Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Scorned Japan Turns To The Familiar F-2
SYSOP    7/28/2010 11:30:14 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
maruben    You need CORRECTION   7/28/2010 1:29:53 PM
Correcion in red
 

Scorned Japan Turns To The Familiar F-2

July 28, 2010: Unable to buy the American F-22, and wary of the continuing delays (and rising costs) of the F-35 program, Japan has decided to buy to discuss or evaluate the purchase another 50 20 locally made F-2s. This is a Japanese F-16 variant, with a 25 percent larger wing area and better electronics. The 22 ton F-2 carries nearly nine tons of bombs, has a top speed of 2,100 kilometers an hour, and a combat radius of 1,000 kilometers. This plane is twice as expensive (at $110 million each) as the F-16, and part of that is due to the better electronics (like an AESA radar) but mostly this is due to higher production costs in Japan. The F-2 has been in service since 2000 and 98 have been built so far.

Japan is concerned with the growing belligerence of China and North Korea , plus a simmering territorial dispute with Russia. So more warplanes are needed  just because in case the F-35 is delayed. 

The current F-2 production will end next year and the aditional purchase of 20 F-2s will permit to keep the staff in the business of military aircraft manufacturing. 

What you also missed that the 50 planes you mentioned was not the number of F-2, but the number of F-35 that Japan wants to replace the F-4 Phantom.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    This is what I like.   7/28/2010 2:20:32 PM
Someone who knows what is going on, and is accurate.
 
Thanks, Maruben!
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

Ziv       7/28/2010 6:19:38 PM
It seems like Japan would be a perfect customer for the F15SE. The Silent Eagle is supposed to cost less than an F2 and would give the Japanese a myriad of methods to enhance both their strike packages and their air defense efforts. It seems like the F15 is going to be the fighter equivalent of the B52 regarding longevity. Fighters built now will be deployed for at least 20 years and the F15 first saw service around 1976 IIRC. Considering the delays and cost over runs on the F35, the US should buy the F15SE for our own air force.
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       7/28/2010 6:49:02 PM

It seems like Japan would be a perfect customer for the F15SE. The Silent Eagle is supposed to cost less than an F2 and would give the Japanese a myriad of methods to enhance both their strike packages and their air defense efforts. It seems like the F15 is going to be the fighter equivalent of the B52 regarding longevity. Fighters built now will be deployed for at least 20 years and the F15 first saw service around 1976 IIRC. Considering the delays and cost over runs on the F35, the US should buy the F15SE for our own air force.

I thought that some F15s (c) were already having airframe concerns... IIRC
 
Quote    Reply

Ziv       7/28/2010 7:10:13 PM
I am not sure what you mean, I am talking about the F15 will be in active service for 50 years, not an individual F15 flying for 50 years. B52's have been active for 55 years and if the F15SE is built, F15's will be active for at least that long. Though if your point is that individual B52's have been flying for nearly 50 years and no fighter will match that, I will admit you are right about that.
Which is actually something I wonder about. Why are designs like the B52, the C130, the CH-47, the CH-53 and the F-15 still in use after so many years? I understand that todays versions are incomparable to the originals, but hasn't the science of flight progressed to the point where we would build something an order of magnitude better?  Or are today's versions so different that they are substantially different aircraft, carrying the historic designation simply due to the way the Pentagon purchases new airframes, hence the failure of the A12 and the replacement VXX?
 
Quote    Reply

enomosiki       7/28/2010 7:11:00 PM

It seems like Japan would be a perfect customer for the F15SE. The Silent Eagle is supposed to cost less than an F2 and would give the Japanese a myriad of methods to enhance both their strike packages and their air defense efforts. It seems like the F15 is going to be the fighter equivalent of the B52 regarding longevity. Fighters built now will be deployed for at least 20 years and the F15 first saw service around 1976 IIRC. Considering the delays and cost over runs on the F35, the US should buy the F15SE for our own air force.

Introduction of such an aircraft will only be a stop-gap measure at best. Japan insists on domestic production of weapons, pretty much down to the last screw, and it's doubtful that they will be spending money to license the design and obtain the necessary equipment and labor force just to cover an interim program. It happened with F-15FX before.
 
Quote    Reply

enomosiki       7/28/2010 7:24:30 PM

I am not sure what you mean, I am talking about the F15 will be in active service for 50 years, not an individual F15 flying for 50 years. B52's have been active for 55 years and if the F15SE is built, F15's will be active for at least that long. Though if your point is that individual B52's have been flying for nearly 50 years and no fighter will match that, I will admit you are right about that.

Which is actually something I wonder about. Why are designs like the B52, the C130, the CH-47, the CH-53 and the F-15 still in use after so many years? I understand that todays versions are incomparable to the originals, but hasn't the science of flight progressed to the point where we would build something an order of magnitude better?  Or are today's versions so different that they are substantially different aircraft, carrying the historic designation simply due to the way the Pentagon purchases new airframes, hence the failure of the A12 and the replacement VXX?


 
It basically comes down to evolutionary versus revolutionary.
 
Large room for growth potential from the base design as well as consistent upgrades and refits are the key. The existing designs are proven, and there is no need to come up with new designs as long as the old ones can keep up with advancements to perform their designated roles well.
 
When we have game-changers that demand capabilities that legacy platforms cannot deliver, however, new designs are desirable. VLO is certainly one of them.
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       7/29/2010 12:39:38 AM
New technology doesn't necessarily mean you can make the same thing better; a good quality medieval dagger is at least as good as a modern bayonet.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       7/29/2010 2:11:19 AM

New technology doesn't necessarily mean you can make the same thing better; a good quality medieval dagger is at least as good as a modern bayonet.

False analogy. Radars are not knives. Jet engines are not knives. Improve either in an old aircraft and you can radically improve an old aircraft. The example is the F-16. Do better next time you post. THINK.
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

enomosiki       7/30/2010 12:30:33 AM

New technology doesn't necessarily mean you can make the same thing better; a good quality medieval dagger is at least as good as a modern bayonet.


You expect a medieval stabbing weapon to compete against something of an entirely different class that is designed to do several different things?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy