- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,127
- Reaction score
- 8,819
Japanese next generation fighter studies (aka i3, F-3)
- Thread starter bobbymike
- Start date
-
- Tags
- f-3 japan mitsubishi
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 1,949
sferrin said:
But RF stealth is a massive additional constraint on configuration and shape. For a common set of requirements, there just aren't many different configurations that work anymore.
thank you Flateric
It's impressive to see the double twist that follow the inlet: one horizontally that turn the flow inward and one vertically to bypass the volume of the weapon bay. Very aggressive.
On the other hand, it leaves a vast volume empty aside of the WB, at the wing root junction. The model shows clearly that even with that they had to add a side fairing bulge (or a canoe) to fit something there
The engine cutout tends to display a plenum around the nozzle and high pressure bypass air expended to cool the hot part of the engines. Seems also that this is in conjunction to some sort of liquid cooling around each engines (circulating Fuel?) as shown on another slide.
It's impressive to see the double twist that follow the inlet: one horizontally that turn the flow inward and one vertically to bypass the volume of the weapon bay. Very aggressive.
On the other hand, it leaves a vast volume empty aside of the WB, at the wing root junction. The model shows clearly that even with that they had to add a side fairing bulge (or a canoe) to fit something there
The engine cutout tends to display a plenum around the nozzle and high pressure bypass air expended to cool the hot part of the engines. Seems also that this is in conjunction to some sort of liquid cooling around each engines (circulating Fuel?) as shown on another slide.
Attachments
Attachments
For a stealth aircraft the cost/benefit ratio might just work out though - finally there really ARE no fasteners joining skin panels to the frames/longerons (contrary to the myths about the F-22 and F-35)!
sferrin said:
The problem is that the US has already shown that the F-22/35 configuration is one that's proven, and for that reason alone it offers lower risk.
From there, when combining things like more limited resources, with less industrial capability, it makes complete sense to use a configuration that is already proven.
When all of those nations have similar relative levels of the amount of resources they are willing to commit, similar relative levels of industrial capability/experience or assistance, it would frankly be surprising to see them not go for a more proven configuration.
So you're kind of right -- the fact that the F-22/35 merely exists and their configurations have been an open secret for years, means that their configurations can be easily "cribbed".
But otoh, when a cheaper, more proven configuration already exists and which you assess can fulfill your requirements, is there a need to be uniquely original for the sake of originality?
Those aircraft, if built, will likely look as different to each other if not more, than half the fighter types of WWII on opposing nations did.
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 1,355
kcran567 said:
Because the requirements for the F-3 aren't the exact same as the F-22. The JASDF has found that for their mission, loiter time is more important than top end speed. As a result, they went with a wing designed with a higher aspect ratio at their design point than the F-22s.
Trident said:
Which image showed that?
And would that mean a truly one piece of machined airframe with skin or would it simply mean that instead of fasteners some other method was used to (semi)permanently "glue" skin to the frames?
Last 3 photos in this post:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20794.msg318806.html#msg318806
As we are talking about fibre-reinforced plastic, the parts would be "built up" with no machining beyond trimming. Regarding the specifics of how they are fastened, I'm far from being an expert on composite materials, but it appears the "individual parts" (as in, no fibre continuity between them) are cured together? That's something they already started to do with the F-2 wing structure (note actual reference to that in bottom-most image, left column with the three stacked blue left-right arrows), so an attempt to evolve and extend that technology is logical. Sort of a glue approach, I guess.
Maybe a Japanese speaking member can provide translations?
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20794.msg318806.html#msg318806
As we are talking about fibre-reinforced plastic, the parts would be "built up" with no machining beyond trimming. Regarding the specifics of how they are fastened, I'm far from being an expert on composite materials, but it appears the "individual parts" (as in, no fibre continuity between them) are cured together? That's something they already started to do with the F-2 wing structure (note actual reference to that in bottom-most image, left column with the three stacked blue left-right arrows), so an attempt to evolve and extend that technology is logical. Sort of a glue approach, I guess.
Maybe a Japanese speaking member can provide translations?
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,716
- Reaction score
- 15,080
Tokyo to conclude X-2 programme in March 2018
www.flightglobal.com
Tokyo to conclude X-2 programme in March 2018
Japan's Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA) is approaching the end of testing with the Mitsubishi X-2 technology demonstrator aircraft.
www.flightglobal.com
Wasn't sure where this story should go, but Japan has sent a new RFI to both London and Washington related to the F3 project:
Existing designs?
Existing designs?
- Joined
- 4 July 2010
- Messages
- 2,425
- Reaction score
- 2,799
Sure, their air force has extensively used domestically -produced variants of American designs. Their F-35 buy is unusual for them in that it's basically stock and only assembled by MHI. I assume they'd love to talk their way into access to detailed F-22 data, my question is what they're looking at which isn't a raptor.mrmalaya said:
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 916
Moose said:
Japan wasn't a JSF SDD partner member so tech transfer/co-development was complicated.
But if IIRC, the JSF partnering arrangement only extends to the three variants envisioned at SDD.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,034
- Reaction score
- 22,309
Maybe they are after an upgraded Typhoon or Rafale? Typhoon already had superior high speed high altitude capabilities than F-35 - with upgraded electronics and further reduced RCS might be a good counter to the J-20?
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 1,355
The other possibility, since I know they aren't going to have access to Raptors, I was thinking they would like the U.S. to develop a new airframe, using F-35 level tech, that is more inline with JASDF requirements. That would save them a lot of development costs, but the it also isn't something the U.S. will buy and I don't see the U.S. letting them in on the F-22 replacement.
As for updating existing tech, the only aircraft I can see from the U.S. meeting their requirement, that they would be allowed to purchase, would be an updated F-15. So I'm thinking they may be looking for a modified Silent Eagle from the U.S. and the stealthier development of the Eurofighter that was on the drawing board, as I don't see them giving up on their stealth requirements. Or perhaps they want to work on a Eurofighter replacement with BAe?
As for updating existing tech, the only aircraft I can see from the U.S. meeting their requirement, that they would be allowed to purchase, would be an updated F-15. So I'm thinking they may be looking for a modified Silent Eagle from the U.S. and the stealthier development of the Eurofighter that was on the drawing board, as I don't see them giving up on their stealth requirements. Or perhaps they want to work on a Eurofighter replacement with BAe?
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,034
- Reaction score
- 22,309
Ainen said:
Typhoon enjoys a major advantage in terms of supersonic maneuverability and agility over the F-15. Whether that's important is another story.
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 916
Sundog said:
If Boeing could shoehorn the XASM-3 into an enclosed weapons pod or conformal weapons bay...
Thanks for moving my post.
We know the UK and Japan are looking at whether they can develop a fighter together. The bit that threw me was the reference to existing designs. That said, it could just be that BAE have plenty of designs for the requirement (which is why they got the Turkey gig), and it's just that they haven't built any yet.
For both countries the idea of partnering with the US is less desirable from an industrial perspective but...
We know the UK and Japan are looking at whether they can develop a fighter together. The bit that threw me was the reference to existing designs. That said, it could just be that BAE have plenty of designs for the requirement (which is why they got the Turkey gig), and it's just that they haven't built any yet.
For both countries the idea of partnering with the US is less desirable from an industrial perspective but...
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 1,949
Hood said:
How is it cancelled? Its already been built and wrapped up the flight test programme. Was it talking about an extension?
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,657
- Reaction score
- 8,722
red admiral said:
Apologies, I was at fault there, I misread F-3 for X-2 when I saw the item posted on a Facebook group. The Japanese MOD were denying they had abandoned plans to indigenously develop the F-3, saying that they hadn't yet decided which way to go, home-grown or collaboration.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/japan-denies-scrapping-5th-generation-stealth-fighter-program/
Its seems that the saga of the F-2 will be repeated again.
I can't see what BAE are offering that will fill the need. Typhoon probably isn't a big enough leap for Japan, not when regional threats are only going to get more advanced. Leaving aside the J-20, China is bound to develop its own F-35-esque clone in time and Russia is bound to get some exports for the Su-57 in the Far East. By the time any developed F-3 got into service (say 2026), the Typhoon is going to be aging and its European operators looking for a successor (would the Brit gov't see a modernised F-3 as an ideal cheaper Typhoon replacement/extender for the 2030s?). BAE is working with TAI of course on a stealthy design, but we don't know how much input BAE has into that and how advanced its stealth qualities are likely to be. Also, its unlikely Turkey is going to give away any intellectual property rights so BAE can reuse the design for Japan.
The writer of the article linked above speculates on Lockheed Martin developing a larger F-22 based fighter. Does Japan really have deep pocketfuls of cash to fund such a programme and does LM have the design resources for that and might distract them from PCA? Could Japan wait for PCA and jump onto that bandwagon (assuming they don't get burnt with an export ban again?). A stretched F-35 might be feasible, both technically and industrially given Japan's involvement in the F-35 programme, but again its going to cost a packet.
Could Japan maybe jump onto the Korean/Malaysian KFX? Though that platform might be a tad small, not advanced enough and a probable political hot potato as well.
Is it not the case that BAE are giving the Turks the benefit of their LO/fighter design experience for TF-X rather than the other way around?
I don't think Typhoon is what the Japanese are asking about. If both London and Tokyo have been talking about what they could do together in terms of a new fighter (to replace the Typhoon), then is this existing design something that exists on paper rather than something you could fly today?
I don't think Typhoon is what the Japanese are asking about. If both London and Tokyo have been talking about what they could do together in terms of a new fighter (to replace the Typhoon), then is this existing design something that exists on paper rather than something you could fly today?
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 1,355
Japan has decided what the West is offering is too expensive and doesn't meet their requirements. I think they're in for a very rude awakening. As China and Russia have found out, stealth ain't cheap, at least not in the capabilities they're looking for in their new fighter. Also, the only way they end up partnering with any of the other nations mentions is if they supply money and some basic components. They definitely won't be design leads or in charge of the propulsion part of the program. I wonder how much money they will invest in research before they figure all of this out?
... is the JASDF still looking to get F-3 in service by 2030? Assuming a design is settled on within the next 3 years (which would be par for the course or even optimistic), it will probably take around 6-7 years of testing before it can begin to enter service in a limited form.
I wonder what the JASDF's internal assessments of the size of its F-35 fleet by 2030 will be, compared to the size of the PLAAF's J-20 and/or FC-31/medium weight stealth fighter fleets and whether the qualitative and quantitative balance will be judged acceptable as F-3 just begins to enter service at that time...
I also can't see Japan willing to go for a ride with the British or French-German fighter designs, as I it sounds like Japan wants to be the leading partner with substantial indigenous R&D going into it. Joining up with Tempest or the European FCAS while carrying the Japan's own additional baggage of capability and industry requirements will probably add on additional delays and costs to the respective programmes -- though I'm sure the eventual fighter produced would be very capable with an interesting mix of technologies.
Projecting things out, it does seem like F-3 will be similar to F-2 in terms of the capabilities it will offer relative to its peers, when it enters service.
By 2030, F-3 will probably be something like a 5.5 gen equivalent fighter, like how F-2 was arguably among the first 4.5 gen fighters. IMO the issue is whether F-3 (like F-2) will be produced in sufficient quantities, at sufficiently low cost, and arriving at a sufficiently early time to be able to allow JASDF to maintain the air capability they had traditionally enjoyed over other regional air forces including China. Obviously when F-2 was entering service in 2000 the PLA fielded only a small number of directly imported Flankers with no J-10s or SAC Flankers entering service in the immediate future.
By 2030, unless something drastic happens in the geopolitical or geoeconomic landscape (major war involving China, or economic collapse respectively), it's likely that J-20s (including "5.5 gen" equivalent variants) will be in service in decent number supported by an unknown number of medium weight stealth fighters as well, possibly with PLA's attempt at 6th gen emerging in the early 2030s as well.
The quantitative generational advantage vis-a-vis the PLAAF probably won't exist for when F-3 enters service vs when F-2 had entered service. The tradeoffs the JASDF must internally be conducting right now for F-3 are probably fascinating.
I wonder what the JASDF's internal assessments of the size of its F-35 fleet by 2030 will be, compared to the size of the PLAAF's J-20 and/or FC-31/medium weight stealth fighter fleets and whether the qualitative and quantitative balance will be judged acceptable as F-3 just begins to enter service at that time...
I also can't see Japan willing to go for a ride with the British or French-German fighter designs, as I it sounds like Japan wants to be the leading partner with substantial indigenous R&D going into it. Joining up with Tempest or the European FCAS while carrying the Japan's own additional baggage of capability and industry requirements will probably add on additional delays and costs to the respective programmes -- though I'm sure the eventual fighter produced would be very capable with an interesting mix of technologies.
Projecting things out, it does seem like F-3 will be similar to F-2 in terms of the capabilities it will offer relative to its peers, when it enters service.
By 2030, F-3 will probably be something like a 5.5 gen equivalent fighter, like how F-2 was arguably among the first 4.5 gen fighters. IMO the issue is whether F-3 (like F-2) will be produced in sufficient quantities, at sufficiently low cost, and arriving at a sufficiently early time to be able to allow JASDF to maintain the air capability they had traditionally enjoyed over other regional air forces including China. Obviously when F-2 was entering service in 2000 the PLA fielded only a small number of directly imported Flankers with no J-10s or SAC Flankers entering service in the immediate future.
By 2030, unless something drastic happens in the geopolitical or geoeconomic landscape (major war involving China, or economic collapse respectively), it's likely that J-20s (including "5.5 gen" equivalent variants) will be in service in decent number supported by an unknown number of medium weight stealth fighters as well, possibly with PLA's attempt at 6th gen emerging in the early 2030s as well.
The quantitative generational advantage vis-a-vis the PLAAF probably won't exist for when F-3 enters service vs when F-2 had entered service. The tradeoffs the JASDF must internally be conducting right now for F-3 are probably fascinating.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 807
- Reaction score
- 952
Drawing parallels with F-2 is dangerous, their role being extremely different.Blitzo said:
F-2, regardless of all this generation stuff, never was a primary a2a combatant, even for Japan itself.
F-3, on the other hand, clearly intends to be exactly this, primary air superiority/air defence asset: f-35 is simply not up for the task.
P.s.the sad part for me personally is what northrop hasn't even responded. What a shame!
Colonial-Marine
UAVs are now friend, drones are the real enemy.
- Joined
- 5 October 2009
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 1,175
Has there been any more word on that F-22/F-35 hybrid Lockheed Martin was talking about offering to the Japanese?
Ainen what were you expecting Northrop to offer? A new design or something based off the F-23? Either way would be a very expensive prospect.
Ainen what were you expecting Northrop to offer? A new design or something based off the F-23? Either way would be a very expensive prospect.
Colonial-Marine
UAVs are now friend, drones are the real enemy.
- Joined
- 5 October 2009
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 1,175
Unfortunate. Any option is going to be expensive though, it looks like they are expecting a first rate air-superiority fighter on the cheap.
Yeah, the way I see it, for the programme they can choose two of the following three but not all three:
-low cost/affordability
-arriving on time with minimal delays
-having sufficient capability to meet their requirements
-low cost/affordability
-arriving on time with minimal delays
-having sufficient capability to meet their requirements
Similar threads
-
Mitsubishi X-2 ATD-X Shinshin Demonstrator- Started by Sentinel Chicken
- Replies: 327
-
-
-
-
