F-2 Multirole Fighter (Infographics)

Donate

F-2 Multirole Fighter (Infographics)

Click to see the full-size image

The Mitsubishi F-2 is a multirole fighter manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Lockheed Martin for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force. The jet is the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Donate

  • occupybacon

    So it’s the F-16 made in Japan or is slightly modified by Mitsubishi?

    • JIMI JAMES

      Either way it is superior to the incumbent and way too much overhyped f22 + f35s shitfights!

      • occupybacon

        F-22 is a plane apreciated even in the Russian publications.

        • Lone Ranger

          20 years ago…
          The F-22 design is close to 40 years old.
          YF-22 flew around 1990…
          Aside from that only around a 110 are left, rest has been destroyed, written off or cannibalized.
          But its not a bad design like the Flop-35.
          Albeit it has issues.
          The YF-23 was the better jet, too bad Lockheed was the stronger company, they lobbied their way through.

          • occupybacon

            Speaking of design, Russia just made it’s own copy of that design, Su-57, just 20 years later.

          • Lone Ranger

            Not a copy.
            20 years later, 20 years more advanced tech…
            They got the better deal.
            They deliberately waited till the tech got mature enough.
            Learned from the mistskes the U.S. made and avoided them.

          • occupybacon

            So not a copy because they waited 20 years the US tech to get mature enough so they can learn… sounds like a copy with extra steps to me.

          • Lone Ranger

            Wrong.
            They only avoided the mistskes and added their own design.
            U.S. did the same in the late 60s early 70s when they designed the F-15, they made their own long range interceptor similar to the Mig-25 in configuration, but they went for a multirole edge while the Mig-25 was a pure interceptor for speed and less for maneuverability.

          • Bob

            Not a copy – has different design priorities – the commonality is simply from the broader developments in aviation engineering dynamic flows – developed from advanced computational simulations.

          • occupybacon

            It looks almost the same, but not so neat, probably designers were in a hurry to it to India as PAK-FA and now they have to keep it since nobody replaced the Indian offer.

          • Bob

            Have you noticed that most mid-range vehicles essentially look the same now, with image differentials primarily in their detailing and badges – why, because the basic understandings of aerodynamics and reduced drag co-efficiencies are now well understood from last two decades of computational dynamic flow simulators, creating a baseline that every manufacturer can access and uses – resulting in more or less the same flow based body shapes. Other fields of transport based engineering have followed similar patterns of development, based around knowledge developed in computational simulators, relative to design-brief priorities.

          • occupybacon

            Indeed West was always in front of the East at vehicles design.

          • Lone Ranger

            Not really.
            First man in space…
            First ICBM…
            First soace station….
            First Mach 3 fighter…
            First 3D vector thrust jet…
            First titanium double hull sub…
            First coax rotor helo…
            List goes on…

          • occupybacon

            It can go on and on but they are still small comparing to the other ones, making them exceptions.

          • Lone Ranger

            According to whom?
            You?
            Dont make me laugh please…
            U.S. is still buying rocket tech from Russia.
            RD-180 is powering the Atlas V
            The RD-181 is powering the Antares.
            ESA also used the Russian Rokot at French Guyana, now they have switched to the Soyuz 2.
            Russia is helping build the new ITER fusion reactor in South France, its based on the Russian TOKAMAK design.
            Russia is building 80 nuclear reactors world wide.
            Russia built the core of the ISS based on the Mir 2 design, Russian segment controls life support, navigation, propulsion for the entire station.
            Russia brought up all the U.S. astronauts for the past 9 years…
            I can go on if you want….

          • occupybacon

            It doesn’t look like you are one step away from laughing but rather ceying. Those very few things are called ‘cherry picking’, little girl.

          • Lone Ranger

            Whats ceying:)?
            You are getting passive agressive again…
            Try to lower your cocaine ration ;)

          • Bob

            Is quite clear you know nothing about advanced level engineering and how it develops in a competitive environment – you are merely all about pointless, and cheap, partisan rhetoric.

          • occupybacon

            Yeah, that’s why the West copy the East and not the oposite.

          • Lone Ranger

            They often do indeed.

          • Bob

            Both the Nazi Tiger tank, and Panther tank, were a direct response to the Soviet T-34 tank, with Panther’s sloped frontal glacis plate a direct copy of the T-34. Dolt.

          • occupybacon

            Sure thing buddy, Russia didn’t copy anything from Germans.

          • Lone Ranger

            Thats why Kamaz trucks won 17times the most difficult rally on the planet, the Dakar…

          • occupybacon

            Sure, just 20 years behind. Like almost everything.

  • Kamīrusan

    Why is this so much more expensive than the US F16? I Thought they’re practically the same fighter with little adjustments no ?
    Edit: the price doesn’t match the performance at all …. could’ve gotten a fucking SU-35 for that

    • JIMI JAMES

      Because lockheed martin are the true #1 aviation free scammers of the world (period)

    • chris chuba

      1. Unit cost mislabeled because it includes development?
      2. Lockheed really gouging them on licensing fees?
      3. Super-duper advanced electronics?
      I’m going to guess all of the above and probably in that order.

    • tom

      What’s the point in having colonies if you don’t squeeze them for all they’ve got?

    • Bob

      Foreign-licensed military aviation contracts…both public bureaucrat and private enterprise piggies lined up at the taxpayer’s trough……everyone gouging at all levels.

  • PZIVJ
    • kenpachi

      one way trip. was the only way to try to loosen the embargo they faced. banzai spartans

      • azanjac

        Sure but the whole story is that they first ventured into China and did some awful things there.

        • kenpachi

          whatever their issues were with china, the US had no business subjugating them. the american people did not vote for that

  • Lone Ranger

    U.S.: see Japan?
    Thats an F-16…
    Mitsubishi: oh thats cute, hold my PS4…
    Now its proper…

  • Lone Ranger

    So in short…
    Bigger cockpit.
    Better electronics.
    Better radar.
    Better long range BVR missiles.
    Bigger wings.
    Slightly better turn radius
    Slightly more heavy
    Probably higher cruise speed
    Rear facing radar.
    Better ECM suit.

    • igybundy

      In short 4 times as expensive…

  • Justin

    looks a lot like an F-16