U.S. Air Force insiders foresaw F-22 problems

Russian news was talking about this fault years ago. At that time the US authorities dismissed it as a non-issue.

It's one of those things that's known as "mission creep". The F-22 was designed to do a given mission. Then non-engineers (usually in the shape of politicians), start getting involved and pushing the F-22 to missions that it is technically capable of, but not really designed for. Then, as the engineers try to modify the systems to match the safety margin to the new parameters, more people hear about the new parameters and continue to add to the missions. Eventually, they want to keep the mission plans, but start complaining about the budget to keep upgrading the plan.

The USA taxpayers want to know why Japan is the testing area for the reliability of these planes. Another question is why are the Ospreys in Okinawa? There is never a clear answer from the government or military. Now Chosun Ilbo reports, "Korea wants to buy US$6.2 billion worth of attack helicopters and associated equipment from the United States. The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress last week of the possible deal." No Ospreys or F-22s going there.

The USA taxpayers want to know why Japan is the testing area for the reliability of these planes.

Which taxpayers have asked about that?

Another question is why are the Ospreys in Okinawa?

Because Marines love Ospreys. They are faster, stronger, and safer than Seaknights.

No Ospreys or F-22s going there.

Yes. Why would we sell them our current tech? Sell them the stuff from last decade.

Apparently, Japan is the new testing ground for all of the hi-tech, faulty weapon systems coming from Team America's military-industrial complex. Meanwhile, nearly 2/3 of the American West is owned by the government. It seems, however, that the military prefers overcrowded tropical resorts in foreign lands to sparsely populated areas within their own borders to shake out all the problems with their hardware. Perhaps someone can offer up some justification for this oddly nonsensical situation. Oh, right...to protect Japan.

It looks like the Marines need to join the 20th century and start flying in something that can get them to ?????? Just exactly would be a target for Marines deployment from Okinawa outside of Japan? Can the Osprey get there fully loaded without refueling in the air with a range: "combat radius of 500 nautical miles with 1 internal auxiliary fuel tank?" Manila is 911 miles away, Shanghai is 511 miles, close enough, Incheon,is 776 miles. Taipei? Ping-pong. 382 miles. The Marines can invade Fukuoka or Taipei. Why would they want to invade Taipei? http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=775 BTW-why 22? It seems to indicate something is wrong.

noriyosan73 Sep. 30, 2012 - 12:52PM JST

Please don't confuse the issue with facts. The US has its super secret, classified reasons for everything it does, reasons so incredibly complex and sophisticated that they can only be understood by three men in Washington who live in a bunker deep beneath the Pentagon and which would no doubt cause dementia in the minds of any Okinawan who was unfortunate enough to hear them explained. That's all you need to know. Now go stand out on the side of the road with a small American flag in case someone spreading democracy rides by carrying a freedom missile.

saidaniSep. 30, 2012 - 01:37PM JST The USA has demonstrated its top secret incompetency very recently in Libya. It's the responsibility of people to say "No" to the military. What makes the military right? The military is responsible to the people. The people pay the bills. What is the "secret" reason the Marines want Ospreys if the closest land is Taipei?

noriyosan73 Sep. 30, 2012 - 02:06PM JST

Perhaps my sarcasm was not over the top enough to be understood as sarcasm.

Just exactly would be a target for Marines deployment from Okinawa outside of Japan?

Any aircraft carrier, supply ship, or battleship, where you can refuel and reach almost any major target in the region. Also, you have control over pretty much the entire China Sea.

Really, trying to argue against Okinawa in terms of strategic location is not going to work.

It's all about costs. USA don't pay rent in the use of their land. Japan handles most of the mentainance of US Military bases in Okinawa. Japan believes in anything US tells them to.

cabadaje Sep. 30, 2012 - 02:46PM JST

After nearly 70 years in which "Camp Okinawa" has participated in no action which was in defense of Japan, arguing for its necessity is like pointing to the lack of polar bears in Tokyo as a reason for Japan to continue to buy Uncle Sam's magic polar bear repellant.

After nearly 70 years in which "Camp Okinawa" has participated in no action which was in defense of Japan,

So, no credit for "Presence", I take it?

arguing for its necessity is like pointing to the lack of polar bears in Tokyo as a reason for Japan to continue to buy Uncle Sam's magic polar bear repellant.

Who's arguing for the necessity? I'm just pointing out a pretty obvious answer just off the top of my head to the question of what use Ospreys would be in Okinawa.

cabadaje Sep. 30, 2012 - 10:12PM JST

One could reasonably argue for the presence of the navy and Air Force. The question is not about the Osprey, but the Marines. As for giving credit for presence, again, it is the presence of the US 7th Fleet and the Air Force, not the Marines. Surely you can agree with that.

One could reasonably argue for the presence of the navy and Air Force. The question is not about the Osprey, but the Marines.

Navy and Air Force are support functions. When it comes to actual dominion in the battlefield, you need the Army and Marines taking control of the area. There is a reason why all four branches exist.

As for giving credit for presence, again, it is the presence of the US 7th Fleet and the Air Force, not the Marines. Surely you can agree with that.

I don't think you have much experience with negotiation, more specifically, power balance.

cabadaje Oct. 01, 2012 - 06:40AM JST

Japan is not at war. There is no battlefield. We are talking about presenting a military presence to maintain the peace. You must be a jarhead to call the Navy and Air Force support, especially since no invasion of Japan is possible unless the force moves on the islands by air or sea. But you get an A for Marine Corp spirit.

James Edwards: Maybe you already answered this, but, why exactly are we here?

Zed: [noticing a recruit raising his hand] Son?

Second Lieutenent Jake Jenson: Second Lieutenant, Jake Jenson. West Point. Graduate with honors. We're here because you are looking for the best of the best of the best, sir! [throws Edwards a contemptible glance]

Second Lieutenent Jake Jenson: [Edwards laughs]

Zed: What's so funny, Edwards?

James Edwards: Boy, Captain America over here! "Best of the best of the best, sir!" "With honors." Yeah, he's just really excited and he has no clue why we're here.

Sacrifices are always necessary in weapons development. Do you know how many Americans died in perfecting the use of our CGs and advance jets through the decades? Tens of thousands. God bless their souls but its a necessary sacrifice. We just don't talk about it but we know. The all powerful military you see today from us has been through countless blood and tears. This is not just about money and power. The technological advancement is all about sacrifices.

You people think this is some joke or help a needy friend situation in Japan? You think we occupy you for fun? This is all about protecting you from your own craziness. Every time your economy goes awol, your country turns to those right-wing nuts. Every single time. If it wasn't for us stabilizing the region, and alot of that means keep you on a leash, your whole country would've been another province of China or Russia. I'm thinking more like from Tokyo up rules by Russia and Kyushu down rule by China. That's how the Russian and Chinese would've done.

Just be thankful our F-22 is there as a symbol of deterrence because when push comes to shove, they won't matter much either.

callmeB Oct. 01, 2012 - 08:30AM JST

Sacrifice the men and women who sign up and are paid to refine that equipment, not the civilians who live around the bases.

Your issue with Japan's past response to economic downturn is not with the Okinawan people but with the government of Japan, one which is heavily influenced by the US government. That said, if you go further back in time, you will see the US behind the Russo-Japanese war and the takeover of the Korean Peninsula. So, it isn't as if the US has been sitting on its hands as regards Japan since Perry forced Japan open to US trade in the mid-1800s. You want it to sound as if the Japanese people owe it to the US to sit down and shut up when the US does something that ordinary people don't like.

Now, if you want to go on record as admitting that Japan is merely a puppet-state to US interests and not an equal ally, then we can get to the real issues between the two nations.

As for the F-22, what good is a high-altitude, high-speed fighter if it can not achieve high-altitude nor high-speeds? Is it really ready for deployment?

noriyosan73 Oct. 01, 2012 - 08:53AM JST

I was on your side of the argument. But thanks anyway.

Well, you certainly squeeze enough money out of the J-taxpayers for their protection.

Ah, so the Jarhead comment didn't rile me up, so we're going for the gangster angle now?

Are you saying they are paying to protect the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam (oh, wait...the US destroyed Vietnam), too. Or maybe it is about protecting US investments in Asia, like in China, which may explain why the US is sitting on its thumbs over the Senkaku row.

Are you saying they get to dictate what the money is spent on?

And yes, of course the US is interested in protecting US investments. Who have you ever run into that wouldn't be aware of that?

As for your pride of duty, yes...it does blind you to the sacrifices made by Okinawans.

What an odd thing to say. You are assuming that if I had never served in the armed forces, I would agree with the Okinawan opinion? On what possible basis do you make that assumption?

You pretend to protect people and human rights all around the world while squatting on your hosts for too long.

Not at all. You seem to be under the impression that this is a one-sided affair. The world is much, much, bigger than that. There are no innocents among the global players. There is no isolationism in the global market. You are still thinking in terms of which countries are allied with which others, as if this was last centuries economic battlefield.

But you can't see that.

Sure I can. However, I can also see much, much, more. It's all about perspective and priority. You believe that if your perspective isn't given high priority, then the other person must be blind. From my perspective, the Okinawans are one of many groups with their own desires and complaints; their priority is placed somewhere in the middle.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand. Indeed, assuming by default that those who disagree with you must be blind could be a good indicator that the person with the blinkers on is not the one across the desk from you.

Are you saying they get to dictate what the money is spent on?

Well, when you tell them the money is for their protection and then spend it to protect others, what would you call it? Remember, you are guests in Japan. Shouldn't American financial interests and other countries share the costs of protection or is that strictly a Japanese burden?

The rest of the stuff you write is just filling space for some reason. You want me to believe that your perspective is somehow more worldly and sophisticated and that it justifies ignoring the desires of the sovereign Japanese citizens on Okinawa...for nearly 7 decades. The fact is, you don't make the decisions about these things. Your service in the Navy was that of following the orders of the people who do make them. That you can justify them in you mind simply means that you agree with them, not that it is the right and proper perspective for all people.

Well, when you tell them the money is for their protection and then spend it to protect others, what would you call it?

I call it telling them what the money is for, not vice-versa.

Remember, you are guests in Japan. Shouldn't American financial interests and other countries share the costs of protection or is that strictly a Japanese burden?

More accurately, we are allies of Japan, and the division of costs depends on what was negotiated.

You want me to believe that your perspective is somehow more worldly and sophisticated

No. More global.

and that it justifies ignoring the desires of the sovereign Japanese citizens on Okinawa...for nearly 7 decades.

No. It simply explains it.

The fact is, you don't make the decisions about these things.

That's another one of those blatantly obvious things. It's also rather irrelevant, as I never claimed to.

Your service in the Navy was that of following the orders of the people who do make them.

And giving them.

That you can justify them in you mind simply means that you agree with them, not that it is the right and proper perspective for all people.

It is neither about justification nor agreement. It is about understanding. Nor does being in the Navy have all that much to do with it either. After all, this was the Navy's desire, but it wasn't their decision.

I call it telling them what the money is for, not vice-versa.

More accurately, we are allies of Japan

US to ally, "Gimme your money, shut the hell up, and do what we say." Why would any Japanese have a problem with that?

And giving them (orders).

That would imply more than simply being a link in the chain of command. A bulletin board serves the same purpose.

It is neither about justification nor agreement. It is about understanding. Nor does being in the Navy have all that much to do with it either. After all, this was the Navy's desire, but it wasn't their decision.

Surely, you are not patting yourself on the back for being the oracle of all understanding about global economic, political, and military issues. If so, what are you doing on this board? You should be hanging out with a different crowd. One of the biggest problems the Japanese have with Americans is their lack of respect and humility. American hubris does not play well in all parts of the globe even if the US military silences most dissent. Might makes right understanding?

US to ally, "Gimme your money, shut the hell up, and do what we say." Why would any Japanese have a problem with that?

Only when someone convinces them that they have a problem.

That would imply more than simply being a link in the chain of command.

That is correct. The US military recognizes that there will be times when a decision has to be made in the field, and does its best to ensure the officers have the capability of making the best decisions in under the circumstance.

A bulletin board serves the same purpose.

Let's just say that the average soldier, sailor, Marine, is unlikely to carry out a command they see on a bulletin board. The dom/sub relationship of the military is a bit more complex than that, and its fairly insulting to imply that subordinates aren't intelligent enough to question orders, and superiors don't care enough about their men to personally pass on significant orders personally.

Surely, you are not patting yourself on the back for being the oracle of all understanding about global economic, political, and military issues.

Correct, I am not. As I said before, your belief that this is about justification, agreement, or praise, is incorrect. It is simply about understanding. And understanding is really nothing more than the baseline of a discussion. It is by no means an accomplishment worthy of being considered superior.

If so, what are you doing on this board? You should be hanging out with a different crowd.

I do. I hang out with the executives of major Japanese companies. I am their instructor in marketing and negotiation.

One of the biggest problems the Japanese have with Americans is their lack of respect and humility. American hubris does not play well in all parts of the globe even if the US military silences most dissent.

I disagree. I find that the biggest problem Japanese have with Americans is not so much a lack of respect or humility as the directness that Americans have in displaying it. Again, it goes back to understanding. Just because you understand that most Americans are being disrespectful doesn't mean you have to like it. However, if you are doing business with them, you do have to tolerate it. Fortunately, there is only very rarely a situation where force is used to silence anyone. Most people on both sides of the argument are smart enough to know when it is time for both sides to STFU and start doing business. If they don't, chances are good their bosses will get involved, and then everyone loses face, including the Americans.

Might makes right understanding?

Doesn't work in the global community. It's more like shooting yourself in the foot.

Just because you understand that most Americans are being disrespectful doesn't mean you have to like it. However, if you are doing business with them, you do have to tolerate it.

...then everyone loses face, including the Americans.

Indeed. Which is what is happening in Okinawa now. You seem confident that America's disrespect will continue to be tolerated and yet the failure of the base issue because of a relative handful of protesters is making America look foolish and weak in the eyes of many, especially since the US decided to ignore the reasonable demands of the locals in order to flex its muscles, which has accomplished nothing of substance. China senses it and sets the rules for doing business there and, now, confronting Japan in the face of the US. Many in the Middle East also sense it. Ultimately, this attitude of tolerance can only be attained by threats and coercion. With America's declining economic situation and weak foreign policy, sadly, such hubris can only be supported by its military. But keep forcing people to tolerate your disrespect. It is sure to be a winning policy in the long-term.