F-16E/F Block 60 vs F-2

[madrat]

If Block 60 is a rocketship then Typhoon must be galaxy explorer. TWR only takes you so far.

If anything it is obvious that India wasn't aiming for the technical best in their competition.

[viperzerof-2]

Block 15 under similar conditions. Maybe I’ll run some of the numbers on other blocks to see if the Block 60 is highest.

[viperzerof-2]

https://twitter.com/rikizomisono/status ... 51009?s=20

This is Kakamigahara. 2022/10/20 This is the F-2 #101 edition of the rehearsal lunch.
The F-2 has a tighter turn than the 15. It looks like it's tail-sliding, I guess it's a fly-by-wire. The know-how obtained from the CCV attached to the canard was put into the aircraft with a normal layout F-2,
Which one is better than the canard machine?

Horizontal stabilizer near neutral during turns.

[viperzerof-2]

This old by John Will
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9952&p=146452&hilit=Roll#p146452

Of course. Results were mixed. XL generally had a better initial pitch rate, so could make the first turn into the target better. But, like deltas in general, it had lower sustained g capability. XL had 9g turn capability, same as F-16, but had higher rolling g capability, 7.2 vs 6 for F-16. It also had a flight control refinement which allowed the pilot to command a max roll at any g level, all the way to 9g. Roll rate was automatically reduced above 7.2g. On the F-16, max roll commands are allowed up to 6g only. The XL had a higher maximum speed than the F-16, but slower acceleration.

The Red Eagles book gave the XL a blistering 800 degrees a second roll rate. Apparently the F-16 maxes at 324 for the first 90 degrees.

According to my paper the F-2 is also 7.2 G for rolling

From “PLCS BASED SOLUTIONS FOR XF-2 LOADS TESTING
CHALLENGES”

The equipment of Roll Command Generator system is shown in Figure 2, and a brief summary of its operation is as follows. The pilot can input various parameter settings via the ten-key pad on the Integrated Control Panel (ICP). These parameters correspond to different g limits and/or roll inputs such as 4.4g and full Fa, 7.2g and 1/2 Fa, etc. The F-2 is equipped with a G Limit Override Switch on the throttlegrip. Becausethisswitchhasalowfrequencyofuse,itisused to operate the Roll Command Generator. When the switch is depressed, the Roll Command Generator creates a step input pure roll command {no Fe or Fr) and sends it to the FLCC as though it were
coming from the pilot's stick (stick pitch commands and rudder commands are sent to the FLCC as normal). If the switch is released or a roll force of 10 pounds or more is applied to the stick, the Roll Command Generator terminates its roll and sends stick inputs to the hLOC as normal.

Given things like wing span and aspect ratio I don’t know if it has a faster roll but it does look very crisp and quick in videos I’ve seen.

IMG_8544.jpeg (40.28 KiB) Viewed 9419 times

[viperzerof-2]

https://twitter.com/Flankerchan/status/190877 ... 91450?s=19

90s J/APG-1 T/R module evaluation by the Air Force lab. It seems even before the radar upgrade detection distance was excellent for a medium aircraft.

[viperzerof-2]

There was a hidden purpose for this trip to Misawa.
I wanted to ask the pilots who are actually riding the F-2 about the criticism of the F-2 that is circulating in the streets.
This was not a request from the editorial department, but my personal wish.
I wanted to break the evidence-questioning F-2 criticism with the testimony of direct officials.


In conclusion, there is no basis for criticism of the F-2, and the pilots do not care about such criticism in the first place.
On the contrary, they didn't even know that among well-known military critics and aviation enthusiasts, there was a rampant discourse that questioned the mobility of the F-2.
"Huh? Is there anyone who says that? The answer comes back with a feeling of "what the hell is going on."
If you think about it, it's a matter of course, and we know best about the plane we're riding. No matter what the outfield says, they know their abilities and limitations best. It is natural that the words and actions of people who are not parties to it are not of interest.

First of all, regarding the mobility when 4 ASMs are installed, of course, there are G restrictions compared to when clean, but it does not interfere with mission execution. Of course, there is no way to carry out air combat maneuvers while full of ASM and increasing tanks, and even if there are restrictions, it is not a problem.
As evidence from argument, Mr. T has been shooting in the air with a configuration equipped with 4 ASMs (+600 gallons and 2 tanks). The photo will be posted on J-WING, which will be released around October 25. I just asked you to take a good look at it.
By the way, the ASM on board is a dummy, but the dummy bullet only does not have a warhead or rocket motor, and the weight and center of gravity are strictly matched with the real thing. Otherwise, there is no point in testing and training with dummy bullets. So you can think that what you can do with a dummy bullet can be done with live ammunition.

Regarding the air combat mobility of the F-2, it has actually been conducted inter-air combat training (DACT) with the F-16, and it is said that it is showing comparable mobility.
Fortunately, the commander class of the 8th Squadron has been sent to the U.S. Air Force and has also been on F-16s over there. The flight time of the F-16, including the new squadron leader, is hundreds of hours, and the F-2 is still tens of hours. They are not as good as the F-16C/D's flight performance.

In addition, Mr. T, who heard his impression of the F-2 from the American F-16 pilot, heard that they felt that the F-2 was difficult.
Since the F-2 has a larger main wing area and a slightly lower wing surface load and wing width load, it seems that the F-2 has a slight advantage in terms of sustained turning performance compared to the latest F-16.
The more the F-16 becomes a new type, the stronger the color of the fighter bomber and the heavier the weight, and in that respect, you can even see that they are envious of the light and mobile F-2.
By the way, Mr. T doesn't seem to know anything about the bad words of F-2 on the street.
I was surprised that I suddenly started the topic of F-2 criticism, and later asked, "Is Mr. Hamada anti-F-2?" I was even asked seriously.

However, Misawa's F-2 unit has not actually been conducting a DACT with the F-16C/D of the U.S. Air Force based in the same Misawa. Also, it is not that each other's pilots are riding each other's fighters.
There are various circumstances on both sides (including politics and budget), and the 8th Squadron is still young as an F-2 unit, and it may have been said that it has not grown enough to play other games.
However, the individual team members are motivated enough and do not seem to feel any anxiety or inferiority about the F-2 they are riding.
I can even see the confidence that I told you to come to DACT or anything.
There is no need to say bad things because it is domestic, and the pilot who is on the F-2 from the beginning also hears the hardship story of saying, "I didn't have a hard time with radar at first," but there seems to be no major complaints about the current aircraft's ability.
When it comes to the story of the F-1 that the squadron used before, the old-faced pilots sometimes hear the complaints that they said, "Anyway, it didn't have power."
As for the request of commander-class pilots, there was a strong desire for equipment enhancement rather than performance. It's certainly not something I can be proud of about this. However, it is not the F-2 aircraft itself, but a higher-up problem.


The above story will be off the main plot of this interview, so I won't write too much in a magazine, so I'll write it here for now.
This can be cited anywhere as an view of aviation critic Kazuho Hamada.

http://obiekt.seesaa.net/article/164542204.html?amp=1


If I understand correctly F-2 and F-16 block 50 are comparable with F-2 having a slight sustained turn rate advantage.

[viperzerof-2]

Tavarish Palkovnik On the DCS forum attempted to calculate the AAM-4 motor

Don't take this for sure, like said I didn't deal with Japanese motors at all so it's hard to say what they practised with motors before this one. In any case this is some normal design, 3 variants depending of targeted boost-to-sustain ratio (longer or shorter slots)

F-t.png

I've got estimated dry weight of about 31-32kg so propellant weight should be cca 70kg what this grain construction gives with let's say normal density of 1,78kg/dm3

fuze.png

Fuze is armed after 4-6 seconds, usually it is when signal of pressure drops arrive in device, meaning end of boost stage

motor.png

Quantity of propellant is noted as one (1) so it should not be dual impulse motor, although there are lot of patents signed by design office from which this motor came. And they have been very much focused on dual impulse concept so who knows how it's ended

Snimka zaslona 2025-11-18 132939.png

In table above they gave very confusing info about total impulse and that is what bother me from start to end

JASDF_AAM-4_Warhead_Section_20131124.jpg

This also bother me...why front side of motor is painted in white !? And in length which is approximately length of proposed construction of second impulse

Snimka zaslona 2025-11-18 133857.png

I don't know, upper construction looks normal and I'm not sure that they've been able to solve dual impulse motor 15-20 years ago. Although it looks easy, it is not easy task at all...

JPA 1997236400-000000.pdf

(280.69 KiB) Downloaded 8 times

99式空対空誘導弾（B）CPS-U13200-4.pdf

(6.83 MiB) Downloaded 8 times

[viperzerof-2]

Interesting things in above documents

• 1500 M/s missile
• 25G limit
• Variable Directional proximity fuse
• AAM-4B famously used an AESA seeker but AAM-4 uses a GaAs FET instead of a TWT.