crobatoNot very much “indigenous” about the F-2 that wasn’t done with some help from Lockheed and/or some other license built technology. Indigenous in the case of Japan ( re: combat aircraft ) certainly doesn’t mean creative or original.
LM and Raytheon pretty much obtained both AESA and composite bonding technology from the Japanese F-2 program. MMICs for the F-22 might even be obtained from Japan as well as all sorts of other parts.
crobatoLaser! The guy who took the picture probably lost half the rods and cones in his eyes. No more night vision for him 🙁
Maybe not. He would be viewing it through the monitor of the TV camera..
crobatoI’d go for the Japanese license production of F/A-22s, with the sensative sealth components being imported from the US.
I would doubt the US would be willing to share that much aeronautical technology with Japan because Japan can still be a strong potential competitor in the long run. Not to mention that the technology can be used in some other industry that would compete with the US.
The whole point of forcing the Japanese to adopt an F-16 platform was to prevent (stunt) them from developing a self sufficient aeronautical industry (ala the way LCA does with India) since airplanes was only one of the very few things Japan still obtains from the US. In that sense, the F-2 was mission success.
Don’t think that the Japanese were ever happy with the F-2. They’re not. The common man viewed it as a symbol of political humiliation by a party that easily kowtows to the US. It was among the centerpiece themes in the bestselling book The Japan that can say no.
Japan can easily develop the stealth components. Their manufacturing and composite technology is even ahead of the US, especially when it comes to making very precise fittings and quality control.
However, the US might have trouble manufacturing instead, manufacturing the F-22 electronic components (as well as for the GPS bombs, the Tomahawk, and a whole lot of other things) that the US imports from Japan. (Thanks to the hollowing out of the US electronics industry). Who is to say that in the long run, when Japan comes up with its own stealth fighter, that Japan would cut off these electronic components. Get it from Taiwan?
I believe the Japanese are determined to make an indigenous fighter on their own—their own radar, design, and engine—one way or another. They have already gone out of their way to come up with their own BVR missile and antiship missiles without buying US equivalents like the AMRAAM and Harpoon. Rather than buy M-1s, they made their own tank. It is only when they do not have a national equivalent is when they buy from the US (e.g. Aegis system).
At least a sizable faction that includes their extremely powerful industrial complex believes in pursuing this, not the LDP that always kneels to the US. They have the means, and what they only need now is the national will.
crobatoToo late now to develop an indigenous F-4 replacement fighter, they now have two choices.
1. Procure another fighter in the interim while developing a new indigenous fighter.
2. With no immediate threat, and the US always looking after them, there is no rush to procure an interim fighter, just go ahead and develop the new indigenous fighter.
crobatoI’m pretty sure they were able to obtain 2 sets of Kopyo for evaluation, along with 3 sets of Zhemchug radar. Perhaps it’s not the -F model Kopyo, but the -F model is what Phazotron has been trying to market to China.
I think 400 watts is a typo. Maybe someone missed the “1” ahead of the 400.
crobatoI’ve had alot of interest in the FC-1 these days and I was wondering several things.
Did Pakistan officially stated that it wanted the Grifo radar? If yes, is there any news that China is planning to integrate the SD-10 to the Grifo?There has been alot of talk on other alternatives to using the Grifo for the export market. How likely is it that France with its RC radar and Mica or Israel with its Elta series, will cooperate in supplying their avionics to the FC-1? Especially with the latter being pressured by the US every now and then.
Also what kind of EW suits are being planned for this aircraft?
Pakistan has licenses for Grifo, and Grifo is an established quantity for them. Politically, Pakistan needs to reward FIAR for sticking with Pakistan when others did not.
Thales is indeed serious trying to break that bond Pakistan has with FIAR. If you notice the European radar markers are really hard up for sales these days. Thales is also trying to get contracts to supply naval radars for the 053H frigates (based on the Jiangwei II class) China is building for Pakistan.
Both Thales and FIAR are eager to break into the Chinese market, and more. Hence notice the EU preparing a second round of talks to get the weapons ban on China lifted. China however at the moment has not requested more FIAR or Thales radars for evaluation.
ELTA is on the sidelines now, but like Phazotron, they have displayed their radars on the FC-1 booths in some airshows. ELTA still appears to be interested as an option for potential FC-1 sales with other countries. Like wise with Phazotron. China has some sets of Kopyo (probably the -F version) for evaluation.
SD-10 is said to have passed all its tests earlier this year, and production as PL-12 is going to be soon. However I don’t know what is the plans on integrating SD-10 with the Grifo, as the Chinese may be reluctant to share tech secrets and launch codes to a Western firm. Another reason is that the tensions over Taiwan may result in keeping as many of the PL-12/SD-10 in China, and that the immense Chinese internal demand must be satified first. They will at least stick by in keeping integrating the SD-10 for their own version, and the PLAAF version of the FC-1 is looking more and more like a genuine possibility (again China is rushing for the need to build up its numbers of modern jets). Pakistan however is also intent on getting the R-Darter, and developing a BVRAAM themselves, probably with Chinese assistance. Apparently Pakistan must have anticipated the Chinese situation.
As for EW suites I don’t know. That’s usually the most closely guarded of all secrets, but I’m betting that the PLAAF version of the FC-1 is capable of using the EW pods used in PLAAF Flankers.
crobatoIn paper, the RC-400 has the better specs in terms of multiple simultaneous targets being detected or tracked, but it’s a bit way too outrageous to believe the number that was given.
crobatoExactly.
Also I find it hard to believe that the “F-50” Golden Eagle is going to stay in the 20-25 million range.
The F-CK-1 was supposed to be under $20 million and inevitably cost like under $30 million. That was in early nineties dollars. You’re going to have to consider the inevitable cost overrun and the F-50 plane might actually end up costing well over $30 million in this decade’s dollars.
crobatoI have to agree. The websites are terrible. About the info crobato. I hoped you would provide something more. So they are busy with making the rotating parts smaller… They are intrested in more range….
As far as I can tell you is this—the Pakistani government appeared to up the requirements for the radar but the Grifo S-7 radar has already been designed. So at the cost of new development, a second version of the radar has been designed but the back components are shorter, to allow the antenna to be moved back. This in turn allows that the antenna diameter to be increased. Both versions will be tested along with a special version of the Thales RC400 customized for the FC-1. (I got a nice number what this new range requirement is). Thales is competiting also for contracts intended to provide radar sets for the 053H frigates China is selling to Pakistan.
In the meantime the Chinese are not waiting so they’re proceeding to put their own radar on the FC-1 so they could go ahead with avionics and weapons (read: SD-10) testing.
crobatoThey do have the specs but they don’t release the info just to anyone. I myself have some specific info on the Grifo S-7 (antenna diameter size, number of targets on track while scan, number of targets simutaneously engaged, and of course, range of lock on). But I’m keeping it all to myself and spare people more forum wars so don’t bother to ask. But here’s the interesting part—there is two versions of the Grifo S-7, one with a larger antenna. They’re trying to make the components smaller so they can push the antenna to the back, and allow it to be bigger.
Currently a version of Thales RC400 is now being ground tested for the Pakistani FC-1. Thales has been supplying equipment for the Pakistani Navy so they’re no strangers to the scene. Both Thales and FIAR are willing to offer radars for testing for the Chinese market, but so far, there appears to be no request. The Chinese appears going ahead to testing the FC-1 with their own NRIET KLJ type radar, which will definitely be on the next flying prototype, and possibly retrofitted on the other two. Soon after that, SD-10 testing on the FC-1 will also begin.
crobatoIt’s very unlikely the F-CK-1 will ever be exported. The first, which is the most obvious, is that it ****es off Beijing. Second, not so obvious, but equally important, is that the US will not allow you to second export its technology, especially when it can potentially compete with the F-16.
On the Gripen, I think one of the problems of its marvelous datalinks, is that you need an infrastructure to match them with. Used with a legacy datalink infrastructure, you won’t get any more benefit than let’s say, an F-16 with Link 16. Third world countries are very unlikely to have such a matching infrastructure and even some NATO countries don’t have either.
crobatoThat’s one of the most dramatic FC-1 pics yet.
J-10B appears to have a dorsal spine I’ve not seen in J-10s before.
On the HQ-16, we have yet to see any manifestation of it at least in pictures. It is possible the project is either far from finished or is in hiatus. Or that the PRC has not yet formally unveiled it yet. Ground based SD-10 version SAM also fits in the category the HQ-16 is supposed to fill and could be a direct competitor or alternative to it. If SD-10 is showing a lot more progress, it is very likely the emphasis would shift to the SD-10 based SAM.
crobatoAt total of 60 units Tor-M1s—20 are new, after the 40 they previously bought—ain’t that much either.
crobatoNotice how close these planes are in terms of weight to power ratio
Plane: Empty Weight, Thrust, Internal Fuel capacity
Gripen: 6620kg, 8350kg, 2260kg.
FC-1: 6410kg, 8300kg, 2300kg (est.)
F-CK-1: 6450kg, 8900kg, 2200kg (est.)
The F-CK-1 actually has a slight lead. It is said to out accelerate even a Starfighter.
The Gripen being slightly heavier than the other aircraft is understandable due to its extensive avionics, and the fact it’s probably the only plane there whose structure is strengthened and rated to 9G.
The T-50 being a dual seater is going to weigh more than the rest, but if you can create a single seater variant that weighs in at 6500kg empty, you can create a viable low cost fighter.
crobatoI’m not sure if the four HQs were correct. The S-300PMU1 equivalent is the HQ-9, now the HQ-9A. It is operational and has since for a while. Given the low number of S-300s the Chinese have been buying, the HQ-9 is the obvious culprit. It appears to be compatible with the S-300’s command guidance (and the S-300 is compatible with the HQ-9 too) given that the HQ-9s are said to be operating in the same areas as the S-300s. HQ-9 is the basis for the HH-9 used on the 052C class destroyers. HQ-9 is supposedly up to 200km in range and uses an active seeker. HH-9 is smaller and more limited up to 120km.
I have not detected other SAM projects. It appears to me that the PLA seems very satisified with their latest versions of the HQ-7 in the small SAM category, and the KS-1A on the medium SAM category (HQ-2 replacement). The other seriously affirmable SAM project is the SAM version of the SD-10. This one can fit in the categories of the HQ-16/17 in terms of niche.
Sign In
