About a 1 in 3 chance I'd say...
Well if the US would say "either buy our stuff or we won't help you anymore" one wonders what kind of Ally the US is.
Maritime strike is the primary mission of the F-2. It's true that F-4's don't perform AA missions only, but they did back when they were introduced and to my understanding airdefence is still an important mission. The F-4 merely complements the F-15 and F-2 in their respective roles. Either of the three candidates (Eurofighter, Super Hornet and Lightning II) could perform these roles.
That has got absolutely nothing to do with it. US can't support or supply a Typhoon jet. It CAN support and supply F/A-18E/F and JSF...
AA Yes. Eurofighter and JSF will both need significant development before they are capable of undertaking maritime strike roles.
they don't, but what they do is also provide australia with access and entry to a whole pile of other warfighting platforms and force integration opportunities that the UK could not and cannot possibly even attempt to provide.
It's not its NATO compliance that is the issue here.
Yes, the discussion is about Japan, what GF was attempting to point out is that in discussing the merits for Platform A vs. Platform B for various roles, it (still) is not just about which particular platform is cheaper/faster/longer-ranged/whichever particular platform metric people attempt to compare...
Guess what? Japan has bought European helicopters for both its navy (oops! maritime self-defence force) & coast guard. Assembled by Kawasaki, two types purchased & currently being delivered, further orders thought likely.
I was just using the helicopter turboshaft & tailfin rotor as an example of different 'system' elements within a platform. Originally I was considering using left or right-side driver's seats. Other very good examples of standardized format which can impact purchases would involve multimedia formatting (PAL vs. NTSC) as well as Region Coding. Other examples cover things like electrical appliances. A 100v, 60 Hz HDTV purchased in Osaka could be used in Mainz, but a series of adapters and converters would likely be required, not only to allow the different plugs to physically fit, but also to allow for the change in voltage given that Germany uses 230v at 50 Hz...
yes we are
the reality is that the japanese (like australia in my prev attempted example) will make a choice that is not platform centric, but systems centric and based on force, training, development familiarity. Or for both Aust and Japan, what other things that the US can provide us that makes force construction far more attractive with a US selected asset
again, using an australian example, the US provides us with access to systems, technology development, planning participation, ease of access into USN training processes, ease of access into USMC force development, access to NAVSEA and DARPA for parallel projects such as acoustics and hypersonics (much like we provide japan with some access to aust hypersonic progs) etc......
The question here is how different are those comm systems? European forces have to be able to communicate with the US forces as well and they do so on a regular base during exercises and real combat ops. Otherwise it would be difficult to work together and it obviously works. That's the reason why there are NATO standards, exactly to deal with such issues. Common standards for all kind of comm equipment from radios, IFF to datalinks, among others.
And country X would loose all of this just by selecting a different platform? I see some logic behind the common training with the USN..., but most of the things you state don't appear to be linked to the platform itself. The JASDF F-15s don't share to much similarity these days with those of the USAF, they aren't any more or less well integrated than a F-2, F-4 or any other type in that force. I just don't see why it should be that difficult to select a non-US type, unless the US ties everything to the selection of the platform.
having worked on some comms integration programs, I can tell you that just because there is a NATO baseline doesn't mean that the integration is easy. the cost is in the integration. the US does have some significant leverage over other countries as they tend to be the piggy in the middle - they play with blue, red and white systems to a far greater level than anyone else - except possibly israel
that was the subtle message in my response..... platform procurement is not just a platform centric decision - its also a systems and capability centric choice.
and its a whole lot easier for the japanese to attrit against US warstocks or active units than it is against spare euro gear. eg as the US did with Israeli in her various conflicts, they can war provision their friends with similar gear - or even generationally different gear within that platform class without the japanese disrupting their training etc...
well, every country has its own reasons for platforms selection ... it is rarely just about the platform as considerations have to be made about a whole pile of other decision vectors..... in the case of japan, I'd argue that irrespective of their sometimes fractious relationship with the US that they would rather buy pointy gear from a partner who they also think is likely to back them up if and when things get messy with their big moody neighbour to the west....