Japanese next generation fighter studies (aka i3, F-3)

a bit more detail on why Japan switched from Lockheed to BAe
https://www.sankei.com/article/20220514-O7FEJWGHTFKXDCXYQDCFAIAOZU/
basically
- Cost problems
- Timeline problems as the retirement of old aircraft between the two countries did not match
- LockMart not willing to exchange some technology info
- concerns some components like the blackbox, is outside of Japanese control and has to be sent to the US mainland
- BAe and Mitsibushi to work on airframe, IHI and Rolls Royce to work on engines
- will continue to work with the US and LockMart for interoperability purposes
 
datafuser said:
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
Click to expand...
it says
Left image
Conventional, beam, beam scan

Right image
Our study, multiple beam, image of transmittor
 
helmutkohl said:
datafuser said:
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
Click to expand...
it says
Left image
Conventional, beam, beam scan

Right image
Our study, multiple beam, image of transmittor
Click to expand...

受信マルチビーム means multiple receive beams.
 
datafuser said:
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
Click to expand...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...on-fighter-study-aka-i3-f-3.11566/post-437319
 
Maro.Kyo said:
datafuser said:
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
Click to expand...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...on-fighter-study-aka-i3-f-3.11566/post-437319
Click to expand...

I am wondering if this part - multiple beams to be generated by iteratively summing a given received signal set while preserving the full gain of the array for each beam - means multiple beams are generated by using the full antenna area for each beam one by one, not simultaneous in absolute sense but almost simultaneous in operationally useful sense.

If you want to generate 100 beams in 100 different directions at the same time in absolute sense, don't you have no option but to use 1/100 of the full antenna area for each beam simultaneously?

DBF.png

https://www.ll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/outreach/doc/2018-07/lecture 10.pdf
 
Last edited:
https://aviationweek.com/shownews/f...collaboration-could-transform-tempest-outlookFor once, one of these multinational collaborations is seemingly going smoothly. Japan joining the program has revived confidence in affordability with Italy and Sweden. So far here is what we know about Japanese collaboration.
  • JNAAM (Mitsubishi Electric and MBDA UK). Meteor engine derivative with AAM-4B seeker derivative
  • Engine (IHI and Rolls Royce) will seemingly be built around the XF9-1 core and will use RR's variable flow tech as the XF9-1 was originally lacking in that department. I also can't seem to find any info on the XG240 which is the basis for RR's contribution.
  • Jaguar radar (Leonardo UK and Mitsubishi Electric) was primarily UK under the name MRFS. Japan joined on and the project name was changed to Jaguar. It seems like both countries will work together in the research stage then each make their own derivative with the most successful one being selected (or each country just adopts their own design. Hard to say with the wording used).
  • ISANKE is the name of the entire sensor fusion with Jaguar being the main sensor, but once again the wording is weird and its hard to tell if Jaguar would include other sensor development besides the main radar inside of ISANKE.
  • There is a focus put on a universal platform that all nations would be happy with and would allow future partners to join on without feeling left out. It's still foggy on if that just applies to UK, SW, and IT, or if JP is included in that too. Everything on the Japanese side still seems to point towards a unique airframe for them.
 
Kota said:
For once, one of these multinational collaborations is seemingly going smoothly. Japan joining the program has revived confidence in affordability with Italy and Sweden. So far here is what we know about Japanese collaboration.
  • JNAAM (Mitsubishi Electric and MBDA UK). Meteor engine derivative with AAM-4B seeker derivative
  • Engine (IHI and Rolls Royce) will seemingly be built around the XF9-1 core and will use RR's variable flow tech as the XF9-1 was originally lacking in that department. I also can't seem to find any info on the XG240 which is the basis for RR's contribution.
  • Jaguar radar (Leonardo UK and Mitsubishi Electric) was primarily UK under the name MRFS. Japan joined on and the project name was changed to Jaguar. It seems like both countries will work together in the research stage then each make their own derivative with the most successful one being selected (or each country just adopts their own design. Hard to say with the wording used).
  • ISANKE is the name of the entire sensor fusion with Jaguar being the main sensor, but once again the wording is weird and its hard to tell if Jaguar would include other sensor development besides the main radar inside of ISANKE.
  • There is a focus put on a universal platform that all nations would be happy with and would allow future partners to join on without feeling left out. It's still foggy on if that just applies to UK, SW, and IT, or if JP is included in that too. Everything on the Japanese side still seems to point towards a unique airframe for them.
Click to expand...

Except for JAGUAR, these are just projects that integrate the technologies both countries already have. We're seeing the simplest and safest fighter jet development cooperation in the world.

Anyway, it's funny that our MOD still keeping their mouth shut while the UK side reveals many details.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
One question that has been bothering me though, will the new joint Japanese UK fighter still be called the Tempest or will they have to come up with a new name?
Click to expand...
Before it would've been an obvious answer. Tempest was just supposed to be just a project study on a bunch of sub systems that would go into the UK project. Now it has developed a little past that and Tempest has become synonymous with the UK's 6th gen program, so there is a chance it will stay the same. The easiest thing would just be to combine the names and call it F-3 Tempest.
 
FighterJock said:
aonestudio said:
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20220904_07/
Click to expand...

One question that has been bothering me though, will the new joint Japanese UK fighter still be called the Tempest or will they have to come up with a new name?
Click to expand...
If I had to guess, since it’s already such a widespread marketing name/the name of one of the two chief development teams it’ll probably be kept but the Japanese word for Tempest (Arashi - at least as far as a casual translation tells me) will be put after or before a slash depending on where it’s being talked about, or in brackets.
 
The ministry’s Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Agency (ATLA) requested 143.2 billion yen($10.3 billion) to push ahead with its next-generation fighter program in partnership with the U.K. It plans to start a basic design of the future fighter’s fuselage from the next fiscal year after finishing the examination of the co-developed jet engine demonstrator as part of their partnership by the end of this year.

https://thediplomat.com/2022/08/jap...sts-largest-ever-budget-for-fiscal-year-2023/
 
So far the budget specifically listed for NGF/F-X development has looked like this
2023 (if it passes as requested) 143.2b yen
2022: 100.1b¥
2021: 73.1b¥ adj 75.06b
2020: 28b¥ adj 28.68b
2019: 6.5b¥ adj 6.66b
2018: 1.6b¥ adj 1.65b
2015: 34.2b¥ adj 35.66b
That puts the total adjusted for inflation at 389.01b¥ or $2.7 billion. In comparison Tempest has a $2.3b budget through 2025 with NGAD having a $9b budget through 2025. with current spending trends F-X will likely have a budget around or above $6b by 2025.

(2017 and 2016 have no mention of the program in the budgets and the early stuff like 2015/2018 mostly cover studies for the feasibility of a new fighter. You could probably include some X-2 budget stuff in if you wanted as a lot of that has helped with F-X dev.)
 
The head of the Italian Air Force will travel to Japan next month to hold talks with his Japanese counterpart about collaboration on sixth-generation fighter technology.

“The Japanese could take technology from Tempest to insert in their F-X program. We will understand better when we realize what industry can do,” said Goretti.

Italy committed to spending €220 million ($218 million) this year on Tempest work and forecasts spending €3.8 billion ($3.77 billion) by 2036.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...heads-to-japan-to-talk-next-gen-fighter-jets/
 
Why does it matter if the Japanese call it the F3 and we call it the Tempest? I'm sure database software can handle that.
 
Joint development of Next-generation fighter by Japan, Britain, and Italy, agreement to be reached next month, future export in mind

The government has decided to jointly develop a successor to the Air Self-Defense Force's F2 fighter with Britain and Italy. A formal agreement is expected next month. With an eye on exports after development, along with the revision of the three security-related documents, the government plans to review the operational guidelines for the "Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment," which permit the export of weapons under certain conditions, with the aim of exporting them in the future.

The next-generation fighter will be deployed by around 2035, when the F2 will begin to be retired.

According to government officials, the aircraft will be developed by Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and British defense giant BAE Systems. Italy's leading aerospace and defense company, Leonardo, will also participate. Japan's IHI and Britain's major aircraft engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce will play a central role in engine development, with Italy's Avio, which also handles aircraft engines, expected to join.
Click to expand...
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/002d71a173ef8deccef817b4036bca9f1ae56964
 
Foo Fighter said:
Why does it matter if the Japanese call it the F3 and we call it the Tempest? I'm sure database software can handle that.
Click to expand...
tbh, Typhoon II would have been a good name
as the Japanese word for Typhoon sounds almost the same.
its Taifuu. Both terms, being derived from an older Chinese term.
 
Ares said:
Joint development of Next-generation fighter by Japan, Britain, and Italy, agreement to be reached next month, future export in mind

The government has decided to jointly develop a successor to the Air Self-Defense Force's F2 fighter with Britain and Italy. A formal agreement is expected next month. With an eye on exports after development, along with the revision of the three security-related documents, the government plans to review the operational guidelines for the "Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment," which permit the export of weapons under certain conditions, with the aim of exporting them in the future.

The next-generation fighter will be deployed by around 2035, when the F2 will begin to be retired.

According to government officials, the aircraft will be developed by Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and British defense giant BAE Systems. Italy's leading aerospace and defense company, Leonardo, will also participate. Japan's IHI and Britain's major aircraft engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce will play a central role in engine development, with Italy's Avio, which also handles aircraft engines, expected to join.
Click to expand...
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/002d71a173ef8deccef817b4036bca9f1ae56964
Click to expand...
The formal agreement was reached. It happened today, so this aged like fine wine
 
Deino said:
Well done …

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...l-be-developed-jointly-by-japan-britain-italy
Click to expand...
I left a comment reacting to that earlier, but seems like it got deleted, and I didn't get notified about it. Maybe because it was a "Well Done Steak" joke, and possibly offtopic

That being said, the article also mentions that an Italian Air Force chief said, quoting the article: "raised the possibility of some kind of merger between the two FCAS programs, arguing that “investing huge financial resources in two equivalent programs is unthinkable.” So, it might be possible that the FCAS of France, Germany and Spain would possibly be merged with the GCAP program instead. And I hope that happens, because Sixth Generation Aircraft programs are very innovative and expensive, so might as well share resources and make the tech together.

Still, given how much the US spends on its Defense Budget, I think GCAP and FCAS' budget combined, even if the programs fully merge, would be nothing compared to what's going to the United States' Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program
 
I definitely see resources, where interests are close, can have a cross over where research and investment can be cooperated in. Why not save money by cooperation?
 
Foo Fighter said:
I definitely see resources, where interests are close, can have a cross over where research and investment can be cooperated in. Why not save money by cooperation?
Click to expand...
Because when you bring the money from those nations you also bring the in interests and problems of those nations. GBR, ITA, and JPN actually have extremely similar ideas of what they want out of GCAP which makes things incredibly simple. If FCAS is anything to go by, you don't want France or Germany in your aircraft program and you definitely don't want them together on your program. France simply can't handle not being the primary project lead. They will request an extremely modified airframe for their own use, a heavily modified and navalized CATOBAR variant, and expect the other nations who all have a common airframe to foot the bill. Germany can't seem to comprehend that Airbus brings absolutely 0 experience to the table and everything they do can be done better by another partner nation. Spain really has nothing at all to offer too, but they actually understand that and don't throw a hissy fit about it when other nations point that out and won't offer them 50/50 workshare. Then you have the France and German political systems to deal with which are an absolute nightmare.

GCAP has an incredibly clear goal in mind and with GBR, ITA, and JPN, they have the expertise where nothing Dassault or Airbus can offer would be that much more significant than what is already part of the program. GCAP isn't hurting for funding at all and it's quite the opposite so the financial benefit wouldn't be all that significant. The only scenario where merging FCAS and GCAP would be a good idea is if FRA, and GER sit quietly with no input, open wallets, and accept all the specifications already planned by GCAP. Pigs perfectly reciting Shakespeare flying around at Mach 10 is a more likely scenario.

IMO if Europe having 2 programs simultaneously is unthinkable to the Italian Air Force Chief, the FCAS can dissolve and GER, and FRA can financially contribute by buying GCAP as end users rather than partners. While still incredibly competent, the Italians are certainly the least experienced and weakest link of the bunch and I hope they don't have a sway to make their ideas a reality.
 
Last edited:
Kota said:
Foo Fighter said:
I definitely see resources, where interests are close, can have a cross over where research and investment can be cooperated in. Why not save money by cooperation?
Click to expand...
Because when you bring the money from those nations you also bring the in interests and problems of those nations. GBR, ITA, and JPN actually have extremely similar ideas of what they want out of GCAP which makes things incredibly simple. If FCAS is anything to go by, you don't want France or Germany in your aircraft program and you definitely don't want them together on your program. France simply can't handle not being the primary project lead. They will request an extremely modified airframe for their own use, a heavily modified and navalized CATOBAR variant, and expect the other nations who all have a common airframe to foot the bill. Germany can't seem to comprehend that Airbus brings absolutely 0 experience to the table and everything they do can be done better by another partner nation. Spain really has nothing at all to offer too, but they actually understand that and don't throw a hissy fit about it when other nations point that out and won't offer them 50/50 workshare. Then you have the France and German political systems to deal with which are an absolute nightmare.

GCAP has an incredibly clear goal in mind and with GBR, ITA, and JPN, they have the expertise where nothing Dassault or Airbus can offer would be that much more significant than what is already part of the program. GCAP isn't hurting for funding at all and it's quite the opposite so the financial benefit wouldn't be all that significant. The only scenario where merging FCAS and GCAP would be a good idea is if FRA, and GER sit quietly with no input, open wallets, and accept all the specifications already planned by GCAP. Pigs perfectly reciting Shakespeare flying around at Mach 10 is a more likely scenario.

IMO if Europe having 2 programs simultaneously is unthinkable to the Italian Air Force Chief, the FCAS can dissolve and GER, and FRA can financially contribute by buying GCAP as end users rather than partners. While still incredibly competent, the Italians are certainly the least experienced and weakest link of the bunch and I hope they don't have a sway to make their ideas a reality.
Click to expand...
A profoundly ignorant mean-spirited contribution based on little or no evidence or fact; instead extreme-partisan prejudice is being peddled as fact.

While one would assume a significant alignment of requirements and objectives between the UK, Japan and Italy before they pulled the trigger on launching the joint project do we really know any of these details or how true that assumption will prove to be? For all we know the French/German FCAS project may have better alignment re: operational requirements - the public differences of opinion appear more related to industrial, project management and wider politics (export policies etc).

We may speculate but we don’t know what France has requested/ demanded re: division of costs re: a potential naval version of the FCAS, or how “hissy” they may have been when doing so.

Comments about “Spain having nothing at all to offer” really say more about the commenter than about Spain and it’s aviation industry.
Ditto comments re: expecting Italy as a good partner to sit down and shut-up, or comments dismissing the collective experience and knowledge of both Dassault and Airbus (?), or comments proposing scrapping the FCAS and just buying the GCAP as paying customers instead (all three of France, Germany and Spain not even worthy of junior partnership status, apparently).

Ever get the feeling that some self-appointed experts on international partnerships may be overstating their experience and insight?
 
kaiserd said:
While one would assume a significant alignment of requirements and objectives between the UK, Japan and Italy before they pulled the trigger on launching the joint project do we really know any of these details or how true that assumption will prove to be?
Click to expand...
From the start the programs were similar in terms of requirements due to the similar geography of both nations opting for extended range and time on station being some of the most important requirements. Also rather than delegating subsystems to each nation, GCAP is having joint development on many primary systems like the engine, radar, network system. Both countries have input in the design process and the best of both can be used. It's built on merit rather than handing out random systems to reach that 50/50.
kaiserd said:
For all we know the French/German FCAS project may have better alignment re: operational requirements - the public differences of opinion appear more related to industrial, project management and wider politics (export policies etc).
Click to expand...
Lets say this is the case and the FCAS requirements have perfect alignment. That doesn't mean it will mesh well. The political side of it there is plenty of stupid things like tying MGCS and FCAS development timelines together so that neither can progress ahead of the other.
kaiserd said:
We may speculate but we don’t know what France has requested/ demanded re: division of costs re: a potential naval version of the FCAS, or how “hissy” they may have been when doing so.
Click to expand...
I just stated exactly what the French did in the Eurofighter program which led to the Rafale and there is nothing France has done to show that they changed since.
kaiserd said:
Comments about “Spain having nothing at all to offer” really say more about the commenter than about Spain and it’s aviation industry.
Click to expand...
Indra was completely excluded from Phase 1A of FCAS in the form of their domestic companies and only participated through their Airbus subsidiary. From the sound of things they are working on systems meshing and battle management software which both Japan and the England are working on together.
kaiserd said:
Ditto comments re: expecting Italy as a good partner to sit down and shut-up, or comments dismissing the collective experience and knowledge of both Dassault and Airbus (?)
Click to expand...
Of the 3 Italy has the least experience with 5 gen systems and is the smallest financial contributor. Even as a program lead it would be a major thing to suggest as if its a necessity. As for Dassault and Airbus their experience doesn't bring enough to also bring their interests.
England is a tier 1 F-35 partner
Japan has experience with F-X and stealth materials for the F-22
Both Japan and Italy have the only 2 F-35 FACO lines outside of the US.
Neither Dassault or Airbus have anything similar to that experience with 5th gen aircraft.
There isn't anything the 3 can't realistically handle and bringing in Dassault or Airbus won't provide a strong enough benefit to also bring in French and German interests.
kaiserd said:
or comments proposing scrapping the FCAS and just buying the GCAP as paying customers instead (all three of France, Germany and Spain not even worthy of junior partnership status, apparently).
Click to expand...
I'm saying that is a much better solution if the Italian Chief is so opposed to 2 programs occurring at the same time. There is no way France and Germany would ever accept "junior partnership" in a million years. It isn't hard to see that bringing in such volatile partnerships into what has so far been quite a smooth multinational jet fighter program is a bad idea. GCAP is already finalizing agreements and creating massive delays to bring both Germany and France to the drawing table isn't worth it.
 
apparition13 said:
TomcatViP said:
Really?! The best fighter in the world (aside of F-22) being also the cheapest is a strong stone in the camp of a diverging opinion.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Its funny how I can agree with everything here but disagree on the f-2, everything that wint wrong with that program happened in Japan. What design work happened in the us was done under GD and very little of that made it into the airframe, when Japan desired to widen the airframe to better fit there new radar they basically had to redesign the aircraft from the ground up. The us wanted a 400 foot^2 wing with a regular steel wing box and the base radar ( the f-16 couldn't handle the asea into the block 70 i think) not what Japan wanted, and all the issues the plane had was from Japan new tech. Then again that probably gave Japan more experience building planes then the f-15j upgrade would have (sense that was gust a tech upgrade with no structure changes).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom