F-16 versus F-2/FSX

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

GADefence

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2004, 16:40

Unread post16 Jun 2004, 20:59

Just curious as to how many would think the F-16 (any variant) Fighting Falcon would go up against the Mitsubishi F-2 Fighter Support X.
Offline

faassen

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:29

Unread post14 Aug 2004, 22:09

From what I've studied so far the F-2 is nothing more than a grown F-16. Its origin is from the "Agile Falcon" project which a redesign of the fuselage and the wings would give the Falcon a better Thrust to weight and more inportantly better lift for the weaker engines. The last info states that the Japanese will no longer build extra F-2's.
So I think the F-2 could fly better because of bigger wings. I don't know much about the radar performances but it can carry much larger load.

Immagine putting into the F-2 the avionics etc from the block 60, the engine of the block 60, modified CFT's on the fuselage and a spine for the two seaters. What a plane the F-2 would than be. It would defeat the F-15E and every other modern lang range fighter/bomber I think. Immagine!

Dick
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post28 Nov 2004, 10:39

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article1134.html: Japan plans to stop the procurement of the F-2 fighter within a few years. After a defence review the Japanese Defense Agency has concluded that the F-2 is the least cost-effective of all available options.

So far, only 76 of the aircraft are either deployed or under construction. Next fiscal year, new contracts to purchase an additional 10 to 20 units will be made, but those will mark the end of the procurement.

Development delays caused the F-2's unit price to leap to 12 billion yen (108.6 million USD), the same price as larger fighter aircraft (e.g. F-15).

The review also concluded that while the F-15 is being upgraded, there is little room to upgrade the F-2 because of its smaller size.

Japanese Defense Agency's new plan: 282 fighters for the new era, which will include:
  1. F/A-22J * 80 (JDA will send the requirement of introducing about 80 Raptors in 2005~2009. If the USA rejects, the secondary option will be F-35).
  2. F-15J/DJ MLU * 126 + F-2A/B * 76~ F-15J/DJ MLU * 102 + F-2A/B * 100
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post28 Nov 2004, 10:55

GADefence wrote:Just curious as to how many would think the F-16 (any variant) Fighting Falcon would go up against the Mitsubishi F-2 Fighter Support X.


- The F-2 fighter has the same engine as F-16 C/D Block50/52, but its empty weight (21,000Ib/9,525 kg) is about one ton heavier than F-16C/D.

- Due to the error of design, the effective detective range of F-2's AESA radar is about 40 km only (The same class as F-5E........), significantly inferior to the original requirement (100 km at least). It is said that the problem needs a lot of money and several years to cure.

- Due to the another error of design, the wings of F-2 have cracking risk during the maneuver with high speed.

- Finally, this kind of "new" fighter's price is about 108.6 million USD per unit...
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post31 Jan 2005, 21:31

What do you guys think about the F-2's manueverability compared to that of a basic F-16CJ?
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post31 Jan 2005, 22:27

Finally, this kind of "new" fighter's price is about 108.6 million USD per unit...


That's a lot of cash :shock: !!! I'd think they'd be better off just getting F-16s off the shelf, but I guess with all the time and $$$ invested, they need some return on their investment. Maybe they should get JSFs from now on...
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

EriktheF16462

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2004, 18:24

Unread post04 Feb 2005, 15:33

Sure ain't no Zero.
F16 462 AD USAF. Crew dog for 3 and Even a pointy head for a few months.
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post06 Feb 2005, 15:35

You would think that the F-2 would be more agile than the F-16C because the F-2's design originated from the Agile Falcon concept, however it is considered a Anti-ship aircraft. Does anyone know which of the two is more maneuverable?
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post16 Jun 2005, 12:50

I'm still very confused over this, the F-2 does have a lower wing loading due to the larger wing area, but the larger wing also creates more drag and more weight which lowers its thrust-to-weight ratio. Does anyone know the F-2's roll rate, pitch rate, or how tight the planes turing radius is compared to the F-16C?
Offline

VPRGUY

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 853
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2005, 18:03

Unread post16 Jun 2005, 16:00

agilefalcon16 wrote:I'm still very confused over this, the F-2 does have a lower wing loading due to the larger wing area, but the larger wing also creates more drag and more weight which lowers its thrust-to-weight ratio. Does anyone know the F-2's roll rate, pitch rate, or how tight the planes turing radius is compared to the F-16C?


It does have a larger wing, but it is also heavier; I don't know the specifics of each, but larger wing doesn't automatically mean lighter wing loading. As mentioned it has the same motor as the C/D F-16, so it has a lower thrust/weight ratio than a regular F-16. Plus the bigger wing, like you said, means more drag, so it is slower, and probably doesn't retain speed so well in a turn.
Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Offline

Duymon

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2005, 12:11

Unread post12 Sep 2005, 16:18

F2 was designed around anti-ship operations employing the ASM-1 or ASM-2 anti-ship missile. JASDF still uses F-15's for A2A. They just needed something to replace their old F-1's heh :p

at that price they'd be better off buying like 4 f-16's or so.... don't the F-16's in Norway do anti-ship with their penguin missiles? Prolly saved a bundle if they'd gone that route heh
Offline

VigilanteAgumon

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2005, 14:03
  • Location: Kissimmee, Florida

Unread post20 Oct 2005, 18:48

The Japanese AAM-4 Missile is in the same class as the AMRAAM. It is to replace the Sparrow in JASDF service for the F-4 and F-15. Also, there's the XAAM-5 dogfight missile which is being developed as a replacement for the AAM-3. If the F-2 is to be intergrated with these missiles...
Offline

6329tsur

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2008, 11:32

Unread post14 Apr 2008, 19:23

I don't know much about the radar performances but it can carry much larger load.


The F-2 has a much better AESA radar[/quote]
Offline

Pilotasso

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 03:35

Unread post15 Apr 2008, 17:37

agilefalcon16 wrote:I'm still very confused over this, the F-2 does have a lower wing loading due to the larger wing area, but the larger wing also creates more drag and more weight which lowers its thrust-to-weight ratio. Does anyone know the F-2's roll rate, pitch rate, or how tight the planes turing radius is compared to the F-16C?


the intent of the bigger wing is for precisely lower wing loading and while at it more fuel and more weapons.

The F-2 might be beaten by the F-16 down low but I suspect the Japanese plane will superseed the falcon at altitude. After all Japan is surrounded by sea. Defense of it will require to track targets from altitude.

AESA is a huge advantage over the regular F-16, much more than manueverability. The worst defect of F-2 is that it doesnt have any active BVR missile integrated into it. Thats more due to politics than anything else (their F-15's have sparrows only too). But the japanese are developing such a missile.
Offline

skyhigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 467
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 11:01

Unread post17 Apr 2009, 14:20

The JASDF is deploying the Mitsubishi AAM-4 (to replace the AIM-7) and the AAM-5 (Japanese equivalent to AIM-9X).

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests