious explanation is that Roosevelt correctly evaluated Japan's military strength, felt the US was unable to handle a surprise attack, and incorrectly believed he moved the most important assets out of harm's way by putting them in Hawaii.

      The conspiracy theory is that Roosevelt coordinated the whole thing, and, besides fooling US public opinion into thinking that Japan attacked them out of the blue, also intentionally sacrificed part of his fleet to let the Japanese overrun the European colonial empires so that they could be dismantled by the US.

    149. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by arktemplar · · Score: 1

      Look I'm not arguing it from a cold rationalist viewpoint at all, I am agruing it from a moral standpoint. Yes, the firebombing of Tokyo was worse but I still shudder to think of the fact that killing off so many civilians can be justified so easily and coldly. I guess if some cell from somwwhere were to blow a nuke in New York, instead of the planes (I know I struck a nerve there and I apologise for it), it would be O.K. because that would demonstrate their resovle ?

      --
      blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
    150. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look I'm not arguing it from a cold rationalist viewpoint at all, I am agruing it from a moral standpoint. Yes, the firebombing of Tokyo was worse but I still shudder to think of the fact that killing off so many civilians can be justified so easily and coldly.


      I disagree with you. We were attacked preemptively, and we weren't alive at the time so we have no idea as to the political and social attitudes in the US (assuming that you're not in your 90's). We have the luxury of speculation that the folks back then didn't have. And I'm sorry, but when it comes down to saving Japanese civilians versus draftees who were forced to serve on my nation's behalf, the civvies on the other side lose.

      As one WWII vet who served at Pearl Harbor said: "My only regret is that we didn't drop ten of them."
    151. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't we build an impressive space ship instead of impressive weaponry that's only useful against RICH countries anyway, since the poor fight with other means and don't care about destroyed infrastructure nearly as much as some contry that actually got something to loose?


      You're that confident that in the future the US will never go up against anybody wielding Eurofighters, Rafales, or Grippens?

      Personally I want the ability to kill all three of them on tap and ready to go. There are no allies or friends, only interests these days.
    152. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Maybe striking first is a really bad defence. Just ask Israel.
      It seems to be working pretty well for them so far, so what specifically are you referring to? They've won all the major wars they took part in since the country's inception, some of them by preemtively striking at the enemy.
    153. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by SkelVA · · Score: 1

      they know something the rest of us don't. It's important to remember though, that a relatively "tiny" percentage of their GNP (1% versus the 3-4% the US spends) still puts them consistently in the top 5 on total military spending.

      It's why Japan is one of the top economies right now. Stating that the small difference in relative spending on defense is the reason that Japan has been one of the 3 largest economies for a long time now would not be consistent with the facts. They've been one of the top economies for a long time as a result of their very high productivity among their multi-nationals and their leadership in technology. If low military spending was a major factor in economic success, Mexico, Austria and many small countries would be doing very well (although Ireland's growth could be used to support that point). http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf for the spending on defense (1999 and 2002 data). Check out wikipedia for plenty of information about the Japanese economy.
    154. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      And both of them are produced by a country that hasn't had to defend its own territory since the nineteenth century.


      Really? Which country was it, then? I was under the impression that that it was the US, but since the US has had to defend its own territory in the twentieth century, it can't be that. Which country was it?

      Chris Mattern
    155. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by sapgau · · Score: 1

      What ever, maybe swallow your pride and learn to accept other persons point of view.

    156. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Don't be catty about it. When exactly did the US have to defend its own territory in the 20th century? If you're thinking of World War II, keep in mind that Pearl Harbor was a raid, the Phillippines weren't exactly defended so much as they were lost and recaptured, and that both of these were imperial possessions well outside the actual United States.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    157. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      "although it was a political play by US leaders to goad Japan into an attack that could be used to rally support for the War in the US."

      I have to disagree with you...

      FDR wanted in the war, no doubt about that.
      He wanted in the war with Germany, however, not Japan.
      The Tripartite pact ( the treaty between the Axis partners )
      was defensive, there was no agreement that Germany would
      declare war on Japan attacking the US. Germany declared
      war on the US on Dec 11, 1941, IIRC.

      In fact, a war with Japan would have been seen as tying up
      resources that the US was sending to Britain and Russia thru
      the Lend-Lease agreements, so war with Japan would put at
      risk the assistance the US was giving Britain. The US did
      not know at the outbreak of war that she had the strength
      to take on both Germany and Japan. She only knew that at
      the end.

      "The US had threaten to prevent Japan's further expansion into the Pacific, "

      You realize that that expansion
          A: threatened the US and
          B: was coming at the expense of friends and allies of the US,
                  as well as any uncolonized peoples in the area. I think
                  colonialism was wrong, but replacing colonies of the west
                  with Japanese colonies ( the "Greater East Asian Coprosperity
                  Sphere" ) is no improvement.

      "and the US repeatedly denied any sort of conference to negotiate any sort of
      peace that would enable the Empire of Japan to gather much needed resources to
      fuel their war machine."

      The US and Japan were in talks over issues in China and the strife between
      the two nations. Kurutsu (sp?) was sent to the US, nominally, to help the existing
      Ambassador with this. So, no, the US was not rolling over saying "take anything
      you want, just leave us alone". The US was a major trading partner with Japan,
      sending steel ( I am sure of ) and I think oil to Japan. Then in 36, Japan
      invaded China, and the US objected. Japan did not pull out, so the US started
      a trade embargo to register their displeasure.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    158. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The Netherlands Indies are the same thing as the Dutch East Indies, right? I've only heard of it referred to as DEI.

      I doubt Roosevelt knew an attack on Pearl Harbor would occur. I don't buy into that conspiracy theory. But I think it is quite likely that Roosevelt knew that Japan would attack something as retaliation for cutting off the flow of oil.

      Your evaluation of what happened is pretty informative, thank you. Although it is roughly what I found on wikipedia after I made my original post. Not sure if that is an compliment or insult to you though. :)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    159. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Japan isn't the only country counting on us. That's why it grinds my gears when some misinformed hippie puts up a chart comparing % of GDP to defense, or defense budgets. Our AoR is most of the world's surface area. We are the defense budget and defense force for almost virtually every democracy. We do it so they don't have to. Germany can have it's wonderful social programs and pacifist outlook because we are protecting them.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    160. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Germany can have it's wonderful social programs and pacifist outlook because we are protecting them.

      From?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    161. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by loucura! · · Score: 1

      From?


      Ourselves, naturally. ;)
      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    162. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by dajak · · Score: 1

      The Netherlands Indies are the same thing as the Dutch East Indies, right?

      Nederlands-Indië, also often referred to in English as Dutch East Indies, which sounds like an anachronism to me. The Dutch East Indies dates from the time (pre-Napoleonic era) when it was distinguished by the Dutch from its nearby colonies on the Indian subcontinent (lost in 1815) and the islands in the west indies in the Americas which were known as Netherlands Antilles in 1940.

      I don't buy into that conspiracy theory.

      Me neither. The people in the colonial administration intentionally provoked an attack on themselves and where a bit disappointed when it turned out they were basically standing alone because the US was not ready. Besides that they felt they had specifically warned the US for the Pearl Harbor attack, and they were already wary of US attitude towards the colonial empires. Fertile grounds for suspicions of Roosevelt's motives.

      Probably Roosevelt simply felt that he could not admit that he knew the boycott would lead to attack by taking warnings seriously and preparing the navy. The operation was optimized for public opinion effect, not for minimizing military damage.

    163. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Japans record of really expensive and mediocre combat aircraft. The FSX has been a pretty big failure.
      Japan doesn't want to buy the F22 they want to MAKE the F22. They want a technology transfer which the US has done in the past with the F15 and other defense systems. The problem is Japan has a history of leaking that technology.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    164. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Don't ignore China. The Cold War is not over--it was only paused for a decade while the other player in the War took over. China is getting extremely rich and is using a lot of their money to build up their military. China may be our only significant military threat (though the Soviet Union seems to be wanting to become a player again), but China is a big threat. Nobody wants to go nuclear and the only thing protecting us from conventional attack by China is a body of water called the Pacific and the fact that China doesn't (yet) have an effective way to project their conventional forces to the other side of the ocean.

      We're gambling big time with China. We're gambling that their prosperity will continue to move their country towards a free and democratic free marker system before that same prosperity gives them the money to build overwhelming military strength. It might work, it might not. But we better be ready for the contingency of us losing that bet.

      Too many people are forgetting the dangerous world we live in. I grew up in the end of the Cold War and, even so, it's easy to forget the very real threat. Those that grew up in the 90's and more recently don't even remember it except in their history books. As amazing as it sounds, too many people have gotten so used to "peace" that they don't think real war is a possibility. That's why 9/11 was such a shock to so many people. It was only made easier because they were "just terrorists" so people could taken comfort that it was just a few kooks. But countries can be just as dangerous--the only reason is that, recently, they generally aren't is precisely because of our massive military capability.

      The only reason that China hasn't taken Taiwan is because of the U.S. North Korea hasn't attacked South Korea because of the U.S. Iran and Syria haven't invaded Israel because Israel taught them some lessons and because of the combined military threat of Israel and the U.S.

      As unpopular as the view may be, peace is not made possible by diplomats talking about nonsense in the U.N. Peace is made possible by very powerful military forces that either make action by the other side impossible, or so costly to both sides that neither side will benefit from it. Yes, Mutually Assured Destruction was expensive. The Cold War was expensive. But they're far cheaper than all-out war between the participating countries. It's easy to dream about not spending money on a "senseless" military, but it's precisely that military that allows peace to exist.

      Military spending is the price of peace. AND freedom.

    165. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      [OffTopic] Right, because Bush is president.... i sometimes forget that the good/bad guy sides flip every time we change presidents. When Obama takes office, we'll be the good guys and Russia will be scary again and terrorists will be called mass murdering religious zealots instead of the freedom fighters critical of US policy they are now.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    166. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno what the GP had in mind but the Aleutian islands were invaded by the Japanese during WWII.

    167. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      We all know that Japan can't buy F-22s because those aircraft aren't able to cross the international date line properly... That raises the important question: was this a bug, or a feature? :^)

    168. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by shmlco · · Score: 1

      But it's a matter of how much. And on what. When one country spends more than the next EIGHT combined, it just might be time to ask a few questions.

      Like, maybe, just maybe we could spend as much as, say, the top five, and use the excess to actually make a difference. If oil is such a strategic issue, then perhaps we could spend the extra money on alternative energy sources and fuel-efficient vehicle research, and perhaps just a little bit on advanced education such that two-thirds of a college's engineering department isn't comprised of non-US students. Spend more on medical research, and become doctors to the world. In essence, setup things so that we don't HAVE to go to war each and every time our "strategic interests" are threatened.

      Our procurement system is totally out of whack, with practically every pie-in-the-sky idea developed since that's how our congress-critters bring home the bacon. In addition, each service gets an equal share of the pie, regardless of need or actual threat assessment. Service rivalries mean that each and every one has it's own intelligence department, logistics and supply services, and so on. Contractors routinely over-bill and under-deliver. We probably waste a quarter of the money we spend.

      Further, how about becoming an economic powerhouse ourselves? If we INVESTED that excess military spending into the aforementioned energy and automotive research, perhaps we'd have something (other than guns) that other countries would want to buy. Grow the economy, and the percentage spent on the military grows as well, right?

      BTW, that "8x" amount that DOESN'T include the money spent on fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    169. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Pearl Harbor was a raid


      So it doesn't count as defending yourself if it's a raid? OK, then, I'll be over to your house to break in your windows and take whatever looks good. Don't worry, though, I won't be staying. It's only a raid.

      the Phillippines weren't exactly defended so much as they were lost and recaptured


      The men who fought and died, and, yes, lost, in the Phillipines in '42 might take exception with your characterization that they didn't defend it. As might those at Wake Island, who inflicted six times the losses on the Japanese as they took before being finally overwhelmed by vastly superior numbers (and remains US territory today, I might add). And if only *successful* defenses count (a rather odd viewpoint, though), how about Midway, successfully defended in one of larges naval battles in history (and also remains US territory to this day).

      that both of these were imperial possessions well outside the actual United States.


      The Phillipines were a protectorate and could indeed be regarded as in some senses not part of the United States (somewhat similar to Puerto Rico now). Hawaii was a US Territory and was in every sense of the word part of the actual United States for all that it was not a state at the time. The same goes for Alaska, parts of which the Japanese invaded and took, other parts they tried to invade and take (and failed).

      Chris Mattern
    170. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by tknn · · Score: 1

      They also have the second highest funding for their military despite it being ruled unconstitutional by their own judges, their fighter jets comply by having smaller fuel tanks (that are easily and quickly switched), and they refuse to sell us their military technology. They will eventually amend the constitution, partially cause we want them to balance against China.

    171. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had better go re-read that history if you think the US was walking down the street one day minding its own business when out of the blue Japan randomly decided to attack.

    172. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, I got called a bad name in overly basic nihongo by some 3 digit UID on /. Grow up man.

      I know they have a military, hell I was in Japan for a month backpacking it over the Summer (nicest/most helpful damn police in the world). Their constitution was drafted in a way to limit their military because of their defeat in WWII. Many want to change that, and others, well they know the military posturing, and money it will require is just not worth it. The only real offensive military might they honestly need is sitting in their many nuclear reactors. And guess what? The US really is in the shittier. Look at the massive deficits, and failing economy in the US. China isn't exactly up there either. The majority of the country is living in poverty or just close enough to where they can be controlled eaisily. May not be the shittier, but it's not good. Without a massive pointless military Japan can, and is in the middle of a depression/recession (they seem to flip flop between the two), and doing substantially better than everyone else.

    173. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      They were all still imperial possessions rather far from the United States itself. The main point is--don't be a prick about it, nothing you've said undermines the point I was making, and we both know it.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    174. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Belacgod · · Score: 1
      When the Los Alamos physicists left their labs to watch the first nuclear test, they all passed through a foyer in which was a table on which rested a ball of plutonium. They all touched it for good luck. That just shows how little radiation poisoning and the like was understood in 1945. Considering Truman's level of knowledge, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no more or less blameworthy than the firebombing of Tokyo earlier that year.

      I leave the question of what would have happened had we invaded instead to others. My point is that "nuke" only became a byword for barbarism long after 1945.

    175. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 'cause imposing sanctions on them after they invaded China and massacred hundreds of thousands of people was so unjustified.

    176. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, the U.S.A needed to disarm Japan however, the manner in which they did it is what you should object to rather than the ends acheived. To nuke some one to get them to submit wasnt a "necessary thing to do". Atleast thats what I think.

      Pff... The dropping of the nuclear bombs had nothing to do with winning a war, the US had already proved themselves perfectly capable of frying civilians to a crisp without the need for a single enormous bomb. They simply saw the window of opportunity to use the "yellow peril" as guinea-pigs in a sick military test programme.

      The sole purpose of nuking Japan was to see what would happen to real people in a nuclear explosion. In the absence of computers to simulate nuclear explosions it was too good an opportunity to test their weapons on a populace that was so vilified to the world that they would tolerate something so abhorrent as nuclear weapons.

    177. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by shmlco · · Score: 1

      BTW, if China started to get expansionist, I expect that Russia, Japan, Taiwan, India, England, France, Spain, and a few other people might have something to say about it as well.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    178. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by arktemplar · · Score: 1

      No, I never said that imposing sanctions was unjustified. I am sure that if you condemn an act and you feel you dont want to economically help them or want their help you are completely justified in imposing sanctions, yes, you are not justified in forcing others to impose sanctions against their own will but then I'm sure you will be able to find that justifiable some way or the other.

      --"That just shows how little radiation poisoning and the like was understood in 1945"

      I guess that, that can be understood, as should the remorse they claim to have felt after they saw what happened in Japan.

      --
      blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
    179. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      They were all still imperial possessions rather far from the United States itself.


      They were *part* of the United States itself, and still are. I don't know what you mean by this phrase, "imperial possessions", other than that you seem to be rather fond of waving it about as if it were an argument. Both Hawaii and Alaska were US Territories, and are now states, and they are, and were, as much a part of the US as Washington, DC. You may not understand what the term "US Territory" means, since there haven't been any since Alaska was made a state in 1959. US Territories (more properly, "organized incorporated territories") used to be those parts of the US that hadn't been formed into states yet, but were intended to made into states when the time was right (and indeed, all the Territories were eventually formed into states). They were always an integral part of the US and every bit as much part of US sovereignty as any state. Wake and Midway have been US owned for a century or more, and will remain so.

      nothing you've said undermines the point I was making, and we both know it.


      On the contrary, I've demolished the point you were making; hiding behind non-existant distinctions about what is or is not "not really" US because they are "imperial possessions" doesn't change that.

      Chris Mattern

    180. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by loucura! · · Score: 1

      Your ability to read your own political insecurities out of my two word reply is amazing. That, sir, is what you might call humor. It's patently absurd that the United States would invade a NATO ally, hence the humorous disparity between reality, and my statement.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    181. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      i was actually referring mostly to the post above yours, where someone was insisting that Germany faced no threats. Given the current political climate, where people liken Bush to Hitler, it seemed plausible that someone might suggest that we are a threat Germany. It's hard to feel politically secure, as you put it, when so many people are filtering the world through a filter of Bush == Teh Evil therefore the US == Teh Evil, therefore anyone who opposes the US, is opposing Bush, and is therefore Good. Where were the cries of imperialism when Clinton sent our troops into the formerly Yugoslavian republics, or of interventionism with Somalia, or Blood for Oil for Operations Desert Strikes 1 and 2? Some will claim "those were different", but that is a matter of perspective. There was a shift in how the US population felt about involvement in WW2 after Pearl Harbor. It went from "no foreign entanglements" to "let's git the sum' bitches!". Yet, the situation in Europe wasn't any different before or after Pearl Harbor. i'm saying that people politics filter how they see the world. If Gore or Clinton had ordered the overthrow of Saddam, the republicans would have cried out against using US soldiers to play world police... but then eventually gone along with it to have a chance to get into a scrap. But i doubt there would have been all the "no blood for oil" or "end US imperialism" sloganeering.

      Don't get me wrong, here, i'm not advocating for Bush, but for seeing the big picture (with as little political filtering as possible). For realizing there was a world before W, and there will be one after (i hope!). For realizing that Germany, and many of our allies do face some real threats, and it isn't the US. We're all guilty of seeing the world through our own filters, but some people don't even try.

      In summary, it's not all about you(r post).

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    182. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by quanticle · · Score: 1

      China is getting extremely rich and is using a lot of their money to build up their military.

      And yet, even with all their newfound wealth, the Chinese still spend less than 1/8 on their military than we do.

      The only reason that China hasn't taken Taiwan is because of the U.S.

      That and because its pretty damned hard to invade an island nation without proper amphibious landing craft, which China does not currently possess.

      North Korea hasn't attacked South Korea because of the U.S.

      When even your army is dependent on UN food aid, you're hardly in a position to attack anyone.

      Military spending is the price of peace. AND freedom.

      That's what the military-industrial complex would have you believe...

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    183. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Grave · · Score: 1

      No, nuking NYC would result in the US nuking whoever allowed terrorists to acquire a nuclear weapon. Three thousand people dying in a couple of buildings and planes is quite different than a couple million people dying in an entire city. It's not even remotely the same thing, so I'm not sure what comparison you're attempting to make.

    184. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      No, you've acted like a catty little bitch. In strategic terms, the US fought WWII offensively, not defensively. The tactics, doctrines, and weaponry the US has deployed during, before, and since that war have been based on attack and maneuver, not defense.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    185. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh... the A-10 "Warthog". Still my favorite plane, favorite fighter, favorite backup, favorite tub of ass protecting titanium. Too bad they are going to get replaced by the new, more expensive F-35 that my in-law is working on. :(

    186. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1
      Yes, that's very true, and very besides the point. The fact that the US armed forces prefers to be on the offensive (a sound strategy, by the way) doesn't change the fact that it fought on and defended US soil during WWII. An army doesn't always get to fight the way it prefers.

      No, you've acted like a catty little bitch.


      Yes, I understand that having your factual inaccuracies pointed out to you upsets you. Can you find some actual arguments, or are you just going to insult me some more?

      Chris Mattern
    187. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's very true, and very besides the point.

      Since we were discussing the historical context within which the first stealth aircraft were produced, that is the point. Your quibbling is what's beside the point.

      Can you find some actual arguments, or are you just going to insult me some more?

      I could very well ask you the same question. My only regret is letting you drag down the level of discourse.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    188. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, the Japanese constitution has "Made in USA" stamped all over it. But they always had the ability to change it, just as the US constitution get amended over time. Fact of the matter is, military superiority is a very expensive proposition. If you can get a trustworthy partner to supply military might when needed, it makes no sense to spend hand-over-fist just to earn the privilege of losing to the US, Russia, or China. The Japanese were smart. In an early example of outsourcing, they arranged for the US to defend the island, at no cost to Japan. Pretty clever when you consider they managed all of this after losing WWII.

      Aside from some economic common interest, the US has about as much influence over Japan as we do over China. That is to say, nil.

      The time may come when the US is neither trustworthy nor unbeatable. The Japanese would be smart to take some of the trillions of dollars they have saved over the years and build a conventional military force.

    189. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by arktemplar · · Score: 1

      I wasnt trying a comparison but was trying to show that a statement that justifies the use of nuclear weapons by saying that by killing more people at a time using a single bomb rather than a few is jsutified.

      --
      blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
    190. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by arktemplar · · Score: 1

      Apologies I meant is NOT jsutified

      --
      blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
    191. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by kir · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, I got called a bad namein overly basic nihongo by some 3 digit UID on /. Grow up man.

      Actually, you were called a bad name (dumb ass) and asked, quite politely, to please die by some 3 digit UID on /. Please forgive me. I'm sure your month of backpacking in Japan gave you a wealth of insight into the Japanese socio-political goings-on.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    192. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know that dumbass. Still extremely basic, and I'm sure all you could muster from the hundreds of anime that use that phrase. I wouldn't have been backpacking through Japan if it weren't for a fairly rabid desire to know what goes on with that country, and the language. Damn ancient /. cave troll here apparently.

      jikaihanasu mae kangaeru

    193. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by kir · · Score: 1

      Anata wa sugoi omoshiroi. Nihongo honto ni dekinaine. Baaaaaka. Ole wa juunen nihon ni sundeimashita. Juunen daiyo! HA HA HA!

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    194. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Jonathan_S · · Score: 1

      Two things. First you point out that the F-22 R&D ran up a huge overage, and that is certainly true, feature creep and long lead times can bloat R&D, but some of that is just an inherent risk to developing new technology. But your solution to the fact that the F-22 is too expensive (largely due to its huge R&D overhead that must be recouped) is to build less capable aircraft but change them more often. So you want a lot more R&D programs; each of which is just as prone to overruns or delays? Seems counterproductive.

      Second, the USAF doesn't just need fighters that can dominate in a pure air-to-air setting, but also fighters that can survive to do so in the face of potential enemies full air-defense networks. The F-15 is a great fighter, and and probably hold its own air-to-air against almost anything in the sky for the next 10+ years. But potential enemies are realizing that and investing in systems that combine fighters with extensive and capable surface-to-air missile systems. Some of the most recent Russian designs are really impressive. You need fighters that can survive in heavily defended areas to keep enemy fighters off of whatever strike aircraft are taking on the SAM defenses. And F-15s aren't ideal for that, since they aren't stealthy. If the SAMs were suppressed, then the F-15 could tangle with the enemy's less capable fighters, but if the fighters aren't suppressed they can help defend the SAMs. You need to the ability to handle both at once (which is more or less the worst case scenario).

    195. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      So what's happening in the streets of Israel is "winning", huh?

      I wonder if we could go for a nice tie, instead?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    196. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, you know basic Japanese. You must get all the chicks sir. Gabtene? One day you'll figure out a less stick up your ass...errr stiff way to speak.

      Now seriously, go keep with your commitment to kick /. over 2 years ago. Funny how your actually one of many here responsible for the decline in quality discussion, and yet, you bitch about that fact.

    197. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Grave · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understood me at all. Killing about two hundred thousand people (to be generous) with a pair of bombs rather than killing half a million or more with thousands upon thousands of bombs and allowing a country to become a divided cold war battleground seems an incredibly justifiable decision.

    198. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by kir · · Score: 1

      That would be 'ganbattene', but I understood.

      Look. There is a reason why Japan is the third largest military spender in the world (something like 1% of GDP). It's the same reason the article 9 referendum push by the LDP is gaining popularity. That same reason may also explain Japan's decision to development this aircraft. That reason is DEFENSE (yes... even preemptively -- hence the article 9 referendum). So Japan does in fact have a military and they spend quite a bit of money on it. That alone pretty much makes all your points so far invalid.

      As for my swearing off slashdot forever, all I can say is that addiction is a terrible thing.

      As for my Japanese, it is quite basic. But I suspect you have no idea what my last post actually said. If you did, you probably wouldn't have responded in such a manner. Oh... and during my time in Japan, my basic Japanese did get me a few chicks. In fact, I married one of them.

      > Funny how your actually one of many here responsible for the decline in quality discussion,
      > and yet, you bitch about that fact.

      Sumimasen, but sometimes I just can't stand when people spout off about stuff they have little knowledge of. My ten years in Japan (5 of them in the US military, 5 as a consultant for both the HQ for all US forces in Japan and a short stint at the Japanese 'Pentagon' in Ichigaiya) probably says I know a little. Not much I freely admit, but enough to know you're full of it.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    199. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      I could understand your previous post, sir. Hence my response. 10 years in the country supposedly, and yet your Japanese is stiffer than the average Japanese housewife. It's to expected of the average American in Japan though. I applaud you at least for learning as much as you have. It's tough work to learn another language while remaining ignorant.

    200. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to go active to see targets, particularly well concealed targets and that makes you "visible" as well.


      In Debt of Honor Clancy wrote about a (fictional?) radar aircraft that not only had general strategic radar to see aircraft, but also had targeting radar capabilities. Once a plane was targeted by this AWACS-like system the data was transmitted to the fighter aircraft.

      This way you had the 'central' radar plane which had its location known (because it was broadcasting), but the fighters got the data and were able to attack but still stay hidden.

      Anyone know if this is completely fictional or whether it is actually exists (or is actually possible)?
    201. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by kir · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised you've been able to read any of my responses considering you can't see your monitor... you know... with your head being so far up your ass.

      This was fun. Thanks for playing. Bye now.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    202. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, the US had their largest military and diplomatic presence in both these countries long, LONG, after the respective 'occupations'. Thats the point.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    203. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Descalzo · · Score: 1

      Okay.

      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    204. Re:Tech issues and socio-political issues. by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Well, mea culpa...sorry about that. I read the first line of the parent and disregarded the rest.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  2. Why use city names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure that if Japan had F-22s, they'd be based at more than just Tokyo. Why are we treating entire countries like they're just one city? I can see the 'Washington' here, since that's probably where the refusal came from, but if it's going to some place other than Tokyo (but for the purposes of Japan the country).. why refer to it as Tokyo?

    1. Re:Why use city names? by mikkelm · · Score: 1, Informative

      I was going to post exactly this comment.

      Seriously, people, stop referring to countries and decision made by countries with the name of the capital city. You don't sound smart, you aren't clever, this isn't a bad movie.

      Japan is making an aircraft. Not Tokyo. Shut up and go away.

    2. Re:Why use city names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, people, stop referring to countries and decision made by countries with the name of the capital city. You don't sound smart, you aren't clever, this isn't a bad movie.

      They are referring to the government of the country, not the country itself.

      Now go tell Tokyo to bugger off.

    3. Re:Why use city names? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Metonymy (the practice you are referring to) is a well-attested linguistic technique. Using "Tokyo" to mean "the Japanese government" is nothing different than using "The Pentagon" to refer to "the Department of Defense", or "Hollywood" to refer to "the US film industry". Just because you want to gimp the English language by removing methods of expression doesn't mean we have to go along with it.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    4. Re:Why use city names? by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the government represents Tokyo, not all of Japan?

      If this was a private company, the article would refer a "Japanese company" and its name, not the city in which the company is headquartered.

      This is, however, the Japanese government, representing, you guessed it, Japan! The government is not entirely based in Tokyo, and no one but the government makes governmental decisions, so how on Earth is "Japan" too broad?

    5. Re:Why use city names? by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that you interpret criticism towards one implementation of metonymy as criticism of the concept as a whole? That sounds like you're actively making yourself an argument against metonymy by failing to discern between criticism of a single aspect and criticism against the concept as a whole.

      The Japanese government is elected by the Japanese people. The only thing connecting the city of Tokyo to the Japanese government more than other Japanese cities is that a good portion of the central government is based there. The Japanese government has a loose affiliation to Tokyo by geological coincidence. The Japanese government is a product of, and governing body of the country of Japan.

      So which of the two are more appropriate when referring to the actions of a government? A government represents the will of the people of a country, and represents the decision of a country as a whole. This isn't a unilateral decision by the government of Japan, or the city of Tokyo. It's the democratic decision by the entire country.

    6. Re:Why use city names? by m50d · · Score: 1
      If this was a private company, the article would refer a "Japanese company" and its name, not the city in which the company is headquartered.

      False, e.g. "Kyoto announced ..." is frequently used in videogaming discussions to refer to announcements made by Nintendo.

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:Why use city names? by m50d · · Score: 1

      You seem to be claiming that you're not criticising metonymy in general, just this specific use, yet not one of your arguments couldn't be applied to other cases.

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:Why use city names? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      This isn't a unilateral decision by the government of Japan, or the city of Tokyo. It's the democratic decision by the entire country.

      They had a referendum? No, it was a decision by the Defense Ministry, in Tokyo.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    9. Re:Why use city names? by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      A part of the government elected by the Japanese government. As long as the government represents the people, the actions of the government are the actions of the people. That's what democracy is.

    10. Re:Why use city names? by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      The critical mistake in your assertion is that you seem to not realise that metonymy extends beyond metonymic references to geographic locations.

    11. Re:Why use city names? by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      We're working under the assumption that the article is properly written. Obscure metonymic references constitute poor journalism.

    12. Re:Why use city names? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      By that rationale, the population of a democratic country is a legitimate military target. You're being absurd and naive. By your same rationale, we can't talk about "Hollywood" or "Broadway" because theaters and film industries are owned by and represent people who may not necessarily live in those places. You're making bad rationalizations because you're unwilling or incapable of admitting you're wrong, and I regret wasting my time on you.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    13. Re:Why use city names? by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      Well, ad hominem attacks have always been the mark of people who're afraid of continuing a conversation, but don't wish to lose face when quitting.

      You're arriving at a woefully incorrect conclusion if you assume that by my rationale, civilians would be legitimate targets of war. The decision of a nation to go to war, and the rules of engagement and laws of warfare are completely seperate issues, and I respect your intelligence enough to assume that you're aware of this, and that you were simply making an intellectually dishonest attempt to discredit my opinion without actual substance.

      Your analogies are quite obviously incompatible with my example. You're quite right in that I disagree with any metonymic reference spurring from geographic coincidence. It's an unnecessary layer of abstraction that does not serve any practical purpose.

      However, I guess if you're that quick to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that you're right and that everyone else is wrong, this is falling upon deaf ears.

    14. Re:Why use city names? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      While others have already pointed out the common use of metonymy, I'd have to agree with you, and I'd support extending your criticism to other instances of it.

      The purpose of language, at least when presenting facts, is to communicate as clearly as possible. When you start arbitrarily using different terms, with their own multiple meanings, to refer to the same thing, you're adding an unnecessary barrier to understanding. When someone not familiar with the "refer to an entire country's government by its capital city" convention reads what you wrote, they may very well interpret it to mean just the city. "Is Tokyo the same thing as the Japanese government?"

      Educated people can be expected to have certain advance knowledge before reading what you wrote, but as people avoid using techniques that increase clarity, the set of people who understand your idea diminishes, exactly the opposite of what we all want to happen.

      Of course, the purpose of language is not always to communicate facts, and geeks would do well to be aware of this. When someone uses the above city/national government convention, it could just be a way to signal, "hey, look how educated I am, I can talk about stuff you don't immediately understand."

      Seen in that light, maybe their usage is justifiable ;-)

    15. Re:Why use city names? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      You're arriving at a woefully incorrect conclusion if you assume that by my rationale, civilians would be legitimate targets of war. The decision of a nation to go to war, and the rules of engagement and laws of warfare are completely seperate issues, and I respect your intelligence enough to assume that you're aware of this, and that you were simply making an intellectually dishonest attempt to discredit my opinion without actual substance.

      The leaders and decision-making bodies of a nation at war constitute a military target. Any ad-hoc exception of this specifically to protect civilians in a democratic country is, well--ad-hoc. It's a bad hack to avoid the logical consequences of holding an entire population responsible for its elected government. Suppose a democratic country were to elect someone, under false pretenses, who turned out to abuse his power once elected to commit war crimes. If that person's actions are those of the entire people, then it would be perfectly justified to try, convict, and sentence millions of people for the crime of being born in a country where a war criminal was elected to national office, whether or not they actually voted, either for him in specific or for anyone at all.

      All representative democracy does in practice is give the opportunity, periodically, to a plurality or majority of the population to elect, within a pre-defined framework, either of a small number of selected candidates, usually on the basis of "the lesser of two evils". Then, assuming no election fraud, the candidate who got more votes than the others (which in practice can be even less than 4 out of 10) fulfills a specific, constitutionally-defined role in a vast government far beyond their complete control for a set period of time, during which there is little to no opportunity for the public to recall or replace them. These elected officials appoint bureaucrats, who appoint more bureaucrats, all of whom may hold office for years and decades beyond the term of the elected official who originally appointed them. And you are trying to tell me that the actions of this leviathan are those of the people? Give me a break.

      You're quite right in that I disagree with any metonymic reference spurring from geographic coincidence. It's an unnecessary layer of abstraction that does not serve any practical purpose.

      Maybe if you want to speak the most efficient language possible, in which case I suggest you study Lojban or similar constructed languages. You're suggesting a very specific prescriptivism, and even those of us who support prescriptivism in general may very well disagree with your specific goals.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    16. Re:Why use city names? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      As a resident of Washington State, I object to the use of "Washington" to refer to the Federal Government, since they virtually always drop the necessary "D.C." at the end.

      I'm ok with the practice, as long as it doesn't increase the confusion of the reader.

    17. Re:Why use city names? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I gather you don't live in or near a capital city.

    18. Re:Why use city names? by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      True. However it does annoy the shit out of me when people say "he's from London" about me because I was born in England. When they ask "How was london?" I'll make some comment about whichever airport I flew in to since I'm not from London.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    19. Re:Why use city names? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's actually not a great example of metonymy.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    20. Re:Why use city names? by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      Regarding your first paragraph, you're arguing obscure "what if?" scenarios. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't "George W. Bush and co." going to war against "Saddam Hussein and co.", it was "the US" that went to war against "Iraq". It wasn't "Adolf Hitler and co." invading "Wadysaw Raczkiewicz and co.", it was "Germany" invading "Poland". Yes, bureaucracy exists, but it is a bureaucracy that exists to represent the country as a whole. Undeniably.

      Throughout history, this most accurate and most widely understood terminology has been used. Obscure metonymic references to the geographic locations of seats of government serve absolutely no practical purpose. It may be grammatically correct to use these references, but that doesn't make them warranted, or even useful.

    21. Re:Why use city names? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing "obscure 'what if?'" scenarios, I'm exploring the natural logical consequences of holding a population responsible for its elected government. Let's talk about Iraq, shall we? Characterizing that war as "the United States going to war with Iraq" is an abstraction. In reality, that war is the United States military (among others) invading the territory of Iraq to assault the Iraqi military and government, funded by tax funds drawn from the American people (with or without their consent), as well as debts drawn through whatever mechanisms the government funds its deficits. And, once again, the United States military was commanded to do so by an elected government which was elected through a complicated process.... The war in Iraq is not an action of the American people, it's an action of the American president and of the millions of unelected bureaucrats and troops under his command. Just as the Japanese stealth fighter is not an action of the Japanese people, but an action of the Japanese defense ministry.

      Throughout history, this most accurate and most widely understood terminology has been used.

      So now you're making a descriptivist argument towards what usage is well-attested? That's an easy one to respond to: metonymy is well-attested as well. Just look up "the White House", "the Kremlin", etc. in news archives.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    22. Re:Why use city names? by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      The president is ultimately elected by the people as the head of state and representative of the entire population. That's the democratic process. A simple, undeniable truth.

      A democracy going to war is an act of the country as a whole, popular support or not, which the war in Iraq actually had. What you're looking for with your descriptions is a dictatorship, but we're dealing with democracies here. Let's stick to the realities of those.

      "The White House" and "the Kremlin" are not widely used because they're metonymic - They're widely used because they're colloquial and ubiquitous.

      There is absolutely no sound argument for using metonymic references to seats of government when referring to the actions of a democratically elected government. No matter how you twist and turn it.

    23. Re:Why use city names? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      A democracy going to war is an act of the country as a whole

      Saying it doesn't make it so. You attack metonymy as an unnecessary abstraction, and yet you keep stating (without any backing arguments) this absurd abstraction which is not only unnecessary, but wrong?

      "The White House" and "the Kremlin" are not widely used because they're metonymic - They're widely used because they're colloquial and ubiquitous.

      If they're not metonyms then what the hell are they? You don't have a damned idea what you're talking about. You're just arguing this because you want to be a dick.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  3. Japanese will beat US any time by suv4x4 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let's say things like they are. Even if Japanese were the worst plane builders in the world, they'd not sleep, eat, and would beat themselves bleeding, rebuilding the damn plane until it's better than the US one.

    1. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by cyberstealth1024 · · Score: 1

      Let's say things like they are. Even if Japanese were the worst plane builders in the world, they'd not sleep, eat, and would beat themselves bleeding, rebuilding the damn plane until it's better than the US one. oblig... that's why we have nukes.... (?) all joking aside, I hope they DO build a better plane. if nothing else, it motivates us to create a yet better one, thereby ensuring more jobs, etc.. Technology gets better with competition (as do prices usually)
    2. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mangu · · Score: 1
      they'd not sleep, eat, and would beat themselves bleeding, rebuilding the damn plane


      They tried that once. It worked for a few months, then it was downhill for three years until they gave up.

    3. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really?? Then how come Japan's economy still is not better than the United States? In fact, it still hasn't recovered from its heydays in the 80s.

      I just completely destroyed your lame generalization.

    4. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Funny

      but theirs will tranform a la Robotech or Gundam!! They'll mix some ASIMO tech in there for good measure... it that respect they are two decades a head of the US. Building high tech planes is easy compared to microprocessors or advanced electronics or robots which they're way ahead of us at doing.

    5. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope they DO build a better plane. if nothing else, it motivates us to create a yet better one, thereby ensuring more jobs, etc.. Technology gets better with competition (as do prices usually)

      Those jobs are basically paid by your taxes and subsidized by your kids in the near future.

      Creating even more jobs in the US military is in fact the best example yet I've seen for the phrase "shooting yourself in the foot". You need to figure out which you need more: have some fun shooting, or your foot.

      US being in heavy deficit and debt, they should concentrate on producing stuff they can sell and lay off the military pissing contest for the time being.

    6. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by sanman2 · · Score: 1

      Except that the military is an extremely technologically-oriented branch, and spending on it helps to improve our society's technology. Look at all the incredible inventions from WW2 that now make our lives easier.

      This is in contrast to spending on the welfare state, which is technologically-averse, and more specialized in political screeching, as well as staging public unrest. Now that's an example of taxpayer dollars shooting taxpayers in the foot.

    7. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Actually, China is outsourcing advanced weapon design to the US. They loan the US govt money, the Gov't spends it on stealth aircraft, Chinese spies copy the blueprints.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    8. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by yoprst · · Score: 1

      Even if Japanese were the worst plane builders in the world, they'd not sleep, eat, and would beat themselves bleeding, rebuilding the damn plane until it's better than the US one.
      I find your choice of Japanese movies alarming. Too much BDSM is no good. Try something else. Tentacle porn, for example.

    9. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The military game is not about volume and mass production anymore, as it was back in those days. The Zero was better than anything the allies had at the time, but in terms of people volume and production volume the US was non-beatable, at least once they were awake, something Admiral Yamamoto predicted very accurately when he said "I can run wild for six months ... after that, I have no expectation of success." The Pacific half of WWII was one of attrition. (The other half of it also was one, actually, once the little madman in Germany pulled in the USSR and the US.) There will never again be a war like WWII, and certainly to between Japan and anyone.

      The military game nowadays is about high-tech capabilities, and its economic counterpart is about producing the support for those and selling that. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Japanese can beat the sh*t out of the US in this area if they really want to. If they don't, it'll only be for a "lack of wanting" imposed by their history. not for a lack of ability.

      Besides, Japan beat the US in the car industry hands-down by doing just that: focus on becoming, being, and remaining better and persist until success is assured, no matter what. And that even was partly a volume game, meaning they beat the US on its home turf.

    10. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that the military is an extremely technologically-oriented branch, and spending on it helps to improve our society's technology. Look at all the incredible inventions from WW2 that now make our lives easier.

      This is in contrast to spending on the welfare state, which is technologically-averse, and more specialized in political screeching, as well as staging public unrest. Now that's an example of taxpayer dollars shooting taxpayers in the foot.


      Your contrast is wrong. US has no money for welfare or military development, they should just stop the insane spending.

      Even if it wasn't the case, your two alternatives are poor. Taxes could be reduced and this money can be left in the private sector, which is very technologically-oriented as well.

      And as a difference from Stealth plane making, the inventions there are directly targeted for civil purposes. The WII inventions being usable for civil technologies was a side effect. Only a small fraction of them were reusable in there.

      Further more during the war most of those technologies were secret. How do you imagine US economy taking advantage of something top secret. It should be out in the public, and even exportable.

      Also: social welfare reduces crime and provides additional stability for developing business in the country.

      I'm happy there are still people out there thinking it's all as simple as "military heps technology, welfare kills it", the world must be a very simple place for you. Reality is really harsh though.

    11. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Money spent on welfare goes back immediately into the domestic economy, as its recipients spend it on housing, food, and entertainment. Money spent on defense involves an added step of "waste", the construction of technologies that are not the product of consumer demand.

      The consumer sector should be a better judge of consumer needs than military spending. Sony can pay for Sony's R&D - justifying military expenses on the basis that innovation will 'trickle down' to the civilian sector is absurd.

      At best, your argument is one in favor of pure research. Very well then: give more money to university research.

    12. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every dollar you spend on military technology is a dollar you aren't spending on improving your economy. There is some trickle back, but that money would be far more efficiently spent working on the economic improvement, rather than working on the military improvement in the hope some of it will be economically useful.

      Now, there is the point that military spending must not tend to zero: if it does, it doesn't matter how great your economy is, you'll very shortly find yourself paying for someone else's military. But it doesn't grow your money. It only allows you to keep the money you have.

      We see this same argument wrt. NASA budgets, and it always turns out that the thing claimed as trickle down tech was actually invented decades earlier than NASA's use.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    13. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mangu · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The Zero was better than anything the allies had at the time, but in terms of people volume and production volume the US was non-beatable


      That comparison may be valid for American vs. German tanks, but not for Japanese vs. American airplanes. Japan created what was undoubtedly its best fighter, the Zero, in 1939, and never did anything better than that. OTOH, the US kept releasing better and better planes during WWII; the P-51 had a cruising speed that was 20 mph faster than the Zero's *top* speed in level flight.


      Japan beat the US in the car industry hands-down by doing just that: focus on becoming, being, and remaining better and persist until success is assured, no matter what


      They did that in the video and audio industry, until everyone had all the VCRs and boomboxes they wanted. Then the focus shifted to computers and cellphones. Where is Japan now? Why is it that Sony, the unbeatable monster of audio and video equipment has to buy their phone technology from a Swedish corporation?


      I think Japan has a very weak spot: they are excellent at improving existing technologies, but they cannot create new ones. When they finally dominate an industry, it becomes more or less irrelevant and a new industry dominates the economy.


      I'm sure there will be better Japanese CPUs in the future to rival Intel or AMD, there'll be better Japanese cellphones than Nokia, Ericsson, or Motorola. But I'm ready to bet that by then there will exist a new gadget that no one imagines today, and that gadget will have been invented in the USA or Europe.

    14. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by cyberstealth1024 · · Score: 1

      Every dollar you spend on military technology is a dollar you aren't spending on improving your economy. There is some trickle back, but that money would be far more efficiently spent working on the economic improvement, rather than working on the military improvement in the hope some of it will be economically useful.

      Now, there is the point that military spending must not tend to zero: if it does, it doesn't matter how great your economy is, you'll very shortly find yourself paying for someone else's military. But it doesn't grow your money. It only allows you to keep the money you have.

      Reminds me of opening strategies for various strategy games (Age of Empires, Civilization, etc..). In these games, I for one, tend to favor building a strong economy while establishing a core military to defend rushes. (however, if I am conquered while focusing on economy and not military: I, for one, welcome my new Mayan overlords!)

      Alas, games imitate RL.

      But it [military] doesn't grow your money. It only allows you to keep the money you have. ....unless you start invading!!
    15. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Zero was better than anything the allies had at the time, but in terms of people volume and production volume the US was non-beatable


      That comparison may be valid for American vs. German tanks, but not for Japanese vs. American airplanes. Japan created what was undoubtedly its best fighter, the Zero, in 1939, and never did anything better than that. OTOH, the US kept releasing better and better planes during WWII; the P-51 had a cruising speed that was 20 mph faster than the Zero's *top* speed in level flight.

      The A6M Zero was considered obsolete by the Japanese government by late 1942, and was replaced by various aircraft such as the Ki-84 and N1K-J, both of which had a similar (or indeed, with the higher octane fuel the US was using, better!) performance to the P-51D and P-47D, and Japan had even higher performance fighters such as the Ki-83 about to enter service in 1945 when they surrendered.

      The myth that Japan entered the war with the Zero and left it at that is simply that - a myth. The Zero was being replaced throughout 1943, 1944 and 1945 with better aircraft, with the only problem being that toward the end of the war Japan could not produce enough of them to sustain a defensive force.
    16. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well, that kind of depends on whether your opponents are weak because they've neglected their military or because they don't have any resources worth taking...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    17. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by anagama · · Score: 1

      Housing bubble in the early 1990s. Gov't intervention caused the pain to go on forever. Now we have our own housing bubble and if Bernanke, Bush, and all the legislators get their way, we too will face more than a decade of lousy economic conditions. Just forclose it all, take the hit, and recover. That would work a lot better.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    18. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Japan would probably have nukes to deter China if they weren't a former Axis country.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    19. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      And they will be piloted by highschool girls and carry swords for some unfathomable reason.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    20. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mangu · · Score: 1
      The Zero was being replaced throughout 1943, 1944 and 1945 with better aircraft


      OK, I agree that my example of the P-51 wasn't so good in this respect. Japan did have some aircraft that, in some cases, might have been better than American planes, if they had ever been able to manufacture them, who knows? But my point wasn't that. Japan's weakness isn't the inferiority in logistics and production they had in the 1940s.


      Even if they hadn't been defeated by June 1945, they had absolutely no equivalent to the four orders of magnitude enhancement the USA brought to offensive weapons with the atom bomb. Japan had no equivalent to what Germany developed in ballistic missiles, with jet and rocket propulsion.


      I think Japan's weak point is that they are unable to do this "paradigm shift" thing. Perhaps it's built into their culture, the way they admire experience and respect the elder. Give them airplanes, they will develop the best airplanes, but they will never invent a jet plane. (And they will never invent the cruise missile). Give them explosives, they will develop the best explosives, but they will not invent the atom bomb.

    21. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by enrevanche · · Score: 1
      I think this is just a misconception. Japan become very good at imitation and then improving better than the West after World War II because the economy and infrastructure was in shambles. They are very accepting of new technology, much more than the US. Their economy caught up to the US in a very short period of time. In order to do this there were many innovations at all levels, especially industrial which you cannot see. Plus, their culture is different, so some of the things that they have innovated may have little initial interest in the US or Europe. They, however, will be very much in a good position to compete in Asia where the US can't sell squat except weapons. But even here this will change as China and India are rapidly developing high-tech weapon systems whose costs are a fraction of US products.

      Japan lost to the US in World War II for many reasons, size being a large factor. Over-extension throughout Asia was also a big factor (you can't get away with try to conqueror and control populations far larger than your own, even with "high tech"). They simply did not have the population and material resources to do what their military junta was trying to do.

    22. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by enrevanche · · Score: 1

      Just forclose it all, take the hit, and recover

      This is neo-liberal economic bullshit. These policies do not work. They have not worked in the third world. Western economies and smart third world ones, never allow this to happen.

    23. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Zero was better than anything the allies had at the time,


      In terms of agility and speed, maybe. But it was done at a cost that become one of the reasons Japan lost the war. To achieve the high speed and agility, the Japanese had to make the Zero lighter than other planes. They did so by lowering the vital armour on the plane that protects the pilot. Which when combined with the Japanese's kamikaze tactics, by the end of the war the Japanese was left with little experienced pilots.
    24. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by Entropius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WRONG.

      The USA spends a shitload on our military. The Japanese spend nearly zero.

      I am sitting here typing on a computer designed partly in Japan. Sitting next to me is a cell phone designed by Koreans, and a digital camera made by Japanese engineers. The piece of glass on front of it was designed by Germans, and built in a Japanese factory.

      I've got an American car. It doesn't work too well, especially when compared to Japanese cars.

      I'm a physics grad student. The US gave up building the next-gen particle accelerator; that's being done in Europe now, because the US figured it would rather spend the money on the military. If the guys in the next lab over know what they're talking about, it should be running next year. The Japanese beat us in scientific supercomputer technology a while back. I understand they're also far ahead in robotics.

      If military spending on R&D helps out the rest of society, I'm not seeing it. If we've got such great aerospace technology, how come getting a plane from Tucson to Philly is still so damn hard and expensive? Of course, these days US military R&D isn't about producing weapons that work; it's about getting more contracts and more money. I personally know engineers who admit that it's more about the cash than actually getting stuff that works.

    25. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by Entropius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Japan has a very weak spot: they are excellent at improving existing technologies, but they cannot create new ones.

      Really? They pretty much created the commercially-available hybrid automobile. (Sure, they didn't invent it, but the idea for hybrid gas/electric powertrains has been around for a very long time).

      They also created one of the most impressive technologies in modern photography, image-stabilized lenses. (I think Canon did it first, but now Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic all make IS/VR/OIS/whatever lenses).

      Wasn't the CD invented by a Japanese company?

      No, the Japanese haven't invented everything; the rest of the world invents stuff too. But the Japanese invent stuff too; just because they're excellent at improving technologies doesn't mean that they don't invent new stuff.

    26. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I'd say Japan's economy is a hell of a lot better than the US considering how much land and how many natural resources they have to work with.

      They've got not much land, even less arable land, an absurdly high population density in the land that they *can* live in ... and they're still the world's second largest country.

      The US has about a half a continent to itself. Japan is a couple of volcanic islands. Hardly a fair comparison.

    27. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      And they'd still just get nuked.

      Really no major countries are going to be able to fight a conventional war ever again due to nuclear weapons.

    28. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Japanese surpised the US at Pearl Harbour, not only because it was a sneak attack, but also because it proved once and for all that in naval warfare the era of big-guns was over and the airplane would rule. In contrast to the Nippon Kaigun, the US navy had not yet understood this at the time, but the Pearl Harbor attack forced them into it. Many navies had carriers in 1940-1941, but only the Japanese understood what they were good for. That's not exactly an example of "take an existing success and improved it to perfection", but of a "change the paradigm". Actually, an American general saw the light in the 1920s as well, but was not believed in the US and court-martialled for his persistence. (So yes, it could be argued that the Japanese heard the idea from him, and I cannot prove that they had it already, but Mitchell's idea was not generally believed to be a good one. And that crucially is what the Japanese understood before embarking on their naval building programs.)

      Interestingly, the ever-imaginative rocket-inventing Germans - who by the way also invented the true submarine (their revolutionary Type XXI) for replacing the "boats that also could dive if really needed" that everyone else was using, completely failed to see the importance of carriers throughout the war. With that I want to point out that it is not correct to extrapolate from one (actually even misunderstood) failure to do something to a general caracteristic. Carrier building and developing the correct doctrine to use them effectively takes time, and since the Germans didn't have a real navy in between 1918 and roughly about 1936 they didn't have that time. It doesn't make them idiots, though.

      The Japanese collapse started at the combined battles in the Coral Sea and Midway (exactly after the six months predicted by Yamamoto), where they crucially lost most of their carrier fleet and experienced pilots. They simply did not have the resources to replace those. At that moment in time, the US was dangerously close to running out of carriers as well (just imagine Midway going the other way), but they had the resources to build many more in no time and they had the people to man them.

      And on top of all that there is the entire Japanese oil shortage thing that prevented them from doing many things they would have liked to do. What use it is to mass-produce new planes (assuming for a moment you can do that) for carriers that you no longer have and can't build and that you couldn't effectively operate anyway for lack of oil and pilots.

    29. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mangu · · Score: 1
      They pretty much created the commercially-available hybrid automobile


      Which makes how much, 0.001% perhaps, of the current market for cars?

      ... image-stabilized lenses


      Ditto for the photography market...


      Wasn't the CD invented by a Japanese company?


      The short answer is "NO". The long answer is "it was invented by Philips, a Dutch company, but Sony came in right at the beginning, because Philips didn't have all the manufacturing capability available".

    30. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mce · · Score: 1

      Which proves my point. They could outperform the opposition on pure and raw performace and "went for it". At that time they also had the very best naval pilots, because they correctly understood the importance of excellent well-trained pilots in naval warfare and "went for it" all the way, with their typical persistence. But they could not outproduce. WW-II was a war of attrition, which is why the Japanese lost it and were doomed to do so from day 1. Yamamoto knew this very well.

      Their new stealth plane does not need to be produced in huge volumes. It just needs to be good (ideally for them, read that as: better).

    31. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      And they'd still just get nuked.

      Really no major countries are going to be able to fight a conventional war ever again due to nuclear weapons.


      Are you familiar with M.A.D.

      Those nukes will never be used. If they ever ARE used, the launcher is also dead. Never mind if particularly Japan has nuclear weapon or not.

    32. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Second largest economy, I think you meant.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    33. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mce · · Score: 1

      Which makes how much, 0.001% perhaps, of the current market for cars?

      That's beside the point. It has been stated above that the Japanese only copy and do not invent and it has even been implied that they are incapable of inventing anything that requires a major breakthough or paradigm shift. (That's a racist claim, actually!) The hybrid car serves as counterproof to those claims. It is not meant as proof of immediate commercial success of everything the Japanese do.

      Ditto for the photography market...

      Again, that's beside the point.

      The short answer is "NO". The long answer is "it was invented by Philips, a Dutch company, but Sony came in right at the beginning, because Philips didn't have all the manufacturing capability available".

      At least you got that one right. But there's more to it than meets the eye. Philips did not just lack manufacturing capability. They also had no clue what to do with the product to make it a success. It's actually an instance of "the Philips disease": they invent a lot of great stuff, but they suck quite badly at making it a commercial success, because the company is run in essence by engineers and scientists. (*) Sony, on the other hand, knows how to make a product a succes, be it they own (the walkman) or someone else's (the CD). Which is one of the reasons why people in this thread are confident that the Japanese can beat the shit out of the competition if they want to.

      (*) Without explaining the details, let's just say that I know that phenomenon/feeling and how it affects Philips first-hand, OK? I'd have to go AC to explain this in more detail, something that at this point I can not do anymore in this dicsussion.

      Slightly off topic, but anyway: Hybrid cars are the future. Just do the maths on oil reserves, oil prices, cost of exploitation, natural oil formation rates, etc.: there is no way out of running dry if we continue down the current paths. People who claim that "more reserves will be found" and "pollution caused by cars will be reduced as science progresses" miss the point. If another 50 years of oil supply are found, we only get exactly that: 50 more years. Since we consume at a greate rate than the stuff is being formed, running dry at some point is an unavoidable mathematical certainty. Long before then people will finally (have to) get it and accept that they need to change their ways, for instance by means of hybrid cars. As for the "pollution will get solved argument": that's exactly one of the things the hybrid is for!

    34. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Women are better at killing than men, just not as well trained yet. Of course once technology reaches a certain point (bullets don't cut thru armor, missiles can't lock, explosives powerful enough to damage the machines kill too many civilians, remote control "toys" don't work and your left beating each other with glorified "sticks" again, in really big suits of armor.

      You miss the theme of most "giant robot" stories is that you can have the power to squish masses of people all day, but it still won't solve the real problems unless you stop squishing people and talk about them.

    35. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I did mean.

      Thanks.

    36. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Actually, quite a lot of the midrange photography market is using IS lenses now. Panasonic's been using it as a brand trait for a while -- *everything* they sell has IS, and their pretty amazing market success with it has forced Canon and some of the more traditional camera makers to include it in consumer cameras to keep up. You can get a Panasonic camera with a terrific IS lens for $250 or so.

    37. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by tigerhawkvok · · Score: 1

      I'm a physics to-be grad student, so I share your gripe on the SSC. However, I should note that US has the lead in supercomputing by far. In fact, we hold the first 8 positions on the Top 500 list.

      Despite the ITER fiasco, we still have a lot of promising research going on in the fusion department.
      We have one of the best astrophysics programs in the world.

      Despite the SSC never getting finished, it is our collider, the Tevatron, that has potentially found the Higgs boson

      It is our lasers that have reached kW and MW range. (Now that's a tough google search ... it returns mW instead of MW. Damn case insensitivity).

      It is our robots that have made giant strides in their walking procedures. Japan is trying to introduce their classically-modelled robots into the mainstream. We're working on getting them faster and more efficient.

      We're still the primary innovators, by far.

      --
      Blog
    38. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually the Japanese made a lot of mistakes.
      1. They underestimated the value of survivability. The Zero was faster then the F4F, it could out climb it, and it could out turn it. However the F4F was able to match the zero in combat because it was rugged and the US developed tactics that optimized its advantages in diving and survivability. The F4F, F6F, F4U and the P40 where all very rugged and had a good chance of coming home even it they where all shot up. The same could be said of the Japanese carriers. The Japanese where sure that they had put the Yorktown out of action for a year at the battle of the Coral Sea. They where then sure they sank it twice at Midway. They finally sank it with a submarine attack while it was under tow after the battle of Midway.
      2. The Japanese Navy and Army seemed to fight with each other as much as they did the US. The US has had some brain dead inter-service fights but when the war started they would at least copperate a little. The Japanese couldn't seem to get even that far.
      3. The Japanese failed to develop one of the most crucial technologies of the war, radar.
      4. The Japanese never used there submarines effectively. They also where lacking in anti-submarine warfare.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    39. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by azipsun · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say that only the Japanese understood what carriers were good for. The first all aircraft attack in naval history was actually launched by the British against the Italian navy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto.

    40. Re:Japanese will beat US any time by mce · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. What the Royal Navy did at Taranto was indeed "the corect thing to do". But overall, they generally operated their carriers as eskorts of their other (battle)ships, whereas the Japanese set up fully autonomous carrier battlegroups that they operated as such. That, to me at least, shows a deeper understmding of where things were going.

  4. Oblig.... by nih · · Score: 1

    BANZAI!

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
    1. Re:Oblig.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU FAIL IT!

    2. Re:Oblig.... by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1
      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  5. cool as ice by SoyChemist · · Score: 2, Funny

    Vanilla Ice to Japan: Drop that zero and get with the hero.

    1. Re:cool as ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you didn't...

      You did NOT just say that!

      Please tell me I'm seeing things!!!

      Vanilla Ice?! WTF is wrong with you man?!

    2. Re:cool as ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kinda sad to reply to your own lame joke 2 minutes later as an AC to try to make your joke look funnier than it really is.

    3. Re:cool as ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Vanilla Ice?! WTF is wrong with you man?!

      Kept on, postin' till the next stop,
      I clicked a link and said "Welcome to Slashdot".
      That thread was dead, yo, so I continued to
      Click "Reply" as Anonymous Coward II

      Malda and Taco wearing less than bikin-,
      Segmentation fault - core dumped.

    4. Re:cool as ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a life. You make AC look bad.

  6. Memories of WW2 by idesofmarch · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I, for one, welcome our new Japanese overlords. Well, they'll be able to take back Sakhalin from the Russians, anyway.

    1. Re:Memories of WW2 by yoprst · · Score: 1

      No chance, dude! In Soviet Russia Sakhalin takes you!

    2. Re:Memories of WW2 by drseuk · · Score: 1

      The Russians will see that coming, oh hang on ...

    3. Re:Memories of WW2 by hosecoat · · Score: 1

      Take off every 'ZIG' !!

  7. Stealth? I doubt! by bogaboga · · Score: 1, Interesting
    The Russians said: "If it consumes oxygen (air) and emits any [measurable] heat, then it cannot be safe in th sky."

    Several years later in the Balkan war, our own stealth fighter was downed reportedly with Russian technology. Those Russians even took part of the aircraft fragments despite US forces to destroy the entire plane.

    No wonder the stealth fighter (B2 bomber) still has to be "protected" while on bombing sorties. Question is, protect it from what, if it cannot be seen? I hope the Japanese are not becoming as incompetent as we can sometimes be.

    1. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      "No wonder the stealth fighter (B2 bomber) still has to be "protected" while on bombing sorties"

      Of course it has to be protected, it has no self defense, if it was seen 250 miles away from the sortee location, it would be like catching a fish in a barrell with a modern day interceptor.

      Its invisible to radar, but not to your eye.

    2. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by icegreentea · · Score: 2, Informative

      stealth doesn't make you invincible. it just makes you hard to kill. the harder you are to kill, the better no? the stealth fighter kill was mostly a problem with american planning (they flew the same route over and over and over again). however, i have no idea what your talking bout when you say that the stealth fighter/bomber must be protected on bombing sorties. maybe the tankers that they need to make the full trip have to be protected, but when they're running the whole "slipping through your air defense network" they are very much alone.

    3. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Funny
      The Russians said: "If it consumes oxygen (air) and emits any [measurable] heat, then it cannot be safe in th sky."

      Precisely. All that equipment we're carrying to detect gaseous anomalies - the thing's got to have a tailpipe!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It was shot down with a command detonated unguided missile (the missle was guidable, but in this case wasn't guided, just launched like a bottle rocket) and hit an aircraft that was flying the same ingress corridor several days in a row. This is a result of McPeak's stupidity.

      And yes, I was going to vote for Obama before he accepted McPeak's endorsement. So were thousands of my peers. C'est la vie.

    5. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by Minwee · · Score: 1

      I'm going to perform surgery on a torpedo. You never know...

    6. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Russians like making thigs "backwards" they tend to find quick and dirty ways to defeat really high technology. I'm sure they've already pulled some form of satillite or IR sensor to watch for stealth aircraft. Also, you'd have to guard the planes so that if they get shot down you can blow them in to smaller pieces.. great way to trust you pilots!

    7. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by skeptikos · · Score: 1

      Fascinating!

    8. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by GooberToo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Several years later in the Balkan war, our own stealth fighter was downed reportedly with Russian technology.

      To which I call BS. The shoot down was not a technology failure. The shoot down was a tactical failure of the worst kind. If your commanders REQUIRE that your super secret plane flies the exact same route, while low to the ground, day in and day out, over populated areas which can observe this pattern, guess what, you can create an ambush for it. No super secret Russian technology required. As a result, the plane was shot down but firing a large number of visually aimed missiles. Basic math and physics won.

      Mandated operating procedures were changed and heads did roll. The cause of the shoot down was American stupidity and not a Russian developed, anti-stealth, counter measure. The Russians did loot the crash site afterwards to obtain material samples.

    9. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Its invisible to radar, but not to your eye.

      I've heard about new detection techniques that look for disturbances in radio waves. Whenever something blocks radio waves (which any solid object will), it creates a kind of shadow that makes kind of ripple pattern that is detectable with fancy detectors. In a few decades, radar-based stealth may be irrelevant.

    10. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by bogaboga · · Score: 1

      If your commanders REQUIRE that your super secret plane flies the exact same route, while low to the ground, day in and day out, over populated areas which can observe this pattern, guess what, you can create an ambush for it.

      We've heard that before. There is always spin. Guess what, it's even happening in IRAQ now. So instead of saying, "yes, it's not as stealth as we thought it is", our air force officers span the incident as if the technology itself is fool proof!

      That aircraft is not as stealth as we think it is. From insiders, and I have access to some of them, they will not fly an un-escorted "stealth fighter" even at night.

    11. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by mha · · Score: 1

      (replying to this thread in general and not so much to the parent post...)

      "Stealth" does NOT mean "stealth". It means "hardER to detect", not "impossible". You still cannot fly on a straight path without knowing the enemy defenses at all. You have to know where the enemy radar is and keep that in mind when planning the flight path of the "stealth" aircraft. The technology provides a way to find holes in the defenses, it doesn't provide you with invincibility or real "stealth". The other part of finding such holes is intelligence, see above, like the actual location of the radar sites you want to get around...

    12. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. As you said, any solid object disturbs radio waves, this includes birds. I'm not an expert, but it might not be possible to derive the shape of objects based on radio disturbances(I think it's entirely plausible that two objects with completely different shapes might produce the same signature), so as long as we make our planes look like innocent objects, we'll be fine.

    13. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Guess what, it's even happening in IRAQ now.

      Stealth aircraft are being shot down in Iraq? [citation needed]. Do Iraqi insurgents even have anti-aircraft weapons?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    14. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      But most birds don't fly continuously at 200 MPH. Plus, planes are larger than the vast majority of birds. True, it will be a matter of picking out suspicious objects out of "noise", but they are still detectable and Russia etc. will eventually perfect the technology. I also suspect that laser bounce imaging will be developed in order to inspect an object.

    15. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      That aircraft is not as stealth as we think it is. From insiders, and I have access to some of them, they will not fly an un-escorted "stealth fighter" even at night. For some reason I doubt your authority on the subject, as you don't know the difference between the stealth fighter (F-117) and the stealth bomber (B-2). An inability to distinguish between a 30 year old Gen I stealth low level attack aircraft and a more modern Gen II stealth high altitude bomber indicates you didn't really understand what those purported insiders said, assuming they even exist. Frankly, I doubt any truly knowledgeable insiders would be discussing the subject with you, as they are prohibitted from discussing even those things about stealth which are considered "common knowledge".
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    16. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by G+Fab · · Score: 1

      No, we might lose an Apache or a C-130 might get chewed up a bit, and we have lost an F-16 or two.

      But we haven't lost any stealth planes. And we aren't using them there either. Why would we use stealth in an environment when we already have air superiority (and in fact, the enemy doesn't actually have an air force)? Our enemy is using IEDs, they do not have Radar facilities. We would obviously destroy that kind of massive infrastructure.

      GP was being a typical propogandist. Making up BS claims from "some guy I know" who has a pre-mission selection between f-117s and f-15s like he's playing Ace Combat 4. Just another idiot.

    17. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "No wonder the stealth fighter (B2 bomber) still has to be "protected" while on bombing sorties. Question is, protect it from what, if it cannot be seen? "

      If a lucky enemy gets a visual, he can still kill it with guns. Where escort is PRACTICAL, use it. Where not, use stealth and proper mission planning.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    18. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      Thats a good point, I think at some point, bombers will just have to be hyper-sonic UAV's. That would make detection rather irrelevant.

    19. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True... There are ways to network your radars if you have fancy schmancy communications between them and GPS-like small and precice clocks. That can defeat the deflective part of stealth technology. (That aspect of stealth relies on RADAR emitter and reciever being in the same spot.) But in turn that can be defeated yet again by flying more conventional aircraft featuring hi-power jammers. Now all the network sees is noise, with no hope of picking up anything useful. And then the stealths can go merrily on their way blowing up the communications nodes and defeating what was an anti-stealth network.

      As for lasers as a detector, how are they going to get past atmospheric scattering and things such as... Clouds? At best this might only be able to produce lock on something in near visual range. In which case you may as well toggle on the cannon instead of missiles and duke it out old (as in WWI) school.

      But Russians might have one halfway decent approach, and that would be their IR sensor technology. But even then it's not immune to atmospheric effects. (What might work good in a cold climate might not work in a hotter one with thermal inversions and turbulent air, etc.)

    20. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > To which I call BS. The shoot down was not a technology failure. The shoot down was a tactical failure of the worst kind

      you could atleast do some research before calling BS on the OP (or posting a link to back up your claims). OP is right, the F117A was downed because of a technology failure. Its stealth capabilities were not stealthy enough:

      According to NATO Commander Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Serb air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their radars operating on unusually long wavelengths. This made them visible on radar screens for short times

    21. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      The F117 that went down was a lucky shot from AAA. The stealth tech had nothing to do with it.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    22. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 1

      What heavy bomber were you thinking of that has defensive weaponry? Hello? Anybody home?

      The B-2 flies high and fast and has a vastly longer range than intercept fighters, as do all nearly all heavy bombers (save the B-1, which is designed to allow low level near supersonic penetration flight). Unless a radar could somehow detect a B-2 while it was approaching, it would be impossible to get a fighter in the air that could even theoretically catch it, assuming the fighter could see it or find it on radar, which of course it couldn't.

      The B-2 is invisible to the eye because it flies at night over hostile areas ... of course. Even during daytime, planes at 50,000 feet are normally invisible unless they are leaving contrails.

    23. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From the same Wikipedia article that you quote:

      The [Serbian] commanders and crews of the SAMs guessed the flight paths of earlier F-117A strikes from rare radar spottings and positioned their SAM launchers and spotters accordingly. It is believed that the SA-3 crews and spotters were able to locate and track F-117A 82-806 visually, probably with the help of infra-red and night vision systems.
    24. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      In a few decades, radar-based stealth may be irrelevant.
      In a few decades we'll have mega joule particle weapons capable of destroying a target from orbit.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    25. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Do Iraqi insurgents even have anti-aircraft weapons?

      Absolutely they do, since they are being provided by Syria and Iran. They have managed to shoot down several helicopters. Despite this, simple RPGs have proved to be fairly successful against helicopters, as depicted in movies such as "Black Hawk Down".

      During the early days of the war, the Apache proved its metal. Several Apaches received direct hits by RPGs. One received a RPG hit on its FLIR system, which is the bulb on nose. The second received an RPG hit in the transmission. The pilot performed an emergency landing, jumped out while under small arms fire, sized up the situation, grabbed tranny fluid from in-ship stores, added many quarts of fluid (I have no idea exactly how much), and flew it back to base. The other Apaches offered close air support during the tranny refill. Apaches can actually fly with zero tranny fluid for some period of time before chewing it self to death. I've been told the documented duration but I simply can't remember. I know this because my brother is an Apache Longbow pilot. He has spent some time in Iraq.

      Needless to say, "fag-hawks", as the Apache pilots lovingly referred to them are clearly not in the same class of robustness as Apaches.

    26. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      You know, I sort of gathered the total opposite of that from news reports of the Apache being particularly vulnerable, but that doesn't matter much. What does matter is that they're shooting down helicopters, not stealth fighters.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    27. Re:Stealth? I doubt! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Don't let me give you the impression they all make it home. They don't. But Apaches are the A-10s of US helicopters. Regardless, I agree. Stealth aircraft are not falling out of the skies as some of the posters here attempt to cite.

  8. Zeros for the AIrcraft Carrier Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the Japanese will make a VSTOL version like the Americans did with the F-35 JSF to fly from their first of several Aircraft Carrie.... Um Destroyer DDH 181 Hyuga (weight and size is just below the UK Invincible class aircraft carriers)

  9. Re: yea, ok,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they are ahead then why are they bugging us to buy the stuff?

  10. Or maybe just a mockup? by dgr73 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While the external frame is very important to any airplane, stealthy or not, what matters is what goes into the plane and what materials is it built out of. You can't just build a life-size carbon fiber chassis and call it a stealth plane if you put a whole heap of non-stealthy stuff inside.

    Stealth is a defensive technology anyway, meaning your fighter is stealthy only until a single weakness is found. You can't really say at this point if this is a project that will succeed. Or if it's even meant to succeed. I mean, would you put it past the Japanese to force the US hand to sell them to F22 by threatening to build a competitor which they might sell to god-knows-who to finance the development. the previous sentence is an artistic liberty I took to get my point across, i'm sure the F22 is more advanced than the F15 in areas other than stealth.

    1. Re:Or maybe just a mockup? by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      yes you can. if your external geometry is sound, and you're not building out of radar transparent material, the only places where internal stuff matters is air intake, nozzles, cockpit and radar dome. the point of stealth is you combine radar absorbing material to reduce the amount of EM bounced back, and shaping to deflect your reflection away from original source.

    2. Re:Or maybe just a mockup? by pato101 · · Score: 1

      i'm sure the F22 is more advanced than the F15 in areas other than stealth.
      Eurofighter is far more advanced than the F15 and has no stealth capabilities at all.
    3. Re:Or maybe just a mockup? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Stealth" doesn't just mean "difficult to see on radar". It has to be quiet and difficult to see as well. Heat signature also has to be reduced to protect against heat-seeking missiles.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    4. Re:Or maybe just a mockup? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The Eurofighter, while not designed around the stealth mantra, does incorporate some reduced visibility features such as a non exposed engine face (S bend intakes) and subtle alterations to features to cut down on radar return.

    5. Re:Or maybe just a mockup? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Well, gosh! It's so easy! It's a wonder that Pakistan hasn't bodged one together in a bunker somewhere!

      (It's not easy. At all. Hiding engine faces and cockpits and low-observable emitters is very, very difficult.)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:Or maybe just a mockup? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "Better dogfighter" != "more advanced". The EF2000 is a superb aircraft, and a very agile one. However, if you look at the combat record of the F-15, it's pretty damn impressive.

      The F-15 can carry a much larger warload, is faster, with superior avionics. Had the situation been something other than "Hey, we're well inside visual range, let's mix it up for fun!" I'd wager the outcome would have been very different. Which, if you read the article, is what actually happened. The F-15s were able to prosecute a successful attack before the EF2000s reacted.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  11. It's called "synecodche", look it up. by HarryCaul · · Score: 1, Informative

    And stay awake in English class next time.

  12. What I'm wondering is... by meringuoid · · Score: 1

    ... what does it transform into? And at which high school will they be recruiting the pilots?

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:What I'm wondering is... by sanman2 · · Score: 1

      Junior highschool, man -- junior. Don't want to recruit from the old crowd, who've lost touch with afterschool cartoon militarism.

  13. Re:the real issue by pigiron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    with China becoming increasingly hostile Japan probably feels the need to load up with high tech weapons fast so they can beat China down.

    As I said before being rudely modded down: "Any technology that can kill Chinese is a GOOD thing!"

  14. Re:the real issue by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

    Do you have any clue about what you are talking about?

    Do you even understand Toyota's production method?

    Do you even understand any of the factors that dictate the lifetime of a military airframe/engine?

    Stop living in a fantasy world and welcome to the real world.

    Japan is not 5-10 years ahead of the USA in electronics/processors and no where near 20 years ahead of the US in manufacturing. Prove to me that these numbers don't just come out of your ass. And don't go citing one off examples, because I can show you one off examples to further my point to, go look at the whole picture instead. None of your statements are true in any manner.

    Not to mention, you can't just *make* something last 10x longer with some simple tech, developing a turbine that can last 10x longer then one in an F22 or an airframe chassis that can handle the stress placed on it requires huge advances in material science that require very large budgets. You think the JSDF budget comes anywhere close to the US military budget in materials science?

    In case you were interested, modern American cars are just as reliable as newer Japanese cars.

    "Oh no wait, Its the Japanese they are obviously smarter then us for some reason so they can come up with these things that we can't possibly fathom because we are incompetent Americans."

    Go learn more, then talk.

  15. looks familiar... by jdogalt · · Score: 1

    I'll leave it to others to continue this thought with facts, but the pictures from the link look _real_ familiar. Sort of like how unoriginal that Soviet space shuttle looked.

    1. Re:looks familiar... by philpalm · · Score: 1

      The stealth technology was discovered by the Japanese when they noticed variations in radar absorption of buildings and material,thus they license some of their information to the US who took the idea to the final product.

      Nonetheless Lockeed and their stealth skunk works helped pull up the miracle at the balkin wars, Desert Storm and the newest US Agression in Iran.

      The Chinese and Russians are hard at work to counter stealth technology so that they can both sell it and use it for their own purposes.

    2. Re:looks familiar... by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless Lockeed and their stealth skunk works helped pull up the miracle at the balkin wars, Desert Storm and the newest US Agression in Iran. [emphasis added]

      For all our sakes I hope you meant Iraq, not Iran. Iraq, you already have troops in; Iran, you don't.
    3. Re:looks familiar... by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      Actually I meant that the plane physically looked similar to a U.S. plane. The JSF I believe. But I don't care enough to research the issue.

    4. Re:looks familiar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet curiously, the Buran was a fairly different design internally, and had some quite impressive autonomous capabilities.
      In some ways, it was a better shuttle than the shuttles; It's a shame they didn't get to use and refine the design.

    5. Re:looks familiar... by Peil · · Score: 0
      From the ubiquitous Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ya._Ufimtsev

      Russian scientist Professor Ufimstev is considered the seminal force behind modern stealth aircraft technology. In the 1960s he began developing equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes. Much of Ufimtsev's work was translated into English, and in the 1970s American scientists began to expand upon some of his theories to create the concept of aircraft with reduced radar signatures.

  16. It worked out that way last time? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    There is no substitute for experience.

    Japanese engineers killing themselves in a futile attempt to make their first home built fighter in over 50 years the best will hurt their effort to make their second fighter better.

    It is analogous to the Indians (obviously dot Indians not Casino Indians) effort to produce better jet engines then GE. They are doomed to failure as they set unrealistic goals for a first effort. They will continue to purchase GE engines for the foreseeable future.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:It worked out that way last time? by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1
    2. Re:It worked out that way last time? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The F2 is an F16. Built in Japan but designed in the USA. Many non-Japanese components.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:It worked out that way last time? by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      obviously dot Indians not Casino Indians
      Wow, that was in poor taste. And the dots are called bindis.

  17. Re:the real issue by diegocn · · Score: 1

    Civilian production capability and military one is complete different concept. Japan has no experience of developing their own military plane after WWII. The best experience they have is F-2, which is an enlarged F-16 co-developed with Lockhead Martin.

  18. a better name by ameoba · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The "new Zero" is nowhere sexy enough of a name. I propose that it gets called the "Zig".

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    1. Re:a better name by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I can accept this, only if every one takes off.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:a better name by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      Even "Zero" can be measured. I propose they call it "NULL".

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  19. Re:the real issue by Oswald · · Score: 1
    I have interpreted the U.S. unwillingness to sell the F-22 to Japan as short-sighted, ungrateful, and disloyal. I know those are terms that seem naive in the context of international diplomacy, but, honestly, if Japan hasn't been a model ally and worthy of our best technology, then I don't what the fuck that would look like.

    But I just had another thought as I read the posts here: what if the U.S. gov't really does have a lot of faith in Japan as a world citizen and an ally, and this is just a shitty way to get them to apply themselves more vigorously to the problem of defending the "western" world. Maybe we like the thought of a militarily-active Japan as a counterweight to China's ever-increasing political, economic, and military heft. Maybe somebody thinks "this will get them off their asses."

    I dunno. Just a thought.

  20. Who is Japan's primary enemy? by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    It's worse than that. At what point do Japan, Taiwan and South Korea decide that the US bankrolling of an increasingly aggressive China means that they can no longer rely in any way on US defence capability? If I were the Japanese government, I would already have a secret date for when the last US armed forces leave Japan. In the meantime, as with Russia and Germany at the end of the 1930s, keep talking and swearing undying friendship.

    In fact Russia and its sphere of influence could get big benefits from cooperation with Japan. Russia has the resources, natural and human. Japan has the technology. As the US tries to hold on to more of the oil in the Middle East and South America, at what point can Russia make Japan an offer it will be hard to refuse? Look at a map of the Arctic, look at the sea ice pattern in August/September and see how far Russian resources are from the Japanese islands by, say, 2030. An awful lot of US interests could be affected in quite unexpected ways by global warming, especially when those nuclear subs have far fewer places to hide and have to travel much further under open water to get to them.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Who is Japan's primary enemy? by jt2377 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Godzilla is Japan's primary enemy. They need that stealth fighter to drive him back to Sea.

    2. Re:Who is Japan's primary enemy? by genius55 · · Score: 1

      hallo:)

  21. Re:It's called "synecodche", look it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or perhaps 'synecdoche'. Stay awake in typing class, next time.

  22. Bullshit! by WED+Fan · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The interesting thing about stealth technology however, is that it is almost exclusively used for aggression rather than defense if you play your strategy according to tradition.

    Bullshit!

    Stealth is not "exclusively" nor "almost exclusively" for aggression, unless you watch too much "Star Trek". The ability to put fighters in the air as a defensive measure and keep their presence unknown or harder to find means they will live longer to defend. D E F E N D or D Fucking Fend.

    Fighters have always been primarily about defense, bombers have been offense. Yes, fighters defend bomber groups, but most of the time they are designed to go out, meet the invaders, and take them down, i.e., the other guys' bombers or attack aircraft.

    Our ability to hide our defenders until they strike is paramount. It works in poker, boxing, chess, capture the flag, etc.

    So, you were "almost" right. Which, makes you W R O N G.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Bullshit! by BWJones · · Score: 1

      I guess in addition to your propensity for profanity, you also have an inability to read other posts I have made or understand the nuance of the English language. If you will note I said in the original post: "..... if you play your strategy according to tradition." Also I commented in other replies that "The F-22's radar is impressive, but here is the deal... You have to go active to see targets, particularly well concealed targets and that makes you "visible" as well. If the new JDAF fighter can remain "unseen" until it gets up close and personal and is a lighter, smaller and more nimble aircraft, the F-22 may have a problem..

      So, while you can revel in your glee at being able to call someone else on the Internet wrong, you have to be willing to take a little as well...

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    2. Re:Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grandparent (WED Fan (911325)) is a known troll, although he focuses more on Microsoft-related issues.
      Probably just regular karma-whoring.
      This is just how they get mod points.

    3. Re:Bullshit! by Duct+Tape+Pro · · Score: 1

      Where is +1 Cold Blooded when you need it?

      --
      i hotdog.
    4. Re:Bullshit! by vertinox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fighters have always been primarily about defense, bombers have been offense. Yes, fighters defend bomber groups, but most of the time they are designed to go out, meet the invaders, and take them down, i.e., the other guys' bombers or attack aircraft. Ummm... No.

      Fighters are about air superiority regardless of offense or defense. This has been the case since WWI.

      The Luftwaffe didn't send fighters over the UK to defend Germany from British Bombers, but rather attempting to keep the RAF out of the sky. Whether shooting them on the runways or when they attempted to attack the German bombers didn't matter.

      Of course the Luftwaffe had its role switched to defense in 1944, but it was still attempted to gain air superiority against allied fighters and bombers.

      The role of the fighter is to destroy other aircraft. It can be used in defense or offense, but its key role is not defense like SAM or Flak batteries.
      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    5. Re:Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decaf.

    6. Re:Bullshit! by feepness · · Score: 1

      So, you were "almost" right. Which, makes you W R O N G. And you're somewhat correct (in that fighters do both offense and defense), but a total "jerk" about it. Which make you an A S S H O L E.
    7. Re:Bullshit! by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      And you're somewhat correct (in that fighters do both offense and defense), but a total "jerk" about it. Which make you an A S S H O L E.

      I made the necessary caveats.

      But, as a former USAF MTI (drill instructor to uninitiated) I do so revel in the title A S S H O L E I was a campaign hat wearing professional asshole.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    8. Re:Bullshit! by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      The role of SAM or Flak (AA) batteries is to destroy other aircraft. By YOUR definition, that would make them offensive weapons. Your position is retarded anyway. F-22's primary purpose is to kill other airplanes. No competent military planner would send a USD $360 million plane to be lost in a bombing mission. Its ability to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft is magnitudes better than SAMs or other AA systems. In fact, fighter aircraft is the only credible means to ensure air-defense. You would mandate Japan to only procure ground based air defenses so they would get wiped out by a potential aggressor (ask any Middle East nation), leaving its trillions of dollar of infrastructure to be destroyed along with its civilian population. On behalf of Japan, I suggest you "go fuck yourself". Japan's peace constitution is eventually going to be amended to allow full military capability anyway. This is because they won't be able to count on the US to defend it, or protect its assets or interests outside of Japan. The only question is whether China will "beat it to the punch", or a North Korean incursion will motivate the change.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    9. Re:Bullshit! by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      The role of SAM or Flak (AA) batteries is to destroy other aircraft. By YOUR definition, that would make them offensive weapons. F-22's primary purpose is to kill other airplanes. No competent military planner would send a USD $360 million plane to be lost in a bombing mission. Its ability to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft is magnitudes better than SAMs or other AA systems. In fact, fighter aircraft is the only credible means to ensure air-defense.

      Your position is retarded anyway. You would mandate Japan to only procure ground based air defenses so they would get wiped out by a potential aggressor (ask any Middle East nation), leaving its trillions of dollar of infrastructure to be destroyed along with its civilian population. On behalf of Japan, I suggest you "go fuck yourself".

      Japan's peace constitution is eventually going to be amended to allow full military capability anyway. This is because they won't be able to count on the US to defend it, or protect its assets or interests outside of Japan. The only question is whether China will "beat it to the punch", or a North Korean incursion will motivate the change.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    10. Re:Bullshit! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Well, if you americans stopped flattering yourself beliving every action in the world surrounds around you, you wouldn't care if it could handle the F-22 or not.
      Because, you know, just because they make their own plane when you don't let them buy yours doesn't mean they are after you...
      It might save you some military budget, annoying comments on Internet forums and lifes of your soldiers aswell.

    11. Re:Bullshit! by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      The role of SAM or Flak (AA) batteries is to destroy other aircraft. By YOUR definition, that would make them offensive weapons.
      Just for the trivia:
      The soviet AA batteries from the sixties designated as ZSU "Shilka" have proven to be effective offensive weapons when their guns are aimed to fire at ground targets.

    12. Re:Bullshit! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You summarize the issue nicely. Just this once, I agree with the NRA, when they say that the difference between an offensive and defensive weapon is the way it's used, not the weapon itself.

  23. Re:the real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you name a single Japanese company that sells advanced microprocessors/microcontrollers? Of the top ten semiconductor companies only 2 are Japanese and neither do significant processor research. And no, Sony does not.

  24. Re:the real issue by nnull · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? You're pulling numbers out of your ass.

  25. "Stealthy-ness" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You know, there's already a word for this cute little expression. 'Stealthiness'.

  26. uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...am I the only one thinking Macross and Robotech???

  27. Modes? by sanman2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    But what about the transforming capabilities? How many vehicle modes does it have? Will it have just the standard 2-arms and 2-legs robot mode, or will there be a third hybrid form that looks like a crab or a squid, or something?

    1. Re:Modes? by SnoopJeDi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Probably only 2 modes, jet and robot. The crab/squid prototypes tend to have weaknesses that can lead to massive damage if exploited.

    2. Re:Modes? by AgentPaper · · Score: 1

      Hey, GERWALK mode worked great for the Veritech fighter. Jet propulsion with robot legs - what's not to like?

      --
      First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
    3. Re:Modes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you look like a complete tool in GERWALK mode.

    4. Re:Modes? by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping for something along the lines of Wing Zero.

      --
      I have nothing to say.
    5. Re:Modes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, will there be a Skull squadron and the lead's call sign be Skull 1.

    6. Re:Modes? by Heliode · · Score: 1

      Mitsubishi is not in charge of Gundam.

      --
      Fox can take the sky from you.
  28. Wrong! by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The sensors for the F22, for example, are made by BAE Systems E&IS, and Northrop Grumman in the united states. The US military has a vested interest in insuring that key components of military hardware are made domestically. That way they can ensure the technology will not fall into enemy hands, and ensure that war abroad will not affect supply of military hardware.

  29. The real problem by earthforce_1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is very much like building your own state of the art, deep submicron IC fabrication plant. In the early days it was relatively easy to stay current, and in the 1970's even some universities could have a bleeding edge fab. As the technology gets more complex, the costs go up asymptotically, and the small players have to fold.

    Many canadians remember the "Avro Arrow" the last fighter jet built here. To bring it into production would have taken up the entire defense budget, and once you have built enough fighters to satisfy the needs of your own air force, how do you keep the team together to maintain it and build enhanced versions? You either sell your aircraft to foreign nations, (often unstable and/or war torn 3rd world dictatorships that have disproportionately large military budgets) team up with foreign nations to increase your market and share the costs. (like the newest eurofighter) No matter how good the arrow was, (the project is still controversial) it couldn't be built economically without selling it abroad.

    The Israeli's tried and failed with the Lavi project. Technically they could have done it, but it didn't make economic sense no matter how badly they wanted control and ownership of their own weapons platform.

    Other countries such as Sweden and France manufacture high tech fighters - the French were notorious for selling their all over the world. I predict the project will probably fold after spending billions of dollars, and just maybe cranking out a factory prototype or two.

    The US can do it simply because they are such a large country with the world's biggest military budget. Even they have run into problems where the production run was completed, yet they didn't want to lose the technology and expertise when the production line shut down and the team disbanded, so wound up buying more aircraft than the air force wanted.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:The real problem by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure the Japanese will fold. If other projects are any indication, they are very determined to keep producing their own warplanes. See the F-2 fighter (basically duplicating the F-16, even though unit cost rose to 4x that of the F-16). They also ave a maritime patrol aircraft in development (the P-X) for which they decided to develop a unique airframe, when it would have been much cheaper to use an existing airliner.
      It's mostly a matter of political will. That's why Sweden still builds its own fighters. That's also why the Israelis cancelled the Lavi: political pressure from the US to buy American aircraft instead.

    2. Re:The real problem by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's not really political will...I'd chalk it up to simple racism. The Japanese don't like anything that's not made in Japan and 100% Japanese. They'll go out of their way to scratch this itch.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:The real problem by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      the French were notorious for selling their all over the world.

      "were" is the real keyword in the sentence. Dasault Aviation sold a lot of Mirages to many countries, but they already have real difficulties selling their new Rafale to the french navy and air force, preventing them to factor in large scale economy and giving them little credibility to export it.

  30. Go Japan! by Supercooldude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's about time Japan got back into the jet fighter game, considering they haven't built an all-indigenous fighter since the Mitsubish F-1 (a relatively unimpressive fighter in the class of such technological heavyweights as the J-22 Orao and the Nanchang Q-5). The Mitsubishi F-2 was just a copy of the F-16 airframe with Japanese avionics.

  31. Re:unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am so freaking happy /. has a moderation system.

  32. Re:the real issue by garett_spencley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I can not speak with entire certainty about the last 60 years, I can say that there are a lot of people who feel that Japan is only an "ally" because they were forced to surrender in WWII due to a) the US dropping nukes on them (one on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki ... which were the only two the US had with months required to build another one, but the Japanese did not know that) and b) Russia had finally declared war on them.

    Japan entered World War II with the intent of conquering Asia. They invaded China (without ever formally declaring War since both China and Japan feared it would cause their trading partners to stop supplying them) for it's resources and eventually The Philippines which was an act of war against the US. The Japanese were notorious for committing atrocities. Germany gets most of the attention for the Holocaust but the Japanese were also quite brutal. Usually we hear about the suicide pilots who would crash their planes into enemy ships but they also raped and tortured enemies and their "creed" (for lack of a better term) was "fight to the death". They would then mutilate bodies of killed enemies stuffing their genitals in their mouths etc. This was done to demoralize the Allied troops.

    Now personally I do not believe the Japanese are still like this. Their surrender in WWII was with many conditions imposed by the Allies. They initially rejected the offer but after Russia declared war on them and the 2nd nuke was dropped on Nagasaki they felt they had no choice. My history isn't 100% up to snuff but I believe that the Allies worked with the Japanese government much the same way the current US government is trying to work with Iraq to instate a new government and new, democratic, systems etc. However, those who are young can not understand the positions of the veterans and their immediate descendants who passed on their strong hatred and mistrust of the Japanese for their utter brutality in WWII. It takes time for things to change. I don't think Japan really is an "ally" of the US. I think the US government still strongly mistrusts the Japanese and wants to keep them on a very short leash to make sure that the events of WWII do not repeat themselves.

  33. YA JOE! by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 0, Troll
    Who won-a second wulla wah you so smaht?

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:YA JOE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are we gonna *do* Lieutenant?
      PT

  34. Re:the real issue by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

    what if the U.S. gov't really does have a lot of faith in Japan as a world citizen and an ally, and this is just a shitty way to get them to apply themselves more vigorously to the problem of defending the "western" world. Their constitution, as dictated by the US at the end of WW2, effectively prohibits any such thing. Their military is small, purely a defensive force, with a hard-coded budget.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  35. Re:It's called "synecodche", look it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called "synecodoche", look it up.

    Fixed that for ya.

  36. Japanese Figher, American Fighter by Ryukotsusei · · Score: 1

    Does it really matter? It's all made in China anyway!

  37. Stealth is validated by amightywind · · Score: 1

    Several years later in the Balkan war, our own stealth fighter was downed reportedly with Russian technology.

    By any measure US stealth was an overwhelming success in the Balkan War. There was one (count 'em) loss out of 1000's of stealth sorties. No aircraft flies with absolute impunity. The question is, does stealth help accomplish the mission. The answer is a resounding yes, even against the best Russian air defenses.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Stealth is validated by bogaboga · · Score: 1
      Nice try man! All the Russians needed is one success, and they got it. So right now because of this, we Americans have to think twice or thrice whenever we think stealth.

      Why do you think we scream when Russians send technology to Iran? I guess it's because we do not have all the answers to their technology.

    2. Re:Stealth is validated by mwaggs_jd · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. Durring Desert Shield the Airforce used F4J Wild Weasles and AH-64's to take out radar sites before the "stealth" boys even shoed themselves in theater. The Serbians are not exactly on the top of the world food chain either. I still have serious doubts about our stealth aircraft, may have something to do with them missing their targets in Panama and lots of dead soldiers due to that...

      --
      No one here gets out alive
    3. Re:Stealth is validated by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Nice try man! All the Russians needed is one success, and they got it. So right now because of this, we Americans have to think twice or thrice whenever we think stealth. Like when we flew the B-2 unopposed and unscathed in the skies over Baghdad in 2003, despite one of the most modern air defense systems available? How many successes have the Russian systems had against the B-2? None, of course. But that explains why you keep bringing up the F-117A, a Gen I stealth design slated to be retired next year, which was shot down due to poor mission planning which gave the Serbians the opportunity to set a trap and acquire one visually with IR gear and fire during a minuscule window of radar visibility using SA-3's with radar sets tuned to an unusually long wavelength. There was no magic Russian technology there, just idiotic route planning. If you don't know where the '117A is coming from, the plan doesn't work.

      Why do you think we scream when Russians send technology to Iran? I guess it's because we do not have all the answers to their technology. Given your obvious lack of understanding of the issue, I don't have much faith in the validity of your guesses. The US opposes all technology transfers to Iran on general principles, not necessarily because of a specific threat.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Stealth is validated by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      The F117s were out there for a long ass time, and the F4Gs and apaches didn't make a bit of difference for the 117s. Its the regular AAA over baghdad that had em scared. Keep in mind that at the time the stealth had only been declassified for a short period of time and no one knew shit about it. I know loads of 117 pilots (my dad was one) and personally know half the people you see in documentaries about the stealth who told me this stuff.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Stealth is validated by mwaggs_jd · · Score: 1

      THe F4's and AH64's took out all the radars, so that there was nothing but old school AAA. Kind of hard to prove the effectiveness of stealth when there are no enemies willing to light up a radar. Where you sit tends to determine where you stand.

      --
      No one here gets out alive
    6. Re:Stealth is validated by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      They may have taken out the stuff in the desert, but they weren't taking out the radars and sams around Baghdad. Saying that stealths have only faced standard AAA is not accurate for this reason, as well as the numerous other times that the 117s were used in many conflicts.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    7. Re:Stealth is validated by mwaggs_jd · · Score: 1

      No, SF teams with GLID's were lasing them for the "smart" bombs. Many other conflicts? First used in 1989 in Panama, the Desert Storm, Bosnia, Afghanistan, OIF. Never used against first line AA or Airforces. It's a good plane, just never truly tested against the foe it was designed to fight.

      --
      No one here gets out alive
    8. Re:Stealth is validated by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      ...and what other wars have we been in since it was created? What other air forces in the world are "first line?", much less both that and potential enemies of the US? The average Russian pilot of 20 years has as much flight experience as a USAF pilot of 4 or 5 years. Iran, NK and even China aren't at all caught up to the USAF. I also don't see what your point about SF is for since I was arguing about sams vs AAA and wild weasels etc.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
  38. Yeah, but does it transform? by denzacar · · Score: 0

    Come on... It is Japanese...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  39. ALL YOUR F22 ARE BELONG TO US... by Carbon+Unit+549 · · Score: 1

    Nice mock up of an F22 but, there's more to an airplane than its outer shell.

    --

    nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &

  40. Trailing edges of wing and tail are wrong by Thagg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For stealth, you'd never want to have edges perpendicular to the line of flight, there's just no way that they wouldn't have a strong radar return right back where you don't want it. This so-called mockup, while it may have some features that are stealth, is clearly not the final deal.

    Thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Trailing edges of wing and tail are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you not consider to teach it to the Japanese and French aeronautic engineers ? I'm sure they will be interested by your courses.

    2. Re:Trailing edges of wing and tail are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The angle is completely irrelevant if the material is transparent to the wavelengths you're interested in!

      If you can build an airframe that's strong enough out of materials that are transparent (hint: what are radar cones made of), then you at the very least have the option of adding a non-angular radar absorbent material coated "inner shell" around the bits inside that are not, such as the engines.

      Frankly, the whole no-angle blah blah is the throw back to an era when composites exhibiting such characteristics where difficult, and it made better copy for poopular mechanic to say "our engineers are so smart they build an airframe that can't fly without a computer but won't reflect the radar signal" than "they can't do it right, so they settled for second best".

  41. Re:the real issue by mha · · Score: 1

    Your comment sounded great and I would have given a mod point had I not already posted to this thread - until I got to the last sentence, which doesn't make sense (to me) whatsoever...

  42. Robo-planes by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It seems that unmanned craft may be the next wave. They don't have to be as expensive and reliable if there is no on-board pilot. If Japan got an early beat on robotic planes, they could control the market, perhaps allowing them to make stronger deals with the US.

    1. Re:Robo-planes by ricegf · · Score: 1

      If Japan got an early beat on robotic planes, they could control the market

      Yep. Good thing nobody in the USA is working on UAV technology yet! (ahem)

  43. Japan won't buy them in 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Japan's Liberal Democratic Party under Koizumi supported commisioning these fighters, but the rival anti-war Democratic party is graining seats. If these trends continue, by 2016, Japan won't be budgeting enough for its military defense to actually purchase these concept fighter jets from Mitsubishi.

    1. Re:Japan won't buy them in 2016 by hnile_jablko · · Score: 1

      ....but the rival anti-war Democratic party is graining seats.

      I really hope that spelling of 'graining' was intentional. Not that the r would have been added by any asian speaking Engrish to the word gaining, but it made me laugh nonetheless. Many, many thanks.

  44. zero, macross zero. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure it will own the sky but will it have thrust vectoring? will this thing turn on a dime?

  45. History repeats itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    History repeats itself.. over and over again. The landscape might change, but power and people and the reasons for war don't. The only problem is that we are getting better and more efficient in killing.

    I'd say this news is right on schedule. The generation that remembers WWII has (mostly) passed away and all of the lessens learned are forgotten or being dismissed. For the past few years I've been reading news articles out of Germany about removing many of the safeguards that were put in place after Hitler's reign, along with a drastic increase in 'national pride.' Japan had sworn off a military, yet the reasons why are lost today.

    In the year 2040 our world will experience yet another horror.

    1. Re:History repeats itself by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt a future world war will be started by either Japan or Germany. Both are stable and peaceful democracies

      Your best bet is a new cold war, this time between the US and China, turning hot, maybe in a few decades.

      Don't take the phrase "history always repeats itself" too literally. It doesn't really.

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    2. Re:History repeats itself by nathanicus · · Score: 1

      Um, I have lived in Germany for 9 years, and in -real- rural Germany, nowhere near the American bases or big cities where people bother being politically correct, and I haven't the faintest idea of what 'safeguards' you claim are being removed in the name of 'national pride'. Germany's national pride has not even begun to recover from WWII. Heck, civilians never even fly German flags!

    3. Re:History repeats itself by illuvata · · Score: 1

      Heck, civilians never even fly German flags! Oh, you missed the last soccer world cup? There you could see the strange spectacle of Germans who are not part of the government flying German flags. It sure was weird, although I don't think many took it as far as also singing the national anthem (which for most would involve first learning it anyway). However, I'm glad to say that after the world cup, Germany seems to have gone back to normal.
    4. Re:History repeats itself by nathanicus · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Weltmeisterschaft was the only time that I actually saw Germans fly their own flag, which is entirely why I noticed it in the first place...

      Catch me on an overgeneralization, you did. Commendations on being very sharp.

      However, this still kind of reaffirms my point ;)

    5. Re:History repeats itself by StonedYoda47 · · Score: 1

      I'd say 2015 is so much more likely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

    6. Re:History repeats itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, flag waving is for insecure, immature countries.

  46. So Godzilla has radar now? by VampireByte · · Score: 1

    That must be the reason that stealth is needed for defense

    --

    Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

  47. Dummy... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

    You should have asked if the plane can combine with others to form a superior robot!
    Sheesh, what's wrong with you realists?

  48. Ask the Israelis by amightywind · · Score: 1

    I guess it's because we do not have all the answers to their technology.

    LOL! Ask the Israelis about the effectiveness of Russian air defenses. It is barely worth the effort to blow up Russian military technology anymore.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  49. Payload!? by bug · · Score: 1

    So looking at the model, it doesn't look like there's much room for internal bomb/missile bays. Exterior hard points defeat the entire point of stealth, so that's out of the question. What kind of payload is this thing expected to be carrying? There's not much point to building a fighter plane that can't carry any weaponry.

    1. Re:Payload!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For f*ck's sake. I read TFA and replies to 3 idiots already who read a couple of articles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpress releases about the F22 and assume that since the engineers who built this (wonderful) plane did it THAT way for THOSE reasons, it necessarily follows that next generation planes will follow that design.

      Has it occurred to you that a stealth plane that advertises itself like a zip on your nose when it opens the weapons bay is suboptimal? Has it not occurred to you that having a stealth plane firing missiles that show up as ten times as big on a radar scope might not be the brightest idea?

      Apparently not.

      Give the guys *some* credit! The internal weapon bay is because it's the only way the F22 could carry *existing* ordinance while remaining stealthy. Of course next gen missile will be suitably invisible and can be carried outside!

    2. Re:Payload!? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Internally it can hold 6 AIM-120Cs and 2 AIM-9s. That's it's primary configuration for air-to-air. With everything inside it is as stealthy as possible and as efficient as possible. Externally it can carry 4 fuel tanks, or two fuel tanks and four missiles (of varying types). Obviously hooking on external weapons makes it less stealthy, as well as increasing drag.

      Remember: This isn't a bomber, though it can carry two bombs if needed (as the expense of 4 missiles) it's an air superiority fighter. It is designed to be fast, light, stealthy, and to kill other planes. Maneuverability and stealth are more important than maximum payload.

  50. How to take down a stealth fighter by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Informative

    An interesting article on how perseverance and attention to details allowed the Serbs to down the F-117 stealth craft:

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx

    1. Re:How to take down a stealth fighter by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      The serbs also discovered that a microwave oven with the door open acts as a decoy for a radar installation as well. High tech only gets you so far, and then if the other side plays along.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  51. JSF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting that they use the F-22 as the standard against which the new Japanese fighter is compared. Although the Raptor was more expensive than the F-35a (US Air Force version of the JSF), contrary to popular belief, the F-35a is expected to outperform the F-22 in air-to-air combat due to the fact that the F-35 has more current (although less fancy) tech.

  52. Re:the real issue by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't it make sense ? The US government has time and time again referred to itself as "THE super power". I'm not trying to knock the US, I'm just trying to offer a (possible) explanation for choosing not to sell F-22's (and possibly other military technology) to Japan. Not only that but US was a key player in developing Japan's government post-WWII. It makes complete sense (to me) that the US would look at the country as something to be controlled.

  53. Well, that is obvious.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    Maybe the fact that they don't supply any helmets with the thing is a hint :-).

    Sorry, too much caffeine..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  54. Manned fighter era over by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Even small rockets are able to evaluate the situation and hurl their warhead to their target hoping that it will hit it, if they decide they wont make it until the target- since 1970s (exocet).

    we are in the era of the rocket. shoulder launched stuff can bring down aircraft. evolution of microprocessors and ai algorithms made aircraft obsolete.

    even if you make an aircraft stealthy as you can do, there will be other venues to make rockets track your craft - sound, gps, visual lock and so on.

    but, the defense complex is still trying to reap taxpayer cash with 20-30 year long zillion dollar worth contracts of aircraft and etc. and brainwashing to that effect. why ? cash of course.

    1. Re:Manned fighter era over by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Manned fighter era over"

      Like ATGW/IEDs/EFPs have swept all the AFVs from the battlefield???

      Losing some vehicles does not equate to the end of an era. Aircraft casualty rates are microscopic today per sortie or flying hour compared to any other era.

      "shoulder launched stuff can bring down aircraft." Within certain ranges under the right conditions.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Manned fighter era over by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Land/sea and air are very different mediums. In land and sea there are much more variables and issues to counter before any automated vehicles can get the upper hand. whereas air is a medium that is more easily manageable - doesnt have hills, rivers, some infantry behind every bush and so on. go high enough, and you can monitor and send missiles over horizon. (phoneix, f14s already were doing that).

      air casualty rates are microscopic today because for the last 30 years no major power is fighting against another. whomever major powers are figthing (soviet vs afghan, us vs vietnamese, uk vs argentina) are lacking in many respects even if they have just any equality in any aspect of the war. (argentina having some edge with exocets and etandards, but lacking in all other respects like support, early warning, telecommunications, ecm, eccm).

      when any 2 major powers fight, it will come up that expensive, hard to produce manned vehicles will become a liability if the fight is not over very, very soon. and it will be seen that automated systems like tomahawks and other cruise missiles pay out big time.

    3. Re:Manned fighter era over by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "when any 2 major powers fight, it will come up that expensive, hard to produce manned vehicles will become a liability if the fight is not over very, very soon."

      Exercises and wars do not indicate that this will be so. and of course we train for a BVR-capable enemy.

      Cruise missiles and similar weapons are so expensive that they are built in small quantities which are rapidly used up. The US is a "major power" and even we don't have limitless missiles. That's why most of the Iraq war was fought with "dumb" or not especially intelligent bombs delivered by "smart" aircraft.

      Enemy defenses must shoot to kill our systems, and they will use up valuable missiles on things like UAVs.

      Modern manned aircraft are not difficult to keep in the air if one brings enough fuel and parts. We train constantly for deployed ops, and we have been doing many real-world deployments for decades. We can do it in NBC suits but it sucks... :(

      We were able to offer more F-16 sorties than the aircrew could use during Gulf War Part One, and systems are even better now. (I just retired after 26 years maintaining fighters, from Phantoms through F-16 A/B/C/D. I was Comm/Nav, Engines, and later a Crew Chief.)

      Airborne standoff weapons would OTOH be large players in a major conflict, because they are cheap enough to build in bulk and kits like JDAM are fitted to existing bombs. As systems improve, goodies like the Small Diameter Bomb can plink targets precisely while allowing aircraft to carry more individual munitions. Standoff weapons allow old airframes like the B-52 to attack from a safe distance, so their non-stealthy nature is not a problem.

      Cruise missiles have important uses (especially killing command and control assets), but if you want to annhilate an enemy unit emptying a Buff full of 750lb bombs on top of them has worked beautifully since the 1960s.

      The simple "very-non-standoff" A-10 can take SAM hits and make it back to be turned for another mission. Been there, saw that at KKMC. Those birds flew into dense fire and nearly all came home. Not my site but good pics:
      http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/home.htm

      Modern air war is a war of SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS. Manned and unmanned assets are used together,giving choices for killing the enemy so commanders may apply what works.

      An initial surge of cruise missiles at high value targets with strikes by stealth airframes for "foreplay", then SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) to smash SAM systems and kill their crews, followed by more conventional strikes as supremacy is achieved is the ideal, but systems allow different responses against a capable enemy.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Manned fighter era over by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Cruise missiles and similar weapons are so expensive that they are built in small quantities which are rapidly used up. The US is a "major power" and even we don't have limitless missiles. That's why most of the Iraq war was fought with "dumb" or not especially intelligent bombs delivered by "smart" aircraft.

      using up cruise missiles on key targets make great difference. and at this stage id like to remind you that the difference between a cruise missile and a uav is the fact that former is going to be used up.

      additionally, if you are going to use stand off equipment, you really dont need to invest in that much high technology anyway - like stealthy fighters and such. whatever a fighter is going to carry as missile payload and use, (from what i remember f14s were able to track 12 targets and guide missiles to 6 of them at the same time) a b52 or any other old airframe modified with early warning systems (awacs and like, they use in hawkeyes) ecm and eccm measures and amraam and other new generation air to air missiles) will do even better. you wont need stealthy red baron like agility of a fighter plane when you are fighting over the horizon missile wars.

      and what if, the cash thats spent on getting advanced fighters such as these, is spent on bettering uavs to the level of cruise missiles, and make them deliver payloads ?

      much cheaper, requires less crew to train and operate, not barred by physical limitations of human body and easily replaceable.

      that is the route air war is taking. and investing in 20 year long big fighter projects will start to be seen as foolhardy decisions, shortly.
    5. Re:Manned fighter era over by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "using up cruise missiles on key targets make great difference. and at this stage id like to remind you that the difference between a cruise missile and a uav is the fact that former is going to be used up."

      Superficial resemblance /= "essential sameness". I'd like to remind you to learn more about missile and UAV systems. :)

      UAVs are designed for surveillance and long loiter time, with the intent that they be recovered and turned for more sorties. They are too valuable to throw away, and this will be the case for advanced UAVs even after most "meat in the cockpit" is a memory. Cameras, sensor suites, weapons systems, ECM, etc are far more advanced on UAVs because their mission demands it. As they get better the leading edge will still be expensive.

      Cruise missiles are (obviously) designed to penetrate and kill targets. Their simpler sensors and equipment reflect this. Using cruise missiles is important, but no one can afford to mount every "bomb" into a single-use expendable airframe.

      "and what if, the cash thats spent on getting advanced fighters such as these, is spent on bettering uavs to the level of cruise missiles, and make them deliver payloads ?"

      Besides that spending not being a binary choice, the UAV is already far more advanced than the cruise missile and does deliver payloads. UAVs fly slower for better observation/loiter time/fuel economy. Cruise missiles just need to haul ass down low and hit the target. Note the airframe and powerplant differences.

      AF thinking is that avoiding a weapons monoculture requires the enemy to defend against a variety of systems.
      Currently, manned aircraft have a desired advantage in that they are not controlled by a (potentially hackable/jammable) datalink, they are easy to recall/divert, and can do multiple missions in one sortie. Their other KEY advantage is pilot situational awareness vs. the "stovepipe" of UAV sensors.

      A piloted machine = human+sensors, while a UAV does not (yet) offer the same situational awareness/situation immersivity. There is even momentum to bring back airborne FACs in prop-driven slow-movers to fill the gaps, and such aircraft are flying for the US under contract since we sold off our Broncos for drug spraying. Note we don't do THAT job with UAVs either.

      "additionally, if you are going to use stand off equipment, you really dont need to invest in that much high technology anyway - like stealthy fighters and such."

      Stealth PLUS standoff gives greater margins of safety than "standoff". The enemy may object to your non-stealth bomber or ship off his coast.

      You will also want to shoot enemy cruise missiles, which may have much of their flight path over ENEMY territory protected by enemy defensive systems. Stealth starts looking good.

      Beware of the amateur error of thinking that the solutions to winning air wars are as simple as they look at first glance. Our ancient 1970s-design fighter airframes need replacement to fill the capability gap between manned and immature unmanned sytems.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Manned fighter era over by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Superficial resemblance /= "essential sameness". I'd like to remind you to learn more about missile and UAV systems. :) no need in that. i had engineering education already. and speaking from an engineer's point of view i can say that whatever you can do with a propulsion system and airframe, you can do the same with similar system and airframe, but use different set of internal mission systems.

      you talk like UAV is a concept that is monolithic and compact. it isnt. take the valuable systems you speak of, and put only enough systems to conduct the combat mission, and you'd still have something cheaper than a cruise missile.

      if i am able to put more uavs on field due to the relative cheapness compared to the cost of training and keeping a pilot and building and maintaining an aircraft (and i bet i can), i will be having a larger advantage.

      hackable/jammable datalinks do not constitute an argument either, for almost all systems the modern aircraft relies on are also hackable and jammable. just, there hasnt been a battle between equally advanced armies, and we havent seen the ecm/eccm carnage in the air yet. when it happens, probably many aircraft systems will be unreliable too. so theres no tradeoff there.

      Stealth PLUS standoff gives greater margins of safety than "standoff". The enemy may object to your non-stealth bomber or ship off his coast. with stealth plus standoff you dont need the maneuverability of a fighter plane. thats the trick. designing an equivalent of a b52 in a fashion that is stealthy enough (geometrically and material wise) is much more cheaper than designing a fighter plane thats going to outmaneuver opponents in heated dogfight. AND when you count in the amount of ecm/eccm equipment that can be put in such an airframe, the need for stealth becomes doubtable too. heck, you can even put small automated aa defense systems even, to point defense against incoming missiles.

      Our ancient 1970s-design fighter airframes need replacement to fill the capability gap between manned and immature unmanned sytems.

      no they dont. the current electronic battlefield requirements have already gone over what humans can accommodate. first the fighter plane crew have risen to 2 due to need for maintaining the equipment, and then the need for man machine interaction increased even more.
    7. Re:Manned fighter era over by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "no they dont."

      Better build some new airframes using those designs if you dislike new ones. We can agree to disagree on the UAV issue, but what is your answer for the airframe wearout problem? SLEP? If so what kind?

      The F-16 and F-15 ARE long in the tooth (have you spent any time maintaining them or are you otherwise familiar with how tired these machines are becoming?) and even the later F-16s have airframe problems stemming from high flight time and hanging large ordnance off a small airframe. What is your personal aviation maintenance and/or sortie generating experience?

      The Super Hornet isn't a great aircraft, but the Navy needed something to tide them over.

      "take the valuable systems you speak of, and put only enough systems to conduct the combat mission, and you'd still have something cheaper than a cruise missile."

      In your opinion, what are those systems?

      "if i am able to put more uavs on field due to the relative cheapness compared to the cost of training and keeping a pilot and building and maintaining an aircraft (and i bet i can), i will be having a larger advantage."

      Then do it and get rich. Hire me while you're at it. :)
      I'll be happy to help support, maintain and field such systems, and don't object to them if they can be gotten to work, but that HAS NOT HAPPENED yet at the level to replace manned acft.

      How would you breakout your vehicle types? What is your deployment model, dispersed or big fixed FOB?
      How do you want to integrate with existing sytems like Predator? Whatever you build will need to fit existing command and control structures.
      Have you considered a deployment model based on 20' ISO containers for command and maintenance?

      If you want to continue the discussion, email me at logisticsREMOVElist61 AT yah00DOtcom with UAV in the subject line.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:Manned fighter era over by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Better build some new airframes using those designs if you dislike new ones. We can agree to disagree on the UAV issue, but what is your answer for the airframe wearout problem? SLEP? If so what kind? im never saying that old airframes should keep being used. never. im saying that one doesnt need advanced fighter concepts in airframe if the combat is going to be done in standoff fashion and electronically. you dont need no maneuverability there.

      The F-16 and F-15 ARE long in the tooth (have you spent any time maintaining them or are you otherwise familiar with how tired these machines are becoming?) and even the later F-16s have airframe problems stemming from high flight time and hanging large ordnance off a small airframe. What is your personal aviation maintenance and/or sortie generating experience? I have zilch, nada, zero. refer to the above block.

      In your opinion, what are those systems? you dont need extensive, highly automated surveillance stuff for a combat mission. humans in aircraft do not use them extensively anyway. whats broadly used are radar based equipment, and mainly laser guided bombs. the latter doesnt require aircraft's input anyway. russian approach with a twist - add the bare necessities for mission, but this time throw in western technology.

      Then do it and get rich. Hire me while you're at it. :) I'll be happy to help support, maintain and field such systems, and don't object to them if they can be gotten to work, but that HAS NOT HAPPENED yet at the level to replace manned acft. im one of them who wears flowers in his/her hair. peace at our times. peace in future. i'd like to continue the discussion if it was around 10 years ago, but im so all far out in the land of peace and balance now, that discussing these sounds brutal as of now so ill be passing on that, my apologies. whatever combat that i should discuss from now on would probably be psychic. and defense at that one too.

      predator is not an airframe suitable for going on combat missions. its better for surveillance. first, a faster and slightly bigger airframe is needed, and it needs to use turbofan engines. modelists do use turbofan engines on many models that are considerably smaller, even in 1/72 scale anyway. it needs to fly very high, as much as it can, and rely on radars and satellite (gps) input to find its way and conduct business. laser guided freefall bombs for support (with infantry) and gps reliant guided missiles for non infantry aided tasks. these are air to surface. radar guided missiles are abundant already, and these can conduct air to air missions with the support of an awacs nearby even. there are so many possibilities for such an airframe. what you need is just an airframe that carries enough equipment to do the task, and has enough service ceiling and speed and thats it. you dont need risk no highly trained pilot in it - pilot can be thousands of miles away.
  55. D.I.Y. Prelude To COTS by cmholm · · Score: 1

    The Aviation Week article included some plausable speculation, that one point, perhaps the major point, for the indigenous Japanese effort is to grease the way for an F-22 buy.

    Back in the late 40's/early 50's, after German/UK scientist Fuchs leaked US atomic technology to the USSR, the US cut the UK out of any atomic technology exchange. The UK exerted considerable effort to craft a H-bomb in house, and successfully tested a few in 1957. At that point, the US cut the UK back in on joint H-bomb development. The British bomb was a dead-end design, but it demonstrated a capability that the Russians had by that time matched, so there was no benefit to continuing the embargo.

    In

    Avaiation Week suspects that the Japanese might be making the same point, that "we can do this on our own if we have to". Perhaps this will aleveate fears in the US that an F-22 sale (and licensed production in Japan) will give Japanese (and later, Chinese) engineers access to designs and materials they'd otherwise have to put their own time and money into. Once their time and money have created the expertise, what's the point?

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  56. Re:the real issue by mha · · Score: 1

    I don't see it as very likely scenario - to say the least - that Japan is going to go back to WWII behavior, and I'm a very practical human being without scruples to eat the horse I'd been riding just the other day or (too many) illusions about the world.... ;-)

  57. Ppl here are all techs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The Japan of today is not the Japan of the 1930s, and even if it were, it simply is no longer in any position to do much about it.

    Culture barely changes a very tiny little every HUNDRED years.

    1. Re:Ppl here are all techs. by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      Culture barely changes a very tiny little every HUNDRED years.

      This has nothing to do with culture. This has to do with the people in power in the 1930's and 1940's, namely the emperor. Japan is a democratic society now. Things are very different from 60-70 years ago when you put things in perspective. Culture is basically irrelevant to this conversation.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    2. Re:Ppl here are all techs. by Nexx · · Score: 1

      > The Japan of today is not the Japan of the 1930s, and even if it were, it simply is no longer in any position to do much about it.

      Culture barely changes a very tiny little every HUNDRED years.

      Wait, what? You now see the results of peace-indoctrinating education given in the past half-century, and right-wing people who cry for rearmament is now seen as crackpots.

      I will maintain that education is the best and most effective brainwashing system known.

    3. Re:Ppl here are all techs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're joking, right?

    4. Re:Ppl here are all techs. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Culture barely changes a very tiny little every HUNDRED years. *Watches 'Leave it to Beaver' marathon on TVLand*
      *Watches 'Law and Order' marathon on USA*

      Um... Yeah...
    5. Re:Ppl here are all techs. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      This has to do with the people in power in the 1930's and 1940's, namely the emperor.

      The Emperor was only nominally in power in the 1930's and '40's. Just like the Queen of England today (and then), the Parliament really ran things, with the Prime Minister the de facto guy in charge.

      Note that during much of the 1930's and 1940's, the PM of Japan was a general.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Ppl here are all techs. by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

      Culture barely changes a very tiny little every HUNDRED years.
      {{fact}}
  58. I knew it!!! by MsGeek · · Score: 1

    It's a freaking DECEPTICON!!!

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    1. Re:I knew it!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you died yet? Fuck.

  59. Invulnerability. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Where's the evidence of this? I've found no credible source that backs this statement up. These things don't exactly get advertised in the New York Times. On a number of occasions foreign and for that matter USN subs have gotten hits on US carriers during maneuvers or as close as you can get to a hit on a high value asset like that on maneuvers where the rules are often slanted against that possibility. It isn't easy to score hits on high value targets on maneuvers, the judges tend to bend the rules to make the darling assets of their brass plated bosses more or less invulnerable. Sinking a carrier pretty much means the carrier group has lost, you don't have to sink the entire force, just the big fat target in the middle of it. For a sub to be diesel powered is not the same as it begin as hopelessly backward as an obsidian tipped spear on a modern battlefield. I know that people often equate diesel sub with obsolete sub but the German 212 and 214 (export) series subs are among the most sophisticated and stealthy on the planet and represent a major leap in the evolution of diesel subs. The same pretty much goes for aircraft. Taking out an AWACS aircraft on some of these exercises is for example made a lot harder than it would be in the real world. I suppose it makes life easier for the tech freaks in the military since they don't get reminded of how terribly vulnerable these thing can be and how catastrophic the loss of a super carrier or a few AWACS aircraft or even a brace of in flight refueling aircraft might be to a force who has come to depend on them more than they should... and don't even get me started on what a bunch of clever military hackers could do to the 'networked battle-group'. Before WWII the USN demonstrated on maneuvers that a carrier strike on Pearl Harbor was a viable scenario. Needless to say this made to many high ranking people in the military way to uncomfortable since it upset their pet theories of how a real shooting war with a worthy opponent would be plaid out so the results and lessons of these maneuvers were ignored. As a consequence when the US military leaderships at Pearl Harbor woke up to the sound of Japanese aircraft bombs slamming into their beloved battleships their first thought was that a German pocket battle ship had to be shelling their base with it's 11 in guns.
    1. Re:Invulnerability. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may not be advertised in NYT but it sure seems it gets broadcast on NBC.
      http://www.knbc.com/news/10116514/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news
      It's not exactly a secret that submarines can sneak up on surface ships (or just lie still and wait with a bit of luck.)

  60. two generations by zogger · · Score: 1

    If they are openly showing the 22 right now, that means they are two generations ahead in what they really have as the "ace in the hole" craft. They'll have some numbers of deployed next generation, and a smaller number of working prototypes at two generations out, while three out is still being developed.

    So, speculate on those. Whatcha think?

  61. Video of the model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.alert5.com/2007/09/more-on-japanese-stealth-video.html

  62. In a word: YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Will ATD-X achieve air superiority over the F-22, which Washington refuses to sell to Tokyo?

    YES. And, as a bonus, it'll be:

    - Cheaper to produce

    - Lighter

    - Higher quality

    - Made from recycled materials

    - More reliable and more durable

    - More fuel efficient

    - Featuring electronics technology 5 years ahead of the USA

    Even better: all the stylin' aftermarket bolt-ons you can imagine!

    NOTE: If you're laughing... So did Ford, GM, Chrysler, and every major American home stereo manufacturer.

  63. my hopes dashed. by denttford · · Score: 1

    Honestly. I clicked on this hurriedly, expecting to find the resurrection of the Street Fighter franchise.

    Sigh.

    --

    Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
  64. Re:the real issue by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
    honestly, if Japan hasn't been a model ally and worthy of our best technology, then I don't what the fuck that would look like.

    Have you been reading the news lately? The Japanese have been leaking information like a sieve to the Chinese. They're pretty thoroughly penetrated. Giving the F-22 to the Japanese would be the same as uploading all of the plans to Beijing. I'm not a fan of the USA sharing its latest, greatest tech with anyone. England, maybe.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  65. Should be?! by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's back to man-vs-man... like it should be.

    No, my side should have the very best equipment, technology, and training, so that it can overwhelmingly crush and subdue any opponent. That is how it should be. We don't go to war to fight — we go to win — as quickly and with as few casualties as possible.

    You, doofuses, are so good at "seeing the other side" of every story, you lose sight of your own side. War is not "fair" — you must be confusing it with sports...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Should be?! by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Not really sports are fun war isn't.

      If fights are fair people won't engage in them, since you're a crazy warmonger can I also assume you're a gun nut?

      Do you see a contradiction between the arguments about self defense vs overwhelming power disrupting MAD?

    2. Re:Should be?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, war shouldn't be "fair", but it also shouldn't be this impersonal affair that we've turned it into.

      War should not be clean. It should not be remote-piloting cruise missiles from 200 miles away to destroy your enemy's infrastructure. It should not be long-range, rapid-fire weapons that allow you to take out your enemy with reduced danger to yourself.

      War should be close, it should be personal, it should be ugly. It should be hand-to-hand, in the mud, in the blood, face to face with the enemy that wants you dead. It should be so horrific that both sides seek to avoid it as much as humanly possible, because war is not a good thing. At times, it may become a necessary thing, but that should only be after all other avenues have been completely exhausted, and even that should only be with the heaviest of hearts.

      Money and technology are the two worst things to ever happen to human conflict.

    3. Re:Should be?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, my side should have the very best equipment.., so that it can overwhelmingly crush and subdue..."

      Right on, man! We will only have true peace and stablity when the USA has destroyed ALL opposition, including the opposition inside its own boundaries......

      And this is a true American concept. It doesn't apply to anyone else, because Americans are fobidden from seeing anyone else's point of view by the PATRIOT Act. If anyone else thinks like this, Iran, for instance, we should invade them before they become a threat, massacre their menfolk and rape and murder their women and children until their country no longer exists. Just like we did to Iraq...

      Why do I think that the British system of being sporting and fair has something to commend it? Because that way you won't have to keep fighting against the entire rest of the world...?

    4. Re:Should be?! by porpnorber · · Score: 1

      It has become very clear recently that in the modern world there are indeed two sides: there is the side consisting of the terrorist organisations and terrorist governments who want to fight, and there is the entire damn rest of the world, who want to get on with their lives in peace.

      I leave it to your own judgment where the lines fall.

      You can say "we don't go to war to fight -- we go to win," but that's on the assumption that life is a zero-sum game. Much effort goes into taking progress and converting it into destruction in order to simulate this constraint, it is true. But goodness we would be better off if your side stopped fretting about winning and losing and learned to enjoy playing the game of life by some plausible set of rules!

    5. Re:Should be?! by Wolfkin · · Score: 1

      "If fights are fair people won't engage in them,"

      Ah, this explains why the attacker has always won, because if there was a significant chance the attacker would lose, there'd be no attack, right?

      If fights are fair, a lot more people are tempted to start fights, because they can convince themselves that they will "probably" win.

      Lastly, by conflating the "peace through superior firepower" position with being a "crazy warmonger", you seem to imply that you, yourself, would never hestitate to attack others if you thought you could get away with it. Perhaps you didn't mean to be so forthcoming?

      --
      Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
    6. Re:Should be?! by mi · · Score: 1

      Not really sports are fun war isn't.

      Who said anything about "fun"?

      since you're a crazy warmonger can I also assume you're a gun nut?

      You already assumed, I'm crazy, and a warmonger — for all I care, you can also assume I torture puppies, perform abortions, and lynch mixed couples.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Should be?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War should not be clean. It should not be remote-piloting cruise missiles from 200 miles away to destroy your enemy's infrastructure. It should not be long-range, rapid-fire weapons that allow you to take out your enemy with reduced danger to yourself.


      Ahh.. now I see. I'm a moderate liberal (reformed Republican) and you're just a left wing pussy moron.

      I want DARPA designing nanomachines that will literally liquefy Chinese infantry formations while leaving their hardware and resources intact.

      In conclusion, our people are worth more than yours, so fuck off. If the decision is made to go to war, I want minimum impact on my society and military and maximum carnage on the opposite side.

      Money and technology are the two worst things to ever happen to human conflict.


      No, the idea of limited war is the worst thing ever. See: Viet Nam. We should have been up in the north slaughtering everything that moves involving the military, but of course the dumbasses in charge (who should have been subsequently EXECUTED for everything from treason to dereliction of duty) slapped rules of engagement which did nothing constructive.

      And then there are non-sequiturs.. somebody tell me why we're in Iraq again? They did WHAT to us?
    8. Re:Should be?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at WWI to see what happens when forces are evenly matched. I guess only crazy warmongers dream of avoiding meat grinders.

  66. Quite normal in corporate discussions by HarryCaul · · Score: 1


    Referring to decisions from the head office by the name of the city that head office is located in is pretty much the norm.

    Honestly, this is one of the dumbest complaints I've ever heard on slashdot, and I've been here a while.

    1. Re:Quite normal in corporate discussions by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. I've been here a while, too, so that's nothing new to me.

      Referring to the geographic location of an office in a corporation when discussing decisions taken from there is very normal, yes.

      Referring to the capital city of a country when discussing government decisions, without regard to where the actual decisions have taken place is horrendously stupid. When a country does something, it's the result of a democratic process, either directly or indirectly. The democracy is the country. The capital city of the country is of little to no significance.

    2. Re:Quite normal in corporate discussions by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      Referring to the geographic location of an office in a corporation when discussing decisions taken from there is very normal colloquially, yes.*

      Too late for previews.

      I don't see how you use the fact that it's a common colloquialism to argue that it would be proper journalism. They have nothing in common.

  67. Bastard Child by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

    This thing looks like the result of a Raptor and Fulcrum one night stand.

    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
  68. Re:the real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have it backwards. It was the Japanese who wanted a conditioned surrender (one condition), and they surrendered before the nukes were dropped. However, the US rejected the surrender, as they wanted unconditional surrender. It was all politics, and had little to do with actual military necessity at the time.

    Japanese wanted control of Asia long before WWII or even WWI. The Russo-Japanese war was the kicker. At the time, it was European and American powers controlling Asia (which they did by force, such as in the Spanish-American war).

  69. Re:the real issue by enrevanche · · Score: 1

    They developed the F-1 prior to the F-2.

  70. Yep by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The F-22 has it's own radar of course, it would be stupid to cripple the jet by not having one. However in normal engagements, it isn't going to be used. WE already see this with the F-15/16s. The F-15s impressive radar (at least when it was designed) now basically just sits off all the time, AWACS directs it instead. The F-22 works the same way, only with even greater data communication from the AWACS, and greater stealth. The idea is that opposing jets just start blowing up, that's the first warning they have that there are fighters in the area. The only radar they ever pick up is the AWACS which, while unwelcome, isn't really something you can do anything about since they are able to sit a good distance back from the battlefield and you can assume they have an escort.

    The mini-AWACS capability is more or less a backup. What happens if your AWACS is shot down? What if you are in an area that it is unavailable? What if the mission is too far away? Previously, the case then was "All planes have to use their own radar and do it like we did before AWACS." Now there's another option: A single F-22 can play mini-AWACS. It's not as good as the real deal, and it does expose that F-22, but it is better than the alternative.

    1. Re:Yep by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The only radar they ever pick up is the AWACS which, while unwelcome, isn't really something you can do anything about since they are able to sit a good distance back from the battlefield and you can assume they have an escort.

      What happens if you aim a high-energy laser at the radar ? Could you blind it that way ? Or, for that matter, what if you simply begin bombarding the AWACS with random electromagnetic noise - would that drown out its own signals, making it essentally blind ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Yep by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      I don't know. The military classifies everything in relation to the workings of the AWACS radar. However, such a strategy is dangerous because your jammer is going to get hit with a missile. There are missiles just for such a purpose, the AGM-88B. Basically the AWACS directs its fighters towards the transmitter and they launch the missile. The missile itself takes care of the rest, seeking out and blowing up the transmitter. So unless they transmitters are highly mobile, which then would make targeting a problem, or cheap enough you can lose a lot of them, it isn't a workable proposition.

      Also unless it is a highly directional signal, which is a problem since you are talking about accurately training it on a target that's moving at a few hundred miles an hour a few hundred miles away, you run the risk of screwing up your own radars in the process.

      I'm not saying it is totally impossible, but I've yet to hear of any kind of realistic implementation.

  71. Re:the real issue by Entropius · · Score: 1

    In case you were interested, modern American cars are just as reliable as newer Japanese cars.

    Not according to Consumer Reports, who tests this stuff.

  72. Re:the real issue by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    If they can forgive us for dropping two nukes on them, I think we can forgive them for what they did to us in WW II.

  73. Re:the real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Japanese were also quite brutal. Usually we hear about the suicide pilots who would crash their planes into enemy ships but they also raped and tortured enemies and their "creed" (for lack of a better term) was "fight to the death". They would then mutilate bodies of killed enemies stuffing their genitals in their mouths etc. This was done to demoralize the Allied troops.

    Now personally I do not believe the Japanese are still like this.


    Uh, did you bother to do *any* research before you arrived at this conclusion? 20 seconds on google turns up a few hundred thousand pages documenting Japanese people stuffing genitals in mouths.

  74. Some questions don't need asking by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

    You should have asked if the plane can combine with others to form a superior robot!
    Sheesh, what's wrong with you realists? Well duh! That's like asking if it's gonna have a landing gear.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  75. Round 5 in the jet fighter evolution race. by theolein · · Score: 3, Informative

    The US and previously the USSR, now Russia and China, have bene in a perpetual race to build the best fighter for over 50 years now, from the days of the F-86 and Mig-15, the F-4 and Mig-21 and F-15 and Su-27/30. Each time, one side has made a major improvement and then the other side has scrambled to keep up. The Mig-15 was the best until the US cougt up with the F-86, then the Mig-21 proved to be more nimble than the F-4 and along came the F-16. The USSR built the Mach 3 Mig-25 to counter a possible Mach 3 XB-70 US bomber and the US built the F-15 to counter that. The the Soviet built the Su-27 to counter the F-15 and the Mig-29 to counter the F-16. Since the late 80's the US has been working on the F-22, which has been both the most advanced jet fighter ever and also the most expensive. It was so expensive that the actual number pruchased has been reduced by two thirds, costnig about $100 million a piece. It is also so sensitive that it will likely never be exported.

    To ctach up in this never ending race, Sukhoi in Russia has been working on a similar stealth aircraft to the F-22, called the PAK FA for many years now, and the first example should be flying next year, and Shenyang and Chengdu in China have been working on similar designs, the J-xx and J-13, but I doubt that any of these weapons will ever be used against any of the other. The Russia and Chinese jets are just as sensitive, security wise, as the F-22 is. There is much more chance that the Indians using the PAK and the Pakistanis, using the J-13/14 will duke it out amongst themselves, if Russia and China ever sell the weapons to them, being as sensitive as they are, than any of those fighting against the F-22.

    These aircraft are so expensive that losing just one, be it in combat or to accidents mean that you've just lost some $100 million dollars in the case of the F-22. The fact that they will almost certainly not be used in combat against any foe that a F-16 couldn't cope with means that they, along with incredibly expensive stealth ships, stealth submarines, etc, are mostly expensive white elephants, flying around, doing a lot of impressive flight demos, and then eventually being scrapped in 30 years or so when they reach the end of their service lives.

    I personally think that while the Japanese could certainly develop one of these aircraft on their own, and might very well do so in the face of the J-13/xx and the PAK if the US doesn't sell them the F-22, I think that a lot of what the Japanese are doing is simply bargaining to get the US to sell them the F-22. The costs of developing an advanced stealth fighter are not to be laughed at. However, as soon as the Russian PAK and Chinese J-13/xx are in active service, the aura of invincibility of the F-22 will decrease, and then I suppose we'll move on to round 6 of the never ending race to waste people's money and lives.

    1. Re:Round 5 in the jet fighter evolution race. by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      It was so expensive that the actual number pruchased has been reduced by two thirds, costnig about $100 million a piece

      The cost of the B-2 program in 1994 dollars was reported at $727 million per plane, however the total cost of the program with development, spares, and facilities averaged over $2.1 billion per plane as of 1997 according to the B-2 program office.[1]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_bomber

    2. Re:Round 5 in the jet fighter evolution race. by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it make sense that Pakistanis use the PAKs?

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  76. Fighting is absurd and irrational by blackraven14250 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We don't even need to fight. We should be smarter than that by now. Longer version of my opinion at facebook group "The New Times" or myspace.com/thenewtimes

  77. Bi and Tri Planes instead of F15 and F16s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If an F15 costs $30m, I'll bet you can get a bi-plane built today for about
    $10k. Let's call it $20k due to overhead.

    So let's not waste our money on all those modern fighters and *really* expand our air force with WWI bi-planes! Think of how big the USAF will be!!

    Brilliant!

  78. Re:the real issue by Oswald · · Score: 1
    Well, I had forgotten the story from May about the leak of the Aegis specs. No doubt that is a factor in the decision.

    Of course, this thread started by wondering if it was smart to force Japan to apply their own expertise to a big military project. If they really do match or best the F-22, then I guess that technology would be what was "shared" with China. No good options here, apparently.

    It has to be added, though, that saying you'll match the F-22 and actually doing it are two very different things even for a nation as advanced as Japan. They're not exactly world leaders in airplane manufacture right now.

  79. Re:the real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Japan didn't enter World War Two, World War Two is an invention of Western historians (I prefer to think of it as the coincidence of two massive regional conflicts, with one great power competing in both regional theatres). Nor was Japan's original intent to claim all of Asia (that would come later - you're wrong in asserting that it began with these goals).

    Japan sought to conslidate its hold on Manchukuo in order to develop resource extraction for the presumed second round of the Russo-Japanese War. The forray into North China was begun as a 3 to 6 month expedition to smash the KMT forces harassing the troops stationed in Manchukuo in order to create a military buffer zone to ensure consolidation could happen peacefully. They became mired in China, which drained their resources. The United States cut off exports to Japan, which strangled their military operations for aviation fuel and metals. After negotiations wih sinophile Secretary of State Hull went sour (he insisted that the Japanese withdraw from their Asian mainland colonies, which were obtained before Mukden), they decided that they needed to claim resource rich, developed territories held by European and American colonial authorities (The Duth East Indies, the Philippines, Indochina, etc). Assuming America would come to the aid of it's European allies, and it's Filipino colonial subjects, Japan launched at Pearl Harbor to force a settlement and keep America out of the war by decimating it's Pacific fleet.

    So your history is very wrong. What about your comments on brutality?

    Japanese soldiers did engage in vivisection, abuse of prisoners, toture (they loved to waterboard), and murder. What about American soldiers? One to one Americans treated Japanese POWs better, to be sure. But Americans engaged in the mass murder of civilians with the Tokyo firebombing raids, the decimation campaign (51% of all urban infrastructure in Japan was destroyed; most historic sites outside of Kyoto are reconstructions), and of course the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So you don't really hold a unique position.

    Keeping the Japs on a short leash, huh? This comment is dripping with the same racism that has dogged the Japanese ever since 1878. When the Japanese decimated the Russian fleet in a surprise attack at Port Arthur, the US media was ecstatic with praise. When it happened to the US, the Japanese suddenly became sneaky and untrustworthy. This kind of sentiment led to the incarceration of all Americans of Japanese descent. After wWorld War Two, the same insults were lobbed at the Japanese by American anti-Soviet hardliners. The US government during the reverse course phase of the reconstruction, after China had fallen to the PLA and Russia had developed the bomb, the United States insisted that the Japanese revoke Article 9, but the Yoshida faction in Jimintou insisted that they retain it. They were accused of abusing the goodwill of the United States, and passing the buck on defense. During the 1980s, we heard frequently of how unfair the Japanese trade practices were; such comments were used further to marginalise and stereotype them.

    If you think that Japan is somehow going to rapidly expand to grab a 19-th century, pre-Chinese nationalism empire you are both ignorant and stupid. The goal of the empire was to foster resource autonomy and to protect against the possibility of being annexed themselves by France, Britain, or America (because America was ALSO a brutal colonizer, just read up on the Filipino rebellion). Now that era is long past, and Japan is more content to trade under the aegis of the US-Japan securty treaty. Japan is more interested in leading East Asia economically (the neo-Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere).

    Are the Germans suddenly going to become Nazi's again? Is the US jump-start the African Slave Trade all over again? Is Britain going to invade and conquor India again?

    What's that you say? No?

    That's what I thought.

  80. Re:the real issue by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

    I agree, I don't think I chose the best words. What I meant was that the US wanted to impose certain terms on the Japanese post-surrender, and I chose the word "conditions". The Japanese could not fathom the concept of unconditional surrender and wanted conditions (as you pointed out) but the US rejected their terms and wanted unconditional surrender. I chose the term "conditions" to refer to the allies' "terms". I can see where that choice of wording would lead to confusion and I even anticipated it but at the time I couldn't think of any better words. I suppose the word "terms" is the most appropriate and what I should have used.

  81. Re:the real issue by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

    I don't think anything of the sort. My only post was to try and give one possible explanation for how the US government currently feels towards Japan.

    None of what I said reflects my personal views and opinions and I tried to make that clear. Of course there are alternate views and I will be the first to accuse the US government of being racist. In fact, I am not American, nor do I harbour any resentment or ill feelings toward the Japanese. I think you completely misinterpreted my post. I was offering speculation as to why the US government will not sell military weapons to Japan. Nothing else.

  82. Re:the real issue by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'd recommend reading Downfall, by Richard Frank, to get the facts straight.

    The Japanese were interested in a conditional surrender with four conditions: keep the Emperor, no occupation of Japan, evacuation from occupied areas to be done by Japan on a Japanese schedule, and war crime trials of Japanese to be conducted by the Japanese. That's the minimum that would be accepted by all members of the Liaison Council, and that council had to act pretty much unanimously. The Allies offered a conditional surrender, although with rather harsh conditions. The Japanese did not surrender before the nukes. They decided to use the Soviets as intermediaries, but never could decide what to ask for. There were some unofficial feelers through other countries, which the Japanese government stepped on hard.

    Given that the Japanese weren't surrendering, and couldn't even agree on a proposal to start negotiations, the US really did have to use whatever means available to force surrender. Some people claimed that Japan was going to surrender in a few more months. I regard these claims as seriously optimistic, given that even in the circumstances there were plenty of Japanese willing to stage a coup to prevent the surrender. (Even so, delaying the surrender by three months would have killed far more civilians than the nukes did.)

    There has, of course, been a lot of anti-American propaganda on the subject. Don't fall for it.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  83. wake up Harry! by PW2 · · Score: 1

    synecdoche is the correct spelling

  84. Ok to sell to Islamic dictator but not to Japan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US sells arms all over the place, to every little Islamic terrorist known to man. Cheney's been running arms to both Iran and Iraq for the last couple of years without really hiding it. Even Israel got busted for exporting nuclear technology to Iran.

    Why in the world would the US balk at selling to Japan? They're a lot less threat to the US than most of the people to whom the US sells weapons. Heck, the US sold its best avionics to an Islamic theocracy, and still does -- Saudi Arabia.

  85. Re:the real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Japanese actually didn't sign the 1929 Geneva convention. Which is basically crazy. That convention prevents torture of PoWs and that PoWs get adequate food and medic supplies. And if you want to know about Japanese war crimes Google "Rape of Nanking". It's a pretty sickening event. And as there are holocaust deniers there are Rape of Nanking deniers too or people down playing that incident.

    So are the Japanese the same brutal people they were in WWII? I doubt it. Would I like to find out? Hell no! History has already told me what they are capable of.

    Plus what have the Japanese done in terms of reparations for WWII? Nearly nothing. They still have presidents visiting shrines with war criminals. Do you have Chancellors visiting Auschwitz?

  86. Re:the real issue by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    Historically though, it's the Japanese that are more cruel and kill more people. Prior to WW2 Japan had probably killed more people in Southeast Asia than Germany came close to... and not on some "grand plan" like Germany, but just routine raping and pillaging. While Japan is our Ally and seems to be flying straight, China has a lot of bad history with them to get "payback" for. Chinese antagonism against Japan would be there even if China was 100% democratic and capitalist tomorrow.

  87. Re:the real issue by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    the short leash is that if the US doesn't sell tactical planes to Japan they have no way to seriously fight back should the Chinese launch short range missiles against them. Things are heating up and Japan has been a very good kid for the last 60 years. There's no reason NOT to trust them as an ally except to keep them dependent for political leverage in the region.

  88. Re:the real issue by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    Exactly what I was getting at. Finally. The issue is that Japan is very good at implementing technology if they put their govt leverage behind it. They're designing for public problems 20-50 years out and what Japan would look like then. They do it with pubic support and corporate backing and enthusiasm that the USA just doesn't get.

    Unlike US defense contractors, the Japanese companies that would be tapped for military contracts have track records for excellent execution of their products... there's no reason to think that wouldn't extend to military production as well. People forget that the Japanese production methods are universal, and ingrained in nearly all their management of anything. It's only in the USA that we have some backwards idea that military products are hard to make. We just allow crappy management to spend vast sums of money and not deliver the product on time and on budget. That's not the case over there, the corporate and pubic ethos is much different bad business is not tolerated like it is here.

    You force Japan's hand and you could have "gundam" level hardware in 10 years. It's not that hard, cars are built with robots faster and more accurate than you need to fight with, Asimo is only missing time resources, not tech, it's a matter of not being a necessity to put the pieces together in that fashion. All of the best CNC/robotics is built in Germany or Japan... ironically both countries that can't produce actual weapons so their companies find other things to make money.
  89. Re:the real issue by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    You really don't understand just how far behind the USA is in manufacturing technology. Sure we have the brightest people, but we lack govt, corporate, and personal discipline to get results. We allow the "free market" to determine our fate and allow crazy ass backwards things in our business society. What companies like GM are touting as "great advances" in the last 15 years are all things Japanese were learning and doing 40 years ago. It's not the ACT of making things, it's the discipline of LEARNING to make things that they excel at. The US still thinks business is "cowboys and indians", Japan thinks of business as "ants marching".. China is a cloud of locust.... Japanese and German companies outsource to the USA because WE are the "unwashed" cheap labor. Japan and Germany dominate the market of making the machines that MAKE the machines we use every day. The USA lost that crown about 5 years ago, we buy more advanced tooling than we sell now. The USA has lost the ability to DELIVER on innovation, the Japanese are hitting their peak but nobody talks about it over here.

  90. Re:the real issue by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

    It's not just Japan. We won't sell it to ANYONE, including Australia.

    --
    There is more to science than physics!

    www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
  91. Re:the real issue by RazorDaze · · Score: 1

    More likely that the Japanese only asked to buy F-22s so that the US would say no, so that they could continue to enjoy the benefits of free American military protection.

    Building their own stealth jets is probably a prestige move, maybe a business move if they want to export them.

  92. Re:the real issue by knivesx11 · · Score: 1

    Buick is the most reliable make along with cadilac mercury and lexus tied for second place. So obviously they do not do as well as you believe. In fact Acura and Lexus are the only japanese company that are in the top 10 makes by reliability.

  93. The aircraft design similarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gosh~! The aircraft design shares similarities as FFR-31 Sylphid in Japanese Anime series Sento Yosei Yukikaze (Battle Fairy: Yukikaze). If you're a big fan of fighter planes, this is a must watch for you!

  94. Air Superiority over an F-22? by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 1

    By any aircraft from any country? In the next 20 years? Are you kidding?

    No enemy aircraft in the sky now or in the next couple of decades will ever see an F-22. Other specs don't really matter.

  95. What I want to know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is....who the fuck WRITES these things?

  96. F22 won't lose dominance to this. by Nim82 · · Score: 1

    It will probably follow the trend in recent indigenous Japanese aircraft I.E. Over weight, more expensive, less capable, shorter ranged, outdated clones of established US/EU aircraft. (See their F16 alike and SPECAT Jaguar clone).

    Plus, it's not like their copying the F23! :P

  97. Right and wrong by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    You are right in that Japan has never come to grips with the havoc they wreaked in China and Korea and all the occupied countries.

    But you are wrong in two crucial aspects: their constitution and the emperor.

    The 1930s constitution (which actually came from 50 years before) required the presence of army and navy ministers at cabinet meetings to have a quorum. This gave the military a veto over the government -- they held it up to blackmail many times. They can't do that today.

    The emperor has been a figurehead in Japan for 1000 years. Everything was done in his name. He has held almost no power in all that time. As proof, when he finally spoke up after the two atom bombings and told the ministers they had to surrender, he made two separate recordings of the surrender speech, and one copy was stolen by junior officers in an attempted palace coup -- they claimed the emperor had been mislead by his senior officers and they were revolting to free him.

    The emperor is much less important as a figurehead now than he was then. I would guess he is about as important to the government as Queen Elizabeth II is to Britain's parliament.

    1. Re:Right and wrong by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The emperor is much less important as a figurehead now than he was then. I would guess he is about as important to the government as Queen Elizabeth II is to Britain's parliament.


      Considerably less than that. The Queen still holds some pretty substantial constitutional powers; like declaring war and dismissing Parliament, as well as being able to veto legislation by not giving Royal Assent. Of course, she doesn't use these powers, and does what the government says, but those powers are still hypothetically there.

      The Japanese Emperor is almost entirely ceremonial. I don't think the Emperor holds even theoretical constitutional powers, but is purely a figurehead of state.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  98. Your history is warped and wrong by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You realize that Japan already occupied islands off the North American continent before we even attacked them right? They were already showing their version of a manifest destiny and had control over much of the pacific, from islands off the coast of Canada and Alaska(then Russian controller) to the South Pacific.

    If you are referring to the two Aleutian islands they captured, that was six months after Pearl Harbor. The war was well under way by then. And to be pedantic, yes we had already attacked them many times by then, mostly carrier raids including the famous Doolittle B-15 raid on the home islands in April 1942, but also including surface ship attacks and submarine attacks.

    Alaska was bought by the US from Russia in 1867. Japan didn't even open up to the outside world until 1854 and the Meiji restoration which began their "modern" era didn't happen until 1870. They were not even remotely capable of taking any foreign islands off the American coast before 1867.

    Did you get your history from a box of cornflakes?

    1. Re:Your history is warped and wrong by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >to be pedantic,... including the famous Doolittle B-15 raid on the home islands in April 1942,

      To be pedantic, they were heavily modified 24 operational B-25B medium bombers. (I assume, however, that you just hit '1' when you meant '2'.)

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    2. Re:Your history is warped and wrong by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes sir. That probably won't teach me to get pedantic, but it ought to.

  99. RTFA, slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not likely that the Japanese government will fund the development of an operational stealth fighter akin to the F22, says the Ares blog article referenced in the original post. The Japanese are just doing R&D. They're not reckless enough to develop a full program to build a F22 clone (and associated weapons and other infrastructure) when in a few years the US will probably relent and sell them the real thing. And since they will remain under the US defence umbrella for the foreseeable future, there's no need for them to rush to develop their own F22 clone either.

  100. Re: You're warped and wrong by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    U.S. Public School system. I am proof the system does not work.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  101. They're also fairly easy to detect from the ground by melted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just emit the right wavelength and find a dark spot moving in the sky (i.e. absence of normal atmospheric backscatter). Then launch a rocket with multi-spectral guidance system. It'll either see it visually, or through a radar (when it's close), or in infrared (it's warm, it burns fuel, you see). Check out C-400 Triumph. It shoots down anything and everything, whether it's in the stratosphere or close to the ground within the radius of 250 miles. Russians have no qualms selling this stuff to Arabs and the Chinese, either, so don't expect F-22 to ever be deployed over UAE or China. Or at least don't expect it to be deployed for long.

  102. Re:the real issue by demachina · · Score: 1

    "Japan entered World War II with the intent of conquering Asia. They invaded China (without ever formally declaring War since both China and Japan feared it would cause their trading partners to stop supplying them) for it's resources and eventually The Philippines which was an act of war against the US."

    Its true Japan was engaged in a long and brutal war with China but they invaded Manchuria in 1931 long before there was anything resembling a World War. They were seeking to gain control of a resource rich area to fuel their industrial and military expansion, in much the same way the U.S. seized the American Southwest from Mexico and the Philippines from Spain. All the European colonial powers seized their empires from someone else and use them to propel their economic success. Japan was just a little late joining the club, stepped on the toes of the old school colonial powers, and were especially brutal about it. All of the western colonial powers, including the U.S. and Japan had been carving up, exploiting and abusing China for the better part of a century prior to 1931. This exploitation of China led to the Boxer Rebellion in 1899 for example when the Chinese tried to drive out all the foreign devils who were exploiting them, German, British, American and Japanese alike,

    There is some irony if you look at modern Manchuria because Japan has returned there in a huge way today, and is doing basically what it wanted to do in the 1930's but today its regained control of the region just by spending money and building factories there.

    The point everyone, especially in America, seems to forget is that the U.S., the U.K. and the Dutch provoked Japan in to expanding the war in China in to the World War in the Pacific, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was anything but a surprise. They did this by embargoing oil supplies to Japan, Roosevelt on July 21, 1941, followed a few days later by the British and the Dutch. The Dutch and British oil fields in what is now Indonesia were of particular importance to Japan and the spigot from them was shut off. The Japanese basically considered that the opening salvo in the war in the Pacific. The embargo left Japan with no alternative but to seize all the oil fields in the Pacific otherwise their military and their economy would have been starved for energy, or they would have had to submit to demands from the U.S. British and Dutch which would have been capitulation in their book which is something they would never have considered. So they drove the British, Dutch and U.S. out of the eastern Pacific by seizing Singapore, the Philippines, the East Indies and its oil fields. Once again the U.S. had seized of control the Philippines itself in the Spanish American war, a war largely fabricated by the U.S. and the Hearst newspaper enterprise, to fuel an American expansion just like Japan invading Manchuria. The U.S. had also been fighting an insurgency in the Philippines for several decades early in the 20th centure, a war full of American atrocities, including torture. Japan's atrocities in China were probably on a larger scale but America didn't really have any moral high ground to stand on after what it had done in the Philippines in the early 20th century and all the western powers had done in China in the 19th century.

    I think mostly what I'm saying is your post is a little bit steeped in anti Japanese propaganda originated from World War II. The allies had a lot of skeletons in their closets too and they weren't the champions of freedom and goodness their propaganda painted them to be. They won the war and it just so happens the people that win wars always paint themselves as good and right, and the people that lose usually get tarred as monsters. Stalin killed more innocent people than the German holocaust or the Japanese in China ever did but the Soviet Union wasn't on the losing end of the war so we choose to forget it.

    As for Japanese brutality much of this perception ca

    --
    @de_machina
  103. Re:the real issue by hnile_jablko · · Score: 1

    You make valid points. But instead of debunking his points using only arguments, why dont you offer some facts instead of just making blanket statements questioning his facts. Where are those examples that define the whole picture you speak about? Don't tear his point apart without evidence. You sound like one of those snotty intellectual extreme left or right wingers who thinks s/he is smarter by pedantic dismal of someone's arguement then adds some insulting cunt-like remark such as, 'Go learn more, then talk.' Yet, you haven't taught me anything. It seems by your argument you don't know shit. You have just made me dislike your fucking arrogance. Lighten up.

  104. Re: Japanese war ethics ? by steveoc · · Score: 1

    An AC posted a good rebuttal about the causes of the US-Japanese conflict in the Pacific in 'ww2', which I totally agree with. Japan was already heavily engaged in China long before the 'world war' came along, and the USA pretty much goaded Japan into reacting, by the blockade that they established.

    Looking at the conduct of the war in the Pacific that resulted from that, there is always this depiction that it was a very nasty affair, and the blame for that is also layed squarely on the Japanese for their unusually enthusiastic level of brutality. I can only really comment in depth on the conduct of battle between Australian and Japanese forces, having served as an Australian soldier myself, and having spoken first hand to ex-diggers who fought against the hated 'japs'.

    The stats pretty much speak for themselves when you look at Japanese casualty figures in any of those battles. Most battles in ww2, you typically see the losing side suffering 20-30% dead, 50% wounded / POW. However, the Japanese have these 90+% killed, and hardly any POWs. That is not just because they were superhumanly heroic and fanatic fighters - its simply because WE preferred to murder them in cold blood rather treat them as fellow soldiers. Even then, the majority of casualties on both sides was not due to enemy fire - it was due to losses from disease and malnutrition. Believe that or not.

    At least with Australian operations, battles in the Pacific were based on patrol-patrol-patrol-and-avoid-contact, followed by prepared ambushes against massed targets lacking food, ammo and clean water. No interest in taking prisoners who you consider not even human. Just machine gun them down till they stop groaning. This was not a campaign of flags, bugle calls and steadfast lines of brave soldiers facing off against each other. It was a campaign of patience, stealth, disease, starvation - and systematic murder.

    Its just war - you cant go around believing that one nationality fights a fair and just fight whilst the other one fights dirty. Hollywood loves that idea, but it doesn't happen like that in real life.

    Even before WW2 ended, the focus shifted to containing the USSR in anticipation of the cold war to come. The Nuking of Japan, along with the wanton destruction at Dresden .. and the subsequent rapid rebuilding of both Japan and Germany .. was all aimed to sending a big message to the Soviets, and creating strong pro-Western allied buffer zones right on the doors of the new expanded Soviet empire.

  105. Re:the real issue by steveoc · · Score: 1

    Interesting comment re Japan 'wanting control of Asia'. Considering that even after a stunning series of military victories against the Russians on the Asian mainland, the subsequent treaty of Portsmouth (which was pretty much dictated by the USA), left Japan stripped of any meaningful gains from that conflict.

    Its good to see more recognition of the RussoJapanese war in the West now - its always been a big deal in the East, and its now being looked at as 'World War 0' .. setting the course for the subsequent 'Great War' of 1914-1945.

  106. Actually, the Japanese didn't fully understand... by moogleii · · Score: 1

    ...either.

    Some did, particular Admiral Yamamoto, but many in command in the imperial navy still believed that the battleship was the ultimate naval powerhouse, and strategized accordingly (hence, the massive investment in battleships, such as, but not limited to, the Yamato class battleship, and the Kantai Kessen doctrine). Even at the Battle of Midway, the Japanese put the carriers in front, and the battleships in the rear, presumably to swoop in for the kill.

    If anything, it could be argued, that the Americans realized it first, albeit due to the actions of the Japanese, by wiping out most of America's battleships, leaving the United States with mainly carriers.

  107. Re:Actually, the Japanese didn't fully understand. by moogleii · · Score: 1

    Speaking of that...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantai_kessen

    This has far more references than I could whip out.

  108. Re:the real issue by moogleii · · Score: 1

    I agree. When your government would go out of its way to hand you grenades to kill yourselves, surrender probably isn't on the top of the list. I actually just watched some of that Ken Burns documentary today. They had actual footage of Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs after the battle of saipan. It was pretty horrific.

  109. Re:Actually, the Japanese didn't fully understand. by mce · · Score: 1

    The Japanese battleships at Midway were a waste, indeed, meant to kill anything left standing by the time they'd have gotten there, be it crippled US carriers or the island defences. But, crucially, the core of the Midway plan was to use the island as diversion to draw in and kill the US carriers in a direct carrier-to-carrier battle.

    To me, this is clear proof that they - or at least their commander-in-chief, which in the given context is/was enough - knew what they needed and wanted to do. Yes, a considerable part of their (senior) officer corps was not yet convinced - as a naval reserve officer I have a bit of a right to say that navies are very conservative communities :-) - but what matters is that who's really in charge has understood. In any case, some US officials still want to see the by now totally anachronistic battlewagons come back into service even in 2007. Idiots and fools are of all times and nations.

    The problem for the Japanese at Midway was that the US flattops were already present at the scene and didn't need to be drawn in (combined with the fact that the Yorktown should not have been there at all, but that it in fact was). So, while they knew what they wanted do to, the Japanese didn't know what they were actually doing, which went on to be their downfall. At least within the scope of Midway, that is, because overall they would have lost the Pacific war in the end anyway, even if Midway would have worked out to perfection.

  110. Re:the real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez, talk about dense.

    The facts are obvious. But attitudes like yours are why there are no mass market American stereo manufacturers, and why American cars can't compete with Japanese cars. Can you explain to us why it is that American vehicles sold in the USA can barely keep up pricewise with imported Japanese vehicles?

  111. Re: You're warped and wrong by ultranova · · Score: 1

    U.S. Public School system. I am proof the system does not work.

    Whereas Japanese public school system is geared towards manufacturing magical girls en masse. I've seen numerous documents, such as "Sailor Moon", depicting their combat capabilities. Why they feel they need a new figher jet when they already have sufficient teenage firepower to blow up the planet a hundred times over is the question here.

    Magical girls, android catgirls, ninjas, martial artists, giant battle robots, and even normal people can punch you to LEO - Japan is truly a terrifying military power. It is lucky for the rest of the planet that they're under constant assault by Tentacles from Beyond, or we'd already been overrun.

    I guess that's what you can achieve if you really apply yourself in school.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  112. Soon to be heard by coolamber · · Score: 1

    Banzai!!!!!

  113. suicide bombers are not typically poor by bigtrike · · Score: 1

    This a common misconception. The average suicide bomber tends to have middle class origins. Quite a few are college educated.

    1. Re:suicide bombers are not typically poor by mha · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomb#Profile_of_a_bomber

      Yes. I was wrong - according to Wikipedia. But it does not change the underlying Psychology IMHO. They conclude they cannot get any improvement using other means. For a poor person that would be their own life, for an educated person it might be larger issues since they don't need to concerned with their own life (Maslov's hierarchy of needs). But however I twist it in retrospect, I was wrong ;-)

  114. Zonk Incorrectly Edited My Article: Major Error by reporter · · Score: 4, Informative
    Zonk published my article on SlashDot to start the current thread of discussion. He edited my article by appending the following phrase

    and given it a high rating

    to my original sentence below

    A laboratory of the French government has evaluated the "stealthy-ness" of ATD-X.

    to create the following sentence.

    A laboratory of the French government has evaluated the "stealthy-ness" of ATD-X, and given it a high rating.

    The modification by Zonk is a significant error. Neither Mitsubishi nor the French laboratory publicized the result of the evaluation. The result is highly classified.

  115. BUT was December 6th, 1941 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it was December 6th, 1941 in Washington, D.C.. I remember reading about it right after it happened, on Drudge.

  116. One thing I noticed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    The Japanese fighter looks almost identical to an F18 Hornet.

    Maybe the DoD should internationally patent thier designs and enhancements so that other countries know what technology not to steal ;-)

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  117. Return of the Zero? by Stormie · · Score: 1

    The first squadron of these planes will be designated..

    Zero Wing!

    What you say !!

  118. MOD PARENT UP PLS by NonCow · · Score: 1

    parent is worth noting I think

  119. Forgetting something? by NonCow · · Score: 1

    If you give the enemy a chance, he'll go for it. He'll take risks for his country or his ideology or his faith or his friends; he'll accept the likelihood of death for the chance of bringing down a Yankee imperialist. The faceless, dehumanised enemy, hey?
    What about for his dead toddler daughter? What about for his dead mother? What about for his raped and murdered sister?
    War itself breeds plenty of valid reasons to fight, for those who are in it - not so much for those who are watching through CNN or Al Jazeera. Your shortlist of examples are charicatures of an enemy that selected western countries have convinced themselves exist simply because knowledge of the deeper truth would be enbearable. It belittles those people who have taken up arms in every country in history (including our/your own, I expect) to fight not for the things you cited, but simply because they have suffered all that any human can bear, and personal death no longer presents any obstacle to choice.
    Hopefully not being too melodramatic. Just thought it was worth reminding you (pl) that we're not fighting images on a playstation here. They are as us - no different.
    Should the tide turn one day, I expect the same mercies and considerations that were afforded to them to be returned in kind. I have children and it is a brutal thought to ponder.
  120. Re:Tech issues and socio-poloticol issues. by Kelsey-GrammerNazi · · Score: 1

    Easy, easy there, big fella!
    Perhaps I should add "Ranger, Dill Bobinson!"

    The young fellow meant well; perhaps English is not his first or even his only language.

    You do not want to come off as a looser, do you?
    Its easy for you to poke fun at these apostrophipically-challenged lads.
    But when the Shiite hits the fan, it's motor has to do the work of cleaning up the apostrophes. Right?
    Just hang lose- you and me will clean up those dangling particles as they fall to the bottom of the message!

  121. The alternative discription is 'Slurpee Indians' by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Do you like that one better?

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'