Their budgets are public. They can be compared to other Air Forces. See the analysis upthread.
In the absence of any data on their procurement, O&S, development/design thinking or analysis I can only guess.
But since you have no data to the contrary...
General lack of intellectual curiosity and/or the absence of a data driven mentality on your part?
Call it as you like.
The classic internet forum argument when something like "the sky is green" or "the JSDAF is a poor Air Force" is being refuted and the original poster persist , is for the original poster to ask "go get the data, see I'm right".
Sorry, I don't need to go get the data, i know the sky is blue, and i know the JSDAF is not a poor Air Force.
- you first said JSDAF was a second tier / poor AF, to which I said I was surprised of.
- You then responded that JSDAF doesn't even have the same number of fighters than the USMC.
- I then responded that there is no point in taking US services as reference for comparing others countries services because US services are so Ginormously rich , it can't be taken as a reference.
- You then switched your argument, this time trying to bring the RAF as a more acceptable comparison.
- I responded the point is not to compare with the RAF.
And that given what Japan has in his inventory, their professionalism, the wealth of the country, ect… JSDAF still isn't a poor Air Force.
- And then you ask for data to prove that JSDAF is a second tier / poor AF…
Note I can perfectly agree that JSDAF is not as rich as the RAF, and that any other Air Forces are absolutely not as rich as USAF/US Navy/USMC.
BUT , your measures as what are rich Air Forces seems to be only USAFs/RAF, and every others are poor AFs… Which is not my measures. Japan spends what it wants on his AF, and it's already enough not to make it a poor AF.
Getting datas that you'll read your own way because your measures are not mines , and because it satisfies your ego, is useless.
We were talking about Vietnam.
In Vietnam, The F-4's kill:loss ratio in non-A2A trim was less than unity and
worse than the F-105s which was better than unity. And the F-4 was inferior
in the strike role, hence the prevailing view in the AF expressed in "Sierra Hotel."
We ? Sorry I missed the mention Vietnam being the only conflict taken for reference here…
Why restrict to Vietnam ? Any conflicts in which the F-4 fought should be taken into account.
Many of the Israeli Mirage and F-4 kills were against strike-laden Arab aircraft.
That was not a feature of Vietnam.
And the F-4's in Israeli service typically carried *small* strike loads by Vietnam standards;
the goal was to disrupt Arab sortie generation with harassing attacks on airbases*
in an attempt to draw Arab aircraft into combat with the then A2A loaded F-4s.
If they failed to do that the F-4s were then allocated to CAP where GCI
vectored them against Arab strike or CAP aircraft.
* because they couldn't do anything against the hardened aircraft shelters
Many of the MiG-21s kills were strike-laden planes ? You contradict yourself here mentioning the attempt to draw Arab aircraft into combat (with strike-laden planes ?) , which amounted to a number of kills.
Here again, your definition of what's good is "being the best over everything", just like comparing Air Forces. Of course in these conflicts , the F-4 wasn't the best fighter, the best bomber, the best anything, that's not what I say. I say the F-4 have been on average good/adaptable for any of these mission. One type model being on average good enough in any mission is an excellent advantage, and makes it a good airplane.
No surprise 5000 were build, used by 14 operators.
The actual flyway cost for the F-111 was terrifying and so were projected flyway costs for Tornado, F-14 and F-15.
And they wouldn't be available in quantity until the the late 70's/early 80's.
Totally agree, the F-111 was extremely expensive, as were Tornado, F-14 and F-15.
F-15s bought by the poor JSDAF btw.
The average country can get by on F/A variants of trainers.
Ok… So the average country can go for F/A variants of trainers. Yet JSDAF going for F-35s, according to you is in the second tier / poor Air Force category.
I have more and more difficulty following your logic here.
That's not the focus on this presentation or discussion.
We're talking about designing, developing, fielding and maintaining front-line combat aircraft in quantity.
Yes thank you, I understood the point of the discussion.
But again, your reference in designing, developing, fielding and maintaining front-line combat aircraft in quantity seems only to be how the US should/could do it.
The JASDF bought the F-15 eight years after its first unit production in a period
where Japan's military spending had doubled.
Many of the RAF's development programs during this period collapsed.
And RAF was dumping money into Harrier and Tornado during this period.
And the F-111 buy had fallen apart.
And so that makes the JSDAF a poor AFs…
While they are now ordering 135 F-35, and committing to design a new domestic fighter.
And kept these bad/non-adaptable F-4s until last march...
Being allergic to data I guess you'll have to take my word for it.
Please see my first point in this post.
To think a big twin engine fighter (F-4) would not cost more than a much smaller single engined (Mirage) is flawed. in procurement cost, not to talk in service/maintenance.
The number of Mirages or derivatives exported or built by export customers compares pretty favorably with the F-4 exports/local builds.
Yes, you'll find though that many of the Mirage customers , had they wanted it, were forbidden from getting F-4s, or didn't had the money for it, or both.
As opposed to the early versions of the F-4?
True, but F-15 appearing after the F-4, about when the F-4E was there, itself being already a fighter-bomber by that time. I mentioned it, that's all…
F-15A/C are categorized as fighters, F-15E as strike aircrafts, when The F-4E would be as a fighter-bomber.
But a F-15 and even more the recent variants can certainly do better than a F-4E in any , that is why I say its like a perfect/better F-4.
The vast majority of Phantom operators also operated other near-contemporary combat fast jets.
Yes, because majority of F-4 operators had previous models in service, which were still useful.
Or added more recent models later, while keeping their F-4s.
Mostly like F-15s now.
Doesn't change the fact that at one time, they felt the need of procuring/operating F-4s , and that gave them more capacity.
Which clearly doesn't makes it a non-adaptable aircraft.
The average Air Forces of the world were being pitched things like the F-5 and Jaguar.
They'll now be pitched on things like the F/A-50 and F/A versions of the T-7.
These aircraft are not relevant to our discussion.
Is that so ?! Isn't the subject future combat aircrafts ?
F-5 and Jaguars were used in wars, they are combat aircrafts.
F/A-50 could be use in conflict, exported to iraq btw, not exactly the most peaceful place in the world. It is a combat aircraft.
At one point these will also have to be replaced by something else of their kind, thus they fit in a future combat aircrafts discussion.
Combat aircrafts are not only F-22/23/35/36 wonder machines that only very wealthy can build and procure.