Japan to Develop 6th Generation Fighter With US Help

[Suika]

Dude, American controls Japan military, economically, and politically. Thousands of American soldier are in Japan just in case Japan ever think about walking away. They were forced to sign agreements that benefit American. Japanese constitutions are written by Americans. So No. Japan is American attack dog in East Asia.

The tight control of of the US GHQ was released fairly quickly. The outbreak of the Korean War being the primary cause of the release because the US military could not longer be acting over security matters in Japan. As a result, the Japanese Self-Defense Force was creating in 1954 so that Japan could conduct its own internal security and build up towards security from any possible attack from outside.

As for claim about Japan being an attack dog, then one should wonder why so many countries in Asia have developed defense relations with Japan in recent years. India, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Australia have all increased military exchanges.

US forces in Japan are now welcomed because of the China and DPRK threat.

we'll see then. if past performance and current trend is an indicator of future performance then Japan's "6th gen" will be 3x the cost, 1/2 the performance and 10 years overdue vs. the American version... and the US hasn't even started 6th gen. Same goes for their 5th gen, which they also haven't started.

Does Japan use the M1A2 Abram tank?
No, they used Type 61, Type 74, and now use Type 90 and Type 10.

Does Japan use the Stryker MGS?
No, they use the Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle

Does Japan use the Aegis combat system in all their destroyers?
No, the 8 DDGs do but not any of the others. On top of that, the Akizuki-class radars use GaN, so don't be fooled by the small size.

Does Japan use the P-8?
No, they use P-1

Does Japan use US nuke subs or some blend of German/French/Russian subs?
No, they use Soryu. And in fact, the last two subs of the class have become the first combat submarines in the world to use LiB only.

Then what about new Type 17 anti-ship missile? ASM-3?

There are plenty of domestically developed military items in Japan. So if Japan is going to make an F-3, obviously the answer is yes. And the only reason why the Pro-CCP posters here act up in denial about it is because its a reality that they cannot accept because their underlying desire and intention is to see CCP China take dominant control in the Asia pacific.

Now normally, I hate making a chest thumping show-off kind of post, but the lack of desire to do a little research or the desire to just troll, results in this kind of post.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Does Japan use the M1A2 Abram tank?
No, they used Type 61, Type 74, and now use Type 90 and Type 10.

Does Japan use the Stryker MGS?
No, they use the Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle

Does Japan use the Aegis combat system in all their destroyers?
No, the 8 DDGs do but not any of the others. On top of that, the Akizuki-class radars use GaN, so don't be fooled by the small size.

Does Japan use the P-8?
No, they use P-1

Does Japan use US nuke subs or some blend of German/French/Russian subs?
No, they use Soryu. And in fact, the last two subs of the class have become the first combat submarines in the world to use LiB only.

Then what about new Type 17 anti-ship missile? ASM-3?

There are plenty of domestically developed military items in Japan. So if Japan is going to make an F-3, obviously the answer is yes. And the only reason why the Pro-CCP posters here act up in denial about it is because its a reality that they cannot accept because their underlying desire and intention is to see CCP China take dominant control in the Asia pacific.

Now normally, I hate making a chest thumping show-off kind of post, but the lack of desire to do a little research or the desire to just troll, results in this kind of post.

They are all overpriced and underperform. if it's anything like Japanese software or semiconductor industry, they're already 15-20 years out of date. That is why Japan completely missed the mobile revolution, the internet revolution, and still does business like in the 1980's with paper documents and in person meetings.

 

[Suika]

They are all overpriced and underperform. if it's anything like Japanese software or semiconductor industry, they're already 15-20 years out of date. That is why Japan completely missed the mobile revolution, the internet revolution, and still does business like in the 1980's with paper documents and in person meetings.

How's GaN in radar out dated?

 

[Philosopher]

What exactly defines a 6th generation fighter jet? I am hearing a lot about nations working on such a project but without the details on what the parameters they need to meet in order to meet that goal.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

How's GaN in radar out dated?

the radar itself isn't but in general Japanese semiconductor and especially software is not moving ahead with the times and also have higher prices. For example there are no Japanese IC fabs operating in 14 nm and lower nodes.

in addition there are many GaN foundries out there, with US having Cree and Qorvo, Sanan in China and Fujitsu in Japan. It is not a super exclusive technology by any means.

As an example, type 10 tank costs 8.5M USD, 30% more than a M1A1 at 6.2M USD while being lighter and lower horsepower. type 99 tank costs 2.6M USD and still has a comparable powerplant, armament and sensors as M1A1 which is public information.

 

[Suika]

the radar itself isn't but in general Japanese semiconductor and especially software is not moving ahead with the times and also have higher prices. For example there are no Japanese IC fabs operating in 14 nm and lower nodes.

in addition there are many GaN foundries out there, with US having Cree and Qorvo, Sanan in China and Fujitsu in Japan. It is not a super exclusive technology by any means.

As an example, type 10 tank costs 8.5M USD, 30% more than a M1A1 at 6.2M USD while being lighter and lower horsepower. type 99 tank costs 2.6M USD and still has a comparable powerplant, armament and sensors as M1A1 which is public information.

I didn't know foundries sailed the seas with missiles. How many destroyers have GaN in their radars?

What's an IC fab? You don't know what semiconductors are in the Type 10. Just another example of baseless troll talking? How could it be known, your credibility is shot. Just like your example about light and price on tank. You talk like knowing nothing about it and are just scapping quick bits right now to make a pathetic troll counter argument.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I didn't know foundries sailed the seas with missiles. How many destroyers have GaN in their radars?

What's an IC fab? You don't know what semiconductors are in the Type 10. Just another example of baseless troll talking? How could it be known, your credibility is shot. Just like your example about light and price on tank. You talk like knowing nothing about it and are just scapping quick bits right now to make a pathetic troll counter argument.

I don't know what semiconductor foundries are in the top 10? Enlighten me. Here's the list of top 10 foundries: https://www.design-reuse.com/news/45793/global-top-ten-ic-foundries-ranking-1q19.html

Do you know there's different segments for semiconductors? Do you know that RF fabs and logic IC fabs are very different? Anyone can integrate GaN into MMIC architecture. Right now GaAs is used and it isn't revolutionary to substitue GaN for GaAs.

On the other hand, Japanese fabs aren't even a contender in the 14 nm and below space:

Japan is totally outdated. That's why there's no Japanese competitor in the mobile space, Japanese still use 1990's Yahoo, and Japan still uses fax machines instead of online signature. Inefficient, conservative, Japanese.

 

[Suika]

I don't know what semiconductor foundries are in the top 10? Enlighten me. Here's the list of top 10 foundries: https://www.design-reuse.com/news/45793/global-top-ten-ic-foundries-ranking-1q19.html

Do you know there's different segments for semiconductors? Do you know that RF fabs and logic IC fabs are very different? Anyone can integrate GaN into MMIC architecture. Right now GaAs is used and it isn't revolutionary to substitue GaN for GaAs.

On the other hand, Japanese fabs aren't even a contender in the 14 nm and below space:

Japan is totally outdated. That's why there's no Japanese competitor in the mobile space, Japanese still use 1990's Yahoo, and Japan still uses fax machines instead of online signature. Inefficient, conservative, Japanese.

Your first graph is by revenue, not technology.

Second, you concede that Akizuki class as the GaN while most others do not. And that is far more influential than the difference of 10nm 14nm processors in military equipment.

We were talking about the Type 10. And you brought up 14mn. Which shows how out of touch you with the Japanese tank. And you probably think actually knowing about the tank is not important because you seem to think that the nm grade is the only thing that matters. Type 10 was developed in 2010. You claimed it had 14nm but 14nm wasn't even developed yet. So then you might start thinking "ah ha, its not even 14nm, it sucks! and is oldz!". To which, that is the nature of military equipment in general. They include the technology at the time of development. And then they remain in service for decades. New tanks aren't being developed every year like a smart phone. Only the latest varient of a basic tank model might include computer upgrades. Lets look at the Type 99. The first ones rolled out around year 2000. Type 99A from 2003. Did these tanks get computer hardware upgrades? I haven't noticed. You just assume that since there are 14nm facilities in China automatically means that these chips automatically bleed into the armored compartments of tanks like a magical process of osmosis. So after all your emphasis of 14nm and claim about the Type 10 using out dated chips, it may very well be that Type 10 has newer chips in it than the Type 99 tanks. Find an artcle, in simplified mandarin Chinese, talking about new upgrades to the Type 99 tanks that talk about computer upgrades and what that means to the networking and battle system. If you cannot find such an article, then all your high and mighty attitude with supposed beholding power of 14nm facilities is full of noobie brat immaturity that knows nothing about tanks. Find the article. If you can't, then start posting in a way that reflects your actual low standard of knowing about military equipment, and in particular, about tanks.

NOOB.

 

[gambit]

What exactly defines a 6th generation fighter jet? I am hearing a lot about nations working on such a project but without the details on what the parameters they need to meet in order to meet that goal.

There are no common accepted criteria as to what constitute 5th or 6th generation. However, there are certain level of technologies within the various sub-systems that cannot be absent.

Take fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW-FLCS) for example. Fighter aircrafts today are designed to be unstable requiring computers to maintain controlled flight. Airliners are designed to be stable but they also have FBW-FLCS, does that mean airliners are '6th-gen'?

Why is afterburner a required feature but not supercruise? It depends on the mission(s) the aircraft was designed for in the first place. Most air forces today cannot afford dedicated platforms like fighter and bomber. Putting supercruise on a multi-mission platform would make design prohibitively expensive. That is why the F-22 have supercruise but the F-35 does not. Even without supercruise, the F-35 is no less '5th-gen' than the F-22 and in several aspects that I will not get into the details, the F-35 is more technologically advanced than the F-22.

Composites construction. Composites are not for low radar observability or 'stealth'. You may not know it, but concrete is a composite. Particle board wood products in furniture? That is composite. When people say composite in aviation, it is more for weight saving than for 'stealth'. It is a balance of weight in relation to structural strength. Pretty much 5h- or 6th-gen are of composite construction. But so are many civilian aircrafts.

AESA with true multi-functions radar is quite a requirement. But any combat pilot is a fool to underestimate the traditional planar array with pseudo multi-functions system. The older design are still very capable and lethal in the hands of a well trained pilot.

Analog vs digital. When I transitioned from the F-111, 1950s era electronics, to the F-16, 1960s era electronics, analog made the F-16 the most formidable dogfighter for about 20 yrs. Analog avionics made controlled flight possible in an unstable design. The reason digital came is because of the need for being multi-missions and that civilian technology was moving towards that direction, anyway. In other words, the civilian world pulled the military into the digital realm. Analog handled 9+ g forces just fine.

The list I can go on is long, but the point am trying to make is that if you, or anyone for that matter, look for a definitive criteria of what is so-and-so generation, you will not find any. There are some core technologies that are required, but as I have shown, a couple of them are also in the civilian sector. People seems to think that X-gen have technologies that are exclusively for the military, which is not true. Even 'stealth' is not exclusively military in usage. In certain communication applications, especially when there is a cluster of structures, 'stealth' radio antennas are used.

 

[gambit]

the radar itself isn't but in general Japanese semiconductor and especially software is not moving ahead with the times and also have higher prices. For example there are no Japanese IC fabs operating in 14 nm and lower nodes.

You do not know what you are talking about.

All militaries are conservative in nature. Being conservative is not an option but a requirement. For what a military does, it has only chance to get it right. Take the bullet, for example. Either it work or it does not. A dud will be discarded by the rifleman, not reload and re-try. The more complex the weapon system, the more conservative the buyer, and when we are talking about complex weapon systems like an aircraft or a ship or a tank, being conservative is a virtue.

Regarding semiconductor, what you see in the civilian world today does not exist in the current weapon systems. The way weapons procurement work is the military put out a request for proposal (RFP) to the market. That market can have one or many manufacturers. In the RFP, the customer lay out basic requirements. The market then respond with offers of what they can do. Hence, request for proposals.

By the time the customer received all the offers, as much as yrs can go by from the time of the RFP. That is because the manufacturers have to do their own research with each company testing if it can produce what the customer want. So by the time the manufacturers responds with their offers, the technologies (plural) involved are %90 locked in. The customer have his own verification process because the contract can go into YEARS which can translates into BILLIONS. The customer will want to know as certain possible that those technologies will work and not turn into a dud in the battlefields.

Nodes? You are talking out of your bunghole and it stinks to someone like me who is in the semicon industry. A new node can take up to five yrs to be qualified for production. That means the avionics package that is supposed to go into the new fighter will have its technology already about five to seven yrs old. And this is just the respond to the RFP, not about winning the contract, then begin manufacturing. China's J-20 is no technological marvel in its guts.

In every aircraft out there, military and civilian, the technologies that keeps them flying are at least 10 yrs old. I am so certain that I am willing to bet my life on it. Come to think of it, that I was active duty on two jets, while you have never served, means I have bet my life on it.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You do not know what you are talking about.

All militaries are conservative in nature. Being conservative is not an option but a requirement. For what a military does, it has only chance to get it right. Take the bullet, for example. Either it work or it does not. A dud will be discarded by the rifleman, not reload and re-try. The more complex the weapon system, the more conservative the buyer, and when we are talking about complex weapon systems like an aircraft or a ship or a tank, being conservative is a virtue.

Regarding semiconductor, what you see in the civilian world today does not exist in the current weapon systems. The way weapons procurement work is the military put out a request for proposal (RFP) to the market. That market can have one or many manufacturers. In the RFP, the customer lay out basic requirements. The market then respond with offers of what they can do. Hence, request for proposals.

By the time the customer received all the offers, as much as yrs can go by from the time of the RFP. That is because the manufacturers have to do their own research with each company testing if it can produce what the customer want. So by the time the manufacturers responds with their offers, the technologies (plural) involved are %90 locked in. The customer have his own verification process because the contract can go into YEARS which can translates into BILLIONS. The customer will want to know as certain possible that those technologies will work and not turn into a dud in the battlefields.

Nodes? You are talking out of your bunghole and it stinks to someone like me who is in the semicon industry. A new node can take up to five yrs to be qualified for production. That means the avionics package that is supposed to go into the new fighter will have its technology already about five to seven yrs old. And this is just the respond to the RFP, not about winning the contract, then begin manufacturing. China's J-20 is no technological marvel in its guts.

In every aircraft out there, military and civilian, the technologies that keeps them flying are at least 10 yrs old. I am so certain that I am willing to bet my life on it. Come to think of it, that I was active duty on two jets, while you have never served, means I have bet my life on it.

Avionics is definitely not leading edge. I was simply mentioning a now mature node that Japan does not have as an example of how far they're falling behind. It is also a fact that Japan does not have leading edge foundries or even one for the mature 14 nm node. This is seen throughout every business practice Japan does, ranging from using fax machines to still using 1990's Yahoo.

If you want to talk semiconductor, we can always talk semiconductor. Here's one thing we can talk about: GaN RF devices being touted as some secret sauce when ALD GaN has been commercially available for years. Is it so secret and amazing when Qorvo, Cree and Sanan are advertising commercial foundry services for it? Hmm.

 

[UKBengali]

As an example, type 10 tank costs 8.5M USD, 30% more than a M1A1 at 6.2M USD while being lighter and lower horsepower. type 99 tank costs 2.6M USD and still has a comparable powerplant, armament and sensors as M1A1 which is public information.

This is not a fair comparison as the economies of scale do not apply between Japan and China/USA.

Japan builds tanks in the hundreds while China/USA builds them in the thousands.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

This is not a fair comparison as the economies of scale do not apply between Japan and China/USA.

Japan builds tanks in the hundreds while China/USA builds them in the thousands.

there is no fair in matters of defense and business.

 

[UKBengali]

there is no fair in matters of defense and business.

Why not criticise France and Germany for expensive tanks though?

Your point is invalid.

 

[rott]

I have no idea why Chinese keep downplaying Japanese aerospace capabilities!

It is like if they say Japan cannot do it, then Japan will fail.

Japan is one of the world's premier aerospace powers.

Although I did say that Japan is behind Russia and China, that is only in terms of overall total experience but not on quality in a lot of areas like electronics/ radar and airframe tech.

As you say the F-2 introduced the world to new materials to manufacture wings and also the first AESA radar on a fighter aircraft.

Yes Japan can make a "5th gen" fighter engine(just about) but I disagree that this will be enough. The UK's Rolls Royce is already trialling a "6th gen" engine that is based on a variable cycle engine and I understand that the Chinese are doing something similar. These new engines will be required to propel performance to the next level and are not just for show.

While Japan should be able to do most of the design of the engine for it's F-3 fighter by itself, it will need assistance from US to get it right up there with the best. Japan would not want to compromise on the quality of this fighter at all.

Because of this....