JASDF thread

[topol-m]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zakobi]

[topol-m]

I don`t know who made these ^^^ assumptions but they are highly inaccurate except for one - it F-2 is really much more expensive than comparable F-16 aircraft. First of all, where does this info about US pressure come from? Secondly about F-2 being less capable than block 52 F-16C, I`m not an expert but the aerodynamic changes should improve some of its flying capabilities at the expense of others (I will ask mvsgas about a rough comparison based on the known changes, he works with F-16s). In addition F-2 got the J/APG-1 AESA radar which, even if I don`t know its exact parameters, I expect to be better than APG-68 simply because it is based on newer AESA technology. How it compares to the newer AN/APG-80 AESA in Block 60 F-16s I don`t think we will find out soon :) And about not choosing Tornado, what should I say... ah yes, great for not choosing it, ever heard of Tornado with an AESA radar? :D

Japan got a true multirole aircraft which is, as mvsgas said recently, so similar and at the same time so different from F-16 and is currently the most advanced fighter aircraft in JASDF. Although very costly this project with the technology transfers and the licenses was and is good for the Japan`s military industry. Apart from that a lot of its systems are built by Japanese companies.

Edited June 14, 2010 by topol-m

[Pilotasso]

It was made in Japan, not US or russia, so thanks to some degree of prejudice, it must be crap ;)

[topol-m]

It was made in Japan, not US or russia, so thanks to some degree of prejudice, it must be crap ;)

 

:laugh:

[mvsgas]

I send you a PM Topol

I'm just a mechanic so not sure if I could compare the two aircraft accurately and eloquently enough.

I have never worked or seen a Mitsubishi F-2 up close.

The F-2 have larger wings and wider leading edge extensions. I would think the landing gear could handle heavier loads. I do not think any F-16 (except UAE block 60) carry AESA radars. Wing cracks are common on F-16 and I dough Mitsubishi was surprise about them, nor have I ever heard the cracks to affect F-16 operationally nor has it affected sales. Look at any photo of the F-16's back bone and you will see structural reinforcements that are added to prevent cracks.

I think the F-2 could be very similar to the USAF block 50 or even the F/A-18, but I could only tell you my opinion since never worked the aircraft.

Edited June 15, 2010 by mvsgas

[topol-m]

If it is ok with mvsgas I`ll quote parts of his response because I value his objective opinion as a person who is actually working with F-16s. My closest contact with military planes is at airshows and my sources are books and internet :) so...

 

In terms of physical differences

Wings are larger and leading edge extensions are wider, so from my untrained eyes I would think that the F-2 can potentially maintain control at higher AOA with reduce acceleration. Also looks like the landing gear would have higher weight limitation, meaning the aircraft can land or take off with larger/heavier weapons loads. The cockpit are very similar (as we all can see) but again, I really do not have enough info to make judgment

 

I will say, I think the F-2 is more comparable with the block 50 or a F/A-18 not the 52. The block 52 is limited in its use by USAF so I have limited knowledge on it. I think the only reason block 52 is sold more is because of cost, not 100% on that. The block 52+ ( which is very common export lately) has the same wing area as a block 50 with more weight so not sure if they would handle better. The Block 50 is the heaviest F-16 in the USAF because of certain airframe modifications and the GE engine but is is the most powerful. I think the F-2 is heavier but with a larger wing so in my opinion it should handle close to a Block 50.

 

I'm not sure if the block 50 have all been modified to carry AESA radars and not sure if any other country besides UAE (with their block 60) has AESA equipped F-16 so the F-2 might have the advantage there.

 

F-2 does carry more weapons and have heavier load capabilities and 2 extra weapons stations, but it also has a different missions. I always thought that the F-2 main mission was maritime patrol with secondary mission of air defense. While the Block 50 has more a multirole aircraft, this by its nature would mean the F-16 block 50 would make more compromises and maybe be less capable in a specific task.

 

At any rate, looking at the article about the F-2

The wing or wing root cracking its a known thing with F-16, not sure if it is a design flaw or if the cracks are cause by the way the aircraft is used. If you see photos of the F-16 top, you can see structural reinforcements to correct this, not sure if this would cause the F-2 program to be halted, sorry I just don't have that much info on the F-2. I know it has never affected the F-16 operationally and it seems that it is still doing well in overseas sales despite this known structural weaknesses.

 

About it being inferior

I dough that. Again, I'm no expert, but the engine is more that capable to move the aircraft. With the bigger wing, I would dare to compare performance to an F/A-18, maybe not the acceleration the block 50 may posses but not far behind and I think it is a more capable to complete the mission that I think it has. I really dough USA could pressure Japan into buying the F-2 license.

 

This is only my 2 cents based on my limited knowledge of the F-2.

[pauldy]

There have always been you in this thread, topol-m. All the other are in your imagination. All the other. Even this message. It's all just a bad dream...

 

 

I guess you're also forgetting who started this topic in the first place.. which is kusch >_>

 

This is a group effort ;) Any post regarding the topic or being related to it is a good one.

 

Although we can't hide the fact that Topol-M is the greatest contributor in this thread. Those deliciously sharp pictures he gathered and shared.

 

 

anyway, moving on>>

 

EDIT: Ok I found out you're were trying to be funny, my sense of humor had failed lol ^ :doh:

 

One thing's for sure, the photographer who takes pics of these JASDF aircraft is surely dedicated ~ day or night, rain or shine, all Japan SDF aircraft.

 

and must be skilled too, yielding those very sharp & clear pics

..or maybe it's just the camera^ bleh i'm clueless about photography.

Edited June 15, 2010 by pauldy

[zakobi]

I guess you're also forgetting who started this topic in the first place.. which is kusch >_>

 

This is a group effort ;) Any post regarding the topic or being related to it is a good one.

 

Although we can't hide the fact that Topol-M is the greatest contributor in this thread. Those deliciously sharp pictures he gathered and shared.

 

 

anyway, moving on>>

 

EDIT: Ok I found out you're were trying to be funny, my sense of humor had failed lol ^ :doh:

 

One thing's for sure, the photographer who takes pics of these JASDF aircraft is surely dedicated ~ day or night, rain or shine, all Japan SDF aircraft.

 

and must be skilled too, yielding those very sharp & clear pics

..or maybe it's just the camera^ bleh i'm clueless about photography.

 

It defiantly require a steady hand to take this kind of picture :thumbup:

A shiny camera can do a lot, but never to a degree of a dedicated photographer.

 

Whoever take this pictures, being it one or multiple persons, they are all really good... Or at least above my level. :D

[Pilotasso]

I send you a PM Topol

I'm just a mechanic so not sure if I could compare the two aircraft accurately and eloquently enough.

I have never worked or seen a Mitsubishi F-2 up close.

The F-2 have larger wings and wider leading edge extensions. I would think the landing gear could handle heavier loads. I do not think any F-16 (except UAE block 60) carry AESA radars. Wing cracks are common on F-16 and I dough Mitsubishi was surprise about them, nor have I ever heard the cracks to affect F-16 operationally nor has it affected sales. Look at any photo of the F-16's back bone and you will see structural reinforcements that are added to prevent cracks.

I think the F-2 could be very similar to the USAF block 50 or even the F/A-18, but I could only tell you my opinion since never worked the aircraft.

 

I will make my assessment following, but independent from yours, it doesnt have to be in disagreement or otherwise:

 

The F-2 is mainly an anti-ship plane, with secondary roles for AA and AG (the later to a lesser degree) and training.

The plane enjoys a smaller T/W ratio, but also has a lower wing loading. Having this configuration implies tradeoffs compared to the block 50's bigger wing loading and higher T/W. I would expect the block 50 to be a superior dogfighter at low altitudes but the F-2 should on paper suparss the 50 at high altitudes where its bigger wing would mean less AOA induced manuevering drag (note the opposite is true for straight level flight).

 

Speaking of the AESA radar, japans solution was a first for a fighter (Mig-31 was PESA), many years before APG-77, 79 or 80. This technology was and still is hard to develop to meet its full potential even today. As such I imagine that the japanese J/APG-1 does not necessarily follow the trend people think that AESA's always much superior to mech arrays in range. At this point saying this radar to be superior to the APG-68 in this respect would be farfetched. Surely it enjoys a faster refresh rate but I doubt it is as flexible or long reach as a radar of similar size as the much newer APG-80 AESA for example.

I think the choice of the japanese might have to do with the capability of searching for ships at sea and hold a lock better (critical for this task) than traditional mech arrays over anything other feature or capability. This fails to implicate a longer range in AA mode, and doesnt not aim at matching the APG-68 in this arena. So we simply dont know, and cant devise extrapolations. The F-2 lacked any Active missile comparable to the AMRAAM for many years and that made the biggest difference IMHO. The 2 are not comparable in the AG arena. The block 50 blows the F-2 out of the water in flexibility. The oppsosite should be true for ship busting.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Pilotasso

[topol-m]

^^^ That`s what I meant. It`s not simply less capable, it may be less capable in certain areas and more capable in others. You may be right about the range of detection of APG-68 and J/APG-1 but as we all know range is not everything ;) I also expect the newer AESAs like APG-80 to be better than J/APG-1. The lack of detailed parameters though make these comparisons just assumptions.

[topol-m]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[topol-m]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sawamura]

Finaly. First i thought, there wouldnt come any new photos. :thumbup:

 

Btw, i wonder, who takes all these photos? :)

[topol-m]

Oh there will be a lot more.

I can`t tell you a single name cause all the photos I`m posting here I`ve downloaded from various sites mainly japanese. It would have been more correct to search for the photographers` names and post them here as well, but hey it`s easier and less time consuming to just download the pictures ;) I hope I`m not violating some rights here, the whole thing being with non-commercial purpose. I`m just showing everybody the beauty of JASDF.

[Ross-impress]

I see no pictures were tagged copyright so topol i see no problems. I'm also military photographer. :)

 

Ross.

[topol-m]

I see no pictures were tagged copyright so topol i see no problems. I'm also military photographer. :)

 

Ross.

 

Great :thumbup:

[diveplane]

old jap f4s on take off

 

[topol-m]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[topol-m]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sawamura]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[topol-m]

Nice pics. I didn`t know Blue Impulse used T-2 (the last picture).

[Sawamura]

They have flown the T-2 from 1982 - 1995.

 

 

With the old smoke colors.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Sawamura

[Sawamura]

YPtNbzspIuk

[topol-m]

Great video! This guy has the best F-15J/DJ videos on youtube.