It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-16 And Mitsubishi F-2

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Are the Mitsubishi F-2s just modded F-16s or are the whole airframes built by Mitsubishi?

www.danshistory.com...

homepage2.nifty.com...




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The F-2 is a vastly different a/c. Based on the F-16 it has a larger wing and is a bigger a/c overall. The wing is also made up of composite material and has more hardpoints than a F-16. I believe that the content split is 60% Japan and 40% US.



[edit on 3/17/06 by FredT]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
i thought that the F-2 was a licensed built version of the F-16.

Justin



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
i thought that the F-2 was a licensed built version of the F-16.

Justin


This might prove useful to you?
F-16 FSX/F-2: F-16 Inspired Japanese Fighter






seekerof



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

The FS-X is quite similar in appearance to the F-16C/D, but features a new Japanese-designed wing of greater span and root chord. The wingspan is 36 feet 0 inches, as compared with 32 feet 9 3/8 inches for the standard F-16C. The new wing has 25 percent more area and makes extensive use of co-cured composite technology to cut down on the weight and to reduce the radar signature. The planform of the wing is much the same as that of the F-16, but features a slightly forward-swept trailing edge. As compared to the F-16, the FS-X has an extra stores station underneath each wing, for a total of three plus the wingtip station. The FS-X will be able to carry two or four Mitsubishi ASM-2 anti-shipping missiles. The tailplane surfaces are 20 percent larger in area than those of the standard F-16C.

The fuselage of the FS-X is slightly longer in the midsection than that of the F-16C/D in order to accommodate additional fuel and avionics, and the radome is slightly longer. The FS-X has a length of 50 feet 1 inches, as compared with 49 feet 6 inches for the F-16.

The FS-X features a reinforced canopy with a bow frame because of mission requirements for low-level flight capabilities and the attendant increased risk of bird strikes.

The FS-X features a housing for a drag chute above the engine exhaust.

The estimated maximum take- off weight of the FS-X is 49,000 pounds, as compared with 42,300 pounds for a USAF F-16C.

home.att.net...

The F-2 was built because no other plane out there fit their requirements. The F-16 was the closest, but didn't quite fit what they were looking for. So they modified it to fit their needs.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Yes the japanese used the f-16 to base their mitsubish f-2



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
If you think in terms of them taking an F-16 and then just modifying it you are kind of putting the cart before the horse.Although the end result does not outwardly look too different, it was more the other way round. It might give a better idea of the design process to say that they already had a firm idea about the FS-X and knew exactly what they wanted from it and a modified CCV Mitsubishi T.2 undertook a lot of development flying for new avionics and systems etc, but the Japanese then entered into partnership with GD and looked at how much of the F-16 design, structure and tooling could be incorporated into the basic idea in order to keep costs and timescale down. That is the reason they ended up with a plane that looks so much like an F-16.

In fact, it is why EVERYONE who follows this path ends up with a plane that looks like an F-16




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
the Japanese then entered into partnership with GD and looked at how much of the F-16 design, structure and tooling could be incorporated into the basic idea


So in other words they copied as much as they could from the f-16

Justin



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   
It depends how you interpret 'copy'.

If you mean they took a basic F-16 and then thought 'how can we turn this into a fighter for us?' then no. Because the FS-X had been underway for many years before GD joined in and the design requirements for the F-2 were already set.

But if you mean they and GD together said 'how much of the F-2 can use existing structures that we are already producing and how much needs to be brand new' then yes.

It might be a small difference to some but it is a crucial one.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Well, they are obviously close to eachother, and the F-2 is based on the F-16... But it's not an F-16...

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
It depends how you interpret 'copy'.


I interpret copy as. The japanese already had there own aircraft program but they used as much f-16 technology as they could whithout making the plane an unlicensed f-16.

Justin



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

....without making it an unlicensed F-16


Unlicensed? Don't forget that it was GD who brought the F-16 into the equation so the F-2 as built was based on the F-16 by its original designers working in conjunction with Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi did not take an F-16 and deconstruct it, everything 'F-16 related' in the F-2 was offered over by GD themselves.

Like I said in another thread, the Tu-4 was a copy. The J-7 was a copy, later much modified J-7's are not copies but developments, see the pattern?

If Mitsubishi had built the F-2 all by themselves then the case for it being a copy would be very strong indeed, the fact of the matter is that Lockheed (as they now are) uses the basic F-16 design for all its co-development, technology transfer programmes (such as the T-50/A-50, Ching Kuo etc) to various degrees. This does not make any of them 'copies' of the F-16.

I think you know the situation perfectly well but its maybe your use of the language that is incorrect?

A copy is a replica, see the examples I posted above. The F-2 is not a replica of, but is clearly based on, the F-16.



[edit on 18-3-2006 by waynos]

[edit on 18-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
OKI... Now I have a question... how can you see the difference...??




[edit on 18-3-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Note the location of the detachable fuel tanks, also from what I'm aware of the wings on an F-2 are slightly more rounded twords the inside of the plane, and the F-2 sinks closer to the ground. That is...IF my memory serves me right.

EDIT:

Yeah, here have a look at this, that shows that the wings have a more rounded innard, also the tail's are slightly different.



[edit on 3-18-2006 by Shugo]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I see... but it is still a hard job if you don't have a trained eye... Now I know what I'am gona do the rest of the week...
Thanks shugo...



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The most obvious visual clue is the canopy. The F-2 has a separate windscreen whereas the F-16 does not, if you are looking at the thing from anything like side on and the wings aren't visible this is the only way to distinguish them (apart from the JASDF marking of course).



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Yupp... and the tails... But the F-2 aslo seems to have a small "thingey" on the front right side... No idea what it is though...



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   
It's a pitot tube for getting altitude and airspeed readings. The F-16 just uses the one on the radome, the F-2 has one on the side of the nose as well.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join