>Japan has already committed to buying 42 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. But that aircraft's perceived shortcomings in air-to-air combat and the United States' refusal to sell its Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor have encouraged Japan to consider a domestic-led program to replace its fleet of aging Boeing F-15J warplanes.
>While the F-35s will replace some of Japan's strike fighters, they are not a replacement for the F-15s in the air superiority role and don't have the F-22's capabilities, said one Japan-based source familiar with the thinking inside the country’s defense ministry.
>Upgrades to a large portion of over 150 aging Japan Air Self Defence Force F-15Js, to incorporate new engines and radars among other advanced capabilities, could proceed while research into the F-3 program continues, said the sources.
>Lockheed Martin said it was very interested in working with Tokyo on the proposed F-3 program. "Lockheed Martin has a very long history of developing new fighter aircraft, both indigenously and as a foreign partnership that incorporates leading edge technology to address emerging threats," a spokesman said in an email.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-jets-idUSKCN0WP00D
>>29355584
Top kek
"we fucked F22 and F35, let us help you"
>>29355717
Fucking LockMart
Boeing shills incoming to shitpost the F-35 in 3, 2, 1
Why not just buy more F-35's ?
What could they possible develop thats better than an F-35 in air-2-air?
>>29356292
Because national dick waving contest ofc, especially since China has a new "5th gen" out, glorious nippon can't be seen to be lacking behind.
Never mind the fact that F35 will be cheaper and superior to both chinkshit and whatever F3 will turn out to be.
The F-22 is vastly superior to anything else on the Market in the air superiority class, so aside from the price and the O2 problem that has since been fixed, and they've been recently upgraded to AIM-9X missiles, what is the problem with it?
>>29356339
Export prohibition
>>29355584
This makes sense. Boeing outsourced commercial jet production to Japan a while ago and now they are trying to squeeze the gravy train their direction.
>>29356336
DESU I wish the euros had more national pride. Kind of lame that everyone is putting their 5th gen eggs in the whatever America will sell to us basket.
>>29356339
It isn't designed for export. It is easy to reverse engineer since it wasn't built with proliferation in mind.
>>29356336
>F35 will be cheaper
I found the shitposting Lockheed executive!
Theyre all sitting in vaults right now but do you think even giving some f117s to an ally such as britian with our use to be good "special" relationship or even canada or aus would be too much tech given away ? What about japan giving getting the old 70s stealth fighters?
Would the secrets just be too much?
>>29356292
Because the F-35 is not good in the air defence/superiority role.
It's pretty simple.
>>29356450
Better than anything that isn't named the F-22
>>29356440
They're old shit that none of the countries listed could probably even afford to operate.
I would've had no problem giving any of the five eyes members F-22s. Definitely not Japan. Again cost to operate would have made an F-22 purchase unrealistic anyway.
>>29356461
And that's the point we all realize that you have no idea what you are talking and/or a fucking shill.
>>29356440
F-117s aren't fighters, despite the name. They're tactical bombers/ground attack birds.
All the machine tools for F-22 production are done.
It's a dead machine and also a nightmare to operate and upgrade because it was basically designed like a teen fighter in that regard and not what you would expect from a 5th gen fighter.
>>29356469
>>29356490
you think they could get anything useful from reverse engineering them? or are the japs better off hacking china for the hack info from us?
>>29356474
?
F-35 is stealth
That alone trumps every non-stealth aircraft
>>29356510
3/10
It looks like we will see a bunch of own 5th fighters for that air-to-air role because the USA wasn't willing in exporting the F-22 and the F-35 can't cover that role.
>>29356538
The F-35 will kill all these "5th gen" foreign fighters
>>29356538
a bunch?
maybe 3 - 5 more countries tops and 20 years later.
>>29356554
Stop that false flagging.
>>29356538
>It looks like we will see a bunch of own 5th fighters for that air-to-air role because the USA wasn't willing in exporting the F-22 and the F-35 can't cover that role.
I still don't get why people keep thinking that just because the F-35 isn't quite as good at air to air as the F-22, that it's completely incapable of it. It's basically filling the same role as the F-22 as a long range, stealthy AMRAAM platform.
>>29356505
No need. The idea is for Japan to maintain its aerospace industry.
>>29356565
>I still don't get why
Well, then read and study about the secrets of air-to-air battle.
The F-3 will be pretty much all domestic.
The ATD-X is the test bed for all key technolgy. But having Lockheed as consultant will help Japan to streamline the developement process and setting the right goals.
The question would be if they are ready to export that aircraft.
The F-35 is alone for the fact of not being supercruise capable a subpar aircraft against all the aircraft which are capable of engaging such aircraft.
>>29356505
The F-117 is an outdated design in stealth terms (and no, I'm not talking about that shootdown in Serbia). The reason it's got that faceted shape that you don't see anymore is because it was designed on '70s computers that couldn't model anything more complex.
>>29356581
You mean the outdated concept of energy fighting all the teen fighters are based around?
>>29356647
>the moment you realize that your computer is easily several 100x times more faster than supercomputers from the 70s and you do is surfing for porn
>>29356632
By that measure the SR-71 is the best fighter ever because it can go the fastest.
>>29356474
What beats the F-35 in air to air, anon?
>>29356651
>>29356651
>outdated
You mean that concept which all 5th gen are designed except the F-35?
Missile firing tactics involve a lot speed changes. You want your missile to have as much kinetic energy as possible, so you want to be as fast as possible when you fire the missile. However, once the missile is in the air, you have to assume that the enemy has fired a missile against you as well, and defend against it. To do this, you want to force the enemy missile to burn up as much energy as possible. You can't turn tail against the enemy missile until your missile goes active (unless you want a low-Pk [probability of kill] "cheapshot" -- which itself can be a good tactic if all you need to do is scare the enemy by setting off his missile warning), so pilots typically slow way down and put the enemy aircraft "at gimbals" (at the edge of the radar's azimuth capability), giving the incoming missile the furthest path to the target. Once the friendly missile goes active, the pilot is free to defend.
>>29356632
This is why I'm still butt-hurt about the F-136 being canned. Who knows? It might have been a better engine that would have given the F-35 true supercruise.
But it's not something that makes or breaks the F-35. It is still faster than the planes that it is scheduled to actually replace. (F-16 & Legacy Hornet)
>>29356696
The F-35 wasn't designed for that role in the first place.
It's like giving a truck a race car painting and claim it's a race car now.
>>29356688
>ou can't turn tail against the enemy missile until your missile goes active (unless you want a low-Pk [probability of kill] "cheapshot"
>Thinking you don't turn until pitbull
r e t a r d e d
>>29356664
Never forget that we went to the moon using what amounts to a few TI-84s.
>>29356675
You realize the SR-71 was originally designed to be an interceptor, right? The YF-12 would have been a replacement for the cancelled XF-108 Rapier and the F-106 Delta Dart. Not a dogfighter, but a Mach 3+ platform for launching the AIM-47 Falcon to blow the shit out of Soviet bombers.
>>29356688
Or you know, in a 5th gen plane fight, the battle is basically which plane sees the other first, and the F-35 is specifically designed to do just that. And even then, the F-35 is still plenty fast and maneuverable, being put somewhere in between the F-18 and F-16 by literally everybody that's flown it.
China and Russia are still following teen fighter concepts because they literally have no experience building an actual stealth fighter and are playing it safe, like the USAF did with the F-22.
>>29356712
A good interceptor doesn't necessarily mean a good fighter. It's great if you can snipe bombers but it's not going to help you do squat for air superiority.
>>29356718
>Or you know, in a 5th gen plane fight, the battle is basically which plane sees the other first
That's not 5th gen.
>>29356736
The YF-12 wouldn't have been a good interceptor or fighter. The SR-71 took an insane amount of prep-time before it could take off. That's no good for an aircraft that might need to react quickly to do its job.
>>29355584
I know that the Shin Shin is just a technology demonstrator, but how many internal missiles could it carry if it could carry internal missiles? Does it actually have weapon bays or no?
I mean I'm not a F-35 trashtalker.
But that one shill who wants to turn the fighter-bomber F-35 into an air superiorty fighter for whatever reasons is just sad.
>>29356760
It isn't planned for live-firing tests.
So zero.
>>29356771
Its a multirole.
F/A-18s perform CAP, interception and air superiority missions and are the sole fighter of multiple countries.
Stop being retarded.
>>29356712
>went to the moon
k
>>29356771
Because even aircraft have fanboys.
>>29356797
Stop being asshurt Gorbachev.
>>29356771
>>29356795
The F-35 fairs most favorably when it is compared against the planes that it was actually designed to supplant, the F-16 & F-18. It has all the same capabilities as those aircraft plus significant advantages in other areas (range, stealth, sensors).
It becomes much harder to pitch the F-35 against planes like the F-15 that have definite range and speed advantages over the Lightning II. The question then becomes how much does raw speed actually matter nowadays?
If an F-22 and an F-35 met in combat, would they be about even or would the F-22 have a definite edge? (Assume that this is an F-22 which has been updated to have all the same sensors as the F-35)
>>29356515
3/10 is apparently your level of knowledge on the subject.
>>29356883
If they start in BVR, it'll be about even, since it boils down to which plane can see and shoot the other first. Up close, the Raptor has the performance edge, but the F-35 has the sensor edge due to its integrated EODAS.
>>29356688
Ah, it's the anon who thinks the B-52 will be a bad arsenal plane because it can't fly at mach 2, a speed aircraft never actually launch missiles at anyway.
>>29356743
Given that is how both the F-22 and F-35 are designed to fight, yes it is.
>>29356292
>Why not just buy more F-35's ?
Domestic technology
Domestic jobs
Understanding technologies needed to develop and advance
Keeping money in their own country
>What could they possible develop thats better than an F-35 in air-2-air?
Considering LM made the F-35, quite a lot
Considering Boeing made the F-15 quite a lot
Either one of these can develop with the nips and then propose an air superiority fighter which out performs the F-35 but integrates with it, this is something that they can then adapt and propose to the USAF
>>29356510
>a stealth B2 defeats an F-16 in a fight
K.
>>29356929
You have it backward. The F-22 would have an edge for BVR because it has better speed and maneuverability but up close they'd be about even because everything evens out once sidewinders come into play.
>>29357066
That might actually be true.
>>29357079
How many times does it need to be said, the F-35 can't carry AIM-9Xs internally. And even if they could, being in the superior position does play an important role in granting the missile additional energy, which can be translated into range.
>>29357066
If a B2 can carry A2A missiles yea it probably would.
>>29357014
The nips aren't going to spend the hundreds of billions dollars necessary to develop a next gen fighter
>>29357262
>being in the superior position does play an important role in granting the missile additional energy, which can be translated into range.
And that matters more for BVR than WVR.
>the F-35 can't carry AIM-9Xs internally
Yet.
This is good. Japan doesn't have all the institutional knowledge that Lockheed (or even Boeing) has on stealth aircraft.
And I do support the Japanese goal of an indigenous dedicated AtA fighter. That's really what Japan needs most. Having it be lighter than the F-35 will probably translate to superior maneuverability, allowing it to stay in the fight for longer if the Chinese keep pressing ahead regardless of casualties BVR. Not to say that the F-35 isn't capable, but its maneuvering bleeds energy quickly, which puts you at a disadvantage in longer engagements, which is certainly a possibility with the amounts of aircraft China can throw.
>>29357307
>And that matters more for BVR than WVR.
Not really...
>Yet.
Nothing has ever said that it ever would. Stop being retarded.
>>29357317
>Having it be lighter than the F-35 will probably translate to superior maneuverability
If they truly intend to replace the F-15, then the final product is likely to be heavier than the F-35. It's kind of sad because the Shinshin looks Kawaii as fuck but remember it doesn't actually have any weapons. Once they start developing it into an actual warplane, they're probably going to end up making it much bigger to make to make room for stuff like ammunition and internal missiles.
>>29357079
The F-22 actually can carry the AIM-9X now. It was recently added to its capabilities.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/raptors-new-claws-the-f-22-stealth-fighter-more-lethal-ever-15434
>>29357399
I disagree with that assessment. You're looking at it as it being the F-15, but better. I'm looking at it in a different way. They don't need long range missile lobbers. They have that from existing aircraft and soon with F-35s. What they need is a knifefighter. Something that can deal with Chinese fighters if they close the distance. Since it is dedicated to the AtA role, you won't want or need the deep weapon bays the F-35 has. You're going to be keeping them relatively slim. So yes, while the final design will be bigger and heavier than what they've shown, due to adding in a radar, weapons bays, and all the assorted other systems a fighter needs, it will probably still be lighter than the F-35.
>>29357404
And it can do so internally.
>>29357446
>You're looking at it as it being the F-15, but better.
CORRECT!
>it will probably still be lighter than the F-35.
I guess I can see that happening if the internal pays are designed like the F-22 (designed only for carrying missiles, not really big enough bombs).
What you're saying makes sense. I supposed it could be argued that Japan doesn't really need F-15 range because their most relevant threat is right on top of them. Having the F-35 for offensive strikes and the F-3 for defensive A2A sounds like a nice system.
>>29357542
The thing that you have to really consider when looking at Japan is that their mentality is mostly defensive. They don't have the national goals that would require strictly offensive gear. Their constitution merely reinforces this point, but it is more ingrained in the strategic realities of the modern day. It'll still have a good amount of range, but nothing too much.
The F-35 shilling itt is astounding.
>>29358631
Note the lack of actual criticism.
>>29356688
Modern air combat is basically spear chucking. Its like a game of chicken, with missiles. You want to launch and run before you enemy does the same, but the closer you get before launching the better the chances of the missile to actually hit.
But now, with the data linking that the USA has, you could have a lead jet fire a missile, turn and run, and then have another jet feed target data to the missile, so that the missile still has the benefit of radar guidance before it goes active.
ALSO, the higher the altitude you launch a missile, the farther it can go. Same with speed. The faster the launching aircradt's speed, the faster the missile will go, thus also giving more range.
>Well why dont all fighters fly around at 45k ft at mach 2 all the time, to give their missiles that extra speed and range?
Because the higher you go, the more visible you are to enemy radar coverage, and flying at mach 2 burns fuel ~10 times at fast as flying at mach 0.6.
BUT, the F-22 is stealthy, and has supercruise. IT has no problem hanging out at 45kft @ mach 2. It can cruise efficiently at well over mach 1, and from there accelerate to mach 2+ rapidly.
An F-22 with D model amraams, flying at 45k ft, doing mach 2, will fuck anything up that exists or will exist for the next 25 years.
The F-35 can do almost the same thing, only it is ~ 0.4 mach slower, and carries less missiles.
>>29359590
I'd just like to say that supercruise or not, flying mach speeds is less efficient than your normal cruise speed. Supercruise just makes it FAR more efficient than using your afterburner.
>>29359656
I know, Im just saiyan. An F-22 can LIVE at those speeds and altitudes, whereas an eagle with a similar stores load out cannot.
>>29355584
>>Lockheed Martin said it was very interested in working with Tokyo on the proposed F-3 program.
Don't fall for it.
>>29361242
Last I checked, the nips weren't known for being dirty communist spies.
The F-35 is 7x more powerful than anything you can think of.
>>29356712
No, the YF-12 was a development of the A-12, not the other way around. The A-12 was designed as a recon plane, which is why the YF-12 was hilariously impractical for an interceptor.
>>29356336
>F-35 will be cheaper than Chinkshit
Nice source
>>29361567
>this infographic
I'm gonna save that to shill with
>>29361567
>stealth cannot be added to existing aircraft
What did LM mean by this?
>>29361567
>Deptula says that one F-35 “can create effects that require dozens of legacy aircraft, and in some cases dozens of legacy aircraft simply cannot accomplish with one or two ‘F’-22s or ‘F’-35s can accomplish.”
>>29362961
You can't just paint RAM coating on a F-16 and call it stealthy.
>>29356461
>F-22
186
>>29356429
Actually he is right. Anything will be cheaper than Japanese domestic fighter.
>>29356760
None. It is purely a tech demo, it's like asking the X-29 to be a fighter.
>>29355584
It's Mitsubishi who's probing for help. It's not unusual at all. Turkey is seeking help from Saab and Korea has chosen LM to help with their new fighters.
In the time Japan needs to buy F-35, China has already 500 J-20s and a 6th gen successor under development.
>>29366241
Japan already has 6 F-35A
How many J-20s are there again outside of prototypes?
>>29366272
>Japan already has 6 F-35A
Crappy broken prototypes.
>>29365442
Not 'Korea', South Korea.
>>29366327
It's called "The Republic of Korea." South isn't in the actual name.
>>29361274
Toshiba sold Russia the technology to CAD-CAM propellers for their nuclear subs that don't wobble. That's why I don't buy Toshiba products.
>Fuck heug canopy
>thrust vector in this both non stealth and inefficient
>can't into dsi
Calling time of death on this one
>>29356429
It already is considering the flyaway for F-35 now is lower than the flyaway for Mitsubishi F-2.
And that's basically just an F-16.
Japanese aviation is super duper expensive.
>>29366971
Super expensive, but largely domestic.
A less expensive plane produced almost entirely overseas is in real terms, more expensive than a costlier plane produced domestically.
>>29363938
>You can't just paint RAM coating on a F-16 and call it stealthy.
But you can get the equivalent performance of stealth by updating systems to give existing platforms better BVR capabilities. 'Stealth' is a combination of RCS and range. So if you can stand off from your target, you are stealthy.
The prime example of this is the proposed B-52 "Arsenal Plane". No amount of RAM will ever make this truly as stealthy as an F-35, F-22 or even F-16. But given the right weapons systems, the Pentagon believes it will work for certain missions.
>>29367190
You are painfully wrong
