Japanese next generation fighter studies (aka i3, F-3)
- Thread starter bobbymike
- Start date
-
- Tags
- f-3 japan mitsubishi
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,710
- Reaction score
- 15,063
I think you’re being very polite in your wording there.
It depends upon what the drivers are. If simple cost of acquisition (i.e. purchase price per F-3 vs F-35 vs....) then you are probably correct. However, if one factors in aspects such as development/maintenance of domestic capability, domestic jobs creation/maintenance and also money spent in local economy vs overseas than you might see a different outcome.
Ares
Man from Far East
- Joined
- 15 October 2018
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 352
X-39
To post or not to post, that is the question
- Joined
- 20 February 2021
- Messages
- 382
- Reaction score
- 915
Not sure i agree with him on this thoughts of Japan "winning" the 6th Gen race. Build and get your protoype airborne first then we'll talk, there are people who claim this because the X-2 was hanging around since 2016, but i don't think it counts as it was purely a technology demo and doubt it will have much resemblance to whatever final design the real FX is:
In terms of non-US programs I see 0 issue with making this claim. For starters, I don't think there is a single person with surface level knowledge on the F-X that thinks it's going to be X-2 2.0. The biggest requirements for the F-X is long endurance and a very large missile capacity which simply isn't going to happen on an airframe smaller than the F-35. The significance of the X-2 is that Japan had a domestic 5th gen flying in 2016 which is more than what anyone on FCAS or Tempest can say in 2022 and that the main bar from a full fledged production was economic rather than a technological one.
In fact the domestic industry that would go into a 6th gen is already very advanced for Japan. The F-22's RAM and heat-absorbing engine ceramics are both Japanese designs licensed to US companies. Japan had the APG-1 in service in 2000 while the RBE2-AA took until 2013 and Captor-E is still struggling to find it's way into Typhoons. The XF9 has done static testing and Rolls-Royce's super-alloy plants for the Tempest engine are reliant on there Japanese plants and industry. Airbus just celebrated their first aerial launch of a UAV on the 22nd of February where they literally shoved a target drone out of the back of an A-400M. Meanwhile the Fuji TACOM with actual mission systems onboard was dropped off the wing of F-15Js back in the early 2000s.
The big limiting factor is the economics and Japan has seemingly gotten that down as well with the recent partnerships with the UK. The most important part is that Japan went to the individual sub-contractors like RR to make these deals rather than straight to BAE to join tempest. The biggest problems with these multi-national projects is you have 3, 4, 5, different nations all aiming for their best interest which creates problems and can even cause the entire program to collapse. The Japanese route means that they are completely disconnected from the geopolitics of Tempest and regardless of if the Tempest enters production, at the end of the day they will have their engine and they will have their radar system which will go on their own airframe rather than the Tempest-J.
As far as things are concerned Japan is the best set up for a 6th gen out of the non-US programs and even then the non-US programs are maintaining a very competitive pace. So far the F-X and tempest are rated for IOC in 2035. The NGAD on the other hand is just rated for 2030s with no specific year while also being dependent on F-22 retirement. Either one can experience delays, but I don't think it's outlandish the idea that Japan with UK resource support could match the US in 6th gen development.
China is also a massive, threatening, and powerful motivation for Japan.
Just like North Korea is, to South Korea - and Boramae is proof that, when there is a threat, things happens faster.
Japan had hard times with their F-2 & F-2 Jaguar and F-16 "clones" (don't take that word badly please) but they learned from these.
We will see.
Just like North Korea is, to South Korea - and Boramae is proof that, when there is a threat, things happens faster.
Japan had hard times with their F-2 & F-2 Jaguar and F-16 "clones" (don't take that word badly please) but they learned from these.
We will see.
That's another good point that you bring up. There is this idea that the world is still living in the late 1980s cold war with a very Eurocentric idea of modern warfare when in reality western Europe hasn't had any real threat since 1991. The cold war was a huge driving force for military innovation and now we have a new cold war in the East. It's insane to me how many people I talk to that think that since Japan "can't have a military", their fighting force is some low level conscript force, then how shocked they are to find out that the Self Defense Force is essentially larger than any western European military.
Also from what I've seen on the GSDF and MSDF front, Japan is actually really efficient with budget and timeline. Japan has an extremely strict budgetary limit so they have to be very selective of where it goes. The Mogami's and Soryuu's have had extremely smooth development and manufacturing as far as I can tell. On the GSDF side, you rarely see a program that isn't successful. Their prototyping is super efficient as they generally have an exact idea of what they want from the beginning. For example, the Leopard 2 had something like 18 different prototypes all wildly different. The Type 90 had 2 initial ones. One quite different, one very close to the production vehicle. The 3rd design was essentially identical to the production Type 90.
This makes it sound like an ASDF problem, but it's more of an outsider meddling program and LockMart deals in planes, not tanks and boats. The collaboration with the UK seems incredibly favorable to both sides and Japan especially, so I don't see a repeat of the F-2.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,710
- Reaction score
- 15,063
I imagine Japan looks at Russia, then looks at China, and goes yep we need a new aircraft asap.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,645
- Reaction score
- 1,948
Eh?
That's not really a 5th Gen fighter. Its a subscale airframe with some planform alignment but no weapon bay or mission systems. There's substantially more to do to get an operational system.
But I agree with your overall point.
This is also why Japan was noticeably more pissed than other countries that were denied F-22 sales by US congress.
Kinda off topic, but I'd say you rather swap the "G" out of GSDF with an "A", considering all those messed up acquirement programs they've had since the last 2 decades with costs going through the roof, requirements not being met and delays kicking in. Point about MSDF I very much agree.
It is true that there are significant delays for example the 2016 MCV and now 2022/23 MAV, ICV, and RCV all stem from a very early 2000s program. On the flip side it does show how concise JGSDF programs are with identifying needs. I only know of a select few GSDF programs that are truly cancelled while many are sitting on the shelf until the required funding kicks in (which is a lot longer when the GSDF is the ugly stepchild). The ASDF has also had really good programs such as the C-2 and P-1 being combined into a singular project with interchangeable parts. It was extremely smart on Kawasaki at the development level, but any potential cost saving were squandered at the bureaucratic level by failing to fund significant large scale production numbers. The GSDF has had it's blunders and ASDF has had it's successes.
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,709
- Reaction score
- 1,192
But given the AEGIS secrets leak from the MSDF, perhaps the denial was more justified.
Leaks happen. Even with the F-22 seeing an export ban, Honeywell willingly sold F-22 specs to China alongside F-35 and F135 specs and drawings.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 3,392
TLDR:
Most of Japan's (if not all) defense industry manufacturers are entirely owned/operated by the private sector, with many companies, especially small to mid sized ones, leaving the defense market (not so profitable) to focus on other things. This makes issues with sourcing components in the long term difficult. May affect big projects like the next gen fighter.
asia.nikkei.com
Most of Japan's (if not all) defense industry manufacturers are entirely owned/operated by the private sector, with many companies, especially small to mid sized ones, leaving the defense market (not so profitable) to focus on other things. This makes issues with sourcing components in the long term difficult. May affect big projects like the next gen fighter.
Japan's defense equipment supply chain is in a predicament
Its reliance on the U.S. and small domestic makers grows precarious
asia.nikkei.com
Ares
Man from Far East
- Joined
- 15 October 2018
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 352
Italy shows interest in participating Japan's F-X programme during defense ministers meeting.
apnews.com
Japan, Italy to lift defense ties amid China, Russia worries
TOKYO (AP) — Japanese Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi said he and his Italian counterpart agreed Tuesday to step up military cooperation as Japan expands security ties with Europe amid concern about Russia's invasion of Ukraine and its impact on Asia.
apnews.com
That is an interesting development and has me wondering what's happening internally with tempest. I don't know about the F-X, but where I do see this going is a new jet trainer for Japan. Japan has been looking to replace the T-4 and T-7 since at least July of last year.
Maybe Kawasaki license producing the M-345 or Aermacchi and Kawasaki teaming up to jointly develop a new trainer specifically for Japan. Regardless I do see things coming out of this partnership even if it's not F-X related
Maybe Kawasaki license producing the M-345 or Aermacchi and Kawasaki teaming up to jointly develop a new trainer specifically for Japan. Regardless I do see things coming out of this partnership even if it's not F-X related
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 3,392
^ while there's concerns over Japan's ability to do the F-3 alone (either technologically or financially)
I believe a T-4 and T-7 replacement is easily within the capabilities of Kawasaki or Mitsubishi, while IHI should be able to provide engines
I believe a T-4 and T-7 replacement is easily within the capabilities of Kawasaki or Mitsubishi, while IHI should be able to provide engines
There is no doubt that Japan can produce something like a trainer, but the question is why should they bother. The market is already incredibly saturated, so there is little success to be found on the export market if they wanted to go that route. They simply need something to train the basics as any advanced stuff can be handled by the F-2B and F-15DJ. It would be much better to just license produce an off the shelf solution and put the money saved into F-X or more P-1/C-2 procurement.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,708
Given that Japan is (quite urgently, by their standards) building a top of the line fighter than the industrial development/ support arguments for also developing and building an advance trainer at the same time appears quite limited. Indeed it would appear to be a potential impediment to fielding an F-3 as quickly and efficiently as possible, creating a competitor for limited resources. And that’s before considering impacts on other aviation and defence priorities.
A licence built advanced trainer (or even just a full direct purchase, if politically thinkable for Japan) would undoubtedly be cheaper and quicker and potentially could have wider foreign policy advantages (with the US and/or EU, or even South Korea if the will and imagination was there).
A licence built advanced trainer (or even just a full direct purchase, if politically thinkable for Japan) would undoubtedly be cheaper and quicker and potentially could have wider foreign policy advantages (with the US and/or EU, or even South Korea if the will and imagination was there).
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 3,392
I would argue two things
1. Job creation, as they have usually done in the past
2. maintaining the know how.
these two reasons why such projects like the T-4, F-1, etc, despite its low scale of production and lack of exports, are reasons for Japan following down that line
3. Japan is now a bit more open to exports, as seen with the Mogami ships and their attempts to sell the US-2 to India.
4. Finally, Japan is also increasing its defense budget, which may allow for both the development of an advance trainer and acquiring other aircraft.
The problems however, is motivating the business sector to keep researching and producing defense related components. As the article above posted, several companies have called it quits, opting to focus on the civilian market which is more profitable.
I'm also becoming more pessimistic about the F-3 being something mostly a domestic design, and would not be surprised if urgency and funding would push them to simply make a licensed design of something the US or UK would make. If they go down that route, then I see more motivation to develop a domestic trainer, which could also be more easily exported.
1. Job creation, as they have usually done in the past
2. maintaining the know how.
these two reasons why such projects like the T-4, F-1, etc, despite its low scale of production and lack of exports, are reasons for Japan following down that line
3. Japan is now a bit more open to exports, as seen with the Mogami ships and their attempts to sell the US-2 to India.
4. Finally, Japan is also increasing its defense budget, which may allow for both the development of an advance trainer and acquiring other aircraft.
The problems however, is motivating the business sector to keep researching and producing defense related components. As the article above posted, several companies have called it quits, opting to focus on the civilian market which is more profitable.
I'm also becoming more pessimistic about the F-3 being something mostly a domestic design, and would not be surprised if urgency and funding would push them to simply make a licensed design of something the US or UK would make. If they go down that route, then I see more motivation to develop a domestic trainer, which could also be more easily exported.
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,558
- Reaction score
- 2,352
ouch, i guess Japan can use "Made in Japan" initiative for weapons program. It may affects export tho e.g ships as some interested countries may not necessarily want or allowed to get US made mk-41 VLS cell. While Japan have no alternative for those.
Ares
Man from Far East
- Joined
- 15 October 2018
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 352
Looks like BAE will take the place of LM's position.
Edit: Oops, I interpret it wrongly. BAE is not only replace LM, but gonna involve in the full scale joint development if the article says true.
There was a rumor that Japanese engineers didn't like the participation of Lockheed Martin, despite being favored by politicians. So since last year, there have been predictions that the final contract with Lockheed Martin will be canceled, and it seems actually come true.
Edit: Oops, I interpret it wrongly. BAE is not only replace LM, but gonna involve in the full scale joint development if the article says true.
The Defense Ministry is reportedly coordinating a joint research and development project for the next generation fighter with Britain, led by British Air Defense Equipment giant BAE Systems and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Several government officials said. A formal agreement will be reached by the end of the year according to the Japan-British summit on Tuesday. Although the next fighter jet was considered to be supported by Lockheed Martin, it will be a de facto change of policy.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and BAE Systems will participate in the aircraft, and IHI, a major shipbuilding heavy machinery company, and Rolls-Royce, Britain, will cooperate to discuss the engine. Some Italian companies and Lockheed may also participate. Last December, the Japanese and British defense authorities agreed to jointly study the development of the next fighter engine and were also exploring the possibility of joint development of other major parts.
With the support of Lockheed, which co-developed the F2, the next fighter jet was seeking to be developed under the leadership of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. However, due to difficulties in coordinating with Lockheed, the government decided to switch its main focus to the U.K. after gaining an understanding of the U.S. government. However, from the perspective of interoperability, cooperation with the U.S. will continue, and the unmanned combat support system will be jointly developed with the U.S.
With the U.S., the retirement period of old-fashioned fighter jets did not coincide with that of the U.S., so there was a cost problem. In addition, Lockheed's high level of concealment, such as the renovation of the aircraft in the U.S. mainland, has become a problem in technology sharing as a "black box."
The Defense Ministry plans to start operations around the 17th year of the Reiwa era, and the budget for fiscal year 4 includes 85.8 billion yen for development.
A high-ranking official of the ministry said, "The joint development with non-U.S. countries is unprecedented and epoch-making."
＜独自＞次期戦闘機、日英共同開発へ ＢＡＥと協力、伊も参加（産経新聞） - Yahoo!ニュース
防衛省が航空自衛隊のＦ２戦闘機の後継機について、英航空防衛機器大手ＢＡＥシステムズと日本の三菱重工を主軸とする日英での共同研究開発事業とする方向で調整に入ったことが１３日、分かった。複数の政府関係者news.yahoo.co.jp
There was a rumor that Japanese engineers didn't like the participation of Lockheed Martin, despite being favored by politicians. So since last year, there have been predictions that the final contract with Lockheed Martin will be canceled, and it seems actually come true.
Last edited:
There are some massive undercurrents lurking beneath this statement. Geopolitical and frankly no one has really dug into the consequences.Looks like BAE will take the place of LM's position.
The Defense Ministry is reportedly coordinating a joint research and development project for the next generation fighter with Britain, led by British Air Defense Equipment giant BAE Systems and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Several government officials said. A formal agreement will be reached by the end of the year according to the Japan-British summit on Tuesday. Although the next fighter jet was considered to be supported by Lockheed Martin, it will be a de facto change of policy.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and BAE Systems will participate in the aircraft, and IHI, a major shipbuilding heavy machinery company, and Rolls-Royce, Britain, will cooperate to discuss the engine. Some Italian companies and Lockheed may also participate. Last December, the Japanese and British defense authorities agreed to jointly study the development of the next fighter engine and were also exploring the possibility of joint development of other major parts.
With the support of Lockheed, which co-developed the F2, the next fighter jet was seeking to be developed under the leadership of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. However, due to difficulties in coordinating with Lockheed, the U.S. government decided to switch its main focus to the U.K. after gaining an understanding of the U.S. government. However, from the perspective of interoperability, cooperation with the U.S. will continue, and the unmanned combat support system will be jointly developed with the U.S.
With the U.S., the retirement period of old-fashioned fighter jets did not coincide with that of the U.S., so there was a cost problem. In addition, Lockheed's high level of concealment, such as the renovation of the aircraft in the U.S. mainland, has become a problem in technology sharing as a "black box."
The Defense Ministry plans to start operations around the 17th year of the Reiwa era, and the budget for fiscal year 4 includes 85.8 billion yen for development.
A high-ranking official of the ministry said, "The joint development with non-U.S. countries is unprecedented and epoch-making."
＜独自＞次期戦闘機、日英共同開発へ ＢＡＥと協力、伊も参加（産経新聞） - Yahoo!ニュース
防衛省が航空自衛隊のＦ２戦闘機の後継機について、英航空防衛機器大手ＢＡＥシステムズと日本の三菱重工を主軸とする日英での共同研究開発事業とする方向で調整に入ったことが１３日、分かった。複数の政府関係者
There was a rumor that Japanese engineers didn't like the participation of Lockheed Martin, despite being favored by politicians. So since last year, there have been predictions that the final contract with Lockheed Martin will be canceled, and it seems actually come true.
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,655
- Reaction score
- 8,701
I have to say, was not expecting that.
The temptations to merge this, either partially, or wholly, into Tempest must be growing to some extent. Either way the symbiosis will benefit both programmes I think.
And if LM is devoting its efforts to NGAD will they really be that worried about less work on someone else's fighter?
The temptations to merge this, either partially, or wholly, into Tempest must be growing to some extent. Either way the symbiosis will benefit both programmes I think.
And if LM is devoting its efforts to NGAD will they really be that worried about less work on someone else's fighter?
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,710
- Reaction score
- 15,063
But doesn’t this aircraft and Tempest have rather different proposed roles to fulfil?
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,645
- Reaction score
- 1,948
They're both jobs projects aiming to produce something that looks like a future fighter? Looks like high alignment to me.
You could've said the same about EFA and ACX, and yet... The jobs aspect tends to override the alignment, unfortunately - small nuances in operational requirements are liable to get deliberately blown out of all proportion to secure or protect work share.
IMOHO this is the perfect blend. The long range/high loiter time is a similar requirement for both air forces. And that impacts airframe design the most.
Don't forget that the British industry was able to articulate its too often underrated aircraft industry around two very different design (Typhoon and Gripen prequel).
Don't forget that the British industry was able to articulate its too often underrated aircraft industry around two very different design (Typhoon and Gripen prequel).
Last edited:
apparition13
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 27 January 2017
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 992
apparition13
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 27 January 2017
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 992
Typhoon, 10 years late, way over budget, post cold war blues.
Rafale, 10 years late, way over budget, post cold war blues.
F-35 - 10 years late, way over budget. Doesn't have the 'post cold war blues' excuse.
But that's not all:
LCS Freedom: utter debacle. Order cut from 26 to 16, and now they are retiring most of them without even a decade of service because the ships are that useless. Waste of billions.
F-22 - 7 years late, way over budget.
P-7, late and over budget, cancelled.
S-3, nice plane, thanks to LTV.
L1011, great plane, late and over budget, never sold enough to make back the investment, would have bankrupted the company but for the bailout.
C-5, late and over budget, contributed to the almost bankruptcy and bailout.
SR-71, Skunk Works project, aka the anti-corporate Lockheed division. They get things done by not doing it the Lockheed way.
C-141, got this one right.
U-2, Skunk Works project.
F-104, Skunk Works design that needed bribes to be successful. The USAF bought not that many, and retired them really quickly.
P-3, Electra, P-2, C-130, Hudson, seemed to be good designs.
But...
P-38, late, over budget, poor performance. They got it right by the end of the war, but that seems to be the Lockheed way. Late, over budget, fail to meet performance goals, will sometimes get it right but it takes years too long and triple the budget to get there.
The F-2 was started with GD, but most of the development was with Lockheed after GD sold off their aircraft division. It was late, over budget, and had its order cut by a third.
The JMSDF was looking at the Freedom LCS, but noped out of there and made the Mogami instead, which is an ship that actually works. But then again, the JMSDF seems to me to be the best run military service on the planet.
Hence my position: ABL*. Anyone but Lockheed.
*I see Liverpool just 'won' the FA cup. I say 'won' because I don't really rate penalties as cup deciders.
Honestly I'm glad ATLA and the MOD are giving LM the finger on this one. LM and the US congress were responsible for almost all that went wrong with the F-2. Things would've gone so much smoother if Japan was allowed to go with their domestic delta canard or the F-15J mod. Realistically, the most important thing cooperation wise with the US is networking integration and you don't need to sign a massive LM contract to achieve that. No reason to continue do business on arguably one of the most important defense contracts with a corrupt company like LM that won't treat you like an equal.
The most important aspect is if the development partner has the incentive to really commit and try their best to build a successful development program. LM doesn't, UK and as an extent their industry, has
Does this text below explain the concept shown in the attached picture?
" Unlike a conventional analog beamformer, digital processing enables multiple beams to be generated by iteratively summing a given received signal set while preserving the full gain of the array for each beam. DBF offers significant operational utility from its inherent capability to flexibly generate multiple simultaneous receive beams with arbitrary weighting schemes. Timeline occupancy demands can be potentially mitigated by transmitting over a small angular sector that can be covered by a cluster of receive beams to collect returns in parallel. "
From page 279 of Principles of Modern Radar Volume III - Radar Applications
" Unlike a conventional analog beamformer, digital processing enables multiple beams to be generated by iteratively summing a given received signal set while preserving the full gain of the array for each beam. DBF offers significant operational utility from its inherent capability to flexibly generate multiple simultaneous receive beams with arbitrary weighting schemes. Timeline occupancy demands can be potentially mitigated by transmitting over a small angular sector that can be covered by a cluster of receive beams to collect returns in parallel. "
From page 279 of Principles of Modern Radar Volume III - Radar Applications
Attachments
Similar threads
-
Mitsubishi X-2 ATD-X Shinshin Demonstrator- Started by Sentinel Chicken
- Replies: 327
-
-
-
-
