Can anyone give me a quick rundown of the differences between WS-10A, WS-10B and (one I'm newly learning about) the WS-10D?
Ask anything Thread (Air Force)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
The main reason is that a 5th/6th gen fighter will be insanely expensive. Only China and America can afford it on their own.
Mainly the UK's desire to have a distinct program (the Tempest), with which Italy eventually decided to throw in its lot. Japan had a distinct program, the F-X, but eventually London and Tokyo decided to combine their efforts to cut costs.
The FCAS is the more traditional "European" program.
The FCAS has Airbus as one of its 3 project coordinators.
The UK initiated its own project for the same reason, I would argue, that it Brexited the EU: its tradition as an independent great power, no matter how little it corresponds to the current reality.
My guess (very biased) same damn reason Brexit happened, UK(especially british) self-aggrandising delusion.
TBH, I hope it stays that way, it'll be both advantageous and hilarious for us.
Last edited:
Among "US allies" there are two pretty distinct camps
House slaves like UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea that are more subservient and they exert control more directly
And then there's outside slaves like France, Germany, Spain / rest of NATO
Though, I suspect both programs will just be hand-me-down technology from F35 instead of true 6th gen programs
As regards to Japan's reasoning for joining the program, here is a little background. JASDF doctrine in the 60s called for a supersonic attack aircraft, which yielded the Mitsubishi F-1. Japan planned to replace it with another indigenous fighter in the 80s, but alongside the American attempt to contain Japan's economic rise (successful after the signing of the Plaza Accords) it also pushed back on attempts to expand Japan's military capabilities, among other things vetoing the JMSDF's attempt to buy Harriers to operate on the DDHs of the time. This included pressuring Japan to consider buying American aircraft to replace the F-1 or developing its replacement together with the US. This resulted in the F-2 (based on F-16).
Come the late 2010s/early 2020s and Japan is looking to replace the F-2. Once again this was originally supposed to be a totally indigenous aircraft, using experience from the creation of the X-2 demonstrator. And yet again, the US tries to prevent them from doing that. Lockheed offered its "hybrid F-22/F-35," which, yet again, was to be developed jointly with Japan.
So along with perhaps a sort of resentment at that history and desire to work with nations that aren't trying to degrade their economy and military, there's also economic reasons. The 2011 earthquake, to put it simply, did not help end the stagnation that started in the 90s. And modern aircraft development, especially 6th gen, is certainly more expensive than the 60s and 80s when Japan was developing pretty orthodox fighters.
Finally, Britain and Italy are nations with small tanker fleets and expansive seas around them they need to operate in. It's possible the JASDF/MoD expected it might be easier to work with engineers and officials from nations with loosely similar operating requirements, compared to American officials and engineers who probably design things thinking there will be huge numbers of tankers flying 24/7 and pilots with extensive training for missions.
How will fighters maintain visibility over the pacific in a high-intensity conflict scenario? There has been quite a lot of talk about the next generation of combat aircraft having extensive EW & radar abilities. But for these platforms which are meant to be as stealthy as possible, under what situations would they actually make use of those abilities? Wouldn't powerful emissions immediately give you away to the enemy? And if they do not use their own radars but instead rely on warships and AWACS, how will they locate targets during penetrating strike missions? How will they notice incoming threats?