Lockheed to offer Japan advanced F-22 F-35 hybrid?

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2274
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 01:22

mixelflick wrote:I would have thought a better (and much cheaper) option would have been to purchase F-16C's. The money left over could have gone to funding an indigenous, truly BVR missile or buying something like Sky Sword II from Taiwan.

Too many nations waste too much money on national pride/vanity projects. This strikes me as one of them..


And you would be right. Nevertheless, Japan does not regard this as a national pride or vanity project but really to protect not just jobs but IP capacity, rather than just giving it up altogether. Same reason why the Europeans insist on the Typhoon (and why they have a next gen fighter in the works)

Buying just 94 F-2s doesn't create economies of scale but that's not the intent. They not only invested in the F-2, they also invested in the AAM-4 (Type 99) which is their "truly" BVR missile. The same will apply to the F-3. It is clear it won't exceed 200 units.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6669
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 03:14

disconnectedradical wrote:USAF PCA requirements don't meet Japan requirements very well. What Japan needs is good loiter and endurance for air defense, PCA is for penetrating defended airspace. I doubt they will be the same aircraft, no matter how much you bang your head against the wall.


Japan isn't going it alone or even taking the lead on any future 6th Generation Fighter Program. So, her options maybe limited.

That said, we are so early in the development of a future 6th Generation Fighter. We know little of the true requirements. Honestly, I doubt anybody really knows at this stage. As the current F-22/F-35 have a long ways to mature first. Before we know what the next generation should encompass.....

"IMHO"
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2274
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 03:21

Its only been 12 years since project started.

As to requirements.

https://www.mod.go.jp/atla/soubiseisaku ... ighter.pdf
Online

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 03:40

mixelflick wrote:The F-2 was as close as they came, and that was nothing more than a much more expensive (almost double!) F-16. And what did $120 million buy them? Sure, the AESA was cutting edge at the time but what did it get them (other than bragging rights)? The F-2's radar made it in theory capable of greater BVR kills. But even that's misleading, given the range of the AIM-120B it carries (approx 75KM). Not enough missile to take advantage of the radar.


The main role of the F-2 force is anti-shipping and generally air to ground. A good radar comes in pretty handy there. The requirement was for the F-2 to carry 4 ASM-2 anti-ship missiles at enough range. Something the F-16 could not do, hence the larger wing to allow carriage of 4 ASMs plus 2 600 gal tanks, better and bigger radar to find hostile boats and things like a reinforced canopy for increased bird strike resistance.
F-2 doesn't use AIM-120. The Japanese use AAM-4B. Which is an indigenous, truly BVR missile.

mixelflick wrote:I would have thought a better (and much cheaper) option would have been to purchase F-16C's. The money left over could have gone to funding an indigenous, truly BVR missile or buying something like Sky Sword II from Taiwan. It's a truly hypersonic, 100km range weapon that would have allowed Japan's F-16's to puch toe to toe with Chinese J-10's and their PL-15's.


Japan does not buy weapons from Taiwan.
Besides that, AAM-4B is most likely superior to Sky Sword 2. It's a heavier (222 kg vs 184 kg) AAM with more range (120 km vs 100 km, allegedly of course) and the first AAM with AESA seeker.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6669
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 03:51

weasel1962 wrote:Its only been 12 years since project started.

As to requirements.

https://www.mod.go.jp/atla/soubiseisaku ... ighter.pdf


Please, tell us what will encompass the future 6th Generation Fighter for the JASDF?

Interesting considering they don't even have a partner or have selected a design to pursue...... :roll:
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2274
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 04:42

Actually, if one bothers to read (and translate) the pdf, its all there.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6669
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 05:09

weasel1962 wrote:Actually, if one bothers to read (and translate) the pdf, its all there. Just because someone is lazy doesn't mean this weasel is going to do it for him.



I don't have to read it. Because at this stage in means little.....Unless your telling us it spells out the specific requirements for the future Japanese 6th Generation Fighter. Which, any "potential" partner would have to incorporate and adopt. (LOL)


Honestly, we're only at the very beginning of the process. Hell, all we have at this stage are "general" concepts and talk of joining with others to "possibly" co-develop a future fighter. Which, nobody has agreed would even look like...


In short spare me your pdf file........ :roll:
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2274
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 05:14

So your prediction is based on not reading government issued literature. I know how much that's worth.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6669
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 05:20

weasel1962 wrote:So your prediction is based on not reading government issued literature. I know how much that's worth.



Things change "all" of the time. Japan planned on developing the ATD-X (X-2) as a Demonstrator that would lead to the proposed F-3. Yet, that is dead and the plan has changed...

Yet, feel free to go dig up a pdf file and ask us to take it as the "gospel". :roll:
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2274
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 05:26

thats your version, not reality though. You don't realise how much of the doc (which was drafted in 2010) contradicts what you have just stated. You can call it a new project but the F-3 is 12 years old and progressing unless of course one can believe that a new engine like XF-9 could have been developed overnight, with a prototype built in 2018 and ghost tested for the past 2 years....lol. We know what your claims are worth.

You seem to think the X-2 = F-3. Thats as incorrect as it gets.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6669
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 06:10

weasel1962 wrote:thats your version, not reality though. You don't realise how much of the doc (which was drafted in 2010) contradicts what you have just stated. You can call it a new project but the F-3 is 12 years old and progressing unless of course one can believe that a new engine like XF-9 could have been developed overnight, with a prototype built in 2018 and ghost tested for the past 2 years....lol. We know what your claims are worth.

You seem to think the X-2 = F-3. Thats as incorrect as it gets.


Honestly, getting pretty tired of you twisting my every word and then insulting me on top of that.

Regardless, I apologize to the members of the forum for my part. As I shouldn't have wasted their time debating you... :|
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 612
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 09:34

Japan has created a working group of local and US aerospace companies for the development of the successor to the F-2 fighter
Sankei News reports external link that Japan has created a working group of local and US aerospace companies for the development of the successor to the F-2 fighter. The report added that Britain lost the race for the joint development program as it wants to have the lead and Japan is unwilling to participate in joint development with other countries in the Tempest program. The F-2 is one of the main fighter jets used by the Air Self-Defense Force. According to government officials, about 10 Japanese companies, including Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., IHI Corp. and Toshiba Corp., will join the conference. Japan will ask three US companies, including Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co., to join the conference.


https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/hi ... us-043983/

Here's a link to original Japanese newspiece: https://www.sankei.com/politics/news/20 ... 10-n1.html

And a british write-up about the subject: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/japan-d ... ghter-jet/

If you want to read that Holland, Finland, Denmark and Norway "could be part of the Tempest project" and read why Typhoon is superior to the F-22 read the comments :D
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3963
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 13:49

eagle3000 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The F-2 was as close as they came, and that was nothing more than a much more expensive (almost double!) F-16. And what did $120 million buy them? Sure, the AESA was cutting edge at the time but what did it get them (other than bragging rights)? The F-2's radar made it in theory capable of greater BVR kills. But even that's misleading, given the range of the AIM-120B it carries (approx 75KM). Not enough missile to take advantage of the radar.


The main role of the F-2 force is anti-shipping and generally air to ground. A good radar comes in pretty handy there. The requirement was for the F-2 to carry 4 ASM-2 anti-ship missiles at enough range. Something the F-16 could not do, hence the larger wing to allow carriage of 4 ASMs plus 2 600 gal tanks, better and bigger radar to find hostile boats and things like a reinforced canopy for increased bird strike resistance.
F-2 doesn't use AIM-120. The Japanese use AAM-4B. Which is an indigenous, truly BVR missile.

mixelflick wrote:I would have thought a better (and much cheaper) option would have been to purchase F-16C's. The money left over could have gone to funding an indigenous, truly BVR missile or buying something like Sky Sword II from Taiwan. It's a truly hypersonic, 100km range weapon that would have allowed Japan's F-16's to puch toe to toe with Chinese J-10's and their PL-15's.


Japan does not buy weapons from Taiwan.
Besides that, AAM-4B is most likely superior to Sky Sword 2. It's a heavier (222 kg vs 184 kg) AAM with more range (120 km vs 100 km, allegedly of course) and the first AAM with AESA seeker.


This is interesting, about the F-2 being primarily an air to sea anti-shipping aircraft. It struck me much moreso as a compliment in the air to air role with the F-15, in the way F-16 is in USAF - just more capable. And with an AESA radar/AAM-4B, I would think it would excel in that role and even be more capable than their F-15's in some regards.

If I needed an anti-shipping capability I would have developed the AESA radar, stuck it in their F-4's and plumbed in the capacity to carry 4 ASM-2's. I'd think that would have saved a boatload of cash, and I bet those F-4's would have a lot longer shelf life in that role (owing to the lesser G's of that mission). But that's me, I'm cheap like that... :mrgreen:

I can appreciate 20 more km in range for the AAM-4B vs. Sky Sword II, but man does that extra speed matter in the DCS world. Have you ever fought an F-14 with its Phoenix missiles traveling at Mach 5 toward you? Even if they're easy to defeat by maneuvering, boy do they put you on the defensive REAL fast. And in the event you do get an AMRAAM or R-77 off at them during this time, it sure makes it difficult to give that missile telemetry data as it speeds downrange.

Sure, it's just a game. But parts of it are eerily accurate, and speedy missiles coming at you in multiples isn't pleasant especially when in the real world, it's life or death..
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eagle3000, sprstdlyscottsmn and 13 guests