By: snafu352
- 2nd February 2016 at 16:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Words mean things
Just like the "5th Generation" definition meant something but then meant something else when the F35 didn't fit into the first definition?
The primary role of the F35 is not and never has been in the air to air space.
You can put up as many smokescreens as you like by throwing terms around but the simple fact remains the primary role of the F35 and that apparently intended for the F3 are not the same.
By: snafu352
- 2nd February 2016 at 17:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, but no.
Someone cannot claim that fighter X does not meet a specific criteria if they do not know what that criteria is.
That may work when you are talking about an overly general term like fighter generations, but terms like "Air Supremacy" are clear enough.
Sorry, but no. You are blowing smoke. Nobody but you is arguing over the definition of terms.
It is simple.
F35: primary role strike platform with a degree of air to air capability
F3: apparently intended as an air to air platform with limited to no strike capability initially
By: snafu352
- 2nd February 2016 at 17:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right.....
Which has exactly what to do with the other trolls incessant insistence that the Japanese do not need to develop an air to air platform because they have the F35?
If the objective is removing the oppositions air to air threat I think I'd rather like to be employing a platform that is designed to do that rather than a platform whose primary designed role is strike.
Your attempts to deflect and twist any criticism or even observations that it is perhaps not the ideal tool for a particular job away from the F35 are transparent and increasingly pathetic, if not to say obsessive.
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 2nd February 2016 at 18:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right.....
Which has exactly what to do with the other trolls incessant insistence that the Japanese do not need to develop an air to air platform because they have the F35?
If the objective is removing the oppositions air to air threat I think I'd rather like to be employing a platform that is designed to do that rather than a platform whose primary designed role is strike.
Your attempts to deflect and twist any criticism or even observations that it is perhaps not the ideal tool for a particular job away from the F35 are transparent and increasingly pathetic, if not to say obsessive.
Its funny snafu, they complain about trolling, and then parse, and moan about every minutia when it comes to fighters. The Japanese insist on having a high end fighter after missing out on the F-22. This cannot be disputed, its etched in history. IF THEY thought the F-35 had enough performance then this plane wouldn't be ordered. And what type of performance metric does the F-35 lack that would require another plane?
1. Mach 1.5+ super cruise
2. A higher top speed
3. Thrust vectoring
And which of these attributes does the F-22 possess?
We therefore conclude that the Japanese need a plane closer to the F-22 in capability.
Do you see how easy thatvwas Msphere? No rocket science, high school education, or even Bi-pedal and or tool making levels of intelligence required.
P.S. On 2nd thought I had better slow down.
I forget that cavemen post here.
I'm surprised that no one has bothered to comment at length about the Aviation Week article that was cited previously, and its implications for this program. I think the conversation got side tracked by arguments about what kind of an airplane the proposed F-3 was intended to be, and everyone forgot to take a closer look at the technologies being developed.
There are essentially two major technology development programs that the Japanese are proposing under ATD-X. The one is the airframe, flight-test article that was rolled out, and which has received the lion's share of the media's attention. This includes the design of a stealth airframe, coatings, an integrated fly-by-wire control system that includes thrust-vectoring, and a complimentary avionics suite.
The other technology development centers around the engine - and no, the engines being used to power the demonstrator are not at the center of this effort. Japan is funding an all-new demonstrator core, to be tested in 2016, which would be followed by a complete demonstrator engine in 2018. Technologies that have already been revealed include: ceramic matrix composite (CMC) turbine shrouds; single crystal high-pressure turbine (HPT) stator and rotor blades; and disks produced from a new Japanese-developed super-alloy. The proposed demonstrator engine reportedly would be in the 15 metric ton (33,000-lb) thrust class, with a three-stage fan, six-stage high-pressure compressor (HPC), and single stage HPT and LPT - similar to the configuration of the F119.
The development of an all-new jet engine is an enormous undertaking for a nation that has never developed anything like this before. There are only a handful of successful jet engine manufacturers in the world, capable of producing a modern engine in this thrust class: Pratt & Whitney and General Electric in the United States; Rolls-Royce in the UK (which is responsible for the hot-section components on the Eurojet); Snecma in France; and the Soviet-era manufacturers at Lyulka (now NPO Saturn) and Klimov. Moreover, many would argue that the latter two have yet to demonstrate their ability to develop an engine such as that described under Japan's ATD-X program.
For Japan to succeed in developing an all-new jet engine on their own, would require every bit as much investment and resources as the airframe - probably more. China is still struggling to master the jet engine technology that goes into their own front-line fighters, and is dependent on Russian engine supplies. India ultimately gave up on bringing its Kaveri jet engine into production to accompany its Tejas fighter. The X-2 flight-test demonstrator may be the part of the program that gets the headlines and the photo-op's, but behind the scenes, the engine development program - if it should succeed - will be the bigger news.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 7th February 2016 at 23:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its funny snafu, they complain about trolling, and then parse, and moan about every minutia when it comes to fighters. The Japanese insist on having a high end fighter after missing out on the F-22. This cannot be disputed, its etched in history. IF THEY thought the F-35 had enough performance then this plane wouldn't be ordered. And what type of performance metric does the F-35 lack that would require another plane?
And which of these attributes does the F-22 possess?
We therefore conclude that the Japanese need a plane closer to the F-22 in capability.
Do you see how easy thatvwas Msphere? No rocket science, high school education, or even Bi-pedal and or tool making levels of intelligence required.
The reality is usually more straightforward than this. The main attribute of the ATD-X which the F-35 does not possess is "indigenous"... and maybe even "affordable" although Japanese don't have exactly a stellar record here..
P.S. On 2nd thought I had better slow down.
I forget that cavemen post here.
True.. Therefore I would not waste your undisputed talent here and move right over to f-16.net.. Nobody will miss you..
By: swerve
- 8th February 2016 at 00:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...
For Japan to succeed in developing an all-new jet engine on their own, would require every bit as much investment and resources as the airframe - probably more. China is still struggling to master the jet engine technology that goes into their own front-line fighters, and is dependent on Russian engine supplies. India ultimately gave up on bringing its Kaveri jet engine into production to accompany its Tejas fighter.
India doesn't have Japan's background in jet engine design & manufacture, nor Japanese skills in materials technology. It tried to leap straight into an engine for supersonic fighters, starting pretty much from scratch, & understandably struggled. Japan has been designing & building indigenous jet engines continuously for over 50 years (not counting its WW2 developments), starting with modest engines for subsonic trainers & building up, & sections of best-selling jet engines for many years. That's a solid base that India lacks. IHI designs & makes high-tech parts of jet engines for leading manufacturers. FADEC? Done that, years ago.
AFAIK China's problems with fighter engines are partly due to lack of materials technology expertise.
By: fltgshdw
- 8th February 2016 at 12:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Japan has been designing & building indigenous jet engines continuously for over 50 years
Just what relevant experience are you referring to? IHI has yet to produce an indigenous design for a turbofan engine of more than 60 kN (13,000-lb) thrust - and that was for a transport engine.
We could just as easily suggest that Honeywell's jet engine division (formerly Garrett) also has decades of experience, but no one has ever considered them to be a serious competitor whenever GE or Pratt & Whitney bid to build the next high-performance fighter or bomber engine for the US Air Force. Sure Honeywell has experience. It's just not relevant to this thrust class or thrust-to-weight ratio.
IHI designs & makes high-tech parts of jet engines for leading manufacturers.
Just what experience do you think IHI has? They manufacture fan sections. They have no hot-section experience with an engine anywhere near this category - either in terms of temperatures or thrust.
This is going to be an enormous R&D effort, with many spin-offs in commercial engine applications - should they be successful. We're talking about far greater industry-wide implications for this effort than merely a local fighter program serving a handful of Japanese squadrons.
By: swerve
- 8th February 2016 at 14:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, it's a major effort. Not 'going to be' - it's in progress, & showing results. My point is that Japan is not comparable with India, & India's failure is not relevant. Japan has far greater applicable experience & technological knowledge. It's also well ahead of China in some of the needed technologies.
I agree that it has "far greater industry-wide implications for this effort than merely a local fighter program serving a handful of Japanese squadrons" - & that is likely to act in the programme's favour, since it makes it something with many powerful stakeholders with considerable interest in its success. Past Indian projects had a very narrow focus & few implications for industry in general, & hence weaker support.
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 8th February 2016 at 15:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm surprised that no one has bothered to comment at length about the Aviation Week article that was cited previously, and its implications for this program. I think the conversation got side tracked by arguments about what kind of an airplane the proposed F-3 was intended to be, and everyone forgot to take a closer look at the technologies being developed.
There are essentially two major technology development programs that the Japanese are proposing under ATD-X. The one is the airframe, flight-test article that was rolled out, and which has received the lion's share of the media's attention. This includes the design of a stealth airframe, coatings, an integrated fly-by-wire control system that includes thrust-vectoring, and a complimentary avionics suite.
The other technology development centers around the engine - and no, the engines being used to power the demonstrator are not at the center of this effort. Japan is funding an all-new demonstrator core, to be tested in 2016, which would be followed by a complete demonstrator engine in 2018. Technologies that have already been revealed include: ceramic matrix composite (CMC) turbine shrouds; single crystal high-pressure turbine (HPT) stator and rotor blades; and disks produced from a new Japanese-developed super-alloy. The proposed demonstrator engine reportedly would be in the 15 metric ton (33,000-lb) thrust class, with a three-stage fan, six-stage high-pressure compressor (HPC), and single stage HPT and LPT - similar to the configuration of the F119.
The development of an all-new jet engine is an enormous undertaking for a nation that has never developed anything like this before. There are only a handful of successful jet engine manufacturers in the world, capable of producing a modern engine in this thrust class: Pratt & Whitney and General Electric in the United States; Rolls-Royce in the UK (which is responsible for the hot-section components on the Eurojet); Snecma in France; and the Soviet-era manufacturers at Lyulka (now NPO Saturn) and Klimov. Moreover, many would argue that the latter two have yet to demonstrate their ability to develop an engine such as that described under Japan's ATD-X program.
For Japan to succeed in developing an all-new jet engine on their own, would require every bit as much investment and resources as the airframe - probably more. China is still struggling to master the jet engine technology that goes into their own front-line fighters, and is dependent on Russian engine supplies. India ultimately gave up on bringing its Kaveri jet engine into production to accompany its Tejas fighter. The X-2 flight-test demonstrator may be the part of the program that gets the headlines and the photo-op's, but behind the scenes, the engine development program - if it should succeed - will be the bigger news.
I have a high level of confidence in the Japanese. Developing this engine would put the plane ahead of the Chinese.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 8th February 2016 at 21:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I concur, that is a major undertaking.. Wishing them best of luck and success..
The first flight of the x-2 (ATD-X Shinshin) was performed in 4/22/2016 8:45, from Komaki to the Gifu air base.(Already landed after 30 minutes flight.)
The first flight of the x-2 (ATD-X Shinshin) was performed in 4/22/2016 8:45, from Komaki to the Gifu air base.(Already landed after 30 minutes flight.)
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 2nd February 2016 at 16:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just like the "5th Generation" definition meant something but then meant something else when the F35 didn't fit into the first definition?
The primary role of the F35 is not and never has been in the air to air space.
You can put up as many smokescreens as you like by throwing terms around but the simple fact remains the primary role of the F35 and that apparently intended for the F3 are not the same.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 2nd February 2016 at 17:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, but no. You are blowing smoke. Nobody but you is arguing over the definition of terms.
It is simple.
F35: primary role strike platform with a degree of air to air capability
F3: apparently intended as an air to air platform with limited to no strike capability initially
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 2nd February 2016 at 17:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A fighter's "Primary" role does not have to be A2A if it can "conduct operations without prohibitive interference by the opposing force."
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 2nd February 2016 at 17:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right.....
Which has exactly what to do with the other trolls incessant insistence that the Japanese do not need to develop an air to air platform because they have the F35?
If the objective is removing the oppositions air to air threat I think I'd rather like to be employing a platform that is designed to do that rather than a platform whose primary designed role is strike.
Your attempts to deflect and twist any criticism or even observations that it is perhaps not the ideal tool for a particular job away from the F35 are transparent and increasingly pathetic, if not to say obsessive.
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 2nd February 2016 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its funny snafu, they complain about trolling, and then parse, and moan about every minutia when it comes to fighters. The Japanese insist on having a high end fighter after missing out on the F-22. This cannot be disputed, its etched in history. IF THEY thought the F-35 had enough performance then this plane wouldn't be ordered. And what type of performance metric does the F-35 lack that would require another plane?
1. Mach 1.5+ super cruise
2. A higher top speed
3. Thrust vectoring
And which of these attributes does the F-22 possess?
We therefore conclude that the Japanese need a plane closer to the F-22 in capability.
Do you see how easy thatvwas Msphere? No rocket science, high school education, or even Bi-pedal and or tool making levels of intelligence required.
P.S. On 2nd thought I had better slow down.
I forget that cavemen post here.
Posts: 72
By: fltgshdw - 7th February 2016 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Engine Program is a Bigger Challenge than the Airframe
I'm surprised that no one has bothered to comment at length about the Aviation Week article that was cited previously, and its implications for this program. I think the conversation got side tracked by arguments about what kind of an airplane the proposed F-3 was intended to be, and everyone forgot to take a closer look at the technologies being developed.
There are essentially two major technology development programs that the Japanese are proposing under ATD-X. The one is the airframe, flight-test article that was rolled out, and which has received the lion's share of the media's attention. This includes the design of a stealth airframe, coatings, an integrated fly-by-wire control system that includes thrust-vectoring, and a complimentary avionics suite.
The other technology development centers around the engine - and no, the engines being used to power the demonstrator are not at the center of this effort. Japan is funding an all-new demonstrator core, to be tested in 2016, which would be followed by a complete demonstrator engine in 2018. Technologies that have already been revealed include: ceramic matrix composite (CMC) turbine shrouds; single crystal high-pressure turbine (HPT) stator and rotor blades; and disks produced from a new Japanese-developed super-alloy. The proposed demonstrator engine reportedly would be in the 15 metric ton (33,000-lb) thrust class, with a three-stage fan, six-stage high-pressure compressor (HPC), and single stage HPT and LPT - similar to the configuration of the F119.
The development of an all-new jet engine is an enormous undertaking for a nation that has never developed anything like this before. There are only a handful of successful jet engine manufacturers in the world, capable of producing a modern engine in this thrust class: Pratt & Whitney and General Electric in the United States; Rolls-Royce in the UK (which is responsible for the hot-section components on the Eurojet); Snecma in France; and the Soviet-era manufacturers at Lyulka (now NPO Saturn) and Klimov. Moreover, many would argue that the latter two have yet to demonstrate their ability to develop an engine such as that described under Japan's ATD-X program.
For Japan to succeed in developing an all-new jet engine on their own, would require every bit as much investment and resources as the airframe - probably more. China is still struggling to master the jet engine technology that goes into their own front-line fighters, and is dependent on Russian engine supplies. India ultimately gave up on bringing its Kaveri jet engine into production to accompany its Tejas fighter. The X-2 flight-test demonstrator may be the part of the program that gets the headlines and the photo-op's, but behind the scenes, the engine development program - if it should succeed - will be the bigger news.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 7th February 2016 at 23:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The reality is usually more straightforward than this. The main attribute of the ATD-X which the F-35 does not possess is "indigenous"... and maybe even "affordable" although Japanese don't have exactly a stellar record here.. True.. Therefore I would not waste your undisputed talent here and move right over to f-16.net.. Nobody will miss you..Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 8th February 2016 at 00:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India doesn't have Japan's background in jet engine design & manufacture, nor Japanese skills in materials technology. It tried to leap straight into an engine for supersonic fighters, starting pretty much from scratch, & understandably struggled. Japan has been designing & building indigenous jet engines continuously for over 50 years (not counting its WW2 developments), starting with modest engines for subsonic trainers & building up, & sections of best-selling jet engines for many years. That's a solid base that India lacks. IHI designs & makes high-tech parts of jet engines for leading manufacturers. FADEC? Done that, years ago.
AFAIK China's problems with fighter engines are partly due to lack of materials technology expertise.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 8th February 2016 at 02:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And MHI?
Posts: 72
By: fltgshdw - 8th February 2016 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just what relevant experience are you referring to? IHI has yet to produce an indigenous design for a turbofan engine of more than 60 kN (13,000-lb) thrust - and that was for a transport engine.
We could just as easily suggest that Honeywell's jet engine division (formerly Garrett) also has decades of experience, but no one has ever considered them to be a serious competitor whenever GE or Pratt & Whitney bid to build the next high-performance fighter or bomber engine for the US Air Force. Sure Honeywell has experience. It's just not relevant to this thrust class or thrust-to-weight ratio.
Just what experience do you think IHI has? They manufacture fan sections. They have no hot-section experience with an engine anywhere near this category - either in terms of temperatures or thrust.
This is going to be an enormous R&D effort, with many spin-offs in commercial engine applications - should they be successful. We're talking about far greater industry-wide implications for this effort than merely a local fighter program serving a handful of Japanese squadrons.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 8th February 2016 at 14:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, it's a major effort. Not 'going to be' - it's in progress, & showing results. My point is that Japan is not comparable with India, & India's failure is not relevant. Japan has far greater applicable experience & technological knowledge. It's also well ahead of China in some of the needed technologies.
I agree that it has "far greater industry-wide implications for this effort than merely a local fighter program serving a handful of Japanese squadrons" - & that is likely to act in the programme's favour, since it makes it something with many powerful stakeholders with considerable interest in its success. Past Indian projects had a very narrow focus & few implications for industry in general, & hence weaker support.
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 8th February 2016 at 15:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have a high level of confidence in the Japanese. Developing this engine would put the plane ahead of the Chinese.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 8th February 2016 at 21:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I concur, that is a major undertaking.. Wishing them best of luck and success..
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 12th February 2016 at 11:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was on the next page.
Moderators - can the new thread be merged with this one, please?
Posts: 4,082
By: Deino - 25th February 2016 at 06:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
High speed taxi test ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oONJsb3CGIM#t=12
Posts: 906
By: stealthflanker - 25th February 2016 at 06:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just like when PAKFA exhibited at first time... I scream... FLYYYYY... FLYYYY
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut - 25th February 2016 at 11:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When PAK-FA was first shown it had already flown. ;)
Posts: 4,082
By: Deino - 22nd April 2016 at 07:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After the originally planned maiden flight yesterday had to be cancelled due to bad weather, it was today succesful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=180&v=euxaO8-xNtA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=202&v=Ldw-gbPYleo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWqN6ZHV0rw
The first flight of the x-2 (ATD-X Shinshin) was performed in 4/22/2016 8:45, from Komaki to the Gifu air base.(Already landed after 30 minutes flight.)
http://narublo.com/naru-334:applause:
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 22nd April 2016 at 07:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ура! Ура! Ура!
as donkeys would say
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 22nd April 2016 at 07:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It looks sleek.
Congrat to J
What kind of engines is on that thing?