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

JFC Fuller said:
It isn't flat out wrong, in fact quite the opposite. Day-to-day involvement in the UK defence industry confirms that.

http://www.janes.com/article/69272/brexit-could-impact-future-european-fighter-development-airbus-warns

Guess Airbus doesn't know what's going on in the defense industry...
(Link copied from another contributors post in another topic discussion.)
 
29DMU (or 27DMU?), IHI XF9-1core engine delivery and other program progress
https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ddogs38/40447563.html
 

Attachments

  • img_3.png
    img_3.png
    189.8 KB · Views: 237
  • img_5.png
    img_5.png
    273.7 KB · Views: 222
  • img_17.png
    img_17.png
    772.9 KB · Views: 210
As much as I yearn for some translation on the propulsion details, I also wonder where they are going to get their UCAV from?

It looks like it is supposed to fly in both A2A roles as well as A2G. But something could be lost in translation for me perhaps.
 
TomcatViP said:
it has the same under-wing canoe has those being a characteristic of the PakFa.
Su-57 'canoe' is a SRAAM weapons bay, while this is not. Stop, where have I seen something like it before...
 

Attachments

  • yf-22_40_of_47.jpg
    yf-22_40_of_47.jpg
    379.4 KB · Views: 164
  • yf-22_38_of_47.jpg
    yf-22_38_of_47.jpg
    388.9 KB · Views: 188
  • yf_22_n22yx_by_fighterman35-d9v8iw7.jpg
    yf_22_n22yx_by_fighterman35-d9v8iw7.jpg
    84.5 KB · Views: 264
Thank you for the pic.

But why would someone have yet another Weapon bay to house a single missile with all the added complexity of a restricted volume to place the hinges, actuator etc... Was it ever asserted to be a missile bay or is this just someone assumption?
 
flateric said:
TomcatViP said:
it has the same under-wing canoe has those being a characteristic of the PakFa.
Su-57 'canoe' is a SRAAM weapons bay, while this is not. Stop, where have I seen something like it before...

First time that I have seen that bay on the F-22. It would appear to be more of a bay for electronics than something like the missile bay's on the Su-57.
 
flateric said:
TomcatViP said:
it has the same under-wing canoe has those being a characteristic of the PakFa.
Su-57 'canoe' is a SRAAM weapons bay, while this is not. Stop, where have I seen something like it before...

I could be wrong, but the bulges under the 25/26 DMU's wing root seems to be SRAAM missile bays exactly as PAK-FA's.
 

Attachments

  • 055246ybboqjdj27u1hd2c.jpg
    055246ybboqjdj27u1hd2c.jpg
    187.2 KB · Views: 991
  • 76c977b9gw1fakzgt208nj20xj0m8tbv.jpg
    76c977b9gw1fakzgt208nj20xj0m8tbv.jpg
    123.8 KB · Views: 977
flateric said:
It's even patented by Sukhoi.

Yes. I have seen that patent with its oblique trapeze and launch rail (can't find the pic right now - but should be on the website). I don't believe in this as a prime design solution. An alternate design, yes but not much.

With the F22 pictures, it is even more apparent the the idea of creating a new WP just for one single missile is weird. Expendable/Frangible outer skin why not but this?!

Notice that the Su have this, the F22 too, the 35 has no sraam and reverse ram air inlet on its shoulderwing position, the Japanese design resort to canoe too and the latest Typhoon aero innovation had those long folding panel over the wing roots (Typhoon ipa7).

Either we have here a new fashion trend or the sign of an emerging technology... with some rational military arguments behind.

6b1f75bc7435e5d22293fbb76c477e25.jpg
 
TomcatViP said:
flateric said:
It's even patented by Sukhoi.

Yes. I have seen that patent with its oblique trapeze and launch rail (can't find the pic right now - but should be on the website). I don't believe in this as a prime design solution. An alternate design, yes but not much.
That's your problem, not ours. I've seen it on real bird, open, with a missile mockup on a launch rail.
 
TomcatViP said:
flateric said:
It's even patented by Sukhoi.

Yes. I have seen that patent with its oblique trapeze and launch rail (can't find the pic right now - but should be on the website). I don't believe in this as a prime design solution. An alternate design, yes but not much.

This kind of continuous denial is quite epic and a sight to behold. You clearly must have some kind of variant of religious reason to continue this belief, as you are long past any rational thought.
 
flateric said:
TomcatViP said:
flateric said:
It's even patented by Sukhoi.

Yes. I have seen that patent with its oblique trapeze and launch rail (can't find the pic right now - but should be on the website). I don't believe in this as a prime design solution. An alternate design, yes but not much.
That's your problem, not ours. I've seen it on real bird, open, with a missile mockup on a launch rail.

I think he's saying it's a solution, just not an ideal solution. (Then again, it depends what one's needs are.)
 
http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/research/ats2017/index.html
 

Attachments

  • 29DMU maybe (ATLA ATS17 poster).jpg
    29DMU maybe (ATLA ATS17 poster).jpg
    311.9 KB · Views: 774
Design keeps getting more and more boring, personally. Would be nice if it was more visually different from F-22, instead of looking more and more like it.
 
totoro said:
Design keeps getting more and more boring, personally. Would be nice if it was more visually different from F-22, instead of looking more and more like it.

Lockheed should tighten up their cybersecurity! Everyone from the Chinese to the Turkish to the Japanese, to the Indians and the Koreans seem to be developing F-22 clones. The only logical reason why so many nations are all emulating F-22 can only be due to all of them having infiltrated lockmart's databases :mad:
 
Similar requirements + available technology result in similar looking concepts. And normally you pick the more conventional/proven configuration, since things get difficult at later development stages anyway (see X-35 vs X-32).
 
Reaper said:
Similar requirements + available technology result in similar looking concepts. And normally you pick the more conventional/proven configuration, since things get difficult at later development stages anyway (see X-35 vs X-32).

Yep, I was just being cheeky :)
 
"Exclusive: Japan to delay multi-billion dollar fighter jet development - sources"
Tim Kelly, Nobuhiro Kubo

November 12, 2017

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-fighter-jet/exclusive-japan-to-delay-multi-billion-dollar-fighter-jet-development-sources-idUSKBN1DD0D4?il=0

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan will delay a decision to develop a new advanced fighter jet, four sources said, as military planners struggle to settle on a design and officials splash out on new U.S. equipment such as ballistic missile interceptors and F-35 stealth planes.

Faced with a growing military threat from North Korea and increased activity by Chinese air force jets over the East China Sea, Japan is under pressure to improve its defenses on two fronts.

Any delay to the new fighter, known as the F-3, will raise a question mark over the future of what could be one of the world’s most lucrative upcoming military contracts, estimated at more than $40 billion to develop and deploy.

A decision after the first half of 2018 would be too late for it to be included as a core program in a new five-year defense equipment plan beginning April 2019 that Japan will reveal at the end of next year.

“The direction is for the F-3 decision to be put back,” said one the sources who have knowledge of the discussion. The people who spoke to Reuters asked not to be identified because they are not authorized to talk to the media.

They said the decision, on whether to forge ahead as a domestic program or seek international collaboration, would now likely come after 2018.

“Regarding the F-3 decision, including whether we will delay a choice, we have haven’t come to any conclusion,” a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence Acquisition Technology & Logistics Agency said.

SQUEEZE

Analysts estimate developing the F-3 could cost $40 billion, a figure described another source as an “initial cost.”

With a defense budget of around $50 billion that has increased in the past few years at just under an annual 1 percent, that outlay, even spread out over years of development, represents a major undertaking.

It would come at a time when Japan is spending a record amounts on U.S. equipment, including Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-35 jet, Raytheon defense missiles and Boeing Co and Textron Inc’s tilt-rotor Osprey troop aircraft.

In 2013, Japan procured 118 billion yen ($1 billion) of equipment through the U.S. government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system. By last year, that outlay had quadrupled to 486 billion yen.

President Donald Trump in Tokyo last week called on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to purchase additional U.S.-made weapons as his administration pushes Washington’s allies to contribute more to their joint defense.

DUAL ROLE

For now, that defense is focused on countering the threat posed by North Korean ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

Japan’s defense forces, however, want the F-3 to counter growing Chinese air power in the skies over the western Pacific and East China Sea where Tokyo and Beijing are locked in a territorial dispute.

Japanese fighters scrambled a record 806 times to intercept Chinese planes in the year that ended March 31.

A second role for the yet-to-be-built fighter is to reinforce Japan’s defense industry by giving Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and its suppliers their first fighter jet program since Japan built its F-2 fighter two decades ago.

Mitsubishi Heavy, the maker of the World War Two-era Zero fighter, in January 2016 tested a prototype jet, the ATD-X. Developed for around $350 million, it was seen as the first step toward a new homegrown frontline stealth fighter.

While support for a domestic-only program is strong among some government officials, other bureaucrats are worried about the potentially enormous expense of developing components from scratch. They support international collaboration to share costs with overseas partners and tap their technology.

“What we have now is a flying box” without all the systems that constitute a fighter such as weapons and sensors, said another of the sources.

Possible overseas partners include BAE Systems, a leading designer of the high-altitude Eurofighter interceptor backed by the British government, F-35 builder Lockheed Martin and Boeing, maker of the F-18 strike fighter. All have responded to initial requests for information from Ministry of Defence overseeing F-3 plans.
 
Blitzo said:
totoro said:
Design keeps getting more and more boring, personally. Would be nice if it was more visually different from F-22, instead of looking more and more like it.

Lockheed should tighten up their cybersecurity! Everyone from the Chinese to the Turkish to the Japanese, to the Indians and the Koreans seem to be developing F-22 clones. The only logical reason why so many nations are all emulating F-22 can only be due to all of them having infiltrated lockmart's databases :mad:

Or, oh my god, the F-22 design is simply the most cost effective ends to a mean. Wow, imagine that! Lockheed went with a rather conventional design planform that has been around since (perhaps) the 1950s because it made $$$ sense. Holy sh*t what a concept.
 
One thing can be said though - Lockheed f-22 set the philosophy for all future stealth design approach. If you look at the yf-23 or B-2, their stealth approach is very different (not in term of the radical shapes of the aircraft).
 
Airplane said:
Blitzo said:
totoro said:
Design keeps getting more and more boring, personally. Would be nice if it was more visually different from F-22, instead of looking more and more like it.

Lockheed should tighten up their cybersecurity! Everyone from the Chinese to the Turkish to the Japanese, to the Indians and the Koreans seem to be developing F-22 clones. The only logical reason why so many nations are all emulating F-22 can only be due to all of them having infiltrated lockmart's databases :mad:

Or, oh my god, the F-22 design is simply the most cost effective ends to a mean. Wow, imagine that! Lockheed went with a rather conventional design planform that has been around since (perhaps) the 1950s because it made $$$ sense. Holy sh*t what a concept.

;)

I'm sure you know I was being facetious.
 
Airplane said:
Blitzo said:
totoro said:
Design keeps getting more and more boring, personally. Would be nice if it was more visually different from F-22, instead of looking more and more like it.

Lockheed should tighten up their cybersecurity! Everyone from the Chinese to the Turkish to the Japanese, to the Indians and the Koreans seem to be developing F-22 clones. The only logical reason why so many nations are all emulating F-22 can only be due to all of them having infiltrated lockmart's databases :mad:

Or, oh my god, the F-22 design is simply the most cost effective ends to a mean. Wow, imagine that! Lockheed went with a rather conventional design planform that has been around since (perhaps) the 1950s because it made $$$ sense. Holy sh*t what a concept.

Except that's it's complete crap. There's nothing "magical" about the F-22's design, and in fact the YF-23 was judged superior in many regards. You'll note neither Russia nor China felt compelled to parrot the design either.
 
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
Blitzo said:
totoro said:
Design keeps getting more and more boring, personally. Would be nice if it was more visually different from F-22, instead of looking more and more like it.

Lockheed should tighten up their cybersecurity! Everyone from the Chinese to the Turkish to the Japanese, to the Indians and the Koreans seem to be developing F-22 clones. The only logical reason why so many nations are all emulating F-22 can only be due to all of them having infiltrated lockmart's databases :mad:

Or, oh my god, the F-22 design is simply the most cost effective ends to a mean. Wow, imagine that! Lockheed went with a rather conventional design planform that has been around since (perhaps) the 1950s because it made $$$ sense. Holy sh*t what a concept.

Except that's it's complete crap. There's nothing "magical" about the F-22's design, and in fact the YF-23 was judged superior in many regards. You'll note neither Russia nor China felt compelled to parrot the design either.

And what of the Turkish, the Koreans, the Japanese and the Indians? The proposals of their designs look far more like F-22/F-35 than YF-23.

I think it's not a stretch to think that the F-22/F-35 configuration is one that happened to strike the right balance between performance and industrial capability for many of those nations, and that adopting a more radical configuration like YF-23 might have been more difficult and so it is comparatively less popular.
 
Blitzo said:
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
Blitzo said:
totoro said:
Design keeps getting more and more boring, personally. Would be nice if it was more visually different from F-22, instead of looking more and more like it.

Lockheed should tighten up their cybersecurity! Everyone from the Chinese to the Turkish to the Japanese, to the Indians and the Koreans seem to be developing F-22 clones. The only logical reason why so many nations are all emulating F-22 can only be due to all of them having infiltrated lockmart's databases :mad:

Or, oh my god, the F-22 design is simply the most cost effective ends to a mean. Wow, imagine that! Lockheed went with a rather conventional design planform that has been around since (perhaps) the 1950s because it made $$$ sense. Holy sh*t what a concept.

Except that's it's complete crap. There's nothing "magical" about the F-22's design, and in fact the YF-23 was judged superior in many regards. You'll note neither Russia nor China felt compelled to parrot the design either.

And what of the Turkish, the Koreans, the Japanese and the Indians? The proposals of their designs look far more like F-22/F-35 than YF-23.

I think it's not a stretch to think that the F-22/F-35 configuration is one that happened to strike the right balance between performance and industrial capability for many of those nations, and that adopting a more radical configuration like YF-23 might have been more difficult and so it is comparatively less popular.
I imagine maybe the F-22’s configuration is more conservatice than the YF-23’s, and for countries that don’t have a prominent aerospace industry with extensive experience building fighters a big part of choosing any design will involve limiting program risk.
 
Blitzo said:
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
Blitzo said:
totoro said:
Design keeps getting more and more boring, personally. Would be nice if it was more visually different from F-22, instead of looking more and more like it.

Lockheed should tighten up their cybersecurity! Everyone from the Chinese to the Turkish to the Japanese, to the Indians and the Koreans seem to be developing F-22 clones. The only logical reason why so many nations are all emulating F-22 can only be due to all of them having infiltrated lockmart's databases :mad:

Or, oh my god, the F-22 design is simply the most cost effective ends to a mean. Wow, imagine that! Lockheed went with a rather conventional design planform that has been around since (perhaps) the 1950s because it made $$$ sense. Holy sh*t what a concept.

Except that's it's complete crap. There's nothing "magical" about the F-22's design, and in fact the YF-23 was judged superior in many regards. You'll note neither Russia nor China felt compelled to parrot the design either.

And what of the Turkish, the Koreans, the Japanese and the Indians? The proposals of their designs look far more like F-22/F-35 than YF-23.

I think it's not a stretch to think that the F-22/F-35 configuration is one that happened to strike the right balance between performance and industrial capability for many of those nations, and that adopting a more radical configuration like YF-23 might have been more difficult and so it is comparatively less popular.

I think, with those guys, there's probably a lot of "hey, it worked for Lockheed", and playing it safe. (Which is sortof what you're saying.) Note how the Japanese F-2, the JF-17, the SK T-50, and the F-CK-1 all have a very similar layout to the F-16. (Yeah, the F-2 basically IS an F-16 Agile, but you see what I mean.)
Maybe the YF-23 was too unfamiliar. (Then again, that didn't seem to bother Russia and China.) I just think the notion of there only being one way to do a thing isn't really born out by history.
 
latenlazy said:
I imagine maybe the F-22’s configuration is more conservatice than the YF-23’s, and for countries that don’t have a prominent aerospace industry with extensive experience building fighters a big part of choosing any design will involve limiting program risk.

As I recall, that is even a big portion of why the US went with the YF-22 ("risk" also applying to the contractor's track record at the time as well), and played a big part of the YF119 being selected over the more radical YF120.
 
sferrin said:
Maybe the YF-23 was too unfamiliar. (Then again, that didn't seem to bother Russia and China.) I just think the notion of there only being one way to do a thing isn't really born out by history.

I have noticed that many of the Russian (and Chinese) projects look a lot like many of the rejected western projects. Maybe it's because the ""technical data"' is more easily found on line -----
 
From ATLA tech expo 2017 brochure
 

Attachments

  • Pages from ats2017_summary.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 50
  • XF9.jpg
    XF9.jpg
    98 KB · Views: 360
TomcatViP said:
Single bay door?! And wingroot canoe... ;)

I think that's one side only, with the design having two side-by-side bays for a total of 6 missiles.
 
rgr. My bad perhaps. But it doesn't look like 6 missiles fits side by sude (see pdf posted on page 3)
 
sferrin said:
I think, with those guys, there's probably a lot of "hey, it worked for Lockheed", and playing it safe. (Which is sortof what you're saying.) Note how the Japanese F-2, the JF-17, the SK T-50, and the F-CK-1 all have a very similar layout to the F-16. (Yeah, the F-2 basically IS an F-16 Agile, but you see what I mean.)
Maybe the YF-23 was too unfamiliar. (Then again, that didn't seem to bother Russia and China.) I just think the notion of there only being one way to do a thing isn't really born out by history.

I don't think anyone is saying that there is only one way of doing something...

But rather, that often times, depending on where a nation's industrial capability is at, and depending on how much money they're willing to throw at a project, and depending on what the key performance parameters are like -- if those things are all broadly similar for different nations, then they will end up adopting a similar configuration.


The only thing "magical" about F-22/35's configuration is that it likely happens to likely fulfill all of the above requirements in the right balance at the moment in which these projects are currently being developed.
 
Blitzo said:
But rather, that often times, depending on where a nation's industrial capability is at, and depending on how much money they're willing to throw at a project, and depending on what the key performance parameters are like -- if those things are all broadly similar for different nations, then they will end up adopting a similar configuration.

I'll grant that somebody, who has something to refer to, and can't afford to go their own way (or don't have the know how) might go the route of imitating what's already there. But when multiple groups are trying to fill the same set of requirements, without somebody to crib from, they rarely come up with similar designs.
 

Attachments

  • DOq2eUSUQAIaCR3.jpg
    DOq2eUSUQAIaCR3.jpg
    341.6 KB · Views: 112
  • DOq2eyuU8AAzZB3.jpg
    DOq2eyuU8AAzZB3.jpg
    232.2 KB · Views: 117
  • DOqzXLfV4AEfFDV.jpg
    DOqzXLfV4AEfFDV.jpg
    317.9 KB · Views: 91
  • DOqzWwDVAAAklrW.jpg
    DOqzWwDVAAAklrW.jpg
    270.2 KB · Views: 111
  • DOqzWJMUMAAGrEc.jpg
    DOqzWJMUMAAGrEc.jpg
    373.8 KB · Views: 427
  • DOq3ht7U8AA36lM.jpg
    DOq3ht7U8AA36lM.jpg
    349.1 KB · Views: 469
  • DOq3flPVwAA16sZ.jpg
    DOq3flPVwAA16sZ.jpg
    424.1 KB · Views: 498
  • DOq3e7PVwAAGAjv.jpg
    DOq3e7PVwAAGAjv.jpg
    337.5 KB · Views: 521
  • DOq3c6lVoAAQ2m7.jpg
    DOq3c6lVoAAQ2m7.jpg
    213.3 KB · Views: 539
  • DOq2dsMVwAAcbzx.jpg
    DOq2dsMVwAAcbzx.jpg
    348.3 KB · Views: 122

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom