Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Stealth Fighter Announced as 'Return of the Zero'
reporter writes "According to a news article by the Associated Press, Tokyo has begun developing an indigenous stealth jet fighter that will be deployed in 2016. Mitsubishi, the prime contractor, has already developed a full-scale model, of which several pictures have been accidentally leaked to the press. The model is named 'Mitsubishi ATD-X"'. A laboratory of the French government has evaluated the "stealthy-ness" of ATD-X, and given it a high rating. Will ATD-X achieve air superiority over the F-22, which Washington refuses to sell to Tokyo?"
I was going to post exactly this comment.
Seriously, people, stop referring to countries and decision made by countries with the name of the capital city. You don't sound smart, you aren't clever, this isn't a bad movie.
Japan is making an aircraft. Not Tokyo. Shut up and go away.
And stay awake in English class next time.
stealth doesn't make you invincible. it just makes you hard to kill. the harder you are to kill, the better no? the stealth fighter kill was mostly a problem with american planning (they flew the same route over and over and over again). however, i have no idea what your talking bout when you say that the stealth fighter/bomber must be protected on bombing sorties. maybe the tankers that they need to make the full trip have to be protected, but when they're running the whole "slipping through your air defense network" they are very much alone.
It was shot down with a command detonated unguided missile (the missle was guidable, but in this case wasn't guided, just launched like a bottle rocket) and hit an aircraft that was flying the same ingress corridor several days in a row. This is a result of McPeak's stupidity.
And yes, I was going to vote for Obama before he accepted McPeak's endorsement. So were thousands of my peers. C'est la vie.
You know, there's already a word for this cute little expression. 'Stealthiness'.
The sensors for the F22, for example, are made by BAE Systems E&IS, and Northrop Grumman in the united states. The US military has a vested interest in insuring that key components of military hardware are made domestically. That way they can ensure the technology will not fall into enemy hands, and ensure that war abroad will not affect supply of military hardware.
It is very much like building your own state of the art, deep submicron IC fabrication plant. In the early days it was relatively easy to stay current, and in the 1970's even some universities could have a bleeding edge fab. As the technology gets more complex, the costs go up asymptotically, and the small players have to fold.
Many canadians remember the "Avro Arrow" the last fighter jet built here. To bring it into production would have taken up the entire defense budget, and once you have built enough fighters to satisfy the needs of your own air force, how do you keep the team together to maintain it and build enhanced versions? You either sell your aircraft to foreign nations, (often unstable and/or war torn 3rd world dictatorships that have disproportionately large military budgets) team up with foreign nations to increase your market and share the costs. (like the newest eurofighter) No matter how good the arrow was, (the project is still controversial) it couldn't be built economically without selling it abroad.
The Israeli's tried and failed with the Lavi project. Technically they could have done it, but it didn't make economic sense no matter how badly they wanted control and ownership of their own weapons platform.
Other countries such as Sweden and France manufacture high tech fighters - the French were notorious for selling their all over the world. I predict the project will probably fold after spending billions of dollars, and just maybe cranking out a factory prototype or two.
The US can do it simply because they are such a large country with the world's biggest military budget. Even they have run into problems where the production run was completed, yet they didn't want to lose the technology and expertise when the production line shut down and the team disbanded, so wound up buying more aircraft than the air force wanted.
My rights don't need management.
It's as much a defensive weapon as it is offensive, as quoted:
"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."
On other fronts, the F-22 represents our leading edge technology (even though it's essentially 1990's tech) and is what gives us an advantage. It's not surprising the technology isn't up for export. The F-15 and F-16 both were in the same position when they were introduced, but eventually were considered for export after there advantage subsided a bit (or "lower" tech versions of them were available).
As well, the F-22 is really expensive. The United States is one of the few countries (or groups of countries) that can pull off such an endeavor. This also naturally limits its export capability, there's simply few others that could afford to buy it.
IMHO, Japan will end up with export variants of the F-35 (the USAF already has F-22 stationed in Okinawa). And continue with their F-15 and possibly be allowed to construct a variant of the F-15E to replace their aging F-4s (though their limited production of F-2 can already fulfill this requirement).
Japan has tried this move before, they eventually canceled production of their F-2 program (basically a modernized F-16) and are looking to persuade the United Stated to open up more tech for them to acquire (again, probably the F-35, though possibly future F-22 export variants).
All Japan produced planes, so far, have been based on US tech. Any other home grown R&D project would be too expensive to survive in the political arena. There's no reason to believe this ATD-X project will find the same fate.
Finally, IMHO, it wouldn't be able to beat the F-22 is most engagements. Physical performance is only one aspect of why the F-22 is the best air superiority fighter in the world. Avionics, radar, and weapon load out represent some of the others. The ATD-X would just be too expensive to match the F-22 in all areas, if it sees flight, major compromises will have to be make.
This post coming from a guy who just saw the F-16, F-15, and F-22 fly back to back at the Gathering of Mustangs and Legends.
Don't be so quick to think that an active AN/APG-77 automatically opens up the F-22 to detection. The AN/APG-77 is a statically mounted phased array radar, with electronic beam stearing capability. This coupled with the fact that it has the ability to frequency hop about a 1000 times a second gives it a very low probability of intercept. Short pulses at varying frequencies and (probably) varying pulse duration, timing ,power, etc., keep it from being detected by the enemy's RWR.
I have been told that F-15C pilots at Red Flag could not detect the F-22's scanning them at beyond visual range (BVR). Nor could the F-15C's APG-63 radar detect the F-22 at BVR. They kill numbers would confirm this, but I have no official links to back it up (other than message board postings).
[Granted the F-15C and it's avionics don't represent the top of the line in modern technology anymore, so it's a grain of salt example. But I'll also point out that the F-15 has never been beaten in an actual air to air engagement to date.]
Japan's Liberal Democratic Party under Koizumi supported commisioning these fighters, but the rival anti-war Democratic party is graining seats. If these trends continue, by 2016, Japan won't be budgeting enough for its military defense to actually purchase these concept fighter jets from Mitsubishi.
An interesting article on how perseverance and attention to details allowed the Serbs to down the F-117 stealth craft:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx
Table-ized A.I.
That "tradition" has nothing to do with stealth technology and everything to do with historical accident. The first two stealth aircraft were a light bomber and a heavy bomber. And both of them are produced by a country that hasn't had to defend its own territory since the nineteenth century. Anyway, the predominant military doctrines adopted by the Western world have been based more on attack than on defense ever since after WWI, because (a) defensive strategies proved useless and wasteful in WWI and (b) everyone in the West read von Clausewitz, and Clausewitz's idea of defense turns out to be regrouping and counterattack.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I wouldn't call it an AWACS, since the radar only scans a cone-shaped, forward-looking area, and there's only one pair of eyes looking at it, at that. However, using [url=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/jtids.htm]JTIDS[/url] and other datalinks the F-22 has available to it, its sensors augment the sensors of the other aircraft capable of receiving the information. It's the next best thing to an AWACS, all the same, but no substitute by any comparison. Having that capability built-in is one of the major reasons the F-22 has a high probability of survival in an air battle, since situational awareness is, for all intents and purposes, the number one key to actually succeeding in air combat. If you've got the ability to go in close with an enemy aircraft, fly around and burn away your energy while tracking that guy and keeping an eye on any other guys in the area thanks to your wingmen and their sensors, you've got a major advantage to last-generation aircraft. The other advantage is, as has been stated, the F-22's radar system is classified as an LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) radar which rapidly fluctuates its radar pulses to avoid detection while having the advantage of still being able to actively scan for threats and targets. While it's definitely possible to intercept the radar, not much of this generation of radar technology can actually do that.
The Russian Su-35/37 employs a similar technology, with the addition of having a rearward-facing radar as well as its standard forward-looking one. Whether or not that's a really big thing hasn't been seen yet, since even though exports for these are available, very few of them are being built (I'm not sure if either has been in active duty). The Flanker series of aircraft, however, have always played the role of an air dominance fighter, the Su-27 being very similar to the F-15 in capabilities. The Su-35/37 is closer to the F-22 in performance and exceeds it in payload; However, it has none of the stealth capabilities its Western counterpart has, and is designed primarily as a BVR-equipped dogfighter/interceptor. The MiG-35/29OVT, to touch on the Mikoyan-Gurevich offering that's way more likely to be exported and used in modern military forces, is more or less a multirole dogfighter with a lesser payload than the Sukhoi, and compares to the F-22 most directly in close-in combat, but carries an extremely low price tag. The biggest thing is, I guess, that the Russian technology is meant to be augmented by an A-50 Mainstay AWACS or ground radar, and I don't think either of those would be very good at detecting small groups of F-22's, save for perhaps the A-50's powerful radar system, which would suffer degraded performance versus conventional planes...
All told, considering that the Japanese aircraft is also going stealth, one can draw the conclusion that the Chinese/Korean technology (heavily borrowed or outright stolen/licensed from Russia) that it would be directly competing with would have a harder time detecting it, aggressor or not. One very important trait of current-generation fighter aircraft happens to be stealth technologies, or at least any combination of minimization of emissions, radar-absorbing materials, LPI radar technology, and "stealthy" airframe designs (though all of those things together more or less defines stealth aircraft as a whole). There are radar technologies that can detect stealth aircraft rather easily, but they either require three ground-based installations, or use of the atmosphere to bounce radar waves down onto aircraft from above (exposing their reflective canopies). Since the Japanese would likely only have to worry about the Czechoslovakian-built triple-installation technique, their defense fighter would have tremendous survivability in any role, most especially in anti-shipping, one of the F-2's current major roles.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
The A6M Zero was considered obsolete by the Japanese government by late 1942, and was replaced by various aircraft such as the Ki-84 and N1K-J, both of which had a similar (or indeed, with the higher octane fuel the US was using, better!) performance to the P-51D and P-47D, and Japan had even higher performance fighters such as the Ki-83 about to enter service in 1945 when they surrendered.That comparison may be valid for American vs. German tanks, but not for Japanese vs. American airplanes. Japan created what was undoubtedly its best fighter, the Zero, in 1939, and never did anything better than that. OTOH, the US kept releasing better and better planes during WWII; the P-51 had a cruising speed that was 20 mph faster than the Zero's *top* speed in level flight.
The myth that Japan entered the war with the Zero and left it at that is simply that - a myth. The Zero was being replaced throughout 1943, 1944 and 1945 with better aircraft, with the only problem being that toward the end of the war Japan could not produce enough of them to sustain a defensive force.
Depends how much you value the lives of your pilots, and the prestige that comes from an aura of invincibility.
Right now, the US air force has a reputation for being unbeatable. Nobody can compete with the US in the air. I don't think the Iraqi air force even bothered to leave the ground during the last war. What would be the point? It's suicide. That gives you a big bonus advantage - if your kit is that good, suddenly it doesn't need to be, because nobody's even going to dare try it on. Same thing happened back in the Falklands: the Argentines feared to engage Harriers in air combat, and that meant the British got away with only having about a dozen of them on site.
If you give the enemy a chance, he'll go for it. He'll take risks for his country or his ideology or his faith or his friends; he'll accept the likelihood of death for the chance of bringing down a Yankee imperialist. Sure, you'll still win. Your planes are still better than his. But no longer so much better that nobody tries to take them on. You get casualties. You get pictures on the news of American planes as burned wreckage on the ground, you get pilots dead or captured, you get this much more often. Depending on your priorities, this may well be worth the extra money to avoid.
After all, for the likes of America, or Britain, or indeed Japan, people are very expensive and need to be preserved. Recruiting is very hard right now, but building planes is comparatively easy - so build the best plane you can, to protect the few pilots you have. If you're China, with people in huge numbers willing to go to war for low pay, the equation might come out differently.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
181 of them costs $65.4 Billion.
It costs somewhere less than $5 Million to train a pilot.
You can offer million dollar signing bonuses for pilots, expand your training program up the whazoo and buy gobs of older, cheaper planes with $65.4 billion.
F-15s cost ~$30M & F-16s cost ~$45M
Even if you go 300% of those values, to accomodate spare parts, training ground crews, hanger space, flying costs, etc etc etc it is still a bargain and you can have a vastly expanded Air Force.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Internally it can hold 6 AIM-120Cs and 2 AIM-9s. That's it's primary configuration for air-to-air. With everything inside it is as stealthy as possible and as efficient as possible. Externally it can carry 4 fuel tanks, or two fuel tanks and four missiles (of varying types). Obviously hooking on external weapons makes it less stealthy, as well as increasing drag.
Remember: This isn't a bomber, though it can carry two bombs if needed (as the expense of 4 missiles) it's an air superiority fighter. It is designed to be fast, light, stealthy, and to kill other planes. Maneuverability and stealth are more important than maximum payload.
The US and previously the USSR, now Russia and China, have bene in a perpetual race to build the best fighter for over 50 years now, from the days of the F-86 and Mig-15, the F-4 and Mig-21 and F-15 and Su-27/30. Each time, one side has made a major improvement and then the other side has scrambled to keep up. The Mig-15 was the best until the US cougt up with the F-86, then the Mig-21 proved to be more nimble than the F-4 and along came the F-16. The USSR built the Mach 3 Mig-25 to counter a possible Mach 3 XB-70 US bomber and the US built the F-15 to counter that. The the Soviet built the Su-27 to counter the F-15 and the Mig-29 to counter the F-16. Since the late 80's the US has been working on the F-22, which has been both the most advanced jet fighter ever and also the most expensive. It was so expensive that the actual number pruchased has been reduced by two thirds, costnig about $100 million a piece. It is also so sensitive that it will likely never be exported.
To ctach up in this never ending race, Sukhoi in Russia has been working on a similar stealth aircraft to the F-22, called the PAK FA for many years now, and the first example should be flying next year, and Shenyang and Chengdu in China have been working on similar designs, the J-xx and J-13, but I doubt that any of these weapons will ever be used against any of the other. The Russia and Chinese jets are just as sensitive, security wise, as the F-22 is. There is much more chance that the Indians using the PAK and the Pakistanis, using the J-13/14 will duke it out amongst themselves, if Russia and China ever sell the weapons to them, being as sensitive as they are, than any of those fighting against the F-22.
These aircraft are so expensive that losing just one, be it in combat or to accidents mean that you've just lost some $100 million dollars in the case of the F-22. The fact that they will almost certainly not be used in combat against any foe that a F-16 couldn't cope with means that they, along with incredibly expensive stealth ships, stealth submarines, etc, are mostly expensive white elephants, flying around, doing a lot of impressive flight demos, and then eventually being scrapped in 30 years or so when they reach the end of their service lives.
I personally think that while the Japanese could certainly develop one of these aircraft on their own, and might very well do so in the face of the J-13/xx and the PAK if the US doesn't sell them the F-22, I think that a lot of what the Japanese are doing is simply bargaining to get the US to sell them the F-22. The costs of developing an advanced stealth fighter are not to be laughed at. However, as soon as the Russian PAK and Chinese J-13/xx are in active service, the aura of invincibility of the F-22 will decrease, and then I suppose we'll move on to round 6 of the never ending race to waste people's money and lives.
One F-22 doesn't cost $360 million. That's a figure that's thrown around a lot, but that's including the cost of the entire program divided by the number of aircraft produced. Let's say that you had a program where you designed a new car. You spent $100 million in R&D. You plan on making 100,000 of the cars, and the R&D costs will be absorbed by the number of cars produced. If you make 100,000 cars, $1000 gets added to the cost of each car. If the car cost $10,000 to produce, it's now $11,000.
Let's say production is halted and you only make 10,000 cars. Now that R&D cost only gets amortized across 1/10th of the number of vehicles. Instead of the vehicle costing $11,000, it's now $20,000.
If this were being sold to consumers, the company would have to eat the cost because nobody would want to pay that much for a vehicle worth half the price. But for military projects, the military ends up footing the bill.
In reality, each F-22 costs about $120 million. The R&D and tooling cost was already spent.
I'd recommend reading Downfall, by Richard Frank, to get the facts straight.
The Japanese were interested in a conditional surrender with four conditions: keep the Emperor, no occupation of Japan, evacuation from occupied areas to be done by Japan on a Japanese schedule, and war crime trials of Japanese to be conducted by the Japanese. That's the minimum that would be accepted by all members of the Liaison Council, and that council had to act pretty much unanimously. The Allies offered a conditional surrender, although with rather harsh conditions. The Japanese did not surrender before the nukes. They decided to use the Soviets as intermediaries, but never could decide what to ask for. There were some unofficial feelers through other countries, which the Japanese government stepped on hard.
Given that the Japanese weren't surrendering, and couldn't even agree on a proposal to start negotiations, the US really did have to use whatever means available to force surrender. Some people claimed that Japan was going to surrender in a few more months. I regard these claims as seriously optimistic, given that even in the circumstances there were plenty of Japanese willing to stage a coup to prevent the surrender. (Even so, delaying the surrender by three months would have killed far more civilians than the nukes did.)
There has, of course, been a lot of anti-American propaganda on the subject. Don't fall for it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you look at the history of USAF Aircraft you would know that this is a silly thing. The only aircraft that was ever revealed out of the mists of secrecy with more than a handful of flying aircraft was the F-117, and that was only ever a one-trick pony where every single one was different from the last (read: it was never in "production"). In order to bring a fighter to main-line production level requires such a large industry that you might as well try to hide building an aircraft carrier.
And it does take an inordinate amount of time and development effort to come out with a fighter. The current round that we are working on is the JSF project (an attempt to create common components for an airframe to be shared amongst the US armed forces). This project will produce fighters that will be less capable than the F-22 as a pure fighter, but cheaper and more tailored to their respective missions.
There is little point to produce a better-than-the-F-22 fighter: no one can currently come close to beating it, and even more than that: no one is anywhere near being able to produce enough fighters to compete in a resource war with the US. Remember in WW2 just about everything that the US produced was inferior to both what the Germans and Japanese produced. The only reason we were a major factor in winning those wars is because we produced more of everything. We overwhelmed them with numbers. And right now we are massively overwhelming in the air and what we have is technically superior to anything any one else can field, plus we are right up there with training. we are not invincible, but have the power to push over anyone when it comes to a war.
You realize that Japan already occupied islands off the North American continent before we even attacked them right? They were already showing their version of a manifest destiny and had control over much of the pacific, from islands off the coast of Canada and Alaska(then Russian controller) to the South Pacific.
If you are referring to the two Aleutian islands they captured, that was six months after Pearl Harbor. The war was well under way by then. And to be pedantic, yes we had already attacked them many times by then, mostly carrier raids including the famous Doolittle B-15 raid on the home islands in April 1942, but also including surface ship attacks and submarine attacks.
Alaska was bought by the US from Russia in 1867. Japan didn't even open up to the outside world until 1854 and the Meiji restoration which began their "modern" era didn't happen until 1870. They were not even remotely capable of taking any foreign islands off the American coast before 1867.
Did you get your history from a box of cornflakes?
Infuriate left and right
to my original sentence below
A laboratory of the French government has evaluated the "stealthy-ness" of ATD-X.to create the following sentence.
A laboratory of the French government has evaluated the "stealthy-ness" of ATD-X, and given it a high rating.The modification by Zonk is a significant error. Neither Mitsubishi nor the French laboratory publicized the result of the evaluation. The result is highly classified.