FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well you included me in your post, thus the reply!!!
Poland Buys South Korean FA-50
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
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.
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.
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…
Last edited:
Ding, ding, ding…
Ding, ding, ding…
And that is entirely reasonable as well because of the availability aspect.
kitplane01
Airman 1st Class
- 135
- Apr 23, 2020
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.
Military budget of Japan - Wikipedia
- Thread starter
- #68
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
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.
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.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
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：このページは移動しました
www.mod.go.jp
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #72
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Today a US rocket is launching a South Korean Lunar Probe. They've come a long way!
- Thread starter
- #73
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
How does it compare to the AIDC F-CK-1 and AIDC T-5 Brave Eagle?
kitplane01
Airman 1st Class
- 135
- Apr 23, 2020
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
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.
kitplane01
Airman 1st Class
- 135
- Apr 23, 2020
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.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
www.bloomberg.com
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.
kitplane01
Airman 1st Class
- 135
- Apr 23, 2020
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
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
