FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well you included me in your post, thus the reply!!!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well you included me in your post, thus the reply!!!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.
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.
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'd be very surprised if Boeing hadn't 'future-proofed' the aircraft and designed it with growth in mind.
And that is entirely reasonable as well because of the availability aspect.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).
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.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.
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
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.This is all part of a big deal that was (reportedly) negotiated during May 2022
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.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
I don't think 1,010 is half 48,848.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.
View attachment 680313
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 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.
I now think you're just making up numbers. Why do you think the JSDF spends $8B per year to maintain bases?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.
The $8B annual expenditure is based on the treaty.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
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.