-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Japanese Stealth Fighter
- Thread starter icekid
- Start date
DDH 181 Hyuga
DDh 181 launched in 2007; Probably still smells new
Can't be too far beyond unless you're just talking avionics that they installed
JMSDF SH-60J
DDh 181 launched in 2007; Probably still smells new
Can't be too far beyond unless you're just talking avionics that they installed
JMSDF SH-60J
Actually the aircraft I was referring to was their 60K. Still a 60, but it's actually bigger, better engines, better gear, smarter designs inside, features we could actually use. When some of the Sikorsky reps came out to FDNF a few years ago asking what we wanted to see on future helos we referred them to the 60K and listed some of the toys and features it had. Sikorsky's response "That doesn't exist yet, there is no way to build something that does what you want." Of course once we actually showed them the helo and what it did, they were shocked.
I'm surprised that Sikorsky hadn't done their homework in the 60K. Often times, the secondary markets for US designs come up with significant improvements compared to what the OEM offers. Case in point, the F-4 Phantom that Israelis have continually upgraded (as well as Germans) and the wide range of upgrades to Mirage, F-5 and MiG-21 airframes that Israeli firms can and have provided to a wide range of customers on almost every continent. And the ultimate A-4 Skyhawks were not US models, but the Singapore upgraded variants.
Back to Japan, they have kept their F-4 Phantoms upgraded and even took the Sidewinder and built their own upgraded versions leveraging their own Silicon Valley type expertise. It would also be interesting to compare their P-3 aircraft to our own and see what's inside version of the F-16.
Looks a lot like a F-16 but it's not
F-2... I think I started a small side discussion in another thread about its relative merits v. F-16. I've always heard it's a gold-plated POS that didn't turn out right. What's your take?
Also, I take it Sikorsky had absolutely no role in the -60K upgrade?
This article pretty much covers it all. Japan is paying 3x what they would have paid for F-16 and are hampered by lack of growth capacity. But they did stimulate their own industrial base, which was one of their objectives.
If you read the F-2 article, you can see Japan doesn't like to share their technology. I can certainly believe they had no role because objective is for Japan to keep as much work in country as possible. They always prefer to license build a platform and then modify or produce their own variant. So i can readily believe they had no role as long as they retained tech authority and took on any risk (huge isue for any platform is who "buys" the risk).I find it harder to believe that Sikorsky was unaware of the upgrades as they were talking about SH-60K openly unless Sikorsky was asleep at the switch or unimpressed.
What are you basing that on?
Getting to play with their aircraft and simulators while I was over there.
IMO we're lucky the Navy finally ponied up to put 80's technology in the new birds vice the 60's technology we have been living with. But we are still behind the curve when it comes to putting new "OTS" equipment in our rotary wing aircraft.
Granted I get to see a lot more of the bleeding edge stuff a lot earlier than fleet guys, but I think you are giving their -K too much credit. Don't take our short-sighted budget decisions (moving map, ILS on the R, etc) as being a lack of capability - sadly enough those were choices.
Having said that, Mitsubishi makes immaculate aircraft.
I think the fact that they have a great digital cockpit setup, while still having a traditional caution panel is much smarter than the way we are doing business. The rotor blades, bigger airframe and better engines again are smarter decisions. Their plug and play accessory system (ie SRM) is better. Built in vibe and analysis gear is great. The biggest surprise was their complete precision approach system. (To a hover, GPS point, back of a ship, or even all the way down to the deck.) When we asked Sikorsky about it several years ago, we were basically told that it was impossible. Then we showed them the 60K and their tone changed.
I guess I just wasn't as impressed. Their cost/schedule/performance decisions may have been different, but it isn't from technology level.
When reps from the company that make your aircraft tell you that something is impossible, yet the locally manufactured model has one that is already working, it really makes you wonder.
When they say "impossible," they mean "under the terms of our present contract."
That is one possibility. Sometimes, OEMs tend to think only they can come up with a better idea and intergrate it into their platform.
This was part of a discussion where they were asking for a wish list of things we would like to see on future 60 models. ie If we could have anything in the world, what would it be. So I don't think it was under the terms of any given contract.