• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Japanese Stealth Fighter

I cant take anything seriously with all that ultra large...techno style...pokemon writing all over the place. I dont know whether to take it for real or order sushi off the screen.
 
It looks cool.
But I thought the Japanese weren't allowed to develop any offensive weapons?
And AvWeek says that its not going to be going into production.
 
nugget61 said:
It looks cool.
But I thought the Japanese weren't allowed to develop any offensive weapons?
And AvWeek says that its not going to be going into production.
Click to expand...

They aren't, but a fighter isn't really offensive. They can't really project a lot of power with that plane. They don't have any big wing bombers. Nor can they have aircraft carriers.

Their current fleet of fighters is pretty modern though and their pilots are well trained. I'm not sure how well they can fight, as I've never played against them, but the Japanese military is pretty squared away.
 
fastnumber15 said:
I cant take anything seriously with all that ultra large...techno style...pokemon writing all over the place. I dont know whether to take it for real or order sushi off the screen.
Click to expand...


Really?

So does that mean seeing the French language makes you want to drink champagne, and seeing the spanish language make you want to eat burritos?

You're just screaming "Don't take me seriously." Grow up.
 
PropStop said:
Their current fleet of fighters is pretty modern though and their pilots are well trained. I'm not sure how well they can fight, as I've never played against them, but the Japanese military is pretty squared away.
Click to expand...

Just had lunch with a buddy of mine who is a Marine Hornet driver. He was stationed in Okinawa for a 3 years or so. We had this conversation, fighting the Japanese pilots...he fought both the Japanese F-15 and F-4 and said they weren't very good....very one or two dimensional.
 
bunk22 said:
Just had lunch with a buddy of mine who is a Marine Hornet driver. He was stationed in Okinawa for a 3 years or so. We had this conversation, fighting the Japanese pilots...he fought both the Japanese F-15 and F-4 and said they weren't very good....very one or two dimensional.
Click to expand...

Can anyone expand on this? Fairly curious.


Also once heard their "Navy" is the 2nd best in the world now that Britain's is soo tiny. Truth?
 
mmx1 said:
Who else has two operating carriers?
Click to expand...

Japan may not be allowed any "carriers" but that doesn't mean they don't have have any. Flying around the harbors they actually have what they are calling a "DDH" that looks remarkably like something sized between an LHA and a CV. Can't speak for their fixed wing capability, but I will say that technology wise their rotary aircraft are far beyond what we operate.
 
mmx1 said:
Who else has two operating carriers?
Click to expand...

No one. That's why I asked.

The argument was that despite her carriers, the Japanese are more or less on par with the British, if not "better" in certain respects.
 
bunk22 said:
Just had lunch with a buddy of mine who is a Marine Hornet driver. He was stationed in Okinawa for a 3 years or so. We had this conversation, fighting the Japanese pilots...he fought both the Japanese F-15 and F-4 and said they weren't very good....very one or two dimensional.
Click to expand...

eddie said:
Can anyone expand on this? Fairly curious.
Click to expand...

I flew with them for 3 weeks out in Guam, they were okay. Professional, competent and decent flyers but just okay when it comes to the fighting. That, and when the weather was bad they really didn't fly :o. The reason I think they are only okay, no combat experience in over 60 years. Things are easy when it is only an exercise.

eddie said:
Also once heard their "Navy" is the 2nd best in the world now that Britain's is soo tiny. Truth?
Click to expand...

Second best? That is pretty judgmental and hard to quantify, second 'largest' in terms of numbers of destroyers in frigates is probably what you heard. Plus, the Brits have the unique experience of continuing to operate around the world in all sorts of environments regularly, combat included. Probably only us and maybe the French can say that as well.

lowflier03 said:
Japan may not be allowed any "carriers" but that doesn't mean they don't have have any. Flying around the harbors they actually have what they are calling a "DDH" that looks remarkably like something sized between an LHA and a CV. Can't speak for their fixed wing capability, but I will say that technology wise their rotary aircraft are far beyond what we operate.
Click to expand...

Those DDH's are not all that big and can only operate about 10-11 helos max. Their appearance did cause some controversy in the region when they first showed up but the Japanese have no plans to acquire fixed wing CV-capable aircraft and the ships are a bit small for that anyways.

Hyūga class helicopter destroyer

DDH Controversy

As for their helos being much better technology-wise, again, it is in the matter of employment that they are just okay.
 
Poor cockpit visibility in that aircraft... no way to "check 6?"

The 3D paddles probably have a pretty detrimental affect on rear-aspect radar reflectivity too.
 
No one else has operating carriers? How dare you disregard the mighty ADMIRAL KUZNETSOV!! (They actually try to get away with calling it a "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser"...leave it to the Russkies...)
kuznetsv.jpg
 
BrandonJ1780 said:
...(They actually try to get away with calling it a "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser"...leave it to the Russkies...)..
Click to expand...
That was so they could get their carriers out of the Black Sea after they was built. The Turks (and international treaties I believe) do not allow aircraft carriers to transit the Bosporus Straits. So the USSR took to calling them aircraft carrying cruisers. Since most of them had at least as many ship-ship missiles as their non-aircraft carrying cruisers, it originally was a pretty accurate description.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top