Laser gyros are pretty neat technology. Unfortunately they aren’t the perfect solution for high speed weapons that fly on the edge of space.

The Russians also have a far different threshold for consideration to be labeled ‘precision’.

And let’s consider the ramifications of using this weapon in proximity to U.S. forces and its allies. If it’s flight is indistinguishable between conventional and nuclear roles, then basically deploying it says something to the effect ‘it may be an offensive nuclear launch’. Not the message they should send.

Let’s say Japan wanted a J-20 counter. Would it opt for something more compact, say in 20,000 kg class, or go head to head in a 30,000 kg class?

As interesting as a scaled down YF-23 using twin F414 sounds, I have a suspicion Japan is going for something F-22A comparable.

Multipurpose, not really multirole. Sure you could conduct multiple roles on a mission, but not simultaneously. And generally the F-4 dumped bombs in order to fight, because its turning ability wasn’t its strength.

They are going F-35A. Anyone thinking otherwise is delusional.

I’d of wanted an F-15C backed by F/A-18A instead of F-16 if money is no option.

Chemical weapons against your civilians is also illegal by international law.

@vann-
Wow, labeling me as living in the 1950’s… priceless. Does that make you a real keyboard warrior due to being from the age of the internet? Seriously, trying to ad hominem me with an age label not only is against forum rules, it’s also a blatant deflection. T-6, which is the origin of the Su-24, began as an offshoot of Su-15 scaled up and adding in technologies for short field performance. It started with a quad lifter arrangement and evolved to its current shape. Su-24 had 2/3 the range and payload, but enjoyed a big speed advantage over F-111.

@eagle-
You are arguing that a J75 proven motor with more performance and similar volume is somehow worse. Viggen was used in two roles, as an attack plane (e.g. F-105) and as an interceptor (e.g. F-106), which were roles J75 did well. And it greatly exceeded RM8 in performance for slightly worse fuel burn. And J75 came in substantially cheaper.

The RM8 was basically a J52 with an afterburner. It did have about 20% less fuel consumption across it’s upper performance range over J57. But the J57 was proven and much cheaper. A pair of J57 would have put it into a heavier weight class, with quite a bit more room to grow, for slightly more cost than a single RM8.

People have this notion Sweden built the RM8 when the truth is they modified imported engines. The truth is they could have just as easily imported TF30 or F100 from the U.S. or M53 from France. All of them would have been cheaper in the overall program.