Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/j ... _1_n.shtml"

Japan narrows next-generation fighter requirement choice

By Jon Grevatt Jane's Asia-Pacific Industry Reporter

Japanese Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials have decided to continue formal interest in three aircraft to meet its F-X next-generation fighter requirements - the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle - although a plan to lobby Washington to acquire Lockheed Martin's F-22 has not been ruled out.

A source at the Japanese MoD said: "Officials from the Ministry of Defence went to the US and Europe from 25 February to 15 March and have decided on three aircraft that could meet Japan's next-generation fighter aircraft."

He added that, contrary to media reports, Dassault's Rafale "is not being considered".

Speaking on 20 March, the Japanese MoD source refused to say whether interest in the F-22 had been discontinued. "We have decided on three aircraft to meet Japan's next-generation fighter requirements. But the F-22 is a modern, hi-tech fighter - so yes, of course, we are very interested. But of lot of things would need to be cleared before we would have a chance of acquiring the F-22."

F-16.net Sponsor

Hmm, well that's good news on the face of it (for me anyway) but it wouldn't surprise me if it's just a tactic to convince the US to ease up on selling the Raptor.

Well, makes the competition more interesting anyway.

Yep they got 3 on the short list....they also got one heading for Hawaii... I'd watch my Midway...

Too bad they didn´t consider the Nordic bird Gripen, longer range than Typhoon for example and otherwise comparable if not better specs than some of the contenders IMHO (I´m talking about Gripen NG, se link). Sweden has of course not the political weight...BTW what´s the timetable for this deal?
http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/3_Gripen_Capability_89303a.pdf

/C.

It is an air dominance/interceptor platform they want right, I would put money on the Eurofighter winning unless the F-22 gets offered at the last minute.

nzenthusiast wrote:

It is an air dominance/interceptor platform they want right...

May I ask why you don´t think Gripen could handle that?
Anyway, since JASDF already operate F-15J my bet is on the Strike Eagle.

/C.

Caprice wrote:

nzenthusiast wrote:

It is an air dominance/interceptor platform they want right...

May I ask why you don´t think Gripen could handle that?
Anyway, since JASDF already operate F-15J my bet is on the Strike Eagle.

/C.

Because the Gripen is a glorified trainer?

It's just too small to be considered in the company of these other jets.

The Gripen is an awesome air defence fighter but really doesn't have the combat persistence for any kind of real Air Dominance work. Even with Meteor and Iris-T.

Considering their geographical location I would be surprised if they don't buy F-22.

Although whatever they choose the loadout will probably be AAM-5 and AAM-4 anyway.

Which also begs the question, does AAM-4 fit in the weapons bay? Or has its fins got a similar diameter as a Aim-120A/B therefore limiting it to carriage of 4 only?

Andy

It's Japan we're talking about, if it won't fit, they modify it so it will.

Lasse wrote:

Because the Gripen is a glorified trainer?

No offence my nordic brother but there´s no need to lower yourself to such poor argumentation. Smile

boff180 wrote:

The Gripen is an awesome air defence fighter but really doesn't have the combat persistence for any kind of real Air Dominance work. Even with Meteor and Iris-T.

Today, yes that´s true, but i´m talking about the version with longer range(Se link above).

Some numbers:

* Empty weight: 7100 kg
* Max take off weight: 16000 kg
* Payload: 6000 kg
* Fuel, internal: ~4150 litre
* External: ~5000 litre
* Engine: Modified RM12 or GE-F414(EDE?) 22000+ lb
* Hardpoints: 10 + multible stores stations (Two new heavy stores pylons is added under the fuselage)
* Range: ~90 min CAP 1150 km radius with ext fuel tanks
* Supercruise Etc.

Development deal with Norway is imminent and a demonstrator will fly next year.

Regards C.

Caprice don't take me wrong, but that will make it only haul as much as typical Viper... still with less powerful engine.

Japan need air superiority fighter. Tell me rate of climb and time to station with full fuel and A-A loadout. I suspect that even the 'old' F-15J will beat Gripen+ at this, and Japan need something better.

As Sundowner said, there are many aspects to combat persistence, range only being one them.

The amount of weapons that can be carried, and the speed are also major key factors... two things (even with the two new hardpoints) the Gripen lacks in the Air-Air role. If it trys to turn with that load, it would lose energy very quickly leaving it a sitting duck for the aircraft its tangling with.

The F-22 is the best aircraft for the situation imho and if they aren't allowed access to the technology, then Typhoon.

Andy

First of all I´m not claiming to be a expert on this, just want to put forward some points to clear the fog, wich in my view, often clouds this aircraft. So with that out of the way...

Sundowner wrote:

Caprice don't take me wrong, but that will make it only haul as much as typical Viper... still with less powerful engine.

But remember Gripen NG is about ~2600lb lighter than Viper (block 50) and if (let´s be a little bit optimistic here) a GE F-414(EDE) is chosen, it has about 4% better sfc and 20% better thrust ~26400lb. That would give a T/W ratio of about 1.23 (~1.02 with current F414)- 50% internal fuel and BVR*4 + WVR*2.

Regarding range:

SAAB claims the new aircraft will be able to perform a five-hour unrefuelled maritime reconnaissance mission or sustain a 90-minute CAP as far away as Scotland from Norwegian bases.

What more could you ask for?

Sundowner wrote:

Japan need air superiority fighter...

I argue that Gripen NG's range and weaponsload - 4*BVR and 2*WVR - are sufficient for that role.

boff180 wrote:

The amount of weapons that can be carried...

Typhoon has an advantage in that it can carry a couple more BVR missiles at certain loadouts but is that really a key deciding factor here? Given the history of BVR-engagements?

boff180 wrote:

...the speed are also major key factors...

Gripen NG will have super cruise if that's what you mean.

boff180 wrote:

Gripen lacks in the air-to-air role. If it trys to turn with that load, it would lose energy very quickly leaving it a sitting duck for the aircraft its tangling with.

Suppose you are talking about the current version, if not, the difference will be marginal in my opinion? Take some, leave some...Regarding loosing energy in tight turns,what magical differences are there between Typhoon and Gripen, both deltawing aircraft? If the latter gets that EDE F414 engine swap, I can´t se that it would have anything to be ashamed of in the air-to air department (even today it´s no slug). Besides that it is presumably a moot point as agile missiles, HMD etc. are becoming operational and the fact? that WVR engagements probably will be a rarity in the future or at least avoided like plague by pilots.

boff180 wrote:

The F-22 is the best aircraft for the situation

Nothing to argue about here but the huge cost I guess...

Time goes, we´ll see what happens.

Regards C.

Japan need air superiority fighter. A airplane with good and very powerful radar, engines that will shoot it from airstrip to few thousand feet in matters of seconds and enough maneuverability to hold its own when all BVR missiles will be fired.

There are only few of those around:
- F-15
- F-22
- EF Typhoon
- Su-27
- Rafale

and a little bit older designs :
- MiG-31
- F-14A

The 39, just like a Viper will have a hard time fighting with those, especially after scramble take-off. That mean it's not much time to achieve sufficient altitude and speed, needed for maximizing BVR AAMs kill zone.

Just look at potential Japanese enemies - China, Russia and North Korea, all of them have Su-27s. Put both 39 and F-15J on the runway, and perform a scramble take-off (full internal fuel, full AAM loadout + one tank). The Eagle should be at 36'000 feet in less than 90 seconds, and going supersonic at that time, where will be the 39 then?

No, the 39 cant do that job, it is pretty good knife fighter, but it is not, and it will never be an air superiority fighter.

Possibly, the 39 would of been a better choice than the F-2 given the role it is tasked with primarily. As an anti-ship aircraft the 39 excels.

Sundowner, re: your F-15J vs 39 example... spreading that to the other aircraft....

F-22 = well past supersonic and even higher.
Typhoon = even higher and slighly ahead on speed
Rafale = about the same as the F-15J
Su-27 = Slightly behind the F-15.

Andy

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Eurofighter has a good chance to strike a deal in Japan