F-3 or F-36A, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 14-1-2007 @ 10:37 PM by Leovnmemo
The F-3 program was initiated in response to Japan's requirement for an interceptor to replace its aging fleet of F-15J. The F-22 was considered too expensive to allow for a 1 to 1 replacement of the Eagle fleet. In addition, with the rise of communist China air's power, Japan felt that it needs to increase its number of air frames beyond current levels. Hence the hunt was on for a relatively affordable interceptor that will afford it a clear and distinct advantage over any Su-27 derivative and/or the next generation of eastern bloc fighter. Since advance 3rd generation types such as the European Typhoon or Rafael, as well as an evolved version of the Mitsubishi F-2 or US-teens will fall way short of requirement, the decision was made to pursue a brand new airframe. The crash project was to be a joint venture between the US and Japanese military industrial complex. The initial budget was roughly 6 billion USD, but this was subsequently double to 12 billion with 6 billion coming from the USA which sees the opportunity to acquire a naval interceptor to supplement the F-18 E/F. Given the very modest development budget the program attempted to avoid the development of new systems as much as possible and inherits the majority of internal systems from the F-35. The radar is an updated version of the F-35’s AN/APG-81 AESA unit, designated the AN/APG-81(v)1, with an advanced antenna group utilizing Gallium-Indium-Aluminum MMICs and a 25% increase in the number of T/R modules. The F135-PW-100 engine, cockpit displays, distributed aperture optical sensors, ESM are all practically carried over from the F-35. In essence the F-3 program attempts to repackage the F-35 into a new airframe optimized for interception. Greater speed and stealth are emphasized, as is the reduced supersonic drag. Internal fuel capacity is reduced (5500kg vs 8300kg) and payload capacity is cut (4200kg vs 7700kg). The aircraft bears some resemblance to the YF-23 and is constructed largely of advanced composites. The F-3 has a combat radius of 450 nm on internal fuel. Thanks to the low bypass engine, it boasts an operational altitude in excess of 22000 nm. It is also be sustains at Mach1.5 without afterburners and can attain Mach 2.2 on full reheat. The aircraft has two internal weapon bays, each capable of accommodating two AIM-120 C/D missiles or two 250lb small diameter bombs. There is no internal gun even though provision was made for the F-35B’s centerline gun pod to be carried. There are two wet hard points under each wing rated for 1500kg. These are capable of handling an external tank, a pair of AIM-120 C/D missiles, a pair of AIM-9X missiles and other ordnance. The unit cost is expected to be about 60 million USD assuming a production run of 500 units. To facilitate export to a wider range of clients, the US partners are also preparing a downgraded version power by a General Electric F110-GE-132 engine (32,000 lbs thrust). This version will be equipped with the F-18E’s AN/APG-79 radar and is dubbed the F-36/110-LC. This attempt appears to be patterned after the abortive efforts in the late 70s to offer a downgraded F-16 with the single spool J79 turbojet engine (F-16/70).


i74.photobucket.com...



i74.photobucket.com...



Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]


reply posted on 16-1-2007 @ 03:10 PM by WestPoint23
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Gotta disagree with you there. You can count on thousands of Chinese aircraft, most reasonably recent and comparable (if not better) than the F-15s.


China does not have thousands of aircraft comparable to the F-15, at best only a few hundred that I would consider equal (just the airframe) to the F-15C/D (non AESA).

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The Japanese F-15s don't have AESA radars do they? [Or PESA for that matter?


No they (F-15CJ/DJ) do not have AESA or PESA, however the F-2 carries an AESA radar.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Well... if you want to take advantage of the JSF's VLO tech, how many missiles can you carry? (is it 4 or 6)


Currently it is only configured to carry four internal AAM's, however there is room for six, should that option be necessary.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
With the EF2000 you can loadout with, what, 12? 14?


Twelve, if you want to fly straight and level at 500 kt for half you usual combat radius that is, but anyway that's besides the point. The F-35 can also be loaded into double digits, but what would be the point? To carry as many missiles as possible or ensure that you will not be shot down. What good will having twelve missiles do me if I'm only at parity with my opponent. the F-35 ensures survival, you can launch your six, return and repeat, running multiple sorties if needed. That's effective in the sustained long term, losing half your force every mission, is not.


reply posted on 16-1-2007 @ 03:21 PM by kilcoo316
Originally posted by WestPoint23
China does not have thousands of aircraft comparable to the F-15, at best only a few hundred that I would consider equal (just the airframe) to the F-15C/D (non AESA).


What you and I consider equal may not be the same. Any Flanker variant is a serious threat to an F-15 IMO. I gather they'll be around 400 Flankers in Chinese service shortly [that we know of]. So my thousands is overestimating (assuming we know the numbers!).


Originally posted by WestPoint23
Currently it is only configured to carry four internal AAM's, however there is room for six, should that option be necessary.

Twelve, if you want to fly straight and level at 500 kt for half you usual combat radius that is, but anyway that's besides the point. The F-35 can also be loaded into double digits, but what would be the point? To carry as many missiles as possible or ensure that you will not be shot down. What good will having twelve missiles do me if I'm only at parity with my opponent. the F-35 ensures survival, you can launch your six, return and repeat, running multiple sorties if needed. That's effective in the sustained long term, losing half your force every mission, is not.


See my response above.

You turn back to base - their follow up A2G raids get you on the ground.

An EF with 12 AAMs probably stands a better chance of returning from an oversea intercept than a 12 AAM loaded JSF.

If the JSF ain't loaded with alot of missiles, it simply may not be able to kill all the bandits (unless you go toe to toe in WVR).
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags
Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 8 days ago with 3 member flags
Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 16 days ago with 0 member flags