>Defense officials said the aircraft is designed to test the stealth technology that would possibly be combined with the next-generation fighter jet, replacing the fleet of F-2 fighters as early as 2028.
The article title is shit.
its a test bed plane. Its meant to see how well nips can build a plane.
They'll use the advances they got from building this to build other aircraft that will actually be used in combat
Because he's a fucking retard who is willfully ignorant of events post-1945, which is par for the course of the typical American education - because the policy questions about the history require you to actually think.
Because they're our greatest friend in the Pacific? Japan wanting to do more can literally only help us.
>But muh Pearl Harbor.
Welcome to 2016, only shitholes still rely on violence to acquire resources. Nations like Japan and the USA are effectively post-scarcity. Even our homeless live full lifespans. There's no need for the Japs to conquer all of Asia because Nippon has no iron ore, this isn't the fucking thirties.
Something to defend themselves from China's increasing aggressiveness along with the F-35s they are buying.
Also the old F-4EJs and F-15Js are outmatched by J-10Bs and will likely be no match for J-20s, and Japan only has so many F-2s.
not him, but it can be construed that the F2's are meant to deal with the J-10B's.
If another aircraft can get a lock on a J-20 it can relay that info to a F-2 who can use its own missiles to take it out.
Why do they use paddles for thrust vectoring instead of moving the whole nozzle like the Russians?
Doesn't look fully stealthy yet, but it's just a demonstration aircraft.
It looks very maneuverable, especially if they fix the air intakes. Nice big wings, control surfaces, and if the intakes were made lush with the belly, a big flat belly. It's also very small and light, but that is probably due to the lack of avionics and weapon bays.
In short, it'll probably be a great F-16/F-2 replacement. Or, since Japan is likely to be getting the F-35, a maneuverable fighter.
because that is where you start.
Japan is doing this to develop talent and knowledge base.
they could just buy the tech from America. Though they don't want to do that.
If you consider an AESA radar and the ability to carry 4 Harpoon equivalents an improvement, it is an improvement.
they're going to put the special paint on it, right?
also wtf happened to the original design?
>he bought the lie that the F-35 cannot maneuver
The purpose of this aircraft was to develop Japans manufacturing capability, its the same reason they went ahead with the F-2 after America bailed.
I didn't buy that lie. I'm just of the opinion that this looks more maneuverable. This isn't hard to believe. It's significantly lighter and smaller, and probably powered by a pretty good pair of engines. Remember the F-16A was an unmatched turnfighter. That's what this looks like to me.
In between block 50 and block 60.
It's got an AESA, which block 50 doesn't have, but it's not as good as the one on Block 60.
It's got the same engine as block 50 but a good bit heavier. Block 60 is even heavier but has an uprated engine.
However, the thing is LRIP-3 F-35 expensive while block 60 is a lot cheaper.
got ya covered bro.
They only have 50% readiness for their Tornado's
not a good insight, but most other news sources state the same thing.
Or, get this, allies. They bat for us in their neighborhood and let us have Okinawa, we provide them muscle in the event they're attacked. Share technology, fuck over chinks and Best gooks, it's a win-win.
HAHA, FOUND IT
It's a shame they loss a few of them in the 2011 Earthquake and ensuing tsunami.
They were extremely pricey but did keep Japan's military aircraft industry busy for a short while.
The ATD-X is like an F-15 mixed with an F-22, but much smaller (size of an F/A-18A/C).
Japan has developed not just the aircraft, but the engines and systems indigenously
Really hoping they get flight testing with the ATD-X done fast and actual production started much sooner than the predicted post-2020 date (2028?). Also, they need to commit to building a decent fleet size, something on the order of 200+ to replace the F-4J, F-15J, and F-2, with the F-35 a stop gap until the F-3 is ready.
>only 38 of 114 Eurofighters
WHAT THE FUCK GERMANY
it went to daycares and more "family friendly" bases from what I've read
>"My goal is to make the German armed forces into one of the most attractive employers in Germany,"
The fuck? It's a military for the defense of the country, not a fucking 9-to-5
I mean its good for attracting better candidates, but it shouldn't be the main objective of the defense minister.
She should be worried first about the readiness/effectiveness of the armed forces and only after that should she look to get better recruits
Great now we will see countless anime version of this abomination doing missile spam and taking out 10 F-22s in one volley. One thing I hate the most about Japs, they think they are so fucking superior.
Its an homage to Battle Fairy Yukikaze.
THRUST VECTORING, SON.
Realistically speaking, this HAS actually happened in the past, just with triplanes. They can spin around fast enough to keep their velocity vector in one direction rather than following the nose and still generate enough lift to do this, despite the engine slowing them down. It can only happen for a moment, but a moment's enough to spoil an attack.
>Realistically speaking, this HAS actually happened in the past, just with triplanes. They can spin around fast enough to keep their velocity vector in one direction rather than following the nose and still generate enough lift to do this
No. Absolutely no.
What I'm wondering is what the government is going to axe to keep this going.
They had a nightmare of a time with the F-2 -- especially when upgrade time came around, and that's before we even talk about the new ASMs. The entire program could be axed next election when the Diet revolts and cuts funding when they realize they'll be paying for this thing for the next 50 years.
Nope, spending money on F-35s instead.
It's a bit of a toss up. The Block 60 with CFTs has a longer range, but the F-2 has a larger internal range. Furthermore, the lack of CFTs means the F-2 can actually maneuver decently where as the CFT makes the block 60 a flying turd.
>Female Defense Minister didn't spend the money on repair parts.
She is like the last of the problems. In fact she is even the first one who wants to improve the core competence of the Bundeswehr - with more tanks, aircraft etc.
You don't get more gear if your current gear isn't usable because you lack the money to maintain it. First priority is raising the availability rate. Above EVERYTHING else. The first job of a military is readiness. As it stands, even with new gear Germany would not be in a state of readiness.
>it was kinda gay at times
It wouldn't be a proper jet pilot story if it weren't desu
>"The flying qualities of the F-16 with CFTs are essentially unchanged when compared to a non-CFT equipped airplane,"
They technically aren't lying, but they are stretching the truth a lot. What they said is only true if the CFTs are empty. Lying by omission maybe. There are plenty of personal anecdotes from pilots from a wide range of countries who will argue CFTs do noticeably reduce maneuverability.
>"For most combat flight conditions, it's as if the CFTs are not even there.
Again, not technically lying but this is comparing a CFT F-16 to a F-16 with underwing fuel tanks. What they fail to point out is that you can ditch the underwing fuel tanks where as you can't for the CFTs. So it is a lopsided comparison to begin with.
Well, Germany went from 2,4% spending to 1,2%.
Even if I'm not a CDU nor von der Leyen fan, I would claim she is one of the few peole who can fix that problem to some degree because she has ambitions to become chancellor at some point.
One of the reasons why Merkel is trying to get rid of her.
One would think that Japan would rather design something to fix the F-35 biggest flaws.
Here we go. The shooting down of Werner Voss.
Just after 16 minutes in. The quotes are from one of the British pilot's diary.
If you read up on them they are over-engineered, but really capable planes. It was the first plane to have an AESA radar, first aircraft to have the wings and shit made from a graphite-epoxy composite, which improved the weight, range and some stealth capabilities of the plane. This tech was then also used in the design of the F-35.
Handles really well, can handle lots of ordnance and fits the Japanese defense doctrine.
It's pricy, yes, but that is because 60% of it is produced in Glorious Nippon.
A higher angle of attack = more lift (also more drag), which means you turn faster and tighter, so long as you have the engine power to deal with that drag.
It also means you can fly slower without completely stalling which helps in certain circumstances.
>Even Lockheed doesn't claim that.
Yes they did... with the F-117, because it's that old it's a basic feature of stealth aircraft. A single tail has to be vertical for symmetry; a vertical tail provides a massive reflecting surface to targets to the side and it also creates a corner reflector between the vertical stabiliser and either the elevators or wings.
>which is quite pointless
And yet pulling high alpha is the primary tool of the Hornet / Super Hornet in BFM. It takes a lot of skill to use to your advantage, but it can let you kill your enemy early into a dogfight.
It'd be poetic justice if Japan ended up building better stealth fighters than China. China had to steal from America to get anywhere on that. This is clearly a Japanese design, and not a blatant design theft.
>In subsonic regime
Yes, most maneuvering is subsonic.
>because you turn into a brick at even pretty small AoA maneuvers.
AoA is literally the pitch of the aircraft. You're full of shit. High AoA certainly bleeds off a lot of energy, but low AoA does not.
>Yes, most maneuvering is subsonic.
That's not how modern aircraft would engage other aircraft.
Do you think supercruise capable aircraft like the F-22 or Eurofighter wouldn't use their energy adventage in such situations?
They are basically designed around that concept.
>but low AoA does not.
Pretty much all aircraft can reach that AoA sweetpoint.
I'm not saying they do - they're important for high alpha because a single tail, sitting in the middle of the (rear) fuselage easily gets occluded from airflow and gets the worst of turbulence flowing over it. Twin tails can (and are) placed out at the sides of the fuselage, between the wing and elevators, where they provide yaw stability and (because they now sit within the energetic vortices created over the wings) give more yaw control.
In this pic, the vapor is where there's a low pressure zone. Where those vortices are, there's high pressure air just surrounding them - think like a water vortex - empty in the middle, fluid around the outside.
Maneuvering at supersonic speeds makes you turn in a massive radii - if you're trying to out maneuver each other, you're doing it to get a guns kill. You can't get a guns kill if you're turning several kilometers away.
Because it's structurally easier to develop and because the F-15 is either stable or neutrally stable - even with tilted tails it wouldn't be able to hit high alpha.
There's another disadvantage to straight vertical tails as well; they cause more buffeting, which was a problem for the F-15 and F-14 in development. Canted tails are just pretty much better in every way. And in the end, if vertical tails are so great, why did the F-22, apex maneuvering jet of the US, go with canted tails?
Yep, but the original debate was that a single vertical tail was somehow superior.
If you're not going for a gun kill, use your missiles before you get to the merge.
Simply speaking, YOU CAN'T MANEUVER AT THOSE SPEEDS. You'd over-g the shit out of your plane trying to do so. No, I'm sorry. Dogfighting occurs subsonic.
Supercruise is more for ingressing and egressing, as well as permitting longer ranged weapon release due to the energy imparted on the missile from being at a higher speed when launched. That is what supercruise is all about. Not maneuvering at mach speeds.
>Pretty much all aircraft can reach that AoA sweetpoint.
That's not what you said in the slightest. What you said was verifiably incorrect. Let me show you.
>because you turn into a brick at even pretty small AoA maneuvers.
This is wrong. Don't try and bullshit around it.
And no such thing as a sweetpoint. If you're flying straight forwards, you're flying at an AoA. If this was space, it would be an AoA of 0 degrees. But gravity exists, so even level flight is at an AoA.
What is said about high AoA ability is that you can point your nose higher than the other guy and SUSTAIN it. You won't stall doing so, up to your AoA limit. That's what's important about it. It gives you freedom to point your nose. Yes, it does burn more energy, but the idea is that you don't do it until you can get a good shot.
Mainly for air-to-ground (it was meant to be part of the set of systems replacing the A-10), hence why they swapped from a 20mm M61 to a 25mm GAU-22/A.
>>28726067 here, just realized that you (>>28726026) said the opposite of what I thought you did - we're talking about high alpha and guns combat because that's what >>28725793 was debating against.
Well the main hangup with Chinese designs is engines. Japan will always have the options to buy english or american made engines for their fighters even if their domestic industry can't produce anything that compares with the likes of P&W, GE or Rolls Royce.
>No Tail is superior for stealth. Look B2.
And that might be bit problematic for maneuveribility and control authority.
>No Plane is even more superior. Ballistic Missile Master Race
Bit expensive solution, not to mention pretty bad at intelligence gathering.
>Japan will always have the options to buy english or american made engines for their fighters even if their domestic industry can't produce anything that compares with the likes of P&W, GE or Rolls Royce.
Japan is very involved in western aviation industries as subcontractors and they have over the years produced plenty of successful engine designs. It's unlikely that they will have any major problems with engines.
>Japan is very involved in western aviation industries as subcontractors and they have over the years produced plenty of successful engine designs. It's unlikely that they will have any major problems with engines.
I know of no Japanese produced jetfighter or civilian airliner engine.
Also, the X-2 is still a demonstrator and its engines only have 5 tons of thrust. Barely better than a trainer.
Still will be many many years until the Japanese make a full-sized stealth fighter out of this subscaled demonstrator.
In a PESA Radar, there is a single main microwave frequency signal generating source. The same source signal is amplified, and then distributed and fed to each of the individual antenna, but the phase of the signal given to each antenna can be electronically varied. Therefore, by appropriately altering the phases of all the antenna elements, the radar can be made to 'point' in a particular direction (by making use of the constructive/destructive interference properties of waves).
The problem with these kinds of radar however, is since all the antenna are operating at a single frequency, it becomes much more easier of the enemy to detect and jam the radar beam. However, they are also much easier to build and operate.
Eg:- Radars used on the Su-30, and F-15A
In an AESA radar on the other hand, each milk carton sized antenna is capable of generating its own microwave signal, as well as altering its phase. Another difference is that, at any given time, each of the antenna may be operating at a different frequency! Also, an AESA antenna element may change its frequency of operation around 1000's of times per second. As a result, the radar beam now does not operate at a single frequency, but rather, is a very wide band signal. As the radar energy is now spread over a huge band, instead of a precise single frequency, the enemy thinks that this signal is simply background noise and ignores it. This is why such radars are called LPI (low probability of Intercept) radars, and are used in stealth fighter jets and ships. However, such radars are more costly, require much more power, and generate lots of heat, which in turn requires sophisticated cooling systems. They also required very complex signal processing to turn all the incoming radar reflections into meaningful data.
Bundeswehr suffers two problems.
A small budget and the lack of a politcal will to reform the Bundeswehr in a meaningful way, so the international operating units are still sufficent equipped while the traditional national opearting parts of the Bundeswehr got nothing.
>A higher angle of attack = more lift
No, not always. This is only true up to the point of stall. Virtually all "high-alpha" capabilities refer to post-stall flight, where this is no longer the case and more AoA doesn't do anything for you except point the nose somewhere other than the direction you're going (which theorists THOUGHT would be useful for dogfighting in the '90s, but exercises along with the development of HOBS missiles quickly proved that post-stall maneuvering in combat is nothing but a way to get yourself killed).
>Do you think supercruise capable aircraft like the F-22 or Eurofighter wouldn't use their energy adventage in such situations?
No, not really. A modern air-to-air engagement typically goes like this:
>Fighter spots bandits and accelerates towards them until firing range
>In most cases, they barely have time to get above the sound barrier (and nowhere near their published top speed) before they get a shoot cue
>Missiles are fired; pilots then slow down to subsonic and crank to reduce closing velocity in case the enemy fired as well
>If the MWS goes off or some other indication of return-fire is received, the pilot will forget about their missiles and go defensive to try and survive the missile(s) headed his way
>Fighters that are not defensive continue to press and may fire additional missiles
>Pilots try to maintain their "corner speed," the (subsonic) speed at which they can perform the sharpest maneuvers
>If bandits are still alive at the merge, a subsonic dogfight may ensue
So yes, subsonic maneuvering is certainly still relevant.
>Pretty much all aircraft can reach that AoA sweetpoint.
Yes, fucking this. Lift maxes out at a certain AoA and any capability beyond that is only really useful for airshow performances and emergency situations such as accidental stalls.
>And no such thing as a sweetpoint.
Yes, there is. For maximum lift, it's just below your stall AoA. Reaching stall AoA is easy.
>No, not really. A modern air-to-air engagement typically goes like this:
You mean with modern an engagement with the teenfighters.
Well, of course that not supercruise capable aircraft engage in subsonic because using their afterburner will waste too much fuel and they can only fly straight.
>Eg:- Radars used on the Su-30, and F-15A
NEITHER of those uses PESA. Both are mechanically-steered. Get your shit straight.
Why does everyone on /k/ seem to assume anything that isn't AESA is PESA? Mechanical steering is still the most prevalent form of radar, and BOTH electronically-scanned antenna architectures are far better.
AESA > PESA >>>> Mechanical steering
Supercruise may not use quite as much fuel as afterburning but it's still about double the fuel consumption as subsonic cruise, which is still plenty bad enough to be fuel-prohibitive. Supercruise is a paper tiger.
Whatever you say.
In any case it doesn't change the fact that even the F-22 would want to be subsonic by the time it reaches the merge (if the fight even gets that far, of course).
The U.S. military's F-35 stealth fighter "is not that maneuverable, but the X-2 is stealthy while boasting high maneuverability," said Takahiro Yoshida, project director at the Japanese defense ministry's acquisitions agency.
>Pilots also tested the ability of the F-35 to recover from a deep-stall in which it was pushed beyond the maximum AoA command limit by activating a manual pitch limiter (MPL) override similar to the alpha limiter in the F-16. “It’s not something an operational pilot would do, but the angle of attack went back and, with the center of gravity way back aft, it would not pitch over, but it would pitch up. So it got stuck at 60 or 70 deg. alpha, and it was as happy as could be. There was no pitching moment to worry about, and as soon as I let go of the MPL, it would come out,” Nelson says.
>The aircraft has been put into spins with yaw rates up to 60 deg./sec., equal to a complete turn every 6 sec. “That’s pretty good. But we paddled off the flight-test aid and it recovered instantly,” he says.
>Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA.
>Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA.
What in the fuck does Canada even need F-35s for in the first place?
Under 'Dude Weed' you don't even need a military, because you won't ever bomb angry sandpeople. Which is the only real thing the F-35 is probably ever going to do, $400 Billion for a bomb truck.
You Americans are so delusional. It's 2016. No one invades people anymore. You are the only rogue nation in the world, but you would never invade us because you know you wouldn't win.
It's less about invading and more about
>We're mining here.
>What? No Putin, that's our territorial waters.
>Not any more, what are you going to do about it?
Obviously then blowing up oil rigs with F-35s isn't smart, but you can send in your police or whatever to arrest everyone on the oil rig and use those F-35s (and other things) to prevent any SF or Russian boats from arresting your police.
>Tentative performance specifications so far revealed give the ATD-X a maximum take-off weight of 13,000 kg; a service ceiling of 65,000 ft; a maximum Mach level of 2.25 (1.82 in supercruise); and an estimated combat radius of 411 n miles (761 km; 473 miles), or a range of 1,566 n miles (2,900 km; 1,802 miles) (with two drop tanks)/1,728 n miles (3,200 km; 1,988 miles) (ferry).
If Canada was ambitious, it would make its own fighter plane. It used to do that.
Future Arctic war will be less about oil or even clear water, and more about the shipping lanes. There's new Suez between Europe and China waiting to be exploited at full capacity by the end of this decade. And when we come to this,
neither Canada or US have the means to assert themselves beyond polar circle anyway. You can't take and hold assets by air force alone, you need ice-breakers, ports, bases in the vicinity and ice-hardened fleet.
Russians have 2500 active tanks. Spread all over the largest country on the planet.
Poland alone is 1000 tanks defending one short border. And polish army is getting more and more shit every year. With hundreds of Leos 2 on the way.
People thinking that Russians could steamroll into Western Europe like if it was 1945 are retarded.
Something like 500 T-90 tanks, 500 T-80 tanks and 2000 T-72 tanks.
There is another 10k T-72s and T-80s "in reserve", how many of them are actually usable without a factory overhaul is unknown.
I like to think of T-72s being like our old 1942 McCormick W4 tractor.
Rusty as fuck, looks like it's about to fall apart at any moment.
But has outlasted every other tractor on the farm.
Wouldn't surprise me if those "in storage" tanks just fired up after a half hour of basic maintenance checks & fueling.