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

Interesting designs for the Shinshin F-3, my favorite is the strike ShinShin F-3E, though I am surprised that they have gone with the tailless delta design with Thrust Vectoring.
 
FighterJock said:
Interesting designs for the Shinshin F-3, my favorite is the strike ShinShin F-3E, though I am surprised that they have gone with the tailless delta design with Thrust Vectoring.
Me,too. BTW this is only the artistic impression as you already know.
 
blackkite said:
FighterJock said:
Interesting designs for the Shinshin F-3, my favorite is the strike ShinShin F-3E, though I am surprised that they have gone with the tailless delta design with Thrust Vectoring.
Me,too. BTW this is only the artistic impression as you already know.


An artists impression not associated with the government or their contractors in any way, mind.
So basically, a magazine's speculation.
 
"Japan Prepares Designs For Its Next Fighter"
Japan is looking at a big, long-range fighter to defeat superior numbers
Nov 21, 2014 Bradley Perrett | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-prepares-designs-its-next-fighter

Flying far is more important than flying fast, Japanese fighter technologists have found in studies aimed at defining their country’s next combat aircraft. Looking for ways for their air force to fight outnumbered, researchers are also emphasizing that Japan’s next fighter should share targeting data, carry a big internal load of large, high-performance missiles and be able to guide them while retreating.

The results of this work may be committed to full-scale development within four years. Japan is holding open the possibility of a joint international program, which the finance ministry would surely prefer, but the defense ministry looks wary of being trapped in a late-running cooperative effort over which it has little control. Specifically national requirements such as the preference for range over speed may also nudge Japan toward going it alone.

Engineers from the defense ministry’s Technical Research & Development Institute (TRDI) and IHI Corp. are well into preliminary development of a surprisingly powerful turbofan for the twin-engine fighter, which would enter service around 2030 as the F-3. TRDI is also handling the studies into the airframe, probably with strong engineering support from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which would build the airframe, and Mitsubishi Electric, the country’s dominant military electronic systems supplier.

The work is intended to give Japan the option of developing a fighter to replace the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries F-2, says the ministry. The country is not committed to doing so, but by the fiscal year beginning April 2018, “the final decision for development will be made and necessary measures will be taken,” the ministry says in answer to Aviation Week’s questions.

The most likely, perhaps only, candidates for joint development are the still undefined U.S. Air Force and Navy ambitions for fighter programs to succeed the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning. But the ministry says that, in contemplating a joint effort, “it needs to be considered whether the development would be concluded by the time F-2 retires.” It is obviously thinking of the huge delays in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

About ¥120 billion ($1 billion) has been spent since fiscal 2010 on preliminary work for the F-3, with ¥41.2 billion requested for fiscal 2015. In this effort, which has been called i3, TRDI and industry are preparing key technologies for a future fighter, extending the progress made in developing the ATD-X stealth demonstrator, which is due to fly this fiscal year (AW&ST July 21, p. 32).

A further ¥14.2 billion yen is requested for fiscal 2015 to fund development of the F-3’s engine, which is moving ahead well in advance of the airframe. In 2012, its thrust was known to be a lavish 33,000 lb., a figure that has probably not changed, at least for the preliminary development stage (AW&ST Feb. 14, 2011, p. 33).

25DMU is the latest annual iteration of TRDI’s design studies for the F-3. Credit: TRDI
Prototypes of the engine’s combustor, high-pressure compressor and high-pressure turbine are in testing. Evaluation of the turbine, at least, is supposed to be completed next financial year. Prototypes of the low-pressure compressor and low-pressure turbine will be tested until fiscal 2017. A full prototype engine should be demonstrated in fiscal 2018.

Key aims of the engine project are to achieve the extremely high temperature of 1,800C (3,272F) and to keep the powerplant slim in order to reduce airframe frontal area. The latter point is one of several features that suggest an intention to build a supercruising fighter, which now looks doubtful amid the emphasis on range over speed.

Whether Japan will build the aircraft at all is another question. On the one hand, the country feels its security is increasingly imperiled by rising and bellicose China. On the other hand, developing a heavy stealth fighter would have to cost tens of billions of dollars.

“The expense necessary for development of the fighter aircraft hasn’t been determined at all at this moment,” says the ministry, adding that although the air force has 90 F-2s, the number of successor aircraft is also not settled. And no specification for the next fighter has been set.

Still, TRDI’s work, most recently presented at an official seminar this month, gives a pretty good indication of the direction in which Japan wants to go.

TRDI produced annual concepts in 2011, 2012 and 2013, successively designated 23DMU, 24DMU and 25DMU. (The number in each designation is the corresponding regnal year of Emperor Akihito; “DMU” stands for “digital mock-up.”) Judging from the modest 40-deg. leading-edge sweep of their mainplanes, none of these designs is intended to supercruise—to fly supersonically without afterburning.

The designers have moved back and forth in balancing stealth and other characteristics, but appear to have consistently rejected the challenging measure of eliminating vertical tail surfaces, a move that would help defeat radars operating at lower frequencies. Size seems to have varied, lately moving up, and is probably not at all modest, considering the thrust of the engine. Two engines of 33,000 lb. each imply an aircraft approaching the class of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Conceivably, the engine might be scaled down, however.

The 2014 airframe concept has not been revealed, but by last year TRDI’s work had evolved a design, 25DMU, that emphasized large internal missile stowage and especially range, with an unusually big wing of high aspect ratio (span relative to average chord). The results of studies presented at the seminar endorsed the 25DMU’s emphasis on range, so this year’s undisclosed 26DMU concept may not be much different. Design 25DMU is at least still relevant, since it will be used as a benchmark next year for assessing 26DMU. Altogether, it sounds as if the Japanese are zeroing in on a final configuration.

The 2011 design, 23DMU, looked somewhat like a scaled up ATD-X. As is common in stealth aircraft, snaking inlet ducts shielded the engine faces from radar energy, which they would otherwise reflect strongly. The tail of 23DMU had the usual four surfaces, with the fins angled outward.

Internal, side-by-side weapons stowage would have accommodated four “medium-range missiles”—which TRDI’s drawings show to be very large, implying more than medium range. Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London notes that the missiles in all TRDI’s drawings have inlets for ramjet propulsion, suggesting a greater kill probability than offered by weapons with only rocket engines. All TRDI’s published designs also include two short-range missiles in the sides of the fuselage, large passive radio receiver arrays on the sides of the fuselage, supplementing the nose radar, and infrared sensors below and forward of the cockpit.

The result of the 23DMU design effort was quite a deep fuselage and a lot of radar-reflecting side area, which the designers sought to reduce in 24DMU by flattening the aircraft. They moved the engines outboard and fed them with straighter ducts, relying on blockers—radial baffles mounted ahead of the engines—to help obstruct radar energy. The four medium-range missiles were carried in tandem pairs. Just two stabilizers were mounted as a V-tail much like that of the Northrop YF-23, the aircraft that the U.S. Air Force rejected when it chose the F-22.

Having produced 24DMU, TRDI assessed the impact of these changes in a simulated engagement. It found that a pilot flying a 24DMU instead of a 23DMU would be able to fire about 13% more missiles and the enemy about a third fewer. (These figures are judged from a bar chart, without numerical values, which TRDI presented at the seminar.) The time available for taking a shot was shorter for both, but the enemy’s firing interval suffered more. A modified 23DMU with a different sweep angle produced intermediate combat results. TRDI comments: “Different sweep angles have little effect on peak radar cross section.”

Credit: Colin Throm/AW&ST
In the next step, devising 25DMU last year, the developers restored the fully snaking ducts but kept the side area lower than in 23DMU. They moved the engines inboard and left a broad space for side-by-side stowage of six medium-range missiles under the ducts, which twisted upward and inward. The additional missiles, even at the expense of greater size and cost, make good sense for a country that must contemplate fighting against far more numerous enemy forces, Barrie says.

In another change, the four tail surfaces reappeared in 25DMU, but the fins remained highly canted and were kept shorter than those of 23DMU, while the tailplanes were angled down, perhaps to provide a sufficient vertical component for the tail.

Wingspan and aspect ratio increased markedly—the latter to 3.8-3.9 from 3.2-3.3 in 24DMU, judging from the imprecise drawings that are available. The aspect ratio of the F-35A is 2.4; the Boeing F-15’s is 3.0. If TRDI’s drawings are to scale, as they appear to be, span increased almost 20% in 25DMU. Clearly, the point of these wing changes was to increase range with an improved ratio of lift to drag and a greater volume for fuel. The fuselage looks larger, too, offering more space for fuel. Consistent with that, TRDI confirms that range has increased, although it gives no figures. Speed and acceleration must have suffered, especially if 25DMU is at least 10% larger than its predecessors, as it appears to be. These changes reflect the results of studies that show extreme flight performance will have less effect on winning battles than range and, implicitly, endurance on station, at least under Japan’s strategic conditions.
 

Attachments

  • AW_11_24_2014_4133.png
    AW_11_24_2014_4133.png
    215.8 KB · Views: 265
  • AW_11_24_2014_4142_0.png
    AW_11_24_2014_4142_0.png
    632.4 KB · Views: 329
Hi!
 

Attachments

  • FUTURE_FIGHTER_STUDY.jpg
    FUTURE_FIGHTER_STUDY.jpg
    157.1 KB · Views: 265
  • 25DMU 2.jpg
    25DMU 2.jpg
    46.8 KB · Views: 251
  • WHpkwNw.jpg
    WHpkwNw.jpg
    189.5 KB · Views: 252
  • LOCAL201411181549000354887332530.jpg
    LOCAL201411181549000354887332530.jpg
    60.4 KB · Views: 242
  • Main equipments.JPG
    Main equipments.JPG
    189.4 KB · Views: 258
  • General description of DMU.jpg
    General description of DMU.jpg
    96.2 KB · Views: 278
  • Future Fighter Concept.JPG
    Future Fighter Concept.JPG
    157.1 KB · Views: 211
Source:
http://www.logsoku.com/r/2ch.net/army/1415591509/
 

Attachments

  • JygPR7J.jpg
    JygPR7J.jpg
    795.3 KB · Views: 905
  • kwz0Daj.jpg
    kwz0Daj.jpg
    698.4 KB · Views: 964
  • 67ItvS2.jpg
    67ItvS2.jpg
    650.4 KB · Views: 1,038
Interesting ... so they are now already at iteration 26DMU !
 
This was in the news recently:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-ready-next-fighter-engine-core

In parallel with Japan's ATD-X technology demonstrator, Japan's IHI is building a new engine core for ground test to mature key technologies for a future fighter engine. The following is a short summary:
  • The new core test will feature single crystal turbine blades, turbine disks forged from a new Japanese developed alloy, and ceramic matrix composite (CMC) turbine shrouds.
  • Turbine inlet temperatures are quoted to be as high as 1800 C (3300 F).
  • Core tests would be in 2016, to be followed by an engine test the following year.
  • Entry into service is targeted at a 2030 time frame.

Given how few manufacturers have succeeded in designing their own high performance engines, and how many have failed (India's Kaveri and China's WS-10 come to mind), this is a truly ambitious undertaking.
 
Any indications of a thrust bracket yet?
The WS-10 engine has been seen flying in both the J-10, and J-11 by the way, in what appears to be production airframes, so I'm unsure why it is being mentioned as a failed engine. It appears they had issues with it earlier, but never stopped work on it.
The truth is, we don't know yet.
 
No one has mentioned thrust class yet for the IHI engine.

The WS-10 has suffered from reliability problems, which is why China is still importing engines from Russia. It was referenced in passing on page 51 of the last DoD report on developments in China, among other sources. It is far easier to reverse engineer an airframe than an engine.
http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf
 
26DMU (may be) or pre-25DMU?
http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/ats2015/image/pdf/o2-8.pdf
 

Attachments

  • img_0.png
    img_0.png
    131.1 KB · Views: 681
  • img_1.png
    img_1.png
    214.2 KB · Views: 694
  • img_2.png
    img_2.png
    154 KB · Views: 253
  • 13-02.jpg
    13-02.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 207
Sure it's not just a distorted F-22 model? Looks almost identical.
 
flateric said:
26DMU (may be) or pre-25DMU?
http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/ats2015/image/pdf/o2-8.pdf

I think that is the 25MDU, as it had the stabilators with anhedral.
 
It has no EOTS like 25DMU
 
flateric said:
It has no EOTS like 25DMU

Do you think the Japanese government will ban export sales to the USA? Being Japanese I'm sure it's good for 200,000 miles like some Honda's. B)
 
some early iteration, pre-23DMU I guess
 

Attachments

  • xxDMU-pamphlet_kousouken-2014-2.jpg
    xxDMU-pamphlet_kousouken-2014-2.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 250
http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/proposed-japanese-combat-aircraft-bigger-f-22?NL=AW-18&Issue=AW-18_20161209_AW-18_88&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7863&utm_medium=email&elq2=1e16aa306f0f40259d3133211a59195a
 
Apologies if this is in the wrong place.

Britain and Japan are going to work together on what we have to assume is the RAF Typhoon replacement:


I will look for more information in the interim.
 
That was what I was wondering too. Politically it's possible the UK will try to have fingers in many defence pies, whether they are French, Turkish, Japanese, American or German.

Practically, that leaves a lot of questions about priorities. If this story has legs, then the implication is that by 2040, the MOD in the UK is currently looking at operating the F35(variants), a Typhoon replacement and a UCAV based on current projects. It would put the lie to the idea that the F35 is being considered as a replacement for Typhoon (which never made sense in my opinion).
 
mrmalaya said:
Apologies if this is in the wrong place.

Britain and Japan are going to work together on what we have to assume is the RAF Typhoon replacement:


I will look for more information in the interim.

The article is behind the paywall and there is yet no other source for this apparent story (which is very surprising given its alleged importance).
In a post Brexit context would not be surprising if U.K. looking for closer defense industry cooperation with the likes of Japan (from a quick Google already appears to be some kind of pre-existing joint AAM project),
However an actual joint fighter project rather than just an agreement to share certain technology etc appears far-fetched in the absence of any evident discussions, flagging in the press and current lack of any collaborating sources.
 
Looking at Japanese news sources, an MOU was signed between each country's MODs facilitating an exchange of information on what kind of technologies relating to fighter development that they are each in possession of. This will allow Japan to make an informed decision on whether to develop their F-3 fighter completely domestically or in a partnership with an international partner e.g. MHI+BAE.

 
Great find, thanks.

Until there is further coverage in the English language media, it is possible to say that the bi-lateral collaboration on an advanced seeker Meteor has been running for a few years plus there was the Typhoon deployment to Japan last year.

Perhaps this story shouldn't be viewed in isolation.
 
There's an old DMU26 planform illustration accompanying an article behind paywall.
 
Is this really a joint effort or is it BAE Systems finding more work for their engineers with a deal similar to Turkeys?
BAE provides the design support and some LO know-how and Japan actually builds and operates the resulting F-3?
 
Hood said:
Is this really a joint effort or is it BAE Systems finding more work for their engineers with a deal similar to Turkeys?
BAE provides the design support and some LO know-how and Japan actually builds and operates the resulting F-3?
Technology sharing can take aot of forms, without more information and more sources it is hard to see exactly how this will look. But finding work for BAE isn't the worst thing in The world. Preserving the knowledge base and technical skills of the industrial base has merit.
 
It will be interesting to see what comes out of this partnership with Japan.
 
It is quite possible that a post Brexit UK might seek a more meaningful partnership than BAE taking on a consultancy role. Brexit is going to change a lot of things, especially if the Gnome gets her second referendum.

You cannot tell people what to think, you cannot force them to follow your take on things, any more than I can. If you are going to act in the manner of your post perhaps you need to change the title of this forum. Perhaps you need to add a caveat that posts must agree with your views and positions?

Brexit is likely to be of the hard variety, especially seeing the EU's other partners want a massive divorce settlement which imho, they can swivel on. NO WAY shpould we give them a single penny to prop up their bankrupt economies just as we should not do so for Scotland. I fully expect you to delete or at the very least change this post because I am challenging your conceptions of what should be. Or will I be chucked off and banned? Perhaps you will.
 
Foo Fighter said:
It is quite possible that a post Brexit UK might seek a more meaningful partnership than BAE taking on a consultancy role. Brexit is going to change a lot of things, especially if the Gnome gets her second referendum.

You cannot tell people what to think, you cannot force them to follow your take on things, any more than I can. If you are going to act in the manner of your post perhaps you need to change the title of this forum. Perhaps you need to add a caveat that posts must agree with your views and positions?

Brexit is likely to be of the hard variety, especially seeing the EU's other partners want a massive divorce settlement which imho, they can swivel on. NO WAY shpould we give them a single penny to prop up their bankrupt economies just as we should not do so for Scotland. I fully expect you to delete or at the very least change this post because I am challenging your conceptions of what should be. Or will I be chucked off and banned? Perhaps you will.

I think pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit individuals (to be clear I'm in the 2nd camp) can agree that it is bound to impact the UK defence industry and UK defence policy, and how it relates and interacts with its EU and non-EU partners and their defence industries and defence policies.
It is probable that NATO and the relationship with the US will remain as the other major factors but Brexit will also have some kind of impact on these.
We can debate exactly what this total Brexit impact will be but let's not pretend nothing will change from every relevant parties perspectives.
 
JFC Fuller said:
No but one can prevent entirely false narratives being created. As has been made clear on multiple occasions the UK's decision to leave the EU has no impact on UK defence and security commitments to Europe or collaborative activity in the defence industrial space.

I'm sorry but this is flat out wrong. Brexit may have 'no impact on UK Defence and Security commitments to Europe' from a British perspective but you cannot predict the effect of Brexit on the other countries in Europe. At the very least, it may affect future partnerships in defence or industry with other European nations. Equally, there may be reduced benefits in European partnerships from a purely financial basis depending on the outcome of Brexit negotiations.

No-one can predict the outcome with any certainty, and its really strange to keep insisting nothing will change.

Having said that, I think people are reading too much into a not-terribly-accurate story. Japan and Britain are having an information exchange related to fighter technologies. That is all at this stage. There's already some collaboration between UK and Japan in aerospace, BAE Systems helping out on aspects of the MRJ, plus the joint AAM seeker work.
 
Is it perhaps fair to say that prior to Brexit, the UK would have been far more likely to look to Europe, for a future fighter partner, than Japan (if only because of the draining away of goodwill on the continent)?

As to the veracity of the article, if I had a subscription to AW I am quite sure I would be posting lots of excitable topics here :)

I agree that there is probably too much being read into it, but it follows a certain logic at least.
 
JFC Fuller, whilst it is a shame that you can't concede on anything, I wonder if this "good will" extends to FCAS (for example) in your view?

I think you are being too logical here. Whilst in your version of events the defence companies might be paragons of clear, analytic thinking, the ultimate decisions are made by governments.

I don't suppose there is much more to say on the subject unless something new crops up, but we can leave it there if you like?
 
Now out of paywall http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/japan-uk-fighter-project-sign-closer-defense-partnership
 
30 years ago Sea Harrier and P1216 were looked at for UK/Japanese fighter collaboration.

SkyHook was looked at too as Japan was not allowed to have 'carriers'.

Fuji were the firm BAe talked to - wanted to break into fighter business, and had looked at V/STOL fighter designs of their own in 1970s/1980s
 

Attachments

  • DSCN4340.JPG
    DSCN4340.JPG
    282.9 KB · Views: 570
Thanks flateric- it looks like they have done nearly as good a job at speculation as we have between us!

From the article, I don't see how FCAS is a threat to a manned fighter though- I would think the French (for their part) certainly view it as a Rafale buddy rather than a Rafale replacement. BAE will be building LO manned fighters for some time to come, so it makes sense to have their unmanned eggs in another basket.

Harrier, what an interesting historical slant on the thing. It would be fascinating to know how many involved in the discussions are aware of that side of things.

Flight Global have acknowledged the story too: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-partners-with-uk-to-study-future-fighter-435612/
 
"Japan and UK to Collaborate on Advanced Stealth Fighter Jet"
By Franz-Stefan Gady
March 28, 2017

Source:
http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/japan-and-uk-to-collaborate-on-advanced-stealth-fighter-jet/

Japan’s Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Agency and the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense have concluded an agreement to explore options for co-developing an advanced fighter jet, according to a March 16 press release by the Japanese Ministry of Defense.

The agreement stipulates that both countries will exchange information about advanced aviation technology and also conduct a joint study on the feasibility of co-developing a new fighter aircraft in the coming years.

The press release further notes that Japan will continue to explore fighter jet co-development options with other countries. “Regarding the possibility of international joint development on fighter aircraft in the future, we will continue to exchange views with other countries,” the MoD statement reads.

While the next-generation fighter jet project would be the biggest Japan-UK collaboration on sensitive defense technology so far, both countries are also a working on jointly developing a new ramjet-powered, beyond a visual range air-to-air missile.

During a January 2016 visit, the UK defense minister and his Japanese counterpart agreed to move discussions on the project to the next stage. The aim of the project is to integrate Japanese seeker technologies into the European Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile.

In October 2016, the UK Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) also held their first-ever joint aerial combat drill, dubbed Guardian North 16, in Japan. The exercise involved four RAF Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets, JASDF Boeing F-15J all-weather air superiority fighters and Mitsubishi F-2s.

The Eurofighter consortium, which includes the United Kingdom, unsuccessfully tried to pitch the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft to Japan in 2011. The JASDF, however, opted for the U.S.-made F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter jet instead. Japan placed an order for 42 F-35 through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program in 2011. The first aircraft was handed over to the JASDF in December 2016.

Nevertheless, the F-35 order is an interim solution and Japan is slated to procure up to 100 new fifth-generation air superiority fighters by the 2030s. An estimated $40 billion contract is expected to be awarded in the summer of 2018 (See: “Japan’s Air Force to Receive 100 New Stealth Fighter Jets”).

As I explained in July 2016, Japan has three options for procuring for the new aircraft: “First, develop an indigenous air superiority fighter. Second, partner with a foreign defense contractor and license-produce a new aircraft. Third, import or upgrade an existing platform.” The UK-Japan joint study falls into the second option of partnering with a foreign aircraft maker.

However, U.S. aircraft makers will remain Japan’s top choice for any future fighter jet co-development projects. Last year, Japan unveiled an experimental fifth-generation fighter technology demonstrator, dubbed X-2 “Shinshin” (formerly the ATD-X), which will be the basis for the JASDF’s so-called (F-3) Future Fighter Program. As I reported last year, U.S. defense contractor Lockheed-Martin is purportedly already involved with the project in some capacity.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom