Japanese Stealth Fighter
- Thread starter icekid
- Start date
F-16, the tired WarHorse
Over 4000 Lockheed (formally General Dynamics) F-16's have been produced since 1976 and is operational with 26 countries. 1976 was a long time ago. Although the current design has been updated considerably, it is still limited by a basic design from the late 1960's.
It was good, but the export success is largely due to it being good and cheap. The USAF isn't buying them anymore, the line remains open for Foreign Military Sales.
Over 4000 Lockheed (formally General Dynamics) F-16's have been produced since 1976 and is operational with 26 countries. 1976 was a long time ago. Although the current design has been updated considerably, it is still limited by a basic design from the late 1960's.
It was good, but the export success is largely due to it being good and cheap. The USAF isn't buying them anymore, the line remains open for Foreign Military Sales.
Offhand, i'm relatively sure the Mig-19 and Mig-21 have it beat.
How about the Sabre or MIG-15?
Back to the topic.
Japan could well design an indigenous fighter, and could perhaps get it into production relatively quickly.
A comprimise between the F-15 and F-22 makes sense, particularly if it is a little smaller than the raptor.
I wouldn't be surprised if Japan could get it into service before the F-35; Alot of the problems with the F-35 are because that they are trying to fit a wide range of advanced new technologies/capabilities to meet the requirements of three very different designs into one very small aircraft frame.
windscorpion
New Member
Define "relatively quickly", its taken the F-22 and Typhoon over 20 years to get from drawing board to anything like operational use and that was by countries who have already developed advanced jet fighters for years. Japan don't really have that experience.
I would be VERY surprised if they could get something into service before the F-35, considering that means develop an advanced jet fighter from scratch and get it into service in less than 10 years.
I would be VERY surprised if they could get something into service before the F-35, considering that means develop an advanced jet fighter from scratch and get it into service in less than 10 years.
F-2 as a production testbed
I have little doubt that Japan opted to co-production of their Sushi flavored F-16, the F-2, with a primary goal being nurturing indigenous fighter manufacturing and design capability. Yet, they only produced 40% of a modestly updated 70's era fighter. Japan continued to buy F-2's, when they aren't anything close to world-class.
Japan's industrial history is to advance in steady, well planned, small but positive steps. Leaping from the a 40% stake in a retooled F-16 to anything close to an F-22 competitor ... and to do this 'quickly', isn't possible and it isn't their style.
What is possible would be for them to make something like a re-tooled F-16XL with multi-axis thrust vectoring, they could base this on the F-2 and it could be capable and cheap. Mind you, I have heard nothing of the kind, I am just speculating. Remember the F-16XL? It had double the load carrying capability of the Plane Jane F-16, roughly half again the range and 26 hardpoints - plus the double delta looked cool.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-16XL1/index.html
All I am saying is that it would make much more sense to make something like an F-2XL with modest stealth enhancements and vectored thrust than to make a clean sheet of paper F-22 competitor. Lockheed would no doubt nix any such plan since it would pose a threat to F-35 sales. To bad, it would be beautiful.
I have little doubt that Japan opted to co-production of their Sushi flavored F-16, the F-2, with a primary goal being nurturing indigenous fighter manufacturing and design capability. Yet, they only produced 40% of a modestly updated 70's era fighter. Japan continued to buy F-2's, when they aren't anything close to world-class.
Japan's industrial history is to advance in steady, well planned, small but positive steps. Leaping from the a 40% stake in a retooled F-16 to anything close to an F-22 competitor ... and to do this 'quickly', isn't possible and it isn't their style.
What is possible would be for them to make something like a re-tooled F-16XL with multi-axis thrust vectoring, they could base this on the F-2 and it could be capable and cheap. Mind you, I have heard nothing of the kind, I am just speculating. Remember the F-16XL? It had double the load carrying capability of the Plane Jane F-16, roughly half again the range and 26 hardpoints - plus the double delta looked cool.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-16XL1/index.html
All I am saying is that it would make much more sense to make something like an F-2XL with modest stealth enhancements and vectored thrust than to make a clean sheet of paper F-22 competitor. Lockheed would no doubt nix any such plan since it would pose a threat to F-35 sales. To bad, it would be beautiful.
Atilla [TR]
New Member
I was so shocked when they did not build any F-16XL beyond the prototype stage. I am pretty sure Turkey would have bought a few of them which would have let them get rid of the F-4 which they still use. The Shin Shin, is just a prototype an dif every part has been built in Japan I do not know how they cannot mass produce it, the thing flies with Japanese made parts it surely can be mast produced.
F-16XL, ETF Looser
The F-16XL was the looser in the 1980's Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) program to the F-15E. The USAF wanted twin engines. Without a domestic production order, the XL was a lame duck - good looking though.
The Shin Shin is indeed just a prototype, a fighter "show car" if you will. Building a single flyable unit is miles away, hundreds of miles away from a viable production type. It's easy, well relatively easy, to build a one ship aircraft that looks stealth-ish. Looks can be very deceiving. Combining efficient aerodynamics across multiple mission modes with extremely low radar cross section profiles is hideously challenging.
The 'shape' definition is only part of the challenge, and not necessarily the least. They added 'thrust vectoring' which twists the airframe in weird, unconventional ways. I've taken apart F-18's and their wing carry through bulkheads are massive, they are stressed 'conventionally'. Hiding even larger load carrying structures in a stealth umbrella is ... daunting.
If they dropped the Stealth or thrust vectoring characteristics and just wanted to adapt the airframe to just a very capable Eurofighter class aircraft, that would be a spectacular achievement.
The F-16XL was the looser in the 1980's Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) program to the F-15E. The USAF wanted twin engines. Without a domestic production order, the XL was a lame duck - good looking though.
The Shin Shin is indeed just a prototype, a fighter "show car" if you will. Building a single flyable unit is miles away, hundreds of miles away from a viable production type. It's easy, well relatively easy, to build a one ship aircraft that looks stealth-ish. Looks can be very deceiving. Combining efficient aerodynamics across multiple mission modes with extremely low radar cross section profiles is hideously challenging.
The 'shape' definition is only part of the challenge, and not necessarily the least. They added 'thrust vectoring' which twists the airframe in weird, unconventional ways. I've taken apart F-18's and their wing carry through bulkheads are massive, they are stressed 'conventionally'. Hiding even larger load carrying structures in a stealth umbrella is ... daunting.
If they dropped the Stealth or thrust vectoring characteristics and just wanted to adapt the airframe to just a very capable Eurofighter class aircraft, that would be a spectacular achievement.
Atilla [TR]
New Member
I agree, we need more competition for fighters to give different governments choices.
I think they gave up after the f-2 ended up being a near mirror copy of the f-16.
Japan maintains a very special relationship with the USA and does not face the all problems you are citing. Just look at the long list of defense systems the Japanese self defense forces has which are of US origin. Not to mention military bases on Japanese soil and US units which are based there.
Last edited:
Lockheed was awarded their 12th production award for the F-2 on April 8, 2008. Although this is probably the last production order, they hardly 'gave up' on the system. The F-2 has significant enhancements for air-2-ground, including two badly needed weapons stations and more internal fuel.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/040808ae_f2mitsubishi.html
They gave up on an indigenous aircraft. F-2 is the same as the block c/d i think. There are no real enhancements over the f-16's.
From the Lockheed Martin website:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f2/index.html
"The F-2 has a wing area that is enlarged approximately 25 percent over the F-16 wing area. The larger wing allows more internal fuel storage and two more weapon store stations than the F-16. Japan elected to fabricate the wing substructure using graphite epoxy and by applying state-of-the-art co-cured composite technology to maximize the strength while minimizing the weight. In addition to the larger wing area, the F-2 fuselage is approximately 17 inches longer than that of the F-16. The horizontal tails are also larger."
I would say those are real enhancements. 25% greater wing area, two additional weapons stations, a significantly stronger wing substructure ... Still an F-16, but better.
Ban on. In size variation it is not disimilar to waht was achieved by upsizing from hornet to the super hornet and nobody would suggest they were 'a mirror image'.
A significantly larger aircraft, with a new wing, new radar, & other changes, is not an F-16C/D. As already said, it has much the same relationship to the F-16 as the F-18E/F has to the F-18A/B/C/D - and the F-18E/F is only called an F-18, instead of receiving a new designation, for political reasons. A few decades ago it would have been given a new designation, & rightly so.
Derived from the F-16 does not make it an F-16.
A slight digression: what's happened to US aircraft designations these days? The F-16C/D should have been several marks. The AESA-equipped F-15C should have received a new mark letter. Etc., etc.
windscorpion
New Member
The US designation system has always been a bit of a mess (SR-71, F/A-18 et cetera). As for new variants not getting new letters these days its probably a political move to make it look like the USAF isn't spending as much money (more F-16Cs "looks" cheaper than building an F-16G or something).
King_Typhoon
New Member
I fink japanise do it for prove they can make stealth to pose to buy f-22 if they reject so they will get eurofighter typhoon and small of stealth japanisve fighter to meet their required for future capacity to protection from threat possible by chinese or russian, north koera.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Would you mind using a spell checker, then clarify what you are trying to say so I can understand it?