# Poland Buys South Korean FA-50



## MIflyer (Jul 28, 2022)

Poland has ordered 50 South Korean Aerospace Industries FA-50 light combat aircraft. 

Now, doesn't that sound weird?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> Poland has ordered 50 South Korean Aerospace Industries FA-50 light combat aircraft.
> 
> *Now, doesn't that sound weird?*
> 
> View attachment 679429


Well it's a nifty little jet and the South Koreans have been selling them. This could open the way for the Ukraine getting Polish MiG-29s but the delivery of these aircraft won't happen overnight, let alone setting up logistic support and training.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2022)

Should of bought the T-7.

I am sure it will have a light fighter variant similar to the T-38/F-5.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Should of bought the T-7.
> 
> I am sure it will have a light fighter variant similar to the T-38/F-5.


I think one reason why they might have went with the FA-50 was because the production line is active and the aircraft has seen combat (The Philippines have used theirs against communist insurgents).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think one reason why they might have went with the FA-50 was because the production line is active and the aircraft has seen combat (The Philippines have used theirs against communist insurgents).



T-7 line has started. Its downstairs wear the 15 is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 28, 2022)

Probably Americans do not aware well but the alliance with the US is costy, not only purchasing weapons but feeding personnel. In the case of Japan, half of the defense budget is for the US. Situation would be same in Europe IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 29, 2022)

I wonder what the Japanese defense budget would look like without the Americans there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I wonder what the Japanese defense budget would look like without the Americans there.


It would be simple. No Americans, we only shake hands with our neighbors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> It would be simple. No Americans, we only shake hands with our neighbors.



Doesn't really answer my question, but okay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2022)

According to "internet sources" Japan spends 1% of it's GNP on defense.









Japan’s Defense Budget: Double or Nothing?


The Kishida administration should maintain a calculated, long-term approach to increasing Japan’s defense budget.



thediplomat.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I wonder what the Japanese defense budget would look like without the Americans there
> 
> 
> FLYBOYJ said:
> ...


Off topic?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Off topic?


No - are you saying having the US in Japan is costly to Japan or costly to the US?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No - are you saying having the US in Japan is costly to Japan or costly to the US?


I am not going to take your tactics, Joe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> I am not going to take your tactics, Joe.


I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious


Please go ahead.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Please go ahead.


Thank you - like I said I was curious on how this alliance is costly


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thank you - like I said I was curious on how this alliance is costly


How not costly when there are no enemies for the Japanese in this region after the ww2 was over?
Were not the enemies you may claim in this region originally created by the US?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> How not costly when there are no enemies for the Japanese in this region after the ww2 was over?
> Were not the enemies you may claim in this region originally created by the US?


The US sadly created an enemy with North Vietnam, but is the US solely to blame for aggression by N. Korea or China?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 29, 2022)

The USSR in 1945 surely qualified as an enemy of Japan's. They did, after all, declare war on the remaining Axis power and initiate combat operations. The enmity with USSR lasted even as America and Japan pivoted to peaceful relations. I suspect American troops in Japan probably deterred further USSR ambitions regarding Japanese territory.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

Sounds like "You must hate Russians because of the history" when we do not necessarily hate them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The US sadly created an enemy with North Vietnam, but is the US solely to blame for aggression by N. Korea or China?


Sorry to say but the division of the Korean peninsula and the following Korean War were not Japanese business.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Sounds like "You must hate Russians because of the history" when we do not necessarily hate them.


I think we have to differentiate between "Russia" and the former Soviet Union

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Sounds like "You must hate Russians because of the history" when we do not necessarily hate them.



Nowhere did I say anything about Japanese feelings towards Russia or the USSR. I simply mentioned a historical fact, and then pointed out that American troops may have deterred further Soviet actions.

Hopefully you can address the point raised rather than arguing one which was not mentioned, and which I do not hold true.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Sorry to say but the division of the Korean peninsula and the following Korean War were not Japanese business.


But was the US solely responsible for this? Did North Korea attack South Korea in June 1950? The division of Korea was part of the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers (US, UK, USSR) and was supposed to be temporary. The US did use Japan to flight against N Korea after 1950 but look how different the world was back then. And today, is Japan not threatened by North Korea?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

Listen to the statements by Kim and Xi well. Their target is always US, not necessarily Japan.
That is a fate for a country which confronts to the continent.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Sounds like "You must hate Russians because of the history" when we do not necessarily hate them.



Maybe you would have learned to hate them had you been forced to live under their thumb like much of Eastern Europe has. Fortunately, I guess we’ll never know. The grass is not always greener on the other side my friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Listen to the statements by Kim and Xi well. Their target is always US, not necessarily Japan.
> That is a fate for a country which confronts to the continent.


Japan might make a really good strategic base for the Peoples Liberation Army's forces.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 29, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Listen to the statements by Kim and Xi well. Their target is always US, not necessarily Japan.
> That is a fate for a country which confronts to the continent.



Right, but look especially at Kim's actions, shooting missiles through Japanese airspace.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right, but look especially at Kim's actions, shooting missiles through Japanese airspace.


Let's hope those missiles are Russian designs.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2022)

Ya' know, I would've never imagined saying anything remotely like that before.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 29, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Let's hope those missiles are Russian designs.



No, they're indigenous DPRK designs, to my understanding.

Of course, the Ukrainians might want a word or two with you about Russian missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

Kim's fire works are safer than earthquake or typhoon.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2022)

Glad you brought back the Reisen avatar!


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 29, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Glad you brought back the Reisen avatar!


What was that? I did not change any.
I found similar phenomenon for another member though.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 29, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well it's a nifty little jet and the South Koreans have been selling them. This could open the way for the Ukraine getting Polish MiG-29s but the delivery of these aircraft won't happen overnight, let alone setting up logistic support and training.


The 48 FA-50s might allow the transfer of MiG-29s but I doubt it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 29, 2022)

GTX said:


> The 48 FA-50s might allow the transfer of MiG-29s but I doubt it.



Not an argument, but why your doubts? I'm interested in hearing them.


----------



## GTX (Jul 29, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Should of bought the T-7.
> 
> I am sure it will have a light fighter variant similar to the T-38/F-5.


The T-7 is still a couple of years away from initial service and the USAf is at the front of the queue.

Re the light fighter idea, there has been some thinking:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 29, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Not an argument, but why your doubts? I'm interested in hearing them.


Timings. The earliest the FA-50s could realistically enter service would be 2024. Remember that they have to be built, trained for, be introduced to service etc before the MiG-29s would be able to be released. I can't see the Poles giving up a capability , even the MiGs, without a replacement first secured and in/entering service. If anything, a batch of additional F-16s would be more likely to trigger a Polish MiG transfer than the FA-50s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2022)

GTX said:


> The T-7 is still a couple of years away from initial service and the USAf is at the front of the queue.
> 
> Re the light fighter idea, there has been some thinking:
> 
> View attachment 679571



I’m aware. My office is just above the assembly line.


----------



## GTX (Jul 29, 2022)




----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 29, 2022)

GTX said:


> Timings. The earliest the FA-50s could realistically enter service would be 2024. Remember that they have to be built, trained for, be introduced to service etc before the MiG-29s would be able to be released. I can't see the Poles giving up a capability , even the MiGs, without a replacement first secured and in/entering service. If anything, a batch of additional F-16s would be more likely to trigger a Polish MiG transfer than the FA-50s.



I didn't realize the timeline played out that far. Thanks for the info.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2022)

GTX said:


> The T-7 is still a couple of years away from initial service and the USAf is at the front of the queue.
> 
> Re the light fighter idea, there has been some thinking:
> 
> View attachment 679571


Go Boeing!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Go Boeing!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 29, 2022)

GTX said:


> Timings. The earliest the FA-50s could realistically enter service would be 2024. Remember that they have to be built, trained for, be introduced to service etc before the MiG-29s would be able to be released. I can't see the Poles giving up a capability , even the MiGs, without a replacement first secured and in/entering service. If anything, a batch of additional F-16s would be more likely to trigger a Polish MiG transfer than the FA-50s.


Isnt i so if there are paying clients the proces will get a kick on the behind? For me that is the american way. When money is on the table all bets are off and magic happens. Specially when you guys like the clients.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 29, 2022)

Interesting article about the Polish buying South Korean weapon systems.
Poland signs major arms deal with South Korea - Australian Defence Magazine

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 30, 2022)

The South Korean armaments industry, along with their industry as a whole, is an interesting case study. Beginning in the early-1990s there was significant investment of money in industrial infrastructure and R&D. I was fortunate enough to have been involved in sourcing bits and pieces from South Korea and Taiwan for a few years in the late-1990s/early-2000s. From what I learned South Korea went through a similar transition to what Japan did post-WWII - re they made a concerted effort to institute a nation-wide revamp of quality control in manufacturing. The heavily centralized government controlled heavy-industry sector helped to shorten the transition, again similar to what happened in Japan.

As most of you probably know, beginning in the 1990s many Japanese products (cars being a very good example) showed better overall quality (for the most part) than the ~equivalent products made here in the US. One result is that the Japanese have dominated the US small car market from the late-1990s/early-2000s.

South Korea is following a similar path to quality and the follow-on of international sales ability.

Also, this type of transition has allowed a massive increase in the size of their GDP. From 1990 to 2000 their GDP doubled, it then doubled again from 2000 to 2010. It would have doubled again from 2010 to 2020 but they are approaching a kind of natural limit due to the size of their population - ie for a given manufacturing technology there is a limit to how much a person can produce, with the level of access to natural resources being another of the big-3 factors (ie population, natural resources, technology) limiting a country's ability to grow their manufacturing. The growth of their GDP, from $101 billion in 1985 to $1.6 trillion in 2020 is indicative of their success - as are their continued inroads in the foreign markets. (Keep in mind that their population is ~47 million.)

My understanding is that the South Korean armaments are ~equal in quality and ability to the equivalent US & EU produced equipment (not counting the really expensive things like the F-35, although we will have to see just what the KF-21 Boramae is capable of).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nam72 (Jul 30, 2022)

Stalin wanted territory from the Japanese before hostilities ceased,just like Eastern Europe. Everything done by Stalin was for his benefit only.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2022)

nam72 said:


> Stalin wanted territory from the Japanese before hostilities ceased,just like Eastern Europe. Everything done by Stalin was for his benefit only.



I agree with you completely, but we need to remember that everything done by every country is for their own benefit only. We just like to call it “in our national interest” here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 31, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> My understanding is that the South Korean armaments are ~equal in quality and ability to the equivalent US & EU produced equipment


Well they have benefitted from a lot of US & EU involvement as well as a fair amount of copying/reverse engineering (and not always licensed).

For instance, the T-50 basic design benefitted considerably from the involvement of Lockheed Martin. It has GE designed engines, ELTA radar...etc

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 1, 2022)

Historically, Korea is a mini-China. If you can control them, you can controll the continent.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 1, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The US sadly created an enemy with North Vietnam…


Imagine the fork in the road of history had the US replied positively to Ho Chi Minh.






Letter from Ho Chi Minh to President Harry Truman Asking for Intervention, February 28, 1946


Transcript of Ho Chi Minh's Letter to U.S. President Harry Truman Source-Dependent Questions What was Ho Chi Minh asking President Truman for in the telegram? How does his request align with stated U.S. policy? Why would his request not be met considering the characterization of Ho Chi Minh by...




iowaculture.gov

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Imagine the fork in the road of history had the US replied positively to Ho Chi Minh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't want this to go political, but my brother, a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran (fought in the A Shau Valley during the TeT offensive, 101AB) made a profound confession to me years ago - "we fought the wrong enemy."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 1, 2022)

I think things might be looking up now between the U.S. and Vietnam. We can't go back but we can move forward. 

I hope that didn't come off all "khumbaya".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 1, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I think things might be looking up now between the U.S. and Vietnam.


Nothing like a common enemy (China) to bring everyone together.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Aug 1, 2022)

There is a book somewhere in my stacks by an author named Vann, an American who tried to tell us in 1946 that Ho and his brand of govt would be similar to that of Marshal Tito. We accepted Tito's style of comunism and gave him P-47s later F-84s as well as various armor. We apparently felt closer to France in 1946 than Ho, who we assisted in his fight against the Japanese.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 1, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think one reason why they might have went with the FA-50 was because the production line is active and the aircraft has seen combat (The Philippines have used theirs against communist insurgents).


And, as much as it's heading into political areas: 6 months ago when the decision would have been being made, Korea was a whole lot more politically stable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Aug 1, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I’m aware. My office is just above the assembly line.





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Should of bought the T-7.
> 
> I am sure it will have a light fighter variant similar to the T-38/F-5.





FLYBOYJ said:


> I think one reason why they might have went with the FA-50 was because the production line is active and the aircraft has seen combat (The Philippines have used theirs against communist insurgents).





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> T-7 line has started. Its downstairs wear the 15 is.





GTX said:


> The T-7 is still a couple of years away from initial service and the USAf is at the front of the queue.
> 
> Re the light fighter idea, there has been some thinking:
> 
> View attachment 679571



Then, you should be aware that there is NO light fighter version of the T-7, nor is there an official USAF program to develop one... just some PR work by Boeing to try to get some USAF interest in that direction.

You can hardy expect Poland to buy something that isn't even "in-progress" over something that has already seen combat!

The T-7 is a trainer... which Poland did NOT buy (T-50 is the SK trainer version, and Poland operates M-346s in that role) - they bought the light fighter version.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Then, *you should be aware that there is NO light fighter version of the T-7*, nor is there an official USAF program to develop one... just some PR work by Boeing to try to get some USAF interest in that direction.


Well aware - but at the same time if a marketer can convince a potential customer that they can deliver the goods, you'll see a lightweight fighter version of this aircraft suddenly appear. Knowing Boeing, it would not surprise me if they have already have a plan in place to produce a lightweight fighter based on the T-7 - when a party shows interest! 

With all that said, compare the two aircraft - The FA-50 seems a bit more "robust" than the T-7.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 1, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Knowing Boeing, it would not surprise me if they have already have a plan in place to produce a lightweight fighter based on the T-7.


I'd be very surprised if Boeing hadn't 'future-proofed' the aircraft and designed it with growth in mind.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Aug 1, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well aware - but at the same time if a marketer can convince a potential customer that they can deliver the goods, you'll see a lightweight fighter version of this aircraft suddenly appear. Knowing Boeing, it would not surprise me if they have already have a plan in place to produce a lightweight fighter based on the T-7 - when a party shows interest!
> 
> With all that said, compare the two aircraft - The FA-50 seems a bit more "robust" than the T-7.


I was speaking to the gentleman in the first two quotes... the one who works for Boeing and said that Poland should have bought Boeing's trainer instead of SK's light fighter when they wanted was a combat aircraft, not a trainer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> I was speaking to the gentleman in the first two quotes... the one who works for Boeing and said that Poland should have bought Boeing's trainer instead of SK's light fighter when they wanted was a combat aircraft, not a trainer.


Well you included me in your post, thus the reply!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 1, 2022)

This is all part of a *big *deal that was (reportedly) negotiated during May 2022 (there have been rumours flying since then). Also includes an initial 180 K2 MBTs and a licence for local production (reportedly up to 800 more), as well as a bunch of K9 SPGs (something like 600) and trucks.

Aerospace rumour mill also says that what the Poles initially wanted was a bunch of updated F-16s, but with Lockheed Martin focused on the F-35 and output on the new production line spoken for out to the end of 2026 (assuming no delays, which is unlikely), they needed to look elsewhere.

Poland reportedly looked at the T-7 and discounted it very early on - primarily for issues around availability and capability (unlikely to get an armed version before 2027 or 2028), as well as cost and role overlap with their existing M346 trainer fleet (which is still growing).

There were also some Korean promises around technology transfer (particularly avionics) and local work content: if the FA-50 becomes popular in Europe, Poland would get the lion's share of the maintenance work. KAI thinks there could be a global market for ~1000 TA-50s over the next 20 years and has already been schmoozing a bunch of central European states looking to replace their old trainers with something dual-role.

Schedule is for 12 FA-50 deliveries before the end of 2023, with initial operating capability in mid 2024. Full deliveries to be completed by the end of 2026.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Then, you should be aware that there is NO light fighter version of the T-7, nor is there an official USAF program to develop one... just some PR work by Boeing to try to get some USAF interest in that direction.
> 
> You can hardy expect Poland to buy something that isn't even "in-progress" over something that has already seen combat!
> 
> The T-7 is a trainer... which Poland did NOT buy (T-50 is the SK trainer version, and Poland operates M-346s in that role) - they bought the light fighter version.



Care to show me where I said their was a light fighter variant of the T-7? I said I am sure there will be one developed and marketed ala T-38/F-5.

I highly doubt it will be marketed toward the USAF too. The USAF has no need for one. Smaller countries with smaller budgets will have one though, like the F-5.

I don’t work in the T-7 program, but I would be very surprised if they were not already developing a light fighter variant as we speak, i.e. if it were not already in development with these smaller countries in mind.

If a country has a requirement for one, it can be done.

Having said that, I do agree with your overall arguments, but not your approach…

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well aware - but at the same time if a marketer can convince a potential customer that they can deliver the goods, you'll see a lightweight fighter version of this aircraft suddenly appear. *Knowing Boeing, it would not surprise me if they have already have a plan in place to produce a lightweight fighter based on the T-7 - when a party shows interest!*
> 
> With all that said, compare the two aircraft - The FA-50 seems a bit more "robust" than the T-7.



Ding, ding, ding…

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2022)

gumbyk said:


> I'd be very surprised if Boeing hadn't 'future-proofed' the aircraft and designed it with growth in mind.



Ding, ding, ding…

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> Poland reportedly looked at the T-7 and discounted it very early on - primarily for issues around availability and capability (unlikely to get an armed version before 2027 or 2028), as well as cost and role overlap with their existing M346 trainer fleet (which is still growing).


And that is entirely reasonable as well because of the availability aspect.


----------



## kitplane01 (Aug 2, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Probably Americans do not aware well but the alliance with the US is costy, not only purchasing weapons but feeding personnel. In the case of Japan, half of the defense budget is for the US. Situation would be same in Europe IMO.


I don't believe this number. Could you provide a source? Because I think it's about $1.8B per year, out of $51B, which is not half.









Japan to up 5-yr budget for hosting U.S. troops to 1.05 tril. yen


Japan and the United States have agreed to increase Tokyo's contribution for hosting U.S. military forces to 1.05 trillion yen ($9.2 billion) over the five-year period from fiscal 2022 starting April, government sources say.




english.kyodonews.net









Military budget of Japan - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 2, 2022)

It is normal practice for even light trainers to be equipped with some weapons capability so to handle that aspect of training. Both the AT-6 and T-28A/B had that capability as well as the T-33A. The T-38 has the capability for a centerline pod with bombs and rockets. I have not looked at the manual but I would guess the T-6 has that capability; the T-34A is about that only light trainer that did not. Note that a light strike version of the T-6 was proposed but the USAF chose to buy a different airplane to equip the Afghan Air Force, which was a decision that generated considerable controversy.


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 2, 2022)

kitplane01 said:


> I don't believe this number. Could you provide a source? Because I think it's about $1.8B per year, out of $51B, which is not half.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My memory may be a little old but the following graph shows the trends of expenditure for the US troops in Japan from 1997 to 2014 when PM Abe took power.

Blue: Total defense budget
Red: Budget for JSDF
Green: Budget for the US military

Budget to purchase weapons from the US is included in the red line as JSDF costs. It is estimated around $5 billion on average.
The budget for the US covers about 80% of the total US troops costs in Japan. For references, it is about 40% in Korea, 32% in Germany in 2004.











防衛省・自衛隊：防衛関係費の現状について｜防衛省・自衛隊の『ここが知りたい！』







www.mod.go.jp

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 3, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> This is all part of a *big *deal that was (reportedly) negotiated during May 2022


If the Koreans start exporting their fighters and tanks at low cost and high volumes like Hyundais the established firms in Europe will be faced with a credible competitor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 3, 2022)

They're already doing that. South Korea and Turkey signed a big deal about a decade ago, licencing a modified K2 for production in Turkey. Plus the T-50/FA-50 has won a bunch of international orders - mostly Asian states though.

It's an interesting cycle.

The K2 and T/FA-50 were largely developed with expertise South Korea gained from joint development/technology transfer with existing (largely US) defence contractors or had developed from license producing foreign equipment - notably the F-16 and some MBB helicopters, along with stuff like tank/howitzer cannons, high horsepower engines for AFVs, tactical radios and similar. It was a long cycle though - probably 25+ years from start to finish. 

Now that South Korea is (mostly) able to produce stuff independently, it's signing its own joint development/technology transfer and license production contracts. Enabling countries like Turkey and soon Poland to increasingly stand on their own when it comes to elements of defense production.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 4, 2022)

Today a US rocket is launching a South Korean Lunar Probe. They've come a long way!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 4, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> The K2 and T/FA-50 were largely developed with expertise South Korea gained from joint development/technology transfer with existing (largely US) defence contractors or had developed from license producing foreign equipment


The Fiat G91 was developed as a direct result of a USAF funded program to get the Europeans to start building their own fighters. I'm sure that the fact that it looks like a baby F-86D was just a sheer coincidence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 4, 2022)

How does it compare to the AIDC F-CK-1 and AIDC T-5 Brave Eagle?


----------



## kitplane01 (Aug 4, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> My memory may be a little old but the following graph shows the trends of expenditure for the US troops in Japan from 1997 to 2014 when PM Abe took power.
> 
> Blue: Total defense budget
> Red: Budget for JSDF
> ...


I don't think 1,010 is half 48,848.
And counting weapons bought in the US for Japanuse use would not change the conclusion, but is also not fair.


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 4, 2022)

kitplane01 said:


> I don't think 1,010 is half 48,848.
> And counting weapons bought in the US for Japanuse use would not change the conclusion, but is also not fair.


There is always $8 billion in JSDF budget for the maintenace of US base/facilities but the total cost for the US is less than the half.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 4, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> There is always $8 billion in JSDF budget for the maintenace of US base/facilities but the total cost for the US is less than the half.



Could the Japanese staff, equip, and operate these bases cheaper than they are contracting the job out to Americans? How much would it cost Japan to provide that security compared to what they are paying the Americans to do that? Or would your country be more satisfied with lowering the defense posture all-around?

Remember too that implicit in those bases being American is that attacking them courts nuclear reprisal. Is that expense factored into your balancing here?

As an American taxpayer, I'd be happy if other countries picked up more their share of defense. That's not a critique of Japan, but my own personal preference for our guys to be stationed closer to home and held in higher readiness regarding training, equipment, and TDY. I do have a little isolationist streak, to be sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kitplane01 (Aug 4, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> There is always $8 billion in JSDF budget for the maintenace of US base/facilities but the total cost for the US is less than the half.


I now think you're just making up numbers. Why do you think the JSDF spends $8B per year to maintain bases?

Also, that number is coincidently close to the new $8.6B FIVE year total that was just agreed to. During those five years, Japan will spend about $250B in total defense, and 8 is not half of 250.









U.S., Japan Reach Deal on Payments for Hosting American Troops


The U.S. and Japan reached an agreement on costs Tokyo will bear to continue hosting tens of thousands of American troops, a bulwark against China and a key part of the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific strategy.




www.bloomberg.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 4, 2022)

kitplane01 said:


> I now think you're just making up numbers. Why do you think the JSDF spends $8B per year to maintain bases?
> 
> Also, that number is coincidently close to the new $8.6B FIVE year total that was just agreed to. During those five years, Japan will spend about $250B in total defense, and 8 is not half of 250.
> 
> ...


The $8B annual expenditure is based on the treaty.
The extra $8.6B was requested by Mr. Trump a few years ago as he suffered the defense budget loss for the wall building on the US-Mexico border. I hope Mr. Biden will cancel it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kitplane01 (Aug 4, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> The $8B annual expenditure is based on the treaty.
> The extra $8.6B was requested by Mr. Trump a few years ago as he suffered the defense budget loss for the wall building on the US-Mexico border. I hope Mr. Biden will cancel it.




Can you please provide a citation that Japan is actually paying $8B per year to the US for military? I might believe Trump said lots of things, but I've looked and I really think you're just wrong about the amount actually spent. I've already twice given you citations that the actual number is $8.6B per five years.

To be clear, many many reputable sources on the internet say is $8.6B per five years, and that's what I'm going to believe unless you can offer a reputable source that says otherwise.

I really think you should look it up yourself. I think your memory is wrong.

-Peace


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 4, 2022)

kitplane01 said:


> Can you please provide a citation that Japan is actually paying $8B per year to the US for military? I might believe Trump said lots of things, but I've looked and I really think you're just wrong about the amount actually spent. I've already twice given you citations that the actual number is $8.6B per five years.
> 
> To be clear, many many reputable sources on the internet say is $8.6B per five years, and that's what I'm going to believe unless you can offer a reputable source that says otherwise.
> 
> ...


One of the citations for the $8B.


２０年度　米軍経費　７９７６億円/日本の高額負担常態化/半分は支払う義務なし



The $8.6B is equivalent to the green line of my last graph.








【独自】「思いやり予算」５年で１兆円超、日米が大筋合意…「２プラス２」来月７日開催で調整


【読売新聞】　２０２２～２６年度の在日米軍駐留経費の日本側負担（思いやり予算）を巡り、日米両政府が５年間の総額を１兆円超とすることで大筋合意したことがわかった。１６～２０年度に実際に支出した額と比較すると、全体で５００億円弱の増額と




www.yomiuri.co.jp

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 4, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Could the Japanese staff, equip, and operate these bases cheaper than they are contracting the job out to Americans? How much would it cost Japan to provide that security compared to what they are paying the Americans to do that? Or would your country be more satisfied with lowering the defense posture all-around?
> 
> Remember too that implicit in those bases being American is that attacking them courts nuclear reprisal. Is that expense factored into your balancing here?
> 
> As an American taxpayer, I'd be happy if other countries picked up more their share of defense. That's not a critique of Japan, but my own personal preference for our guys to be stationed closer to home and held in higher readiness regarding training, equipment, and TDY. I do have a little isolationist streak, to be sure.


I will answer your question later.
Thanks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Could the Japanese staff, equip, and operate these bases cheaper than they are contracting the job out to Americans? How much would it cost Japan to provide that security compared to what they are paying the Americans to do that? Or would your country be more satisfied with lowering the defense posture all-around?
> 
> Remember too that implicit in those bases being American is that attacking them courts nuclear reprisal. Is that expense factored into your balancing here?
> 
> As an American taxpayer, I'd be happy if other countries picked up more their share of defense. That's not a critique of Japan, but my own personal preference for our guys to be stationed closer to home and held in higher readiness regarding training, equipment, and TDY. I do have a little isolationist streak, to be sure.



Lets not forget though that having our troops overseas in places like Japan and Germany are more for our national interests rather than simply defending them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 4, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lets not forget though that having our troops overseas in places like Japan and Germany are more for our national interests rather than simply defending them.


I think it would be naive to think that the USA's presence in Japan is in any way altruistic.

This is getting dangerously close to political...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 5, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lets not forget though that having our troops overseas in places like Japan and Germany are more for our national interests rather than simply defending them.



It serves our national interest, no doubt. But it also serves the national interests of the host nations, and when told off (e.g. the Philippines or France) we quit our bases. My question was pointed at the implication that our bases are more expensive for the defense of the country in question compared to what they could put up themselves, and would they be willing to pay the price.

I think our national interest could be served equally-well with these forces being local ... if the political will and financial wherewithal is there.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> *It serves our national interest, no doubt. But it also serves the national interests of the host nations,* and when told off (e.g. the Philippines or France) we quit our bases. My question was pointed at the implication that our bases are more expensive for the defense of the country in question compared to what they could put up themselves, and would they be willing to pay the price.
> 
> *I think our national interest could be served equally-well with these forces being local ... * if the political will and financial wherewithal is there.



Of course it serves the host nations interests as well. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. I’m not sure it would be possible to serve our interests equally by keeping our forces in CONUS for both political and financial/economic reasons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kitplane01 (Aug 5, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> One of the citations for the $8B.
> 
> 
> ２０年度　米軍経費　７９７６億円/日本の高額負担常態化/半分は支払う義務なし
> ...


Working with the google translate function ...

The first cite says "This paper calculated based on the Japanese Communist Party's .... " and that's where I stopped reading.

The second cite says "It was revealed that the Japanese and U.S. governments have agreed in principle to set the total cost of the U.S. military stationing in Japan from 2022 to 2026 at more than 1 trillion yen over the next five years.". That's just around $8B OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, which is just about what every other source says .. 8.6B over the next five years.

First you wrote "half the defense budget" which would be 25B per year. Then you wrote 8B per year. The correct answer is about 1.7B per year, as both your web sites and mine all agree.

I'm done. I wish you well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 5, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Could the Japanese staff, equip, and operate these bases cheaper than they are contracting the job out to Americans? How much would it cost Japan to provide that security compared to what they are paying the Americans to do that? Or would your country be more satisfied with lowering the defense posture all-around?
> 
> Remember too that implicit in those bases being American is that attacking them courts nuclear reprisal. Is that expense factored into your balancing here?
> 
> As an American taxpayer, I'd be happy if other countries picked up more their share of defense. That's not a critique of Japan, but my own personal preference for our guys to be stationed closer to home and held in higher readiness regarding training, equipment, and TDY. I do have a little isolationist streak, to be sure.


Please let me answer straightly as I am not so young as to hesitate to say something.

Before talking about Japan's future defense, it would be necessary to think back what happened in the history again.
In the first place, isn't this a major premise that Japanese original military power had been disbanded in 1945, not voluntarily, but by the US so that Japan had no choice but relied on the US military power in the Far East?

Traditional Japanese conservatives, mainly represented by LDP, have been wishing to have Japan's independent military power which is never controlled by foreign powers for the past 77 years. I think that this will be same for any countries because this is a matter of national pride but I do not necessarily think that this will mean immediate conflicts with neighboring countries when the war with them had ended in 1945. What the US currently says "common enemies" with Japan is basically the enemies for the US. Please do not forget that Japan is a member of Asia before a partner of the security treaty with the US.

Sadly, the presence of the US military power in the Far East has been posing the danger of military conflict between the US and Japanese neighboring countries, which was not necessarily a good policy for Japan's security and is completely counterproductive for Japan's economy too. If the US troops may withdraw from Japanese territory in the future, naturally, Japan will have no choice but to increase its defense budget to make up for the lack of defense capability but, remember, most of that budget can be used for the domestic industries and new employment more than ever, which is economically favorable certainly. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, for example, will not have to suffer from order shortage to the Ministry of Defense anymore as it has been on the edge of bankrupcy for many years.

Since Japan did not have chances enough to grow such a Military-Civilian Complex as other countries did, it will be hard for Japan to turn into an arms exporter so soon but, of course, Japan will be equipped with the nuclear weapons. This is absolutely necessary as a deterrent. However, ultimately, Japan will aim for a neutral position in the region based on its own historical experiences in my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 5, 2022)

kitplane01 said:


> Working with the google translate function ...
> 
> The first cite says "This paper calculated based on the Japanese Communist Party's .... " and that's where I stopped reading.
> 
> ...


It will be easier for you to understand like this -

Total defense budge of Japan: $50 billion

Japan's total costs for the US: $15 billion
Details:
Base maintenance: $8 billion
Weapon: $5 billion
Salary/welfare: $2 billion

That is, the US cannot run its troops in Japan without Japanese budget.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 5, 2022)

Shinpachi said:


> Please let me answer straightly as I am not so young as to hesitate to say something.
> 
> Before talking about Japan's future defense, it would be necessary to think back what happened in the history again.
> In the first place, isn't this a major premise that Japanese original military power had been disbanded in 1945, not voluntarily, but by the US so that Japan had no choice but relied on the US military power in the Far East?
> ...



Right, there's a trade-off involved in the relationship. I was wondering about the specifics of it, and which expense model you would prefer. I'm aware of the reasons why the Americans initially took up the issue of defending Japan, given the constitution we dictated to y'all as well as our own geopolitical concerns. However, I don't think that the past should be carried forward immutably. I'd like to see change in this regard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 5, 2022)

The future will be decided by the future guys/gals.
Seems not my business at least but I only tell our history, tradition and pride.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## J_P_C (Aug 8, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> According to "internet sources" Japan spends 1% of it's GNP on defense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


according to historical sources it is hard limit imposed by Mc Arthur in Japan's constitution...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 8, 2022)

The seventh in the world would be enough to support the US operation in Asia.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> According to "internet sources" Japan spends 1% of it's GNP on defense.


Looks like it‘ll be double that by 2027. Another thank you to Putin and his global reawakening of Western defence spending.









Japan unveils record defence budget amid regional security fears


The cabinet’s nod for a 20-percent rise in military spending is a deviation from pacifist post-WWII self-defence policy.




www.aljazeera.com





Now, if we can only get my country Canada to get in gear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Dec 26, 2022)

Yes, it's Biden's victory and PM Kishida and his administration are on the edge now as he can't find fund for it except increasing tax. 
May be the end of LDP if other parties may unite for the next general election.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Dec 26, 2022)

Kishida's reality is not so optimistic as Biden tells his media









Japan's focus on defense spending casts doubt on growth


Whether 1.5% growth will be realized depends on corporate wage hikes and the inflation situation.




www.japantimes.co.jp

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Dec 27, 2022)

J_P_C said:


> according to historical sources it is hard limit imposed by Mc Arthur in Japan's constitution...


Could you cite those sources? Because that is another fictional "In the Japanese Constitution" myth.

Here is a link to the entire Japanese constitution (which came into effect in May 1947, and has never been amended)- please cite where that limit is found:

THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN

In light of Article 9, this excerpt from the book
The Japan Self-Defense Forces Law: Translation, History, and Analysis Edited by Robert D. Eldridge and Musashi Katsuhiro
is appropriate to explain why the JSDF is so-named, and how it exists at all:
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-5275-3351-6-sample.pdf

Here is the opening page (my bolding):


> INTRODUCTION
> ROBERT D. ELDRIDGE
> In recent months, as well as irregularly over the past half-century, there have been numerous discussions within Japan regarding the revision of Article 9, the so-called “peace clause,” among other aspects of the
> Japanese Constitution. The postwar Constitution came into effect seventy years ago in May 1947 but has yet to be amended even once.
> ...






> On the surface, based on the wording of Paragraph 2 of Article 9, the very existence of the SDF is unconstitutional, and thus much legal and political maneuvering in the early years focused on this question.
> Instead of amending Article 9, which would have invited domestic criticism and pressure from political parties in favor of “protecting the constitution (goken),” the Japanese government over the years has as necessary
> expanded its interpretation of the provisions of Article 9. For example, it has stated that “war potential” means the ability to wage an aggressive war, and because the SDF is for Japan’s own self-defense it is thus constitutional.
> 
> ...



Note that the full book includes a complete English translation of the 2019 version of the law authorizing the Self-Defense Forces.

Here is another site that discusses the SDF law: Japan’s Evolving Position on the Use of Force in Collective Self-Defense

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Dec 27, 2022)

Although the bilateral relationships between two countries are not so much changed even today, the Occupied Japan could not decide anything without GHQ's order, instruction, intention and confirmation.

Three basic points stated by Supreme Commander to be "musts" in constitutional revision shown during 3-4 Feb. 1946.









Source(English ver.): MacArthur Notes (MacArthur's Three Basic Points), February 3, 1946 | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Dec 27, 2022)

Sigh... and you still posted that AFTER I had posted the book excerpt where *Colonel Charles A. Kades, a lawyer serving as the deputy chief of the Government Section at General Headquarters, SCAP, explained to interviewers later how he struck out the more extreme clause in the original version which included at the end of what became the first paragraph following “international disputes” the phrase, “even for preserving its own security” *in order to allow Japan to be able to participate in collective self-defense as part of the United Nations (Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which went into effect in October 1945)!

Yes, you posted the original version BEFORE the editing which then ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED Japan to provide for self-defense!

Note that your notes are dated *1 year 3 months* *BEFORE* the actual signing of the Japanese Constitution... which does not, *and never did*, contain most of section II of your document.

Nice going.


One of the Internationally-recognized properties of nationhood is the right of the nation to defend itself from attack - without that it is not a nation.

That is why the "even for preserving its own security" clause was *removed* *by the US* from the draft of the Japanese Constitution *before its adoption* - if that was there, Japan would not be a nation, but a US administered mandate in perpetuity.

And yes, MacArthur approved the revision - otherwise the Japanese Constitution would not have been as it is now.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Dec 28, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Sigh... and you still posted that AFTER I had posted the book excerpt where *Colonel Charles A. Kades, a lawyer serving as the deputy chief of the Government Section at General Headquarters, SCAP, explained to interviewers later how he struck out the more extreme clause in the original version which included at the end of what became the first paragraph following “international disputes” the phrase, “even for preserving its own security” *in order to allow Japan to be able to participate in collective self-defense as part of the United Nations (Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which went into effect in October 1945)!
> 
> Yes, you posted the original version BEFORE the editing which then ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED Japan to provide for self-defense!
> 
> ...


Thanks for your kind explanation, GreenKnight121.
What experts understand for themselves are not necessarily same as the people do.
I understand that those discussions leading up to the official proclamation of the new constitution to the Japanese people on November 3, 1946 were, after all, about technical terms of expression when the three basic points by MacArthur were firmly held. About whether JSDF is constitutional or not, even the Japanese Supreme Court is obliged to suspend its judgment as too political.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

