Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
estorilm wrote:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-lockheed-exclusive/exclusive-lockheed-martin-to-propose-stealthy-hybrid-of-f-22-and-f-35-for-japan-sources-idUSKBN1HR0MM
Fairly shocking news, it would essentially hand over / declassify many aspects of the F-22's systems and construction. I suppose by 2030 it might be somewhat meaningless as the design elements and some technology would be ~4 decades old (bizarre to think about.) With newer F-35 technology floating all around the world now, keeping the F-22 in the shadows is less important.
I wonder if this is perhaps a brilliant alternative method for Lockheed to find a way to produce more "F-22-like" fighters for the USAF? Get Japan to pay for some of the development, procurement, and export models, then build the larger number of air superiority fighters we actually wanted. Might also be while they priced themselves out of re-starting F-22 production, because it's banned from export anyways.
I'd imagine F-22 performance with F-35-era electronics and sensor-fusion.
estorilm wrote:Either way it appears Lockheed will continue to lock-down and dominate worldwide 5th-gen fighter superiority and production for the foreseeable future.
Unless of course the US govt doesn't even let this happen. Then again with all these foreign so-called 5th gen fighters popping up, it could give the USAF a unique opportunity to punch out a very capable fighter at a relatively low cost (compared to anything like the F-22 initial or re-start programs.)
Planeflyer wrote:Seems like changing fuselage outline means lots of cost and time.
Ozair wrote:Isn't the hit on the F-35 for air to air the fact that when close in it is under-powered id pitted against say a F-15, F-18, Typhoon or F-22? And maybe some vs the F-22 because it has limited super cruise ability?Planeflyer wrote:Seems like changing fuselage outline means lots of cost and time.
Definetly more cost and risk with those modifications but almost certainly less than going through a new design process.
The F-35 is currently 15m long so it should be quite possible to push that out to 17m with a fuselage plug that also increases the wing chord.
The other issue is the wing sweep on the F-22 is 42 degrees while the F-35 is 35 degrees. To improve supersonic performance a swept angle closer to the F-22 would be needed. Not at all hard if you are changing the fuselage at the same time.
Given any modifications would require a test and valaidation program anyway those changes make a big impact to supersonic performance and would clearly be worth it if an air superiority mission set is the aim.
salttee wrote:Isn't the hit on the F-35 for air to air the fact that when close in it is under-powered id pitted against say a F-15, F-18, Typhoon or F-22? And maybe some vs the F-22 because it has limited super cruise ability?
salttee wrote:If you're going to add a second engine to an F-35, you're going to be pretty much starting from scratch, you may be able to port some things over, but it would have to be about 90% new by my reckoning.
You'll need bigger fuel tanks, that alone pretty much wipes the old design out.
salttee wrote:I don't think the Japanese are going to be willing to foot the bill for another F-35 sized project, even with a 10% discount.
Ozair wrote:If you remove some of the concessions for naval employment on the F-35, namely the ability to operate on the LHAs, then you can modify the airframe to significantly enhance performance in a few key air superiority areas. An increase in length would see the F-35 fit better into the area rule, increasing supersonic performance, lowering transonic drag and certainly providing out of the box supercruise at the M1.5 level. With a longer length the internal bays could be increased increasing payload and fuel carriage, the same single engine could be used but perhaps with a smaller fan for better supersonic performance while the overall maneuverability of the F-35 is already at or above comparable aircraft. Using essentially the same systems as the F-35 and following its upgrade path, including the sensor fusion engine, would reduce costs especially given it is all approved for export anyway.
Max Q wrote:I’ve not seen any other single engine fighter with such a wide ‘bulky’ profile as the F35, it looks like a twin engine fighter from head on
Max Q wrote:The surrounding structure for the lift fan takes up a large amount of space significantly widening the airframe causing a lot of drag
Max Q wrote:So these design and performance limiting compromises made for the B model were carried over to the A and C versions for the
sake of commonality
Max Q wrote:If LM were to revisit this niche with a single engine stealth design and no allowance or performance penalties for Stovl it could be an impressive fighter
A real and worthy successor to the F16
Max Q wrote:I’ve not seen any other single engine fighter with such a wide ‘bulky’ profile as the F35, it looks like a twin engine fighter from head on
The surrounding structure for the lift fan takes up a large amount of space significantly widening the airframe causing a lot of drag
So these design and performance limiting compromises made for the B model were carried over to the A and C versions for the
sake of commonality
If LM were to revisit this niche with a single
engine stealth design and no allowance
or performance penalties for Stovl it could
be an impressive fighter
A real and worthy successor to the F16
LightningZ71 wrote:Northrop Grumman has certainly not burned all the books on the F-23, and from what has been released about 6th generation development, a V tail seems to be something that is high on the design priority list.
The YF-23's shortcomings were based on the health of the company that was developing it, a slightly inferior maneuverability in the very low speed regime, and a perception that it might be more costly to produce. It demonstrated greater range than the F-22. It also demonstrated a significantly lower RCS than the F-22. Those two things seem to be something that any fighter would VERY much need in the pacific theater. Lockheed is quite busy with everything they have going on. The new Raider should be near the prototyping and production side of its resource curve, so there is some capacity for design and early development there that can be tapped for this project.
None of the above is to say that the F-22 is a bad fighter or choice for this project, just that the YF-23 would be just about as good of a place to start given how much would get changed.
The Defense Ministry has compiled a design concept of new fighter jets that will replace the Air Self-Defense Forces’ F-2 fighter jets, planning for the succeeding jets to be able to carry and launch drones to detect distant enemy planes and also to share radar information with the drones, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.
The new planes will be large stealth fighters, exceeding the capability of the cutting-edge F-35A fighter jets introduced by the ASDF. The Defense Ministry will examine how to develop the new jets, such as joint development with the United States, in a bid to deal with China’s modernizing air force.
In March, the ministry notified the governments of the United States and Britain of part of the design concept of the F-2 successor, such as its performance requirements. Other than carrying small drones, the ministry considers that the new jets will have the capacity to internally carry eight air-to-air missiles, doubling the load of the F-35A. Its maximum speed will be Mach 2, almost equal to that of the F-2, and key features will be designed to be similar or superior to the F-35A, such as its radars’ detection range, stealth technology and cruising distance. Regarding carrying air-to-ship missiles, the ministry assumes they will be carried externally depending on their missions.
As Japan’s neighboring countries have been enhancing their level of stealth technology, which guards against radar detection, the ministry has recognized the need to handle the situation by having the new jets carry drones.
China announced deployment of its domestically developed cutting-edge Chengdu J-20 stealth fighters in February. High stealth technology used by other countries’ aircraft means an overwhelming disadvantage in combat for Japanese aircraft as it will become difficult to detect other planes until they approach very close to the Japanese planes. For this reason, the ministry came up with the idea of carrying drones to detect enemy planes from a long distance. The ministry plans to develop the drones along with the new fighter jets.
Doubling the number of air-to-air missiles the plane can carry compared to the F-35A is also a part of the idea to counter China’s moves.
F-35A jets are state-of-the-art aircraft, jointly developed by nine countries, including the United States and Britain. Their deployment to Misawa Air Base in Aomori Prefecture started in January. While the F-35A is highly capable, it is said to be able to internally carry only four air-to-air missile because it is somewhat smaller than other jets.
The F-2 fighter jet was jointly developed by Japan and the United States based on U.S. F-16 jets, and they have been manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. The jets have high offensive capability against ships to suit Japan’s security environment as a nation surrounded by the sea. The ASDF introduced F-2 jets in 2000 and the fighters are expected to retire from around 2030. The ASDF currently deploys about 90 F-2 jets.
In total, Japan has about 300 fighters, excluding the aging F-4 jets, while China has about 800 jets with similar capabilities.
To avoid being overwhelmed by the number of Chinese fighter jets, the ministry decided to fill the gap by strengthening the fighting capability of each fighter jet, such as making the F-2 successor larger and increasing its missile load.
The ministry has examined three options regarding the method of developing an F-2 successor — domestic development, joint development with other countries, or improving existing foreign-made fighter jets.
The government is likely to abandon the idea of domestic development due to the estimated cost of ¥1 trillion to ¥2 trillion.
Lockheed Martin Corp. of the United States has unofficially approached the ministry about joint development of the F-2 successor based on the high-performance F-22 and F-35 stealth fighter jets.
The government plans to compile the next Medium Term Defense Program that covers fiscal 2019 to 2023 at the end of this year, and is likely to decide how to develop the new fighter jets during these years under the new program.
Max Q wrote:If the F35 is such a tremendous fighter why was it defeated by an old F16 in numerous practice dogfights?
...Dogfighting in the F-35...
...‘The F-35 is a very different aircraft, and it took pilots a while to adjust and figure out how to max-perform it. What didn’t help is that until about 18 months ago we were restricted in envelope, which meant we couldn’t pull as much g as we wanted to, nor fly with high-alpha. It was an eye-opener for all of us when those restrictions were lifted and we finally got to see the full potential. Actually, it was an eye-opener for a lot of adversary pilots as well.’
The F-35 is far larger than the F-16, and it carries twice as much fuel and three times the payload. ‘Consequently, the F-35 loses energy a bit faster than the F-16 at higher speeds,’ continues Knight. ‘But the slow-speed handling is amazing. The F-35 pilot has the option to continuously point the nose at the adversary, even at ridiculously slow speeds, which is a great capability to have in combination with high off-boresight missiles and a helmet-mounted sight. You need to be careful maneuvering the aircraft at higher speeds, because if you keep pulling back on the stick the aircraft will give you as much alpha as it can, but it will bleed a lot of energy in the process. It’s up to the pilot to recognize when to try to maintain airspeed and energy and when to give that away to prosecute with missiles or guns. I typically tell new pilots that the F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to within visual range maneuvering.’
Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) in an F-35. ‘When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth-generation fighters. Remember, back then the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn’t really matter and that they would still easily outmaneuver us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least…
‘High-g maneuvering is fun, but having high fuel capacity and the ability to carry lots of stores is great too. During the weeks when we were flying BFM we also needed to drop a GBU-12 [laser-guided bomb] on the China Lake weapons range. Back in our F-16 days we’d have had to choose, since there is no way you can BFM with a bomb on your wing, let alone having the fuel to fly both missions in a single sortie. With the F-35, however, this isn’t much of an issue. On one of the sorties, my colleague, Maj Pascal ‘Smiley’ Smaal, decided he would fly BFM and still have enough fuel to go to the range afterwards and drop his weapon. During the debrief, the adversary pilot told us he was confused as to why we went to the range after the fight. When ‘Smiley’ told him that he was carrying an inert GBU-12 the entire time and that he then dropped it afterwards during a test event, the silence on the other end of the line was golden.’..."
Max Q wrote:If the F35 is such a tremendous fighter why was it defeated by an old F16 in numerous practice dogfights?
salttee wrote:Max Q wrote:If the F35 is such a tremendous fighter why was it defeated by an old F16 in numerous practice dogfights?
I've tried to understand why some people rate the F-22 high over the F-35, I know it has more power so it can accelerate a bit faster and it can super cruise to better get in position but those seem like marginal qualities. I've thought that the F-22's thrust vectoring might give a great advantage, but that is just a guess.
When I look to find out why other people think the F-22 is so much better than the F-35 within visual range (enough to make up for the fact that the F-35 is far superior beyond visual range) the only thing I've ever been able to find is this "it defeated by an old F16" which I regard as a bunch of nonsense. From what I know, that exercise was merely a test for high angle of attack maneuverability, and it was only one engagement or a short series at most. That exercise proves nothing.
Can someone actually make the case that the F-22 is significantly better at all around air to air than the F-35?
ThePointblank wrote:That is why you sometimes hear of instructor pilots with thousands of hours flying T-38 Talon's beating up new pilots flying F-22's; it's not the fault of the platform, it's the level of experience with the pilots that matters.
LightningZ71 wrote:None of that is even as convincing as "it was defeated by an old F16". Anybody else?From what little is out there comparing the 22 to the 35 in WVR combat, the 22 appears to manage its energy better. The F-35 tends to loose velocity at a higher rate in tight turns and can't use power to regain it as quickly as the F-22 can. It's not that the F-35 is particularly lacking in power, it's more that the F-22 has very deep reserves of it and was designed with its primary mission being air superiority instead of being a true multi-role fighter.
seahawk wrote:No it was not progressing well, Japan has cancelled that program due to missing targets and general development risks.
"We are considering domestic development, joint development and the possibility of improving existing aircraft performance, but we have not yet come to any decision," a Ministry of Defense representative said.
Ozair wrote:Max Q wrote:I’ve not seen any other single engine fighter with such a wide ‘bulky’ profile as the F35, it looks like a twin engine fighter from head on
Max, the thrust of the F135 is equal to or greater than the twin engines on the Eurofighter, Rafale and Super Hornet.Max Q wrote:The surrounding structure for the lift fan takes up a large amount of space significantly widening the airframe causing a lot of drag
The following profile shows that the F-35 has no greater profile than comparable jets, especially when you consider that it has the ability to carry ordnance internally which none of its competitors do, thereby reducing drag. Add to that the F-35A and C carry over 18,000 lbs of fuel internally, again not creating external drag from drop tanks, demonstrating that your comparison is invalid.
Finally, visual appearance has little to do with drag... The F-35 clean, as stated by Lt Gen Bogdan, has the same drag as the F-16, a much smaller jet.Max Q wrote:So these design and performance limiting compromises made for the B model were carried over to the A and C versions for the
sake of commonality
No, the design consideration for how the F-35 is laid out is driven primarily by stealth including internal payload. As we have pointed out to you multiple times, the frontal aspect is common with the F-22, J-20, FC-31 etc and the number of engines or the presence of a lift fan on the Bee clearly has nothing to do with it.Max Q wrote:If LM were to revisit this niche with a single engine stealth design and no allowance or performance penalties for Stovl it could be an impressive fighter
A real and worthy successor to the F16
The compromise that came with the F-35 is about length of the aircraft and has nothing to do with the lift fan or STOVL features of the aircraft.
The F-35 beats the F-16 on every metric, it is more than a worthy successor.
salttee wrote:Max Q wrote:If the F35 is such a tremendous fighter why was it defeated by an old F16 in numerous practice dogfights?
I've tried to understand why some people rate the F-22 high over the F-35, I know it has more power so it can accelerate a bit faster and it can super cruise to better get in position but those seem like marginal qualities. I've thought that the F-22's thrust vectoring might give a great advantage, but that is just a guess.
When I look to find out why other people think the F-22 is so much better than the F-35 within visual range (enough to make up for the fact that the F-35 is far superior beyond visual range) the only thing I've ever been able to find is this "it defeated by an old F16" which I regard as a bunch of nonsense. From what I know, that exercise was merely a test for high angle of attack maneuverability, and it was only one engagement or a short series at most. That exercise proves nothing.
Can someone actually make the case that the F-22 is significantly better at all around air to air than the F-35?
seahawk wrote:WVR is a pilot training exercise today. If a F-22 pilots need to fight a WVR fight he has made some serious tactical mistakes before. But then many people judge fighters by their airshow performance, which is still stunning for the F-22 but neglects the huge energy advantage the F-22 enjoys. If you fly faster and higher you can fire earlier and disengage more easily or nearly as you wish in case of the F-22.
LightningZ71 wrote:Japan wants internal carriage of 8 missiles because they expect to be significantly outnumbered in any engagement with China. I almost think that their best bet would be to get a decent number of F-15-SA models with the proposed 16 missile carriage setup to use as missile carriers for forward deployed F-35s that are handing off target guidance.
estorilm wrote:One interesting aspect that's being overlooked here is visibility. I realize that the sensors and cameras (helmet in general) in the F-35 are incredible, however there's very little DIRECT rearward visibility. The F-22's cockpit and canopy position/shape are really impressive, and would appear to be a dog-fighters dream.
estorilm wrote:Great information /post as usual Ozair, especially your initial posts/thoughts earlier in this thread - thanks!
It's particularly fascinating how LM managed to create such an aerodynamically-sleek aircraft in spite of its size (ie. vs. F-16).
estorilm wrote:I was recently reading some information (maybe it was in the news thread) about the F-35 engines and programs that are in place to provide some significant thrust bumps - it does appear that the airframe could be adapted for speed and range increases.
estorilm wrote:I have two issues with this though - right now LM is maxed-out for decades on current sales of the aircraft. Would they really care? Japan wouldn't want to wait 15 years to get this plane, they'd want it now - pushing back LM's current F-35 backlog.
estorilm wrote:Second issue is that both of the articles seem to hint at a very large aircraft. Internal provisions for EIGHT air-to-air missiles?! Not only would it have to be F-22-sized, it would almost need to be larger. This would seem to necessitate two engines.
estorilm wrote:But that also brings me back to my original question. WHY do they want/need such an aircraft? I'm trying to envision a scenario in which their F-35s are simply out-classed by a Chinese aircraft, or when they'd need EIGHT a2a weapons on each plane.
seahawk wrote:https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/japans-scraps-domestic-development-of-5th-generation-stealth-fighter-jet/
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/asia ... -1.5887187
keesje wrote:seahawk wrote:https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/japans-scraps-domestic-development-of-5th-generation-stealth-fighter-jet/
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/asia ... -1.5887187
It seems you and some media jumped to conclusions.
Tugger wrote:keesje wrote:seahawk wrote:https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/japans-scraps-domestic-development-of-5th-generation-stealth-fighter-jet/
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/asia ... -1.5887187
It seems you and some media jumped to conclusions.
Ehh? Who are you directing this toward (who is jumping to conclusions)?
Tugg
“We are considering domestic development, joint development and the possibility of improving existing aircraft performance, but we have not yet come to any decision,” a Ministry of Defense representative said.
LightningZ71 wrote:I'd have to think that, if they put the 2-3 meter plug in the F-35 fuselage, they'd also need to switch to the F-35C wing layout (though, it wouldn't need to fold for a land based version). When you increase the length of the frame, you also increase the mass, and reduce it's maneuverability. Switching to the wings of the C, while retaining the lighter components of the A, would net you similar wing loading.
Ozair wrote:LightningZ71 wrote:I'd have to think that, if they put the 2-3 meter plug in the F-35 fuselage, they'd also need to switch to the F-35C wing layout (though, it wouldn't need to fold for a land based version). When you increase the length of the frame, you also increase the mass, and reduce it's maneuverability. Switching to the wings of the C, while retaining the lighter components of the A, would net you similar wing loading.
The F-35C wing isn't optimal though. It's design is intentionally designed for low speed handling. The F-35C will turn better at low speed but as the figures released a few years ago show the acceleration is poor.
Wing changes for the mods I have suggested would be based around a wing swept angle closer to 45 degrees. By extension then you could keep the wing size reasonably similar while starting at the same point and probably get a similar amount of surface area. Wing loading becomes an issue for heavily loaded jets but the amount of body lift available to the F-35 already, which would be increased by a fuselage extension, would likely overcome any potential increase in weight. The maneuverability would remain similar given the surfaces would remain largely the same and I'd expect the jet to retain the 9G 50 AoA available to current aircraft and consistent with the F-22.
U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin has approached Japan with plans for a next-generation fighter jet based on its elite F-22 stealth fighter, demonstrating both Washington's trust in Tokyo as a defense partner and its eagerness to balance the scales on trade with expensive equipment.
The advanced aircraft would enter service around 2030, when Japan is set to start retiring its fleet of F-2 fighters. It would combine elements of the F-22 and Lockheed's smart F-35 stealth fighter. Developing a new fighter typically takes more than 10 years.
The Japanese government has pegged the total cost of its next-generation fighter project at around 6 trillion yen ($55 billion). This includes 1.5 trillion yen for development and another 1.5 trillion yen for acquiring around 100 of the jets, in addition to costs such as maintenance and decommissioning.
Tokyo will decide as early as this year whether to accept Lockheed's offer so that the government can draw up a medium-term defense plan that would begin in fiscal 2019.The inclusion of F-22 technology in the new jet is of particular significance to Japan. When Tokyo sought to purchase a fleet of F-22s a decade ago, U.S. lawmakers barred the Japanese government from doing so due to concerns about sending information on sensitive military technology abroad. The fighters are no longer in production.
Trade, more than military strategy, seems to have spurred Washington's change of heart. President Donald Trump looks to score political points by lowering America's roughly $70 billion trade deficit with Japan, and sees expensive military equipment as a prime tool for doing so.Part of that reasoning is economic: Fighters cost much more on a unit-by-unit basis than do cars or farm products. Another is political. The U.S. defense sector was shaken by attempts under former President Barack Obama to curb defense spending growth. By bringing contractors new business, Trump aims to fill out his record ahead of what promises to be a tough round of midterm elections in the U.S. Congress in November.
Japan, however, faces a difficult decision over whether to accept Lockheed's offer. The country has long sought to produce its next-generation fighter aircraft on its own soil. At the same time, the Northeast Asian security environment is in constant flux as China expands its military might and North Korea refuses to commit to abandoning its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. It would be difficult for Japan to turn down an offer of arms from the U.S., its strongest ally.
Lockheed will draw up the details of its development plan for the F-22/F-35 hybrid aircraft as soon as this summer. "We look forward to exploring options for Japan's F-2 replacement fighter in cooperation with both the Japanese and U.S. governments," said Lockheed. "Our leadership and experience with fifth-generation aircraft [such as the F-22 and F-35] can be leveraged to provide innovative, cost-effective capabilities to meet Japan's future security needs."
Japan hopes to hand much of the work involved to domestic companies. One potential route would be to have companies such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries take the lead on development while cooperating with American businesses. Another plan would involve joint development by Japanese and British contractors. Drawing technology from the F-22 would give the new plane top-of-the-line stealth capabilities as well as the ability to travel at supersonic speeds. Although stealthiness and excellent flight performance are generally seen as incompatible, the F-22 puts them into a single package, earning the jet its reputation as the world's most lethal fighter. The F-35, meanwhile, has unparalleled network and software capabilities that allow it to communicate with other aircraft and facilities on the ground and share radar data.
LightningZ71 wrote:The problem with "off the shelf" is, what are you buying off the shelf that is equivalent to the F-22?
LightningZ71 wrote:Weren't there early designs for the Navy version that were based on a 2 engine layout? I remember that the industry basically drew a line on that one due to it being impossible to meet commonality goals while having dual engines for the USN.
LightningZ71 wrote:How do we make something that has high commonality with the F-35, but is based on the F-22?