Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 There doesn't seem to be many comments or articles on this fighter on the net. And most people leave it out when discussing fighter vs fighter topics. Anyone here has any comments on this bird? Did the Japanese spend too long developing it and are they stuck with a relatively óld design? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 From what I've read online, the F-2 is basically a Japanese built F-16, with the following Japan specific changes: - A 25% larger wing area. Radar absorbent materials used on the leading edges. A longer nose to accommodate a phased-array radar. A larger tail. I'm sure there are other differences as well, probably in the avionics According to one website I read the cost is roughly 4 times that of a Block 50/52 F-16. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 do you have any pictures of this particular jet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Here's a page on the F-2 from F-16.net. And here's a thread on the F-2, also from F-16.net site. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Here's a pic of the Hasegawa 1/48 F-2 model kit taken from the HLJ site. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 11, 2004 Author Share Posted March 11, 2004 The plane is supposed to be larger then the F-16. But the canopy seems be relatively larger compared to the fuselage when compared to an F-16. For the pilot to stretch his arms? I heard it costs as much to build as the F-15J which is already bloody expensive. At that kind of costs, I would have thought it would be better to upgrade the F-15J, you know, slap on some FAST packs, add 3 more lasers to the head, that kinda thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Age overrules size for cost, almost always. As in, a new "cheap" fighter will end up costing more than an "expensive" fighter of an older design. F-16's about the only plane in history that actually did end up costing less (at least really early on, like Block 1), mainly because it could use an engine already in existence, and it was initially a purely close-in dayfighter. Then they added a nice new radar, kept adding things, and now we have the F-16 Block 50D... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicKaze Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 (edited) Recently in the news, an F2 accidentally strafed a golf course and put 160 bullets into a car. The JSDF are embarassed at their long safety track record being ruined. The article (I can't find it right now) mentioned the F2 has been used for 15 years? It's interesting that Mitsubishi builds this. Is it completely built by Mitsubishi (who built the Zero in WWII) under liscense from Lockheed Martin or do they only fabricate the custom parts? Edited March 11, 2004 by ComicKaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Recently in the news, an F2 accidentally strafed a golf course and put 160 bullets into a car. The JSDF are embarassed at their long safety track record being ruined.The article (I can't find it right now) mentioned the F2 has been used for 15 years? It's interesting that Mitsubishi builds this. Is it completely built by Mitsubishi (who built the Zero in WWII) under liscense from Lockheed Martin or do they only fabricate the custom parts? How the heck do you "accidentally" strafe a golf course? And put 160 (presumably 20mm) rounds into a car at a golf course? The mind boggles. If I remember what little literature I've seen on the F2, it's pretty much a new fuselage/ wing right? For all practical purposes, a new plane? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 I think you're misremembering several details. It was an F-4EJ (Japanese version of the Phantom II). 188 rounds in all were fired, though I doubt more than a dozen hit the car. http://ww2.pstripes.osd.mil/01/jul01/ed070701g.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 How the heck do you "accidentally" strafe a golf course? And put 160 (presumably 20mm) rounds into a car at a golf course?The mind boggles. Too much Ace Combat on the pilot's free time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 How the heck do you "accidentally" strafe a golf course? And put 160 (presumably 20mm) rounds into a car at a golf course?The mind boggles. Too much Ace Combat on the pilot's free time? Or Sake. Anyway, I am sure the car got a lot less then 160 rounds. The pilot has to be a real marksman to pot 160 into a car sized target with an vulcan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander McBride Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 RTFA... There was a wiring malfunction and the gun discharged on its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I would guess Mitsubishi builds the wing, then assembles the plane in its own factory with the rest of the parts coming in kit form from Lockheed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatMoose Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 (edited) would guess Mitsubishi builds the wing, then assembles the plane in its own factory with the rest of the parts coming in kit form from Lockheed. That's how I heard it, too. I was under the impression that Mitsubishi would eventually build the whole thing, though. Pretty neat bird, if you ask me (and you didn't) Edited March 12, 2004 by GreatMoose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I would guess Mitsubishi builds the wing, then assembles the plane in its own factory with the rest of the parts coming in kit form from Lockheed. Recasts, anyone? (Seems to be the standard followup to any mention of a "kit" around here....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 (edited) The wing is Japanese built. Some fancy composite curing process which they gave to the US in exchange for the rest of the US tech found on the plane. Plane is about 60 Nippon, 40% USA. I can't find details on the web about just what exactly this fancy curing process does though. I still think they should have made it more like the 16XL. Would have been neat. Edited March 12, 2004 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 There's SO many ways to make composite parts for planes. I'm still amazed whenever I see it on TV. Take a big piece of fabric, a bottle of "goop", a big paintbrush, and get to work. A few days later, you've got an X-32 wing. (May have been UGLY, but the wing construction was ultra-advanced). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.