Aircraft VS super thread!

[hellohikaru]

The Grumman X-29 is going to make an appearance in AC5 probably as a flyable. There are screenshots of it in the japanese AC5 website that show it being armed with Sidewinder AAMs in addition to the F-5 style M39 guns.

Of course X-29 also made an apppearance in the Area 88 manga and Janes ATF series.

I wonder how feasible is a production F-29A ? Are the wings strong enough to support the weight of all that stuff ?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

most weapons woul dbe on the undercarriage I believe. possibly 2 Amramms under fuesealage. realistically speakling and sidewinders on the wingtips. I think it could work.The plane had a lot of power anyways.

[hellohikaru]

most weapons woul dbe on the undercarriage I believe. .

Are you sure you wanna do that

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

most weapons woul dbe on the undercarriage I believe.  .

Are you sure you wanna do that

Oh not undercarriage I meant belly section. The phantom could do this with sparrows, same with teh eagle and the tomcat. Eutrofighter and tornado are able to do this with AMRAAMS.

[Skull Leader]

Blatantly stolen from another forum:

What will the F-35's name be?  Chicken, Turkey, and other birds too fat to really fly are the most-suggested.   

Naval version?  F-35 Penguin.

well, if it were me I'd call it the F-35 flying Sh*tbox, but F-35 "Lame Duck" also would work

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I have a performance matchup I'd love to hear:

In the strike role, which is really better?

The Mitsubishi F-2 "Zero II" (as near as I know, that nickname is unofficial so far)

or it's progenitor:

The General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16C/D?

The Japanese believe they've taken something of ours and made it better, and I'm inclined to believe it this time, but I'd love to hear what my fellow aircraft junkies think.

MY opinion is that when Japan set out to establish a dedicated coastal defender they produced the ultimate derivative of the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Bigger in just about every way (cost especially... a factory-new F-2 will run you as much as an F-15E), but the huge fuel drop-tanks still leave plenty of wing-pylon space (they have a whopping 13 hardpoints, 1 centerline, 2 wingtip, and 5 under-wing). Not to mention it's got one of the coolest paintschemes around!

opinions? discuss amongst yourselves!

Edited September 1, 2004 by Skull Leader

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

they kinda didnt want to base it on the F-16...that was mainly US assistance...regardless i always wondered the sam as well.

right now JASDF aint getn no more though

[Skull Leader]

why not?? lol too expensive?

[hellohikaru]

I think the Mitsubishi F-2A/B is unofficially called Falcon-Zero.

Its not right to compare the F-2 and F-16C in the strike role because they have totally diferent mission requirements.

The F-2 specification called for an F-1 replacement for the Antiship role. The F-2 would be tasked with attacking landing ships and craft approaching japanese beaches.

While the F-2 could carry more ordnance than the F-16C...its the F-16C that can carry a wider range of ordnace types.

Also F-16C depending on avionic suite can perform Wild Weasel and Night Attack missions which i doubt the F-2 is equipped for.

The production was set at 130 units but i guess following cancellation they would only get about 5-10 more units perhaps topping up at 95 aircraft ?

In any case looks like 1 unit will get F-15J Kai instead.

i doubt it got anything to do with cost otherwise they wouldn't have started production in the first place.

The JASDF is obviously dissatified with the F-2's performance which is particularly underpowered. Also they are some sources indicating wing cracks and the aircraft not being adequate in terms of payload which ever you wanna believe.

You think the japanese are proud they improved the F-16 ? Somehow i doubt it.

They are some more colorful languaged critics out there is call it the "American Rapped Baby".

Maybe the US pressured the weak japanese goverment to base the design on the F-16 as i recalled they could have made a strecthed Tornado ADV derivative. Politics suck.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Maybe the US pressured the weak japanese goverment to base the design on the F-16 as i recalled they could have made a strecthed Tornado ADV derivative. Politics suck.

Them Japanese should have based their fancy new wings on the F-14...... with 2D thrust vectoring.....operational service about 2009......mmmmmm

Edited September 1, 2004 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Lynx7725]

Maybe the US pressured the weak japanese goverment to base the design on the F-16 as i recalled they could have made a strecthed Tornado ADV derivative. Politics suck.

Them Japanese should have based their fancy new wings on the F-14...... with 2D thrust vectoring.....operational service about 2009......mmmmmm

Yeah, and then work to reduce the size of their F-14 derivative by about 40 percent, replace the gas-guzzlers with micro-fusion engines, up the weapons load and shift them to wing-mounted hardpoint, strip out the 25mm and replace with a 55mm gunpod, reduce everything so that it can be piloted by one person...

Hmm..

[Skull Leader]

I think it probably wouldn't take very much to bring the F-2 up to speed in terms of new ordinance. Given today's technology and given that a good portion of the plane is still american-built, I'm thinking a minimal upgrade would be involved. Hell, for all we know it may have the means to carry other ordinance, Japan just probably doesn't have a great deal of it to use. I DO understand that ordinance specifications were placed with it's coastal-defense role in mind though. Remember though, it doesn't just pack their ASM-1s and AAM-3s, they can also pack Rocket pods, CBUs, and Mk82s loaded on TERs.

The inability to air-to-air refuel *is* a serious strike against it in terms of range and effectiveness. From what I can gather, they could reach mainland Asia, but they wouldn't get far after that without putting down for more "beverage".

I've been able to find VERY little about the performance of the F-2, to say nothing about pilot opinons (unless any JASDF pilots happen to frequent the boards ) but it seems to me that the Japanese MUST be happy with their (very) expensive toy on some level. As of this june they had just shy of 60 of their initially ordered fighters and the article I read at that time mentioned that they were pretty eager to get the rest. The only downside they mentioned was that their influx of new Zeros was outpacing their decomissioning of Phantom-J kai's. They *have* been discussing an ADV variant of the F-2, but that seems to be a bit of a pipe dream at this point, as a great many other things (political and otherwise) will have to happen first.

Edited September 1, 2004 by Skull Leader

[Lynx7725]

The inability to air-to-air refuel *is* a serious strike against it in terms of range and effectiveness. From what I can gather, they could reach mainland Asia, but they wouldn't get far after that without putting down for more "beverage".

Don't forget as of today, Japan's constitution does not allow the country to engage in offensive operations.

A fighter-bomber with air-to-air refuelling capabilities are by nature offensive in nature.. for defense purposes you don't really need the extended range. It's only when you need to strike some target deep in enemy territory that you may need the air-to-air refuelling.

Yes, political; but you have to understand that Japan is sitting off the shores of two neighbours who have no reason to like Japan very much: China and North Korean. North Korean in particular has a habit of responding to militaristic gestures with similar if not even more militaristic gestures.

[Skull Leader]

I know and understand WHY they were made to not A/A refuel, I was simply saying it was one bad mark against the F-2. That is also why I mentioned later that many things would have to happen before an ADV variant came into being.

[David Hingtgen]

LOL, I chose Dodo on another forum, but didn't know if it'd be well-received here.

X-29 armament: FSW wings must be inherently strong and very stiff, could easily take lots of missiles. I doubt they'd be on the belly though, the F-5 family has an especially "important" belly shape, it's quite sculpted, not flat. Kinda hard to see, easier to see on the early F-5A's etc. I think it may be area-ruled, but never seen it described as such. Not quite a lifting body, but probably contributes to high-alpha ability and their very low drag. Of course, I haven't seen an X-29 up close in years, can't recall if it has an F-5 belly or not. (Something the check next time in DC--the Smithsonian has their X-29 mounted so you can practically touch it from below)

I love X-29's, BTW, they'd simply rock as a production fighter. Just imagine an F-20, (which has an F-16's turning ability or even greater), but with insanely good high-alpha capabilites beyond even a Super Hornet...

Just an FYI for those that might not be aware--an X-29 is little more than an F-20 with new wings. LOTS of parts (and major assemblies) can be interchanged. In fact, the first X-29 was converted from a "spare" F-5 they had.

Edited September 1, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[hellohikaru]

@David

Did any of the X-29 test aircraft feature hardpoints of any kind ?

@Skull Leader

Correction to the nickname of the F-2...i think it should be Viper-Zero.

Where did you get the notion of the F-2 not being able to refuel in mid air ?

Most of the JASDF aircraft are equipped with USAF style boom receptables. And they have plans to acquire tanker aircraft most likely in the form of KC-767s.

And if you look at photos of the F-2 you will notice the refuelling point just like the F-16 on its spine.

The JASDF definitely have more than 60 F-2s. I think around 76+ now and about 20 more to come.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040808wo01.htm

Rockets, CBU and dump bombs are nothing new to the JASDF. Even the F-1 and possibly T-4 trainers can be equipped to carry them. I mean they don't have much guided smart weapons like Maverick, JDAM, Harm and so on.

The F-2 at least has one of the first operational AESA radars but i don't think an ADF version is going to be procure in the near future. AAM-4 development and induction has taken longer than expected.

If the Japanese were happy with their F-2 why would they pull the plug in the first place ?

F-2 website but in japanese lots of pictures though.

http://homepage2.nifty.com/scotch_w/scotch_menu.htm

Edited September 1, 2004 by hellohikaru

[Lynx7725]

If the Japanese were happy with their F-2 why would they pull the plug in the first place ?

That's akin to asking if the Americans were happy with their F-14 why would they pull the plug in the first place....

Many many factors. I didn't know the F2s were air-refuelable? I would guess they would be but have parts missing (to avoid being accused of being militaristic..).

Nothing seriously against the F-35.. Dodo is too harsh a name for that bird, particularly since it hadn't had a chance to show what it can do. I'll reserve Dodo for the A/F-18 Super Bug..

[hellohikaru]

If the Japanese were happy with their F-2 why would they pull the plug in the first place ?

That's akin to asking if the Americans were happy with their F-14 why would they pull the plug in the first place....

Many many factors. I didn't know the F2s were air-refuelable? I would guess they would be but have parts missing (to avoid being accused of being militaristic..).

Well..the F-14A models actually had terrible engines that caused many many accidents. So of course many weren't happy about it.

The F-14D otoh was tremendous leap forward in all areas including safety. The reason the pulled the plug is becuase of the Hornet mafia and that *genius* Dick Cheney.

I think the F-2 are fully air refuelable. The F-4EJ were originally delivered without the refueling equipment but were later retrofitted. Although the JASDF doesn't have any aerial tankers yet they can always practice with PACAF tankers.

If they are worried of being accused of being militaristic why have all this military hardware in the first place...they are going to be called militaristic anyway buying all fighters, tanks, Aegis cruisers and stuff whether under the reason of self-defence or not.

[Lynx7725]

The F-14D otoh was tremendous leap forward in all areas including safety. The reason the pulled the plug is becuase of the Hornet mafia and that *genius* Dick Cheney.

My guess is that the F2 probably suffered the same fate to some extent.

If they are worried of being accused of being militaristic why have all this military hardware in the first place...they are going to be called militaristic anyway buying all fighters, tanks, Aegis cruisers and stuff whether under the reason of self-defence or not.

Because you can't have a country taken seriously without some forms of defense -- a totally pacificistic nation will get quickly swallowed up by its neighbours, if for nothing else than for the land.

The military purchases definitely will generate noise especially from its neighbours, and that's pretty much why the purchases tend to be low key and touted as a defensive nature. People will make noise when you purchase a F2 coastal defense fighter, but it would be a heck of a lot less noise than if you purchase, say, a Bombcat.

[F-ZeroOne]

I had a look at Japans military on Global Security the other day. They actually have a military that in some respects is much more powerful than the UKs...!

I think its part of a typically Japanese contrast - a country that expresses peace but which carries a big stick. They do have a lot to be paranoid about, though; they're surrounded by a lot of countries with whom their relations have been, shall we say, uneasy...?

[Skull Leader]

lol, I think I downloaded just about EVERY picture they've got on there... but thanks for the link, Hikaru. The first link doesn't work.

I know what I see on the back of the fuselage on just about very Viper Zero pic I see, and I would be inclined to agree with your analysis. All I know is that virtually every article I've read states they can't refuel in the air. This *could* be a simple misuse of words and what they meant to say was "it can't refuel in the air because Japan currently doesn't possess any tankers" or some such thing. I admit that their statement about it is rather ambiguous.

I would stress at this point that we should be careful not to take this discussion into the realm of the political, even if it IS fighter-related

That said, just because there aren't any more being made now doesn't mean that their won't be... the production number they've arrived at now is probably a political one, because of outward appearances of being too "aggressive", but it's not as if they've destroyed all of the tooling like Northrop/Grumman was told to for the Tomcat. I can understand why others might worry about the F-2, even with only Mk.82s, it can still carry 18 of them at one time (three racks on each wing)and still have enough a/a armament to defend itself if need be. Dumb bombs or not, 18 Mk.82s will seriously mess up somebody's world. Now imagine an entire squadron with a loadout like that... pretty wicked in my book!

I guess I would put down the F-2 as a fighter with a lot of wasted potential. It may be that the F-2s day has not yet arrived really, and I certainly hope that's the case. Unless I am mistaken, they didn't change out the engine from the F-16C/D (they both pack the F110-GE-129)... and I think the airframe could definately benefit from a larger engine

Edited September 1, 2004 by Skull Leader

[hellohikaru]

The first link doesn't work.

There is a copy of the Yomoiuri article posted a few pages back. Follow the link.

http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...ic=8543&st=280#

I would stress at this point that we should be careful not to take this discussion into the realm of the political, even if it IS fighter-related

I second that

A reengined F-2 would be a good thing especially with the EJ2000 looking like a good choice seems although i see them sticking with an American derived engine as well.

That said, just because there aren't any more being made now doesn't mean that their won't be... the production number they've arrived at now is probably a political one, because of outward appearances of being too "aggressive", but it's not as if they've destroyed all of the tooling like Northrop/Grumman was told to for the Tomcat.

I guess you are probabll right after it would be handy when they need attriction replacement.

For those of you who are interested in JASDF F-4EJs there is a great website outhere lots of detail and although in japanese you can still click on the links.

http://www.f-4ej.com/

[Skull Leader]

Thanks for the solid "devil's advocate" stance Hikaru, I'm trying to hone my knowledge about the F-2 and you've helped me a great deal, giving me things to check against!

What's more, those F-4Js will look really nice to other countries looking for some good second-hand fighters... the Japanese managed to keep the F-4J as a viable and deadly weapons platform well into the 1990s (and really into the new millenium) and I have little doubt that one could hold it's own reasonably well in a dogfight (if a Rafale or whatever walked up on it though.... well, draw your own conclusions)

Either way, I guess I'll just enjoy the F-2 as the "limited edition" fighter that it is... as I said, I think there's a lot of potential for the platform, if they'd just sit down and think about it a little bit.

Edited September 1, 2004 by Skull Leader

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

F-4's can hold their own if you fight with them right. The golden rule and the mistake that many phantom drivers in 'nam learned is turning with your enemy.....NEVER turn with your enemy all the time in the phantom it just simply isn't meant to and turns the mach buster into a slow pig.

From what I read recently the JASDF isn't going to be getting all the viper zero's they originally wanted basically becase of its operational capability. They compare it a lot to the F-15J and how it does so and so for only a little bit more money. Something like that. BAsically it kinda makes it sound like the viper zero is a lemon. ITs development was flawed by delay and technology transfers from the US and also the insistance from US govt to base the design on the F-16.

all that crap above ended up delaying and totally warping whatthe JASDF really wanted for the FSX. it was touted originally to be indigineously developed in japan. But yea US butts in, insistance and crap and all this other stuff happens.

where does all the underpowered viper zero stuff come from? Never knew it was underpowered!!

To me it looks awesome and I would turn it into a dayfighter, I mean give it 4 sidewinders, and 4 AMRAAMs on dual rails. thrust vectoring and add the GE120 in the F22. or whatever the hell PW engine is in it.

[Skull Leader]

Well, it was kind of speculation that it is underpowered. The airframe is larger in almost every way over the F-16C/D and carries more fuel, therefore it is likely a great deal heavier. The engine used is the same as the F-16 and probably does not perform AS WELL on the F-2 as it does on the F-16C. This is why I think they should've gone for a larger engine, then the F-2 could really behave like the small fighter it imitates.

[Mislovrit]

Found this page on the F-2 which outline the problems the program faced in development.

link

I had a look at Japans military on Global Security the other day. They actually have a military that in some respects is much more powerful than the UKs...!

Given Japan have been expanding their military instead of drasticly downsizing it for the past 30 years, it would indeed be very repectable.

I think its part of a typically Japanese contrast - a country that expresses peace but which carries a big stick.

Nothing's wrong with armed pasifism, as it keeps the neighbors from misbehaving toward them. Imho I prefer the Japanese in that state of mind instead of them postal. Though how the Japanese Government and the people treats the service men (JSDF and U.S.) defending them needs to be corrected ASAP.

They do have a lot to be paranoid about, though; they're surrounded by a lot of countries with whom their relations have been, shall we say, uneasy? 

Blame McAuthur and Truman for not forcing the people to ante and admit to the crime they've commited like the Germans did. Edited September 2, 2004 by Mislovrit

[hellohikaru]

Hey Glad you guys like the F-4EJ stuff

where does all the underpowered viper zero stuff come from? Never knew it was underpowered!!

Ok...maybe not exactly underpowered(perhaps speculation like Skull Leader said) but since it has the same GE F110-129 of the F-16C but since the F-2 is larger than F-16C its throust to weight ratio is actually worse.

Had the F-2 not suffered cost setbacks it would have looked more like the AFTI Falcon with fins providing more CCV functions.

How bout this early FSX design

[hellohikaru]

I can't seem to find that color painting of the original intake fins equipped FSX with all the missiles and stuff but notice how the F-16 based FSX was to trying to be the Agile Falcon of the 90s.

Had they stuck with the canards i imagine it would have even greater agility and can turn sideways without having to bank.

[hellohikaru]

Another FS-X/SX-3 picture..wished it was bigger though

I wonder with those fins how would the mount lantirn pods if they ever wnated to.

Another for those interested in the F-16XL take a look at this model for an idea of how weapons(bombs) might be loaded.

http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~kasatosi/F-16XL.html

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

How bout this early FSX design

That pic looks like the butt of an F-18 grafted to the nose of an F-15C and canards thrown in. Iit somehow looks really wierd. Very 80s anime look for future fighters.

I still say a scaled down F-14 with 2d thrust vectoring was the way to go for the FSX.

Edited September 2, 2004 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[David Hingtgen]

Going OT here, but better to put in this thread than start a new one:

F-14D Vandy-1 will soon be put on display at Oceana. With its all-black scheme stripped off!!!!

Yeesh. Wrong coast (the plane spent every day at Pt Mugu, and is said to have never made a carrier landing), and they're going to put it in low-vis. Why even bother? There's hundreds of "generic grey" old F-14's they could put at Oceana, with dozens of them already there! Why take Vandy One away from its home (and the home of Phoenix/AMRAAM testing), and strip its paint? It'd be awesome to see a pure gloss black Tomcat in a museum, but at Oceana it'll just be another one of many old grey F-14's there...

[ewilen]

That's unbelievably stupid.

Oh, well, here's a link with some of the last pics of Vandy-1 in black: http://www.flybyaviation.com/oceanabv2004.htm

[Skull Leader]

man, Navy high-command seems to be out to completely rape the outgoing tomcat community of all it's tradition... they're putting the smackdown on even the 2 high-vis planes allowed in each squadron and now they're gonna de-throne VANDY-1?????

Way to go, dorks!

To the Navy High Command:

[ewilen]

On the other hand, at least they're not scrapping it. The F-4 Vandy-1 was sold to the UK and later scrapped. Parts have been recovered by an enthusiast who's trying to rebuild it, believe it or not. Hopefully the F-14 Vandy-1 will eventually be restored to its proper paint scheme eventually.

[hellohikaru]

Was wondering any of you Mwers already purchase this book...lots of intersting articles inside i am sure red herring or not.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_452.shtml

Iranian Tomcats actually had their Phoenixes replaced by some sort of modified locally produced Hawk SAM. Note the new paint scheme on the F-14s look Flanker like.

Edited September 8, 2004 by hellohikaru

[David Hingtgen]

I have several books of that series, but nothing set post-Vietnam. Annoyingly, they did the USAF F-15 book on Enduring/Iraqi Freedom?!?! "F-15C's spent many hours circling around, looking for something to do". Most everybody presumed the F-15 book (when they announced it) would be about Desert Storm, being the only US F-15 air-to-air combat. The F-18 book's a bit better, but again, Desert Storm would have had a lot more "neat combat scenarios" to write about.