By: djcross
- 22nd April 2016 at 22:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes. Noticed also the usage of full AB.
@ DJ:
Thank you.
For the recess, I had in mind that it looked a bit oversized for the hook that can be spotted in place.
The doors have to go some place. For F-35, they retract into the hook bay. This means the bay has to be wide enough to accept the hook, hook actuation, doors, and door actuation systems.
By: TomcatViP
- 22nd April 2016 at 22:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The doors have to go some place. For F-35, they retract into the hook bay. This means the bay has to be wide enough to accept the hook, hook actuation, doors, and door actuation systems.
Right. But the wedge on the fixed section suggest an opening with a panel attached to the hook (it would be too complicated to have two side doors with two symmetrical dents fitting in that wedge). Hence I think we can speculate that the small thing that we can see attached in the bottom is not what would fit inside in the future.
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 23rd April 2016 at 02:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think Lockheed should step in and offer.
1. To develop a full sensor suite with full integration with the F-35.
2. Full access to the F-35s network.
The only caveat would be allowing 0 A2G weapons on the plane to preserve market share. If the plane cant talk to other allied+ JSDF assets, it will be a train wreck.
Are we now going to have 3 5th gen networks for 3 different fighters?
Will all allied fighters + the B-21 be on a seperate network?
By: mig-31bm
- 23rd April 2016 at 02:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kopp and Bill Sweetman "established long ago that stealth doesnt work"?!
Carlo Kopp the chap with a "PhD thesis, which dealt with the properties of high capacity ad hoc networks and long range microwave datalinks, using X-band and Ku-band radar apertures", has been a (very) vocal suporter of Low RCS airframes, one of its main (of many) criticisms of the JSF is that DAVE is not stealth enough (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html). Almost the same could be said of Sweetman.
Carlo Kopp knowledge probably isnt bad , but ever since he started to write articles to support his agenda about why Aus should get F-22 , he throw all his credibility out of the window with his bias ''analysis'' of F-22 , F-35 and Russian aircrafts (and iam pretty sure i dont need to explain why his article are terrible )
The F35 is not an air superiority aircraft. It appears to have some air to air capability.
The F3 is apparently intended as an air to air platform in its primary guise.
some proper analysis to support that statements would be good
By: mrmalaya
- 24th April 2016 at 17:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does the undercarriage construction look unusual to anyone? that is one area which wont be subscale and could benefit from working in a more compact way.
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 24th April 2016 at 17:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does the undercarriage construction look unusual to anyone? that is one area which wont be subscale and could benefit from working in a more compact way.
hello sexy malaysian
landing gears from T-2
canopy from T-4
next version will have a different canopy and internal bays, but same landing gears
New
By: Anonymous
- 24th April 2016 at 17:42Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Looks suspiciously like it was donated by the T-2 to save cost, so it would probably be replaced by a more efficient solution in a combat-capable production version.
EDIT: Yeah, Bacon got in first.
New
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher
- 28th April 2016 at 19:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Japan envisages a one-year test campaign for the Mitsubishi X-2 technology demonstrator, with around 50 flights planned.
The aircraft’s 25min maiden flight from Nagoya on Friday 22 April saw it reach an altitude of 12,000ft and a top speed of 200kt (370km/h), says Hirofumi Doi, manager of Japan’s Future Fighter Program at the defence ministry’s Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA).
“It was a very ordinary maiden flight,” said Doi in an interview with Flightglobal. “The pilot just checked controllability and did some simulated landings while in the air.”
Post-flight feedback from the pilot indicates that the X-2 performed as expected. “He said that it will be a great airplane to fly,” says Doi.
The timing of the second sortie depends on weather conditions. During this flight, the aircraft will retract its landing gear and accelerate to higher speeds.
..
By: swerve
- 3rd May 2016 at 12:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where are the weapons bays? Its not clear to me where the bays would go even if production aircraft is 25% bigger.
As has been said before, it's not a fighter prototype, not even a scaled-down one. It's a technology testbed. The final product could look very different.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 22nd April 2016 at 22:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The doors have to go some place. For F-35, they retract into the hook bay. This means the bay has to be wide enough to accept the hook, hook actuation, doors, and door actuation systems.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 22nd April 2016 at 22:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right. But the wedge on the fixed section suggest an opening with a panel attached to the hook (it would be too complicated to have two side doors with two symmetrical dents fitting in that wedge). Hence I think we can speculate that the small thing that we can see attached in the bottom is not what would fit inside in the future.
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 23rd April 2016 at 02:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think Lockheed should step in and offer.
1. To develop a full sensor suite with full integration with the F-35.
2. Full access to the F-35s network.
The only caveat would be allowing 0 A2G weapons on the plane to preserve market share. If the plane cant talk to other allied+ JSDF assets, it will be a train wreck.
Are we now going to have 3 5th gen networks for 3 different fighters?
Will all allied fighters + the B-21 be on a seperate network?
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 23rd April 2016 at 02:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Carlo Kopp knowledge probably isnt bad , but ever since he started to write articles to support his agenda about why Aus should get F-22 , he throw all his credibility out of the window with his bias ''analysis'' of F-22 , F-35 and Russian aircrafts (and iam pretty sure i dont need to explain why his article are terrible )
some proper analysis to support that statements would be good
Posts: 805
By: Multirole - 23rd April 2016 at 18:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where are the weapons bays? Its not clear to me where the bays would go even if production aircraft is 25% bigger.
Posts: 4,082
By: Deino - 23rd April 2016 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are simply none !
It is a technology demonstrator, not a proof-of concept for a true fighter.
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 24th April 2016 at 17:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does the undercarriage construction look unusual to anyone? that is one area which wont be subscale and could benefit from working in a more compact way.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 24th April 2016 at 17:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
hello sexy malaysian
landing gears from T-2
canopy from T-4
next version will have a different canopy and internal bays, but same landing gears
By: Anonymous - 24th April 2016 at 17:42 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Looks suspiciously like it was donated by the T-2 to save cost, so it would probably be replaced by a more efficient solution in a combat-capable production version.
EDIT: Yeah, Bacon got in first.
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 28th April 2016 at 19:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tokyo gears up for 50 X-2 flights in coming year
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 29th April 2016 at 06:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Movement of the paddles:
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 3rd May 2016 at 03:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A little birdy tells me the IHI XF5-1 turbofan is very similar to an Adour, only redesigned with modern carbon-fiber blisk technology.
They had plenty of history with the Adours.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 3rd May 2016 at 07:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If they just hang the JASMM etc under the wing and rely on stealthy getaway ?
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 3rd May 2016 at 12:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As has been said before, it's not a fighter prototype, not even a scaled-down one. It's a technology testbed. The final product could look very different.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 3rd May 2016 at 12:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
More compressor stages, very much higher compression ratio & thrust/weight ratio. I suspect it resembles the Adour in being a jet engine.