By: Privateer454
- 23rd April 2018 at 18:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most of the items that held the F-22 back were avionics in nature. If you threw all the F-35 avionics at the new plane then this would not be an issue.
That still leaves the cost issue. With FMS cleared, this hybrid is basically an F-22C (unless you go with deeper bays), so why not just co-fund the line restart and F-35 electronics & coating upgrade? More planes for U.S., and a much improved cost & timeline for delivery than a cleansheet (which a physical hybrid would actually be).
By: Ozair
- 24th April 2018 at 00:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That may in fact what LM proposes (ie restart with F-35 avionics). Guess we'll find out as time goes on.
One thing they need to address is range as the current F-35 easily out ranges the F-22.
My solution to the Japanese requirement is a fuselage plug into the current F-35, extend the airframe perhaps 2.5 meters giving it better area rule, change the sweep of the wings to improve supersonic performance and increasing size and fuel carriage while retaining all F-35 avionics and sensors. Perhaps either a modified F135 with smaller fan for better supersonic performance or use the new AETD but either with the thrust improvements coming to the F135 be able to deliver an engine with the required performance.
The fuselage plug addresses longer range through greater fuel carriage, larger or longer weapons bay for more missiles (perhaps a novel staggered solution required to fit eight 3.7m missiles) while retaining all F-35 avionics and sensors maintains commonality with their emerging fleet.
Given the Japanese already have a production facility for the F-35 changing that to accommodate a modified version would be easier than an all new line and there would obviously be a lot of parts commonality.
The F-22/F-35 hybrid that uses the F-22 as the basis is a rabbit hole. There is nothing the F-22 provides over the F-35 other than supercruise at high mach. The changes to the F-35 I have proposed above should be able to deliver that, with an increased internal payload, at a significantly lower cost than any foolish attempt to restart F-22 production…
By: Privateer454
- 24th April 2018 at 01:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My solution to the Japanese requirement is a fuselage plug into the current F-35, extend the airframe perhaps 2.5 meters giving it better area rule, change the sweep of the wings to improve supersonic performance and increasing size and fuel carriage while retaining all F-35 avionics and sensors. Perhaps either a modified F135 with smaller fan for better supersonic performance or use the new AETD but either with the thrust improvements coming to the F135 be able to deliver an engine with the required performance.
The F-22/F-35 hybrid that uses the F-22 as the basis is a rabbit hole. There is nothing the F-22 provides over the F-35 other than supercruise at high mach. The changes to the F-35 I have proposed above should be able to deliver that, with an increased internal payload, at a significantly lower cost than any foolish attempt to restart F-22 production…
What you have described is a new aircraft. No way that is cheaper than a restart with new coating and avionics. Stretched fuselage, new wing sweep, etc., is going to require new tooling, new structural testing, new flight testing, etc.
By: Ozair
- 24th April 2018 at 01:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What you have described is a new aircraft. No way that is cheaper than a restart with new coating and avionics. Stretched fuselage, new wing sweep, etc., is going to require new tooling, new structural testing, new flight testing, etc.
There is no way that any airframe that fulfils this requirement will not require an extensive flight testing program, whether that airframe has the shape of an F-22 or an F-35.
If the design resembles the F-22 that is all it would look like in appearance, it will not share the same stealth internal structures, it will not share the same engine, it will not have the same avionics.
At least with an F-35 derivative there is a common design set to work with as well as an active production team. While wings and a fuselage may increase somewhat there is already a large body of skilled people who are familiar with the airframe.
By: MadRat
- 24th April 2018 at 02:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What "Stealth technology" did the F-20A have?
None intentional. But it was small and had extensive use of carbon fiber in its day, making it remarkably smaller in RCS than the F-5E it was to replace.
I'm not sure who broke the quote system, but it's a shame. Manually inserting quotes is a PITA.
That still leaves the cost issue. With FMS cleared, this hybrid is basically an F-22C (unless you go with deeper bays), so why not just co-fund the line restart and F-35 electronics & coating upgrade? More planes for U.S., and a much improved cost & timeline for delivery than a cleansheet (which a physical hybrid would actually be).
Which is why a conversion of F-35A or F-35C makes far more sense. I'd think an F-35C, being the bigger wing would certainly help add substantial lift for high altitude performance. Sure, it also has more drag in the lower altitudes. But the lift generated makes the angle of attack and deflection angle of the control surfaces work less hard therefore improving drag at high altitude. Add in ADVENT technologies to give it the thrust up there and you have a win-win situation.
By: FBW
- 24th April 2018 at 03:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which is why a conversion of F-35A or F-35C makes far more sense. I'd think an F-35C, being the bigger wing would certainly help add substantial lift for high altitude performance. Sure, it also has more drag in the lower altitudes. But the lift generated makes the angle of attack and deflection angle of the control surfaces work less hard therefore improving drag at high altitude. Add in ADVENT technologies to give it the thrust up there and you have a win-win situation.
The F.35C is a case study on why adding wing area to an airframe is a terrible idea, The entire aircraft has to be designed with a specific.planform and area, The “C” suffers from massive wave drag hefting around those wings on a compact fuselage. It is not worth slightly improved sustained turn performance and stall speed for compromised performance in every other metric.
This whole exercise is a save face for Japan to kill the X-2 project. L-M will offer what does not exist and in the end, Japan will deem any X-3 cost prohibitive and order more F-35. Sadly, based on the current situation those F-35 will cost considerably more just to save their national aerospace industry. They would be better served modifying the F-35 to Japan specific needs with input from Mitsubishi. If they are gong to pay millions more to make the aircraft in Japan, get something out of it.
By: djcross
- 24th April 2018 at 03:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
X-2 was the proof that Japan possesses capabilities to produce aircraft with technologies comparable to F-35. After the design details of X-2 were known, USG bureaucrats could not muster a valid objection to the sale of F-35 to Japan.
And becoming the first FACO in the western Pacific sets Japan up as the go-to depot for the region for the next 50 years.
By: SpudmanWP
- 24th April 2018 at 04:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The X-2 did not "prove" anything of the sort, especially on the engine tech or avionics front.
Why would the USG object to the F-35 sale to Japan? They have always been an important export partner, especially in military tech (F-15/16, AWACS, aegis, etc).
By: J-20
- 24th April 2018 at 04:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After the design details of X-2 were known, USG bureaucrats could not muster a valid objection to the sale of F-35 to Japan.
I believe the F-35 sale to Japan was made before the X-2 was known
The F.35C is a case study on why adding wing area to an airframe is a terrible idea, The entire aircraft has to be designed with a specific.planform and area, The “C” suffers from massive wave drag hefting around those wings on a compact fuselage. It is not worth slightly improved sustained turn performance and stall speed for compromised performance in every other metric.
Poor US Navy. From the home of the great F-4 and F-14, they had to take the meh Super Hornet and 35C
This whole exercise is a save face for Japan to kill the X-2 project. L-M will offer what does not exist and in the end, Japan will deem any X-3 cost prohibitive and order more F-35. Sadly, based on the current situation those F-35 will cost considerably more just to save their national aerospace industry. They would be better served modifying the F-35 to Japan specific needs with input from Mitsubishi. If they are gong to pay millions more to make the aircraft in Japan, get something out of it.
Unfortunately, I think this is exactly what will happen. the F-2 was a modified F-16 and still cost a double whopper meal set. A clean sheet design will be cost prohibitive, and so will a derivative design. I guess an F-35 variant is their only solution.. unless they jump ship to whatever France/Germany, India, or Turkey produces..and I think its likely all 3 will be either vaporware or come in a timeline too far off.
Meh.. Japan should just bite the bullet and order up a F-15SE 2.0 version.
There is no need to suck their treasures dry with a new insanly costly fighter program.
of course you want Japan to go for an aircraft that can't stand up to the Su-57 or the J-20, its immediate threats
apan had another look at the F-15 in the mid-1980s as a basis for FS-X but went with the F-16 purely on cost grounds.
They went with the F-16 because the US pressured them to, the original FS-X was an F-18 looking aircraft with canards
Most of the items that held the F-22 back were avionics in nature. If you threw all the F-35 avionics at the new plane then this would not be an issue.
how likely can Japan get the blueprints to license produce an older or failed design. like the F-22, YF-23 or X-32? I think the Spanish were able to do it with a US navy ship that lost a contract.
By: Cherry Ripe
- 24th April 2018 at 08:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They went with the F-16 because the US pressured them to, the original FS-X was an F-18 looking aircraft with canards
The F-15, F-16, F-18 and Tornado were all proposed alongside the indigenous design either as straight purchase or redesign.
There was huge pressure to choose US, of course, but the F-18 was actually pushed harder than the F-16. But the Japanese felt that the F-16 was the cheapest and lowest-risk as a basis for redesign.
By: Vans
- 24th April 2018 at 11:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ on the subject of F-16 modification,
I wonder why they didn't simply adopt the F-16XL variant since they aimed for more or less the same thing (an extended F-16 with more range and greater emphasis on air to surface missions)
By: Mercurius
- 24th April 2018 at 11:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MadRat wrote: "But it was small and had extensive use of carbon fiber in its day, making it remarkably smaller in RCS than the F-5E it was to replace."
While the F-20 did make use of some composites, the company did not see this as a particularly significant feature of the aircraft. Composites (and RCS) were not even mentioned in "Tigershark design and technical data" by Northrop VP for engineering JH T Gallagher. What evidence is there to suggest that its RCS was "remarkably smaller" than that of the F-5E?
By: halloweene
- 25th April 2018 at 17:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While the F-20 did make use of some composites, the company did not see this as a particularly significant feature of the aircraft. Composites (and RCS) were not even mentioned in "Tigershark design and technical data" by Northrop VP for engineering JH T Gallagher. What evidence is there to suggest that its RCS was "remarkably smaller" than that of the F-5E?
As far as i remember, they insisted much more on reilability and sorties rate no?
By: MadRat
- 26th April 2018 at 04:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mercurius-
Back in the late 80's I was told directly by guys involved with operations about a curious feature of the F-20A. And the main guy suggested at the time it's the plane of our future for exactly it's ability to evade most radars at the time. Quite a few people in the USAF were convinced it needed to replace F-16 because it was invisible to radars. And then the F-117A became revealed a few years later. It made sense why F-20A never found a home in the air force, unique niche and all.
By: MadRat
- 26th April 2018 at 13:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, but back then was in my teens and I lived next to a SAC base with an annual airshow that brought in a lot of personnel from all over the country. I didn't even know what an F-20A was at the time, but the talk really sparked my interest. Before BRAQ we had two different ANG bases within an hour from us, and we literally had regular overflights by every fighter in the various services, as one of the wings did tanking. Unlike other planes, F-20A wasn't an Air Force design so they talked about it. I remember another selling point the guys told me was that they carried Sparrow and the F-16 did not. I remember one guy bagging on General Dynamics in general, saying they shouldn't buy anything remotely involved with them. He wouldn't explain that. The same guy wasn't a fan of Boeing either. Apparently people in the Air Force didn't care for either company.
By: SpudmanWP
- 26th April 2018 at 17:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think he was just BS'ing you on the "stealth" issue. Did it have a small RCS, sure.. But that was due to size, not some special sauce. If NG had that kind of tech back in the early '80s, then they should have had a major advantage leading up to ATF.... which they did not have.
Posts: 101
By: Privateer454 - 23rd April 2018 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That still leaves the cost issue. With FMS cleared, this hybrid is basically an F-22C (unless you go with deeper bays), so why not just co-fund the line restart and F-35 electronics & coating upgrade? More planes for U.S., and a much improved cost & timeline for delivery than a cleansheet (which a physical hybrid would actually be).
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 23rd April 2018 at 20:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That may in fact what LM proposes (ie restart with F-35 avionics). Guess we'll find out as time goes on.
One thing they need to address is range as the current F-35 easily out ranges the F-22.
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 24th April 2018 at 00:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My solution to the Japanese requirement is a fuselage plug into the current F-35, extend the airframe perhaps 2.5 meters giving it better area rule, change the sweep of the wings to improve supersonic performance and increasing size and fuel carriage while retaining all F-35 avionics and sensors. Perhaps either a modified F135 with smaller fan for better supersonic performance or use the new AETD but either with the thrust improvements coming to the F135 be able to deliver an engine with the required performance.
The fuselage plug addresses longer range through greater fuel carriage, larger or longer weapons bay for more missiles (perhaps a novel staggered solution required to fit eight 3.7m missiles) while retaining all F-35 avionics and sensors maintains commonality with their emerging fleet.
Given the Japanese already have a production facility for the F-35 changing that to accommodate a modified version would be easier than an all new line and there would obviously be a lot of parts commonality.
The F-22/F-35 hybrid that uses the F-22 as the basis is a rabbit hole. There is nothing the F-22 provides over the F-35 other than supercruise at high mach. The changes to the F-35 I have proposed above should be able to deliver that, with an increased internal payload, at a significantly lower cost than any foolish attempt to restart F-22 production…
Posts: 101
By: Privateer454 - 24th April 2018 at 01:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What you have described is a new aircraft. No way that is cheaper than a restart with new coating and avionics. Stretched fuselage, new wing sweep, etc., is going to require new tooling, new structural testing, new flight testing, etc.
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 24th April 2018 at 01:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no way that any airframe that fulfils this requirement will not require an extensive flight testing program, whether that airframe has the shape of an F-22 or an F-35.
If the design resembles the F-22 that is all it would look like in appearance, it will not share the same stealth internal structures, it will not share the same engine, it will not have the same avionics.
At least with an F-35 derivative there is a common design set to work with as well as an active production team. While wings and a fuselage may increase somewhat there is already a large body of skilled people who are familiar with the airframe.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 24th April 2018 at 02:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
None intentional. But it was small and had extensive use of carbon fiber in its day, making it remarkably smaller in RCS than the F-5E it was to replace.
I'm not sure who broke the quote system, but it's a shame. Manually inserting quotes is a PITA.
Which is why a conversion of F-35A or F-35C makes far more sense. I'd think an F-35C, being the bigger wing would certainly help add substantial lift for high altitude performance. Sure, it also has more drag in the lower altitudes. But the lift generated makes the angle of attack and deflection angle of the control surfaces work less hard therefore improving drag at high altitude. Add in ADVENT technologies to give it the thrust up there and you have a win-win situation.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 24th April 2018 at 03:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F.35C is a case study on why adding wing area to an airframe is a terrible idea, The entire aircraft has to be designed with a specific.planform and area, The “C” suffers from massive wave drag hefting around those wings on a compact fuselage. It is not worth slightly improved sustained turn performance and stall speed for compromised performance in every other metric.
This whole exercise is a save face for Japan to kill the X-2 project. L-M will offer what does not exist and in the end, Japan will deem any X-3 cost prohibitive and order more F-35. Sadly, based on the current situation those F-35 will cost considerably more just to save their national aerospace industry. They would be better served modifying the F-35 to Japan specific needs with input from Mitsubishi. If they are gong to pay millions more to make the aircraft in Japan, get something out of it.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 24th April 2018 at 03:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
X-2 was the proof that Japan possesses capabilities to produce aircraft with technologies comparable to F-35. After the design details of X-2 were known, USG bureaucrats could not muster a valid objection to the sale of F-35 to Japan.
And becoming the first FACO in the western Pacific sets Japan up as the go-to depot for the region for the next 50 years.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 24th April 2018 at 04:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The X-2 did not "prove" anything of the sort, especially on the engine tech or avionics front.
Why would the USG object to the F-35 sale to Japan? They have always been an important export partner, especially in military tech (F-15/16, AWACS, aegis, etc).
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 24th April 2018 at 04:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I believe the F-35 sale to Japan was made before the X-2 was known
Poor US Navy. From the home of the great F-4 and F-14, they had to take the meh Super Hornet and 35C
Unfortunately, I think this is exactly what will happen. the F-2 was a modified F-16 and still cost a double whopper meal set. A clean sheet design will be cost prohibitive, and so will a derivative design. I guess an F-35 variant is their only solution.. unless they jump ship to whatever France/Germany, India, or Turkey produces..and I think its likely all 3 will be either vaporware or come in a timeline too far off.
of course you want Japan to go for an aircraft that can't stand up to the Su-57 or the J-20, its immediate threats
They went with the F-16 because the US pressured them to, the original FS-X was an F-18 looking aircraft with canards
how likely can Japan get the blueprints to license produce an older or failed design. like the F-22, YF-23 or X-32? I think the Spanish were able to do it with a US navy ship that lost a contract.
Posts: 555
By: Cherry Ripe - 24th April 2018 at 08:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15, F-16, F-18 and Tornado were all proposed alongside the indigenous design either as straight purchase or redesign.
There was huge pressure to choose US, of course, but the F-18 was actually pushed harder than the F-16. But the Japanese felt that the F-16 was the cheapest and lowest-risk as a basis for redesign.
.
Posts: 126
By: Vans - 24th April 2018 at 11:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ on the subject of F-16 modification,
I wonder why they didn't simply adopt the F-16XL variant since they aimed for more or less the same thing (an extended F-16 with more range and greater emphasis on air to surface missions)
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 24th April 2018 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MadRat wrote: "But it was small and had extensive use of carbon fiber in its day, making it remarkably smaller in RCS than the F-5E it was to replace."
While the F-20 did make use of some composites, the company did not see this as a particularly significant feature of the aircraft. Composites (and RCS) were not even mentioned in "Tigershark design and technical data" by Northrop VP for engineering JH T Gallagher. What evidence is there to suggest that its RCS was "remarkably smaller" than that of the F-5E?
Posts: 1,003
By: Al. - 24th April 2018 at 20:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J-20
That is THE most Japanese-looking fast jet that I have ever seen. They might as well have named it the F-2 Akira.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 25th April 2018 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As far as i remember, they insisted much more on reilability and sorties rate no?
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 25th April 2018 at 23:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks like a 1970s cartoon.
With a massive RCS, it wouldn't last long around a Type 52D.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 26th April 2018 at 04:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mercurius-
Back in the late 80's I was told directly by guys involved with operations about a curious feature of the F-20A. And the main guy suggested at the time it's the plane of our future for exactly it's ability to evade most radars at the time. Quite a few people in the USAF were convinced it needed to replace F-16 because it was invisible to radars. And then the F-117A became revealed a few years later. It made sense why F-20A never found a home in the air force, unique niche and all.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 26th April 2018 at 05:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of course you did .....:very_drunk:
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 26th April 2018 at 13:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, but back then was in my teens and I lived next to a SAC base with an annual airshow that brought in a lot of personnel from all over the country. I didn't even know what an F-20A was at the time, but the talk really sparked my interest. Before BRAQ we had two different ANG bases within an hour from us, and we literally had regular overflights by every fighter in the various services, as one of the wings did tanking. Unlike other planes, F-20A wasn't an Air Force design so they talked about it. I remember another selling point the guys told me was that they carried Sparrow and the F-16 did not. I remember one guy bagging on General Dynamics in general, saying they shouldn't buy anything remotely involved with them. He wouldn't explain that. The same guy wasn't a fan of Boeing either. Apparently people in the Air Force didn't care for either company.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 26th April 2018 at 17:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think he was just BS'ing you on the "stealth" issue. Did it have a small RCS, sure.. But that was due to size, not some special sauce. If NG had that kind of tech back in the early '80s, then they should have had a major advantage leading up to ATF.... which they did not have.