Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Hendrik_2000 said:
Why would anyone buy this"Widow maker". If Japan want to kill their pilot fast this is the best way to do it This plane is accident prone and known as "Widow maker"As recently as last month close to Okinawa. It is so bad the Okinawan has been protesting the basing of V22 on their island
This design concept is defective in the first place and it should never get off the ground. It is classic case of pork barrel They should just buy a simple helicopter
Click to expand...
The Okinawa protests were more regarding the fact that the islands have more military might stationed there than any other point in the entirety of Japan V22 was just a visible object. the Key and real issue was and is Futenma a Military base in a highly urbanized location.

the "Widowmaker" first generally the USMC has a problem with a higher than it should be Class A mishap numbers. ( Class A means it costs more than a million dollars.) The chances of death in a USMC aircraft are 6 times that of the Navy.
Mv22 has a Class A rate of 3.9 that means it averages 3.9 incidents for 100,000 flight hours.
The only aircraft with a better rating ( in USMC) are the KC130J at 0.0, AH1W and AH1Z both 0.0, F18D at 1.4, UH1Y at 2.7 and the EA6B at 3.7
Worse than MV22 are the KC130T at 4.1, CH53E at 5.6, AV8B at 6.0 and The Worst offender in the Marines with 8.3 class A mishaps per every 100,000 flight hours is the F18A &C
when you consider that listing the MV22 is not really that bad off.
In fact the biggest cause of these ratings is that the USMC has not had the flight hours they should and most of their fleet are rather old. So looking at it really it's record is not that bad.

Then comes what you get from the MV22, faster than any helicopter the MV22, The fasted recorded speed of a helicopter is the Westland Lynx at 216.45 kn the Cruise speed of a V22 Osprey is 241 kn. it out ranges comparable helicopters to. a NH90 NFH has a range of 1,000 km Osprey can do 1,627 km
is it expensive? yes. about 90 million. but that's with systems and it's still larger than UH60. closer in size to NH90 which is about 60 million. with longer range and higher speed.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Jura said:
Japan and UK to collaborate on missile development
oh really?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
Just because it's the UK doesn't mean it's the MOD. MBDA is owned partially owned by BAE systems, Airbus and Leonardo. So it could be a BAE venture with the MOD watching and allowing but not participating. The Japanese have pretty much gone indigenous for there missile systems.
 
SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Just because it's the UK doesn't mean it's the MOD. MBDA is owned partially owned by BAE systems, Airbus and Leonardo. So it could be a BAE venture with the MOD watching and allowing but not participating. The Japanese have pretty much gone indigenous for there missile systems.
Click to expand...
Well MOD as well as DOD of US is required to be involved acting as liaison to all related to the project since the source code for the F-35 firing system is intellectual property regulated by the US under control of DOD.
Same with the other nations. Basically you can't just go to Lockheed, Mitsubishi or MBDA's doorstep and ask them to sell their military equipments.
 
SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Like I said they can be approving of the venture without actually planning to buy.
Click to expand...
I doubt it.
It's basically a bilateral technological transfer in which the British is to gain miniaturized ASEA radar technology while Japan gaining ducted rocket engine technology. Both parties are probably doing R&D of the other technology but would be mutually beneficial if they provide one another the mature technology.
They may not buy components directly from one another but will be more of a license agreement of the two technologies.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Japan Refines Design For Indigenous Future Fighter
A Japanese combat aircraft may have become more conventional
Nov 23, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
| Aviation Week & Space Technology

  • New Aspect


    The latest concept design of Japan’s proposed indigenous fighter may have moved a little away from the bias toward long-range and endurance over flight performance that marked the previous preliminary design. The latest design exhibited is evidently 26DMU, the one prepared in the Japanese fiscal year beginning March 2014 as the last of a series of preliminary concepts.

    Japan has planned to decide in mid-2018 whether to proceed with an indigenous or possibly internationally developed, aircraft as an alternative to a foreign design for its Future Fighter requirement. The aim is to replace the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    F-2 in the 2030s,
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    .

    Glimpses of 26DMU have appeared over the past year, but drawings revealed by the defense ministry at its annual technology seminar in November have made the design much clearer. The main change relative to the fiscal 2013 design 25DMU appears to be a reduction in the span of the wing and, as a result, its unusually high aspect ratio, or slenderness. The difference is difficult to judge from the low-resolution pictures, however.


    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



    The leading-edge sweep of 26DMU looks unchanged, but the trailing edge is different: It now has a forward instead of rearward sweep. Associated with that change, the chord at the wing roots looks longer, again implying a reduction in aspect ratio. Higher aspect ratio improves range and endurance but worsens drag in supersonic flight.

    Despite the change in planform, the ministry is unlikely to have backed off much on its requirement for range and endurance, if it has at all. Doi Hirofumi, manager of the Future Fighter program at the ministry’s Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency (ATLA), told Aviation Week in 2016 that 26DMU, then unrevealed, preserved the 25DMU concept of long endurance and moderate flight performance (
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    ).

    That concept was chosen for 25DMU because analysis found that if a group of fighters had long range and endurance, then more would be on station at the time of combat, improving the exchange ratio. This effect more than offset the loss of combat flight performance.


    Another part of the formula in 25DMU, almost certainly preserved in 26DMU, is an internal load of six long-range missiles such as MBDA Meteors, and two short range. The pilot of an indigenous Future Fighter would want to engage at long range. 25DMU also had a gun.

    Conceivably, improved structural or propulsion efficiency in 26DMU has offset the lower aerodynamic efficiency in cruise implied by the wing changes. In one of the research efforts preparing the technological ground for an indigenous Future Fighter, engineers expect to reduce structural weight relative to the F-2 by about 10%
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    .

    The fins of 26DMU are pointier than before and may be taller; the tail planes have changed in shape as well. The mainplane now has two movable surfaces on the trailing edge on each side; previously there was only one.

    A wind-tunnel model shown in 2016—thought at the time to represent 26DMU—is now known to represent 25DMU. The numbers in the designations are regnal years of Emperor Akihito, 26 being 2014. “DMU” stands for “digital mockup.”

    Meanwhile, the X-2 technology demonstrator that Japan built to help prepare the way for the fighter program has exceeded goals in tests, a program official says. Manufacturer MHI first flew the X-2 in April 2016 before handing it over to ATLA, which put it to work in test flights beginning the following November. At first, 50 test flights were planned—but data from many was so good that later excursions could be skipped, says the official, speaking at the seminar. The data was accumulated in only 34 flights, each about 1 hr. in duration.

    Radar signature was one area of outperformance, the official says, declining to elaborate. The IHI XF5 engines also did better than expected under the adverse conditions of high angles of attack.

    The X-2 was designed mainly to demonstrate stealth, high agility and low-speed handling. It has thrust-vectoring engine nozzles. At the maximum angle of attack, challenging the XF5s with turbulent airflow, the engines showed no sign of surging, says the official. Their thrust was a little higher than expected. In other conditions, they produced much more thrust than expected.

    The maximum angle of attack achieved by the X-2 is not disclosed, but the official says it was almost as high as the 70 deg. demonstrated by the U.S.-German X-31 experimental aircraft in 1992. An aircraft flying at such an angle of attack will rapidly lose kinetic energy, possibly putting it at a disadvantage against an opponent, but a pilot could use the extreme maneuver to dodge a missile or perhaps to break the track of a radar using Doppler techniques.

    Maximum speed achieved in X-2 testing was Mach 0.8 at 6,000 m (20,000 ft.). The official declined to divulge the minimum speed. The X-2 was at first called the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    .
Click to expand...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
MIlitary aircraft are dangerous to operate...inherently.

ANd the more cutting edge you make them and the more they push the envelope, the more dangerous they become.

But that is the price of developing and deploying the best in class.

No nation on earth, IMHO, does more to try and allow for and push for safety than the US, and those safeguards are built in by law.

that's why with every mistake there is so much press and openness.

Just the same, go back to my first statement. it is by nature dangerous and the people who join to fly know this and they join up and volunteer anyway.

The Osprey did have a difficult learning curve. Look at what it does and you will know why. If was a difficult engineering issue...and it took a while to get it right.

But the US and its allies now have this capability and I know personally a whole lot of people who fly in them and they are all sold on the utility and functionality of the aircraft and what it provides to them in combat...which means it is more likely to get them to where they want to be and then accomplish the mission in a combat environment that what they have had to use before...so they actually like it...and now other countries, based on that experience and all the learning that has gone into it are wanting to take advantage of what the US has produced and learned.

There will ALWAYS be naysayers. Its a part of today's society.

But as with the F-35, the F-22, the P_8, and other upcoming projects, the US (and other nations who engage in cutting edge development) do so in order to improve their ability to conduct operations and actually end up making things safer for their forces.

The Osprey has proven itself now...and the USMC safety record numbers back it up.

Is it the safest per 100,000 hours? No. But no one expected it to be. Even so, it is safer than numerous other platforms the MArines and other forces us.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
MIlitary aircraft are dangerous to operate...inherently.

ANd the more cutting edge you make them and the more they push the envelope, the more dangerous they become.

But that is the price of developing and deploying the best in class.

No nation on earth, IMHO, does more to try and allow for and push for safety than the US, and those safeguards are built in by law.

that's why with every mistake there is so much press and openness.

Just the same, go back to my first statement. it is by nature dangerous and the people who join to fly know this and they join up and volunteer anyway.

The Osprey did have a difficult learning curve. Look at what it does and you will know why. If was a difficult engineering issue...and it took a while to get it right.

But the US and its allies now have this capability and I know personally a whole lot of people who fly in them and they are all sold on the utility and functionality of the aircraft and what it provides to them in combat...which means it is more likely to get them to where they want to be and then accomplish the mission in a combat environment that what they have had to use before...so they actually like it...and now other countries, based on that experience and all the learning that has gone into it are wanting to take advantage of what the US has produced and learned.

There will ALWAYS be naysayers. Its a part of today's society.

But as with the F-35, the F-22, the P_8, and other upcoming projects, the US (and other nations who engage in cutting edge development) do so in order to improve their ability to conduct operations and actually end up making things safer for their forces.

The Osprey has proven itself now...and the USMC safety record numbers back it up.

Is it the safest per 100,000 hours? No. But no one expected it to be. Even so, it is safer than numerous other platforms the MArines and other forces us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top