Japan Air Self-Defence Force

Ananda

Well-Known Member
Now Northrop Grumman Wants to Build Japan's New Fighter Jet

This could be interesting. Northrop-Grumman plan to enter Japanese F-3 program. Facing the proposed Lockheed-Martin F-22/F-35 hybrid.

With no recent design on their own if I'm not mistaken..than I agree with the article that most likely NG will bring back YF-23 derivative against what LM will bring.

Really like that possibility..Just like YF-23, and possibility that Japanese can field YF-23 derivative is really interesting.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Now Northrop Grumman Wants to Build Japan's New Fighter Jet

This could be interesting. Northrop-Grumman plan to enter Japanese F-3 program. Facing the proposed Lockheed-Martin F-22/F-35 hybrid.

With no recent design on their own if I'm not mistaken..than I agree with the article that most likely NG will bring back YF-23 derivative against what LM will bring.

Really like that possibility..Just like YF-23, and possibility that Japanese can field YF-23 derivative is really interesting.
I wonder if Israel might be interested in joining in looking at a F-15 replacement.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Now Northrop Grumman Wants to Build Japan's New Fighter Jet

This could be interesting. Northrop-Grumman plan to enter Japanese F-3 program.

Really like that possibility..Just like YF-23, and possibility that Japanese can field YF-23 derivative is really interesting.
I hope not because the YF-23 was one ugly bird. If the Japanese and South Koreans got together on such a project, the end result could be a really good and exciting outcome.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
Ha,ha..beauty in the eye of beholder, Ngati..:)

Still whatever Japanese Choose as platform for F3, it has to be abble to replace and augment existing capacity from both F-15 and F-2.

South Korean KFX is promising platform, but I have doubt it can satisfied Japanese need for both F-15 and F-2 replacement.

Don't think ROK has enough capacity to work on different project with Japan outside their KFX project.
KFX block 3 according to South Korean sources will be slated for 2040 period. And it will be full 5th gen config (while block 1 and 2 still in 4.5 gen config). It can coincide with F-3 time frame, still can Japanese satisfied build something based on Korean KFX ?
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The US is still sticking to its guns and not allowing the F-22 to be exported.

I am not sure why. The F22 design is nearly 20 years old now.

If I were the Americans I would jump at the opportunity of having Japan to pick up the cost of restarting the F-22 production line.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I hope not because the YF-23 was one ugly bird. If the Japanese and South Koreans got together on such a project, the end result could be a really good and exciting outcome.
Still better looking then then the Boeing F-32 would have been.
Would ROK work with Japan on a Defence project? they are not exactly the best of friends
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I still wonder what F-22 technologies, which are over 20 years now, are deemed to be too secret for export. Besides, the Chinese have probably stolen this technology by now.

The link below is a summary of the USAF report on why the F-22 line won’t be restarted. The author points out some dubious assumptions contained in it.

Here’s The F-22 Production Restart Study The USAF Has Kept Secret For Over A Year
Frankly, the article itself makes some fairly dubious assumptions itself. A glaring one IMO is how viable getting permission to secure 'export' orders really is. Absent a literal act of Congress, it would be a violation of US law to expend any funding to export the F-22. Among the implications of this would be that it is illegal for any of the various stakeholders who would need to study and then sign off on any F-22 exports (like the State Dept. for example), are barred from expending the money required for the various studies which would need to be done, or even just spending the money required to process the paperwork.

Another statement the article make;

However, the report also says the service did not consider whether any of the Joint Strike Fighter's components, supply chains, or infrastucture could help support a new F-22 program and potentially produce cost savings.
seems to suggest is that new production F-22's could tap into areas of the F-35 programme to speed things along and/or reduce costs. What this sort of assumption makes and which IMO is very dubious, is that the components designed for the F-35 can be easily integrated with/into or replace components designed for the F-22.

The databus , software, and even the programming language used for the F-35 is totally different than that of the F-22 and in fact there were changes made to how the F-35 avionics were designed and implemented to make future upgrades (software and hardware IIRC) much easier to carry out. This could of course be carried out with the F-22 as well, but it would require the redesign of systems and developmental work.

Yes, it does seem that the LO features of the F-22 exceed the capability of the LO features of the F-35, and that with thrust vectoring the F-22 is probably more maneuverable in a dogfight... However, I believe the sensor capabilities and sensor/data fusion of the F-35 are superior and that without a complete redesign of the F-22, the Raptor could not approach what the F-35 is capable of in terms of situational awareness.

And the issues of approvals would still remain, as would just exactly where would any new production F-22's really fit into the USAF OrBat.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Still better looking then then the Boeing F-32 would have been.
Would ROK work with Japan on a Defence project? they are not exactly the best of friends
The Boeing effort was the epitome in ugly and probably would have lost even if it was a better design, mega ugly!

I agree, Japanese and Korean coperation on a big project like a stealth fighter would be politically difficult given recent history.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@Todjaeger, if the export restrictions you mention are so difficult to overcome, why would NG and LM even bother to attempt involvement in the Japanese program? Your comment seems to imply there isn’t much the US government would allow them to contribute.

If the F-22 LO is more capable, why isn’t this incorporated into a valuable asset like the F-35. Perhaps it is, in US F-35s only. If that is the the case, we will never know.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
@Todjaeger, if the export restrictions you mention are so difficult to overcome, why would NG and LM even bother to attempt involvement in the Japanese program? Your comment seems to imply there isn’t much the US government would allow them to contribute.

If the F-22 LO is more capable, why isn’t this incorporated into a valuable asset like the F-35. Perhaps it is, in US F-35s only. If that is the the case, we will never know.
The restriction, which is known as the Obey amendment, is specific to the F-22. It is not applicable to either aircraft mission or subsystems, or other aircraft.

Something like 90% of the LO effects are due to aircraft shaping, which has to be factored in during the design of the aircraft. This also means that LO features which work for one aircraft/design, cannot simply be applied to a different design.

Take the F-22 and F-35 as examples, the rear aspect LO of the F-22 is supposed to be greater (as in smaller thermal and radar signatures) than the F-35 due to the size and design of the engine nozzles.

I also believe the skin of the F-22 has greater effect for LO than the F-35 skin does, but that it was a deliberate choice to use a different material on the F-35. Basically for the F-35 a choice was made to go with a less effective material from a LO perspective, but one that was easier to maintain.

When the F-35 was being designed, it was not being designed to exceed the F-22 in terms of LO, as the F-22 turned out to be hideously expensive to develop and then sustain. The F-35 was designed to have greater LO than every other available (i.e. not the F-22) fighter, while also being easier to support than prior LO aircraft like the F-22, B-2, F-117, etc.

One of the great advantages of the F-35 is that much of the efforts put into the avionics made them both more capable than in previous aircraft (including the F-22) and should make it easier to maintain and upgrade them in the future. Examples include things like the Universal Armaments Interface (UAI) from Raytheon, which if I understand the technology correctly should enable the integration of future munitions to proceed more smoothly as it provides a common architecture for the munitions to communicate with the aircraft. As a side note, I would anticipate that tech like the UAI will over time get applied to other aircraft, either older generations via upgrades/SLEP and built into new/upcoming designs.

The previous method of fitting munitions to an aircraft required designing, testing and integrating a system to enable the munitions to communicate with the aircraft and the important bit is that this design, testing and integration was required for each different aircraft design and I suspect in some cases, had to be done multiple times for different variants of the same aircraft.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
So IIRC, F-22 aircraft mission and subsystems can be exported. That seems imply the aircraft coating and possibly the engine nozzle design are not exportable. As the shaping of a stealth design is responsible for up to 90% of LO then the actual F-22 shape is what is being banned I assume? Did Congress place the same restrictions on the YF-23 design?

I get the many important technologies the F-35 brings into the grand scheme of things but if emerging radar developments (quantum radar, photonic radar) and/or new IR detection actually turn out to be workable, then will fighter kinematic performance once again be considered important again? I would think the increased combat radius and missile capacity of a hypothetical naval F-22 would be attractive the the USN given their concerns about Chinese cruise missiles.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
将来の戦闘機用を目指したジェットエンジンのプロトタイプ(XF9-1)を納入|航空・宇宙・防衛|2018年度|ニュース|株式会社IHI

将来戦闘機用エンジンのコアが完成、IHIが防衛装備庁に納入 | TOKYO EXPRESS

IHI already prepared their engine prototype. The Tokyo Express seems indicating it have 15 ton thrust with afterburner.
Thus for F3, seems the Japanese not only going to used their own sensors and electronics like in F2, but also their own engine.

Thus seems they need US or Euro vendors for design, and things the still lack in experiences like LO to speed up development.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
So IIRC, F-22 aircraft mission and subsystems can be exported. That seems imply the aircraft coating and possibly the engine nozzle design are not exportable. As the shaping of a stealth design is responsible for up to 90% of LO then the actual F-22 shape is what is being banned I assume? Did Congress place the same restrictions on the YF-23 design?

I get the many important technologies the F-35 brings into the grand scheme of things but if emerging radar developments (quantum radar, photonic radar) and/or new IR detection actually turn out to be workable, then will fighter kinematic performance once again be considered important again? I would think the increased combat radius and missile capacity of a hypothetical naval F-22 would be attractive the the USN given their concerns about Chinese cruise missiles.
The Obey amendment (named for the member of Congress who authored it) is specific to the F-22 Raptor. As for the aircraft subsystems, there is the potential for questions with regards to being able to export them. Some systems might be able to be exported like the RWR or perhaps the P&W F-119 turbofans as those can be separate, discrete systems. The air intakes for the engines and the exhaust nozzles, and perhaps the fuel circulation systems OTOH might not be able to exported. Realistically it could end up requiring court rules to determine one way or the other.

Certainly with an aircraft like the F-22 or F-35, it is not just the shape of the aircraft which matters, but also what systems the aircraft contains, and how everything fits together.

The YF-23 never moved past the prototype stage and is not impacted by the Obey amendment AFAIK, but would still fall within the 'normal' ITARS and FMS sales restrictions. It is also quite possible that the IP associated with the YF-23 might be US gov't property, and not that of Northrop or Northrop and Boeing. Incidentally, since the YF-23 never moved past the prototype stage, then all the development associated with completing an aircraft and integration of systems would still need to be done, as that was not completed.

As for the viability of a design vs. some of the new technologies which are in development like 'quantum radar' and 'photonic radar' just like in the Brief History of LO thread, if those technologies actually reach fruition and are able to provide an operationally useful capability which replaces current methods of radar detection, then I firmly believe new aircraft/systems will be developed to overcome or evade them.

Realistically though, there is quite a bit of work which needs to be done before a useful capability can be delivered, never mind one which will replace current radars.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yes, I agree their is more fantasy than substance regarding future detection technology. IIRC, the YF-23 was considered to be more stealthy than the F-22 and its low speed maneuvering was inferior (debatable). NG cost over runs on the B2 was the likely reason it lost out. It will be interesting to see if the Japanese or the Euros actually build a 5 th fighter.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
... the Universal Armaments Interface (UAI) from Raytheon, which if I understand the technology correctly should enable the integration of future munitions to proceed more smoothly as it provides a common architecture for the munitions to communicate with the aircraft. As a side note, I would anticipate that tech like the UAI will over time get applied to other aircraft, either older generations via upgrades/SLEP and built into new/upcoming designs.....
When I heard of the UAI I was gobsmacked - because it was new. I was stunned that it or something like it hadn't been standard long before.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The US is still sticking to its guns and not allowing the F-22 to be exported.

I am not sure why. The F22 design is nearly 20 years old now.
More! The F-22 proper flew in 1997, 21 years ago. The design is, of course, older. The YF-22 technology demonstrator first flew in 1990.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
When I heard of the UAI I was gobsmacked - because it was new. I was stunned that it or something like it hadn't been standard long before.
The part that really has me gobsmacked is that once it was developed, the US did not (or at least has not) made plans to immediately backfit the UAI the existing and planned inventory.

That sort of forward thinking architecture should ease the difficulty with integrating new weapons so that the only aircraft-specific testing is the weapons clearance tests. Not sure why the UAI has not been fitted to designs like the P-8A Poseidonm unless of course it has and people just do not know about it.
 
Top