japan develops 5:gen after all!

[Sens]

The ATD-X is twin-engined, though not exactly brute force.

Wikipedia in English & some others seem to think the IHI XF5-1 produces 10 tons of dry thrust, & 15 with afterburner, but Japanese Wikipedia says 5 tons - and that's based on an MOD document, previously cited here by datafuser. Given its size, the higher figure is implausible, to say the least.

You are correct about that. The Japanese are in need of a hot running engine with a dry thrust-weight ratio of 6:1 at least and the F135 of the F-35 is no practical option for that need.

[swerve]

I do not believe Japan has MiG-31s or F-106 :diablo:

Exactly. This thread is supposed to be about Japanese military aircraft developments.

[J-20 Hotdog]

they be building it now
looking at that cross section built so far, it looks like it could potentially hold one center bay with 2 missiles or 3



Looks like the final version would have a larger canopy compared to the mock up



such a baby of an aircraft compared to the huge fighter bombers like J-20

[matt]

they be building it now
looking at that cross section built so far, it looks like it could potentially hold one center bay with 2 missiles or 3



Looks like the final version would have a larger canopy compared to the mock up



such a baby of an aircraft compared to the huge fighter bombers like J-20

is it for point defense ? does it make more sense with the japanese AESA radar bvr missiles? or is it carrier capable?

[swerve]

It's a technology demonstrator, not a fighter. It isn't for any kind of defence, & it certainly won't be carrier capable.

A real fighter developed from it would probably be bigger, though not necessarily in the F-22/T-50/J-20 size class.

[MigL]

This is slightly off-topic but it does have to do with single versus twin engine abilities.

Why are you guys comparing airframes ? They are built to accomodate specific operational requirements for a give threat and era. A comparison of F-106 amd MiG-31 doesn't make any sensel.

Compare the engine or engines alone of equal technology.
A single engine will have a given frontal cross-sectional area for a given thrust and fuel use. This area determines frontal area and finesse ratio of the aircraft.
To get double the thrust you can either double the engines, giving double the frontal cross sectional area and the resulting drag increase to the airframe because of 'boxier' cross section , or increase the diameter of the engine by 1.4 times. This will also double the frontal cross sectional area but will lead to a lower increase in drag because there will be less effect on the finesse ratio.

All things being equal I would suggest that speed and efficiency are best acheived with a single engine, but if you are carrying stores ( internal bay ) or using the body as a lifting surface the twin engined 'boxier' body may be better suited.