Read the forum code of contact
By: - 29th January 2016 at 15:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A few obvious question;
If they have ordered the F-35, why bother with this?
Is this meant to be a dedicated twin seater? Coz the whole front section looks odd, as if it's been in some kind of ground collision and bent the fuselage.
The TVC paddles, is this a permanent solution or will there be something along the lines of the F-22 style nozzles?
What role is this meant to play?
By: - 29th January 2016 at 15:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That thing they demonstrated are purposed to test features and stuff... not really a combat capable plane.
I think their "real" concept design that follows it already floating around the net for some time. hmm hopefully the image can work.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 15:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
hey chump..
it's called the X-2, it even says so in your link.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 15:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A much larger fighter powered by two F135s would cost over $300mil in the conditions of Japanese economy. Completely unrealistic, IMO.. The propulsion alone would cost some $60 million.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 15:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's not really his fault. Look at the way its being reported as "Japan's new stealth fighter".
I don't see how it can be anything other than a test article and I'm not even sure the configuration they are testing will be relevant to anything they end up operating.
This is a first step, although I do wonder what a Japan/UK collaboration might look like....
By: - 29th January 2016 at 15:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If they have ordered the F-35, why bother with this?
So that they don't have to order the F-35, anymore? It's logical that they want to retain indigenous design capability.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 15:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.sankei.com/politics/photos/160128/plt1601280013-p19.html
The ADT-X, or the X-2 now, is an experimental plane, which is just like American X-29/X-31/X-32/X-35.
It would be very absurd to make comparison between the ATD-X (X-2) and any other in-service fighter in the world.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 16:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-stealth-fighter-unveiled-x2-sdg-orig.cnn
My only concerns so far:1. The fighters engines seem waay under powered for what they want (F-22 performance ).
2. The plane is very light for what they want.
3. Light and small means short ranged
4. The plane has less wing than an F-35
5.There doesn't seem to be much space for baysPersonally, I would have made the plane much larger, and used 2 F-135s. Bigger means more fuel, weapons range, and growth. Not to mention 40k thrust per engine.
It's a sub-scale tech demonstrator, not a full-sized prototype.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 16:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A much larger fighter powered by two F135s would cost over $300mil in the conditions of Japanese
economy. Completely unrealistic, IMO.. The propulsion alone would cost some $60 million.
Really? 60 mill for engines they already own.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 17:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's a sub-scale tech demonstrator, not a full-sized prototype.
Im more worried because the wiki page says 11k thrust per engine wet. I still think they should use an off the shelf engine.
Also F-35 connectivity out of the box wouldn't hurt.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Im more worried because the wiki page says 11k thrust per engine wet. I still think they should use an off the shelf engine.
Also F-35 connectivity out of the box wouldn't hurt.
The ATD-X is a very small sub scale demonstrator, its not even an X-35 "thingy", its the modern equivalent to this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]243598[/ATTACH]
It was built to collect data for a possible future Japanese fighter for the "thirties", the I3/F3, a vastly bigger twin engined fighter that is going to be powered by a pair 15+ ton thrust engines.
The most recent image released by the Japanese MOD:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]243599[/ATTACH]
http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-ready-next-fighter-engine-core
By: - 29th January 2016 at 18:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really? 60 mill for engines they already own.
They will need the engines for the F-35s.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 19:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's not really his fault. Look at the way its being reported as "Japan's new stealth fighter".I don't see how it can be anything other than a test article and I'm not even sure the configuration they are testing will be relevant to anything they end up operating.
This is a first step, although I do wonder what a Japan/UK collaboration might look like....
It was the "Advanced Technology Demonstrator – X", or ATD-X before being renamed X-2, which tells you what it's meant for.
One possible configuration for the real thing is -
[ATTACH=CONFIG]243602[/ATTACH]
Not a bad article here.
Gawd! I just looked at the comments on the Aviation Week article. Some are definitely from the bottom of the internet, e.g. "They haven't developed their own engine since WW II." Doh!
By: - 29th January 2016 at 19:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Swerve, I for one think Japan is very capable of making their own advanced fighter, engines and systems.
I also think they have a lot to offer other island nations with a long and proud history of fighter development looking for something in the 2030/40 range.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 21:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ATD-X to spur Japan's advanced fighter research
For those talking about why the X-2 may not be such a great combat aircraft- please read the article. It never was meant to be a combat fighter, rather a technology demonstrator project.. a sub-scaled tech demonstrator to validate technologies for their actual fighter design.
The Y39.2 billion ($27 million) ATD-X, which has been delayed for several years, will conduct a test campaign explore advanced “fifth generation” fighter technologies, namely stealth, thrust vectoring, advanced sensors, and datalinks.As reported previously by Flightglobal, the aircraft small by fighter standards with a length of 14.2m (46.5ft) and a wingspan of 9.1m.
It is powered by two IHI XF5-1 low-bypass engines. A video shared with journalists shows that the engines are equipped with afterburners that have been ground tested. Mitsubishi previously had automatic engine restart issues with the engine control software, but apparently these have been resolved. The engine inlets have stealth coatings.
The aircraft will not be armed and is likely to be retired after two to three years in service. The technology tests could eventually make their way into an indigenous fighter, the F-3, that would replace Japan’s fleet of Mitsubishi F-2s and F-15Js in the 2030s.
...
By: - 29th January 2016 at 22:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok, so it's a tech demonstrator. What specific technologies are we talking about here?
By: - 29th January 2016 at 22:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok, so it's a tech demonstrator. What specific technologies are we talking about here?
From what I've read over the years, it will include general RF stealth technology (including the entire design and production of VLO shaping, and possibly RAM as well), as well as flight control system, and engine and TVC (the XF5-1 is intended to be scaled upwards to eventually become the engine for the F-3). It's also been said that it may be equipped with radar.
So for a tech demonstrator it's quite comprehensive. If it was a little bit larger and equipped with a weapons bay (which I believe X-2 lacks) then it could have been developed quite easily into an actual fighter aircraft relatively easily I think.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 22:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
... I for one think Japan is very capable of making their own advanced fighter, engines and systems.I also think they have a lot to offer other island nations with a long and proud history of fighter development looking for something in the 2030/40 range.
Agree. ATD-X is aimed at developing technologies for a 2030-ish fighter. New engines are being worked on, sensors are constantly under development (Japanese radar technology seems world-class), & integration of systems - well, Japanese abilities in electronic systems aren't exactly unknown.
We already have an agreement to examine the development of a new AAM which appears to be Meteor with the AAM-4B seeker. Japan wants it because of Meteor performance & because it fits F-35 internal bays (unlike AAM-4), & we want an even better seeker than now.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 22:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was the "Advanced Technology Demonstrator – X", or ATD-X before being renamed X-2, which tells you what it's meant for.One possible configuration for the real thing is -
[ATTACH=CONFIG]243602[/ATTACH]
I believe that configuration was one from the late 2000s. In the last few years various other more refined configurations have emerged, with the designations 23DMU, 24DMU, 25DMU and 26DMU, all of which feature relatively conventional configurations ala F-22.
The thread over on secret projects has been quite good in that regard, with pictures posted by blackkite http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,430.msg266844.html#msg266844 and http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,430.msg266854.html#msg266854
I have not been aware of a tailless F-3 configuration for many years now and it appears to have been shelved for the moment for a more conventional layout.
Agree. ATD-X is aimed at developing technologies for a 2030-ish fighter. New engines are being worked on, sensors are constantly under development (Japanese radar technology seems world-class), & integration of systems - well, Japanese abilities in electronic systems aren't exactly unknown. When I look at some of the translated documents I'm paid to check, e.g. on the use of (Japanese) GIS systems by local government . . . way ahead of what I've heard of comparable local governments doing here. Did you know that Japan has its own Japanese-developed, Japanese-launched (on Japanese launchers), GPS augmentation satellites, giving very precise locations? There's always one over Japan.Not exactly backward.
We already have an agreement to examine the development of a new AAM which appears to be Meteor with the AAM-4B seeker. Japan wants it because of Meteor performance & because it fits F-35 internal bays (unlike AAM-4), & we want an even better seeker than now.
It'll be interesting to see how F-3 turns out -- i.e.: would it be more of "5+ generation" fighter, or 6th generation. From the sounds of it, F-3 is looking to be produced serially in the late 2020s, with mass service in the early 2030s. I wonder where the US would be with their 6th generation programme by then, as well as possibly China and Russia.
If F-3 does end up being more of a "5+ generation" fighter and if it ends up being fielded at the projected timespan, it will be a nice parallel in compared to F-2 development, which was also arguably one of the first 4+ generation fighters fielded in its era (late 90s to early 2000s), despite the US already having 5th generation in advanced development at that time. Similarly, F-3 may be one of the first 5+ generation fighters fielded in its era (late 20s to early 30s) with the US possibly also having 6th generation in advanced development by that time.
By: - 29th January 2016 at 23:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'll look up those links on Secret Projects.
Yeah, F-2 was the first fighter fielded with an AESA radar IIRC. Perhaps a bit prematurely, but AFAIK the teething troubles were sorted out fairly soon.
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 29th January 2016 at 15:11
http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-stealth-fighter-unveiled-x2-sdg-orig.cnn
My only concerns so far:
1. The fighters engines seem waay under powered for what they want (F-22 performance ).
2. The plane is very light for what they want.
3. Light and small means short ranged
4. The plane has less wing than an F-35
5.There doesn't seem to be much space for bays
Personally, I would have made the plane much larger, and used 2 F-135s. Bigger means more fuel, weapons range, and growth. Not to mention 40k thrust per engine.
Edit sorry guys name was wrong.