asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
So first it was international air space
Then it was no threat
Now Its politics?
Clearly you are the one lacking
So first it was international air space
Then it was no threat
Now Its politics?
Clearly you are the one lacking
SamuraiBlue
Captain
No you're just upset because you can't see the fireworks paid by other people's money.
Sorry to disappoint you but we are not here to please.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Are you serious ? What are you smoking
Dizasta1
Senior Member
Asif you have raised pertinent questions and have made a valid and substantial argument. Regardless of the replies you got, the question still remains, why did not Japan shoot down the North Korean missile when it was clearly flying over Japanese air space.
You did well to ignore to personal attack.
I believe the Japanese, the Koreans and the US shold shoot these missiles down if they overfly their territory.
That os the key.
The US now has severl proven systems that all can intercept ballistic missiles.
AEGIS at sea, AERGIS Ashore, the US BMD sites, THAADS, PAtriots. Soon there will be laser and rail gun point defense capabilities to back those up.
IMHO, the US and her allies, including Japan, (several of whom have AEGIS BMD capability, THAADs, and Patriot, should establish defense zones and deploy these systems to mutually support one another in defending their territory.
I believe if North Korea continues what it is doing, you are going to see S. Korea, Japan, or the US shoot them down. They may wait and let the US take the lead in this...I do not know...but if I were in their leadership, I would definitely use them for any ballistic missile that even looks like it might overfly the soil of the country I was in.
It is very difficult to tell a "test" from a live warhead when it is coming at you on a ballistic trajectory...and I would not take the chance.
That os the key.
The US now has severl proven systems that all can intercept ballistic missiles.
AEGIS at sea, AERGIS Ashore, the US BMD sites, THAADS, PAtriots. Soon there will be laser and rail gun point defense capabilities to back those up.
IMHO, the US and her allies, including Japan, (several of whom have AEGIS BMD capability, THAADs, and Patriot, should establish defense zones and deploy these systems to mutually support one another in defending their territory.
I believe if North Korea continues what it is doing, you are going to see S. Korea, Japan, or the US shoot them down. They may wait and let the US take the lead in this...I do not know...but if I were in their leadership, I would definitely use them for any ballistic missile that even looks like it might overfly the soil of the country I was in.
It is very difficult to tell a "test" from a live warhead when it is coming at you on a ballistic trajectory...and I would not take the chance.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Shooting down ballistic missiles, or even assessing their threat, involves radar and satellite receiving stations monitoring the missile's velocity, trajectory, and integrity (i.e. is there any separation of stages or fragments, etc.), meaning that the JSDF would've been able to calculate a decently-accurate splashdown point even before the missile has re-entered the atmosphere.
If the missile is predicted to splashdown in a non-vital area, and if the Japanese government can quickly determine the intentions behind the launch (i.e. a test rather than a hostile attack), there is no reason to go for an intercept involving million-dollar missiles and the risk of provoking the Kim regime. Of course, if the missile veers off course or breaks up prematurely, that is another story.
That being said, Japan should invest in a few midcourse-capable interceptors in the same league as the GBI and the Chinese Dong Neng series. Its M-V and Epsilon launch vehicles could serve as a basis for a notional Japanese GMD-like system.
If the missile is predicted to splashdown in a non-vital area, and if the Japanese government can quickly determine the intentions behind the launch (i.e. a test rather than a hostile attack), there is no reason to go for an intercept involving million-dollar missiles and the risk of provoking the Kim regime. Of course, if the missile veers off course or breaks up prematurely, that is another story.
That being said, Japan should invest in a few midcourse-capable interceptors in the same league as the GBI and the Chinese Dong Neng series. Its M-V and Epsilon launch vehicles could serve as a basis for a notional Japanese GMD-like system.
Nah
94 F-2 build, 1 lost + 5 all B variant on 18 based to Matsushima AB* irreparable with Tsunami OCU unit therewith much B variant for training, normaly all the 13 repaired for end of year for a fleet of 88 .Temporaly after tsunami based to Misawa back this year. All front line Sqns have also some T-4.
They have the 1st AESA radar in the world for a operationnal fighter but the 1st variant J/APG-1/1200 modules few capable range max 65 km/5 m2 ! the 2nd J/APG-2 good want about APG-79 used by Super Hornet 190 km/5 m2 a difference... in more now more offensive for some politic reasons during longtime as F-1 oriented about anti-ship mission which is always their main mission but with last upgrades much more versatile with JDAM and AAM-4 better for A2A combat.
F-4EJ" Kai " modernised are also able to use ASM-2 but i think can have max 2 vs 4 for F-2.
Ofc with initialy planned 130 F-2 about 40 now have replaced F-4 at less in part and F-35A could have started to replace a F-15 Sqn about but this is another story
Last edited: