MarcellogoThe problem is how do you give a fighter with an order of magnitude more stealth than the F-35 a good maneuvrability. Either the plane is more triangular for much more stealth and has poor maneuvrability, either you go for a more fighter type design with only an incremental improvement in stealth, but with a decent maneuvrability. The second option needs more jamming capabilities. I don’t know which one would be best in terms of cost effectiveness.
I am kind of baffled that they don’t want at least the level of stealth of the F-35 on the F/A-XX.
Certainly they will do,why they would do something like dis-inventing the wheel?
A natural evolution of stealth technologies would occur anyway, like it would happen in all other related sector.
It would certainly be possible to give a plane a order of magnitude more stealth with good maneuvrability, given that both F-22 and T-50 are actually stealth and extreme maneuvrability capable, i would say that half of the probleM is solved already.
Problem is not about the fact if it would be theoretically possible to reach it , it is about the price in money, but even more in time and in sacrifice in other performances that it will take.
Let-say if you get them in a twenty year time and an extra large funding while in the meantime enhancing actual AD radar performances of the same level would only take fifteen and a standard budget , such an effort would be just futile if not even counter productive.
MarcellogoYes, I really don’t see the point. Apparently the idea is to use the stealthy F-35s and UCLASS to find targets for these relatively inexpensive non stealthy planes using super fast long range weapons. That’s a pretty big departure from what had been announced a few years ago.
Even if they have a HEL, they still need to approach their targets so they need stealth. and a non stealthy plane wouldn’t survive against enemy fighters. Also the enemy long range SAM launchers would be hard to find and destroy, there is no guarantee they could ever enter the enemy airspace without stealth.
Yes, this is precisely the idea.
Now, it seems me just a realistic one, above all when it will refer to a a post 2030 environment.
It should be obvious to remember how they have done that stealth level has a physical limit, so at a certain point enemy AD would match it in every case (and it me seems that we are not so far from it even today) and so future strike planes would rely anyway on Jamming and SEAD just in the same way SH& Growler ticket are doing now.
THIS NOT MEANS THAT FUTURE PLANES WOULD NOT HAVE STEALTH FEATURES, let said it loud, so to avoid usual bickering about the equally obvious point that shielding a radar sparrow-size item is easier than doing the same with a B-52.
Just it would be a component of the overall protection system, not the Gift Given By The Almighty To Ensure The Eternal Superiority Of The American Civilization like sometime it seems according to some comments…
Now, it would it not such a problem if this would be just a armchair general level,thing but it seems me than the USAF future plan are instead just following the same mindset, desperately grasping to find another technology able to ensure that air dominance level than F-22 was supposed to give them .
MarcellogoThe outgoing CNO specifically said that the next generation fighter would rely less on “SPEED” compared to the fighters before it. This points to the service not really wanting an F-22/ATF like performance.
For what I have read about their requisites they seems to NOT wanting so many thing that it seems to me even that they doesn’t want anything at all.
Or better said,that they have already taken a path and this path is about UCAV/UCLASS, not fighters, almost not until the former is not secured and well into production, and they only fear about being forced to join into another tri/service craziness.
MarcellogoAs always russian plane performances are absolutely astounding, yet I still wonder in whach measure some of the most impressive acrobatic maneuvers have a real combat utility or are there just for aeroshow.
No, I-m not talking about the “fox and the grapes” style whining coming out often from the other side of Atlantic but a more discriminate answer maybe from someone with a flying experience.
Let-s take for an example the absolutely impressive 360 degree flat spin PAK-FA perform; it would be possible to broke it halfway and run away immediately after having fired a missile or the plane would keep to fly forward?
MarcellogoThe Navy’s concept is to use the Super Hornet as a Truck while the F-35C is there penetrating aircraft for strike missions. Its really early into the F-35C acquisition and the Navy will most likely adjust its numbers when it gets a better understanding of what they will have to pay in the 2020’s for this aircraft. They have a lot of very high cost projects underway and in the pipeline…
Yes, basically the US Navy doesn’t need the big numbers because it has most of the bases just covered.
Only thing I disagree with you is about the kind of mission: it seems me that more than to penetration mission Sweetman with his statement is pointing about Tactical Recon, target identification and Cas or better a fusion of the three things.
In this case the excellent fuel fraction of the -C even when compared to the other F-35 would translate into a considerable loiter time.
So while the SH will just pass, drop bombs and haul ass, Lightings thanks to their reserves and stealth characteristics would stay on target for a way greater time, before and after than the main strike force would arrive.
I would only applaud to a solution that allow the right amount of F-35 to do what they can really do best of any other around there instead of forcing it to act as an jack of all trade like it is ended up in the USAF case.
Marcellogohttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/12/us-navy-details-future-carrier-air-wing/
More than 3/4 will be SH!? So less than 1/4 will be F-35C?
What is the ratio of Hornet to SH today?
Yes. Let’s remember that there are also the EA-18G to put in the count. USN , apart for the usual li service payed by the top brass, seems really not too enthusiast about the F-35 thing.
Having acquired the SH in such numbers in recent times they have not the USAF urge for replacing almost the totality of their own fleet, with Growler/Grizzly ECM and Sead capacity they doesn’t depend on stealth alone to penetrate enemy air defenses and with UCLASS being available just a few years after the F-35C readiness they would have almost all the main roles covered.
What will remain is the still important but surely quite niche role highlighted by Shoemaker words (+ something others on the same line).
MarcellogoI seem to have read that despite of the common perception more weapon programs were killed by the Reps than Dems. But I was never keen on internal US politics therefore my memories of this article are rather vague.
Well, fact that MacNamara was a Dem surely helped this a lot.:eagerness:
Marcellogo[ATTACH=CONFIG]239803[/ATTACH]
Back to Europe with croatian sole fighter unit restored to its full numbers.
http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/godina-2015-menu/item/846-predstavljena-eskadrila-borbenih-aviona.html
MarcellogoOk, there is disagreement about the introduction of date of izdelje 30.
Best thing is to stitch to what we know for sure.
1. There is a precise timetable about the introduction of new preliminary production planes for state trials.
2. It is clearly stated that most of them would refer to a 2nd phase model
3. we know also that the -30 engine development has progressed at a good pace and it would definitely be the standard issue for the full bodied model. It is not just about a greater level of thrust, it is about being a variable cycle engine i.e. a foot inside 6th generation.
So the only point of debate that remain is a what point of the development/ production the swap between the two engines would take place. Not a minor question, certainly but not even something we will lose our sleep about.
Also because I would bet that there would be a provision to allow the two engines swap, just like it is on F-16 C/ D.
Marcellogo$1 Billion a piece? Thats 1 Tactical fighter for nearly 2 Long Range Strike Bombers. A completely unrealistic scenario. For the USAF the F-X replaces F-15C’s, F-15E’s and F-22A’s..Look at the fleet strength of these fighters and that will pretty much determine what the cost the developers will be required to play around.
Yes, it not easy task. F/22 itself proved to be too much to bear operatively, let-s image such a monster instead.
My best advice to you is to begin to think to a viable 5,5 gen substitute for the remaining F-15C and keep the other two for when the 6th gen would be mature enough.
Exactly the two things that were missed great time with current generation change. Obviously IMHO.
Above all, let’s almost one time try to really involve your allies in it and accept to collaborate to their own project in both cases…
MarcellogoYessmo, problem is not striking a target.It is about finding one.
We are just now, not in a distant future facing opponents that use a radically different military structures than the ones we have faced in the wars against Saddam, now someone here has proposed very big and costly planes, more akin theatre bombers than actual fighters as the possible 6th generation, I was more about hypersonic fighters but i fear that concentrating on just a paramether or a mission type would becounterproductive.
In every case, before thinking about Raptors, there are the F-15 substitution to deal with…
MarcellogoThe more I analize the question the more doubts I have about my capacity to imagine how the 6th generation would look alike.
My first guess would have been about an high velocity plane with radically innovative propulsion systems but now I question myself…
It would surely be a great thing for what it concern A2A part but for ground attacks?
Above all against the actual form of hybrid warfare, started by Hezzies in 2006 but now adopted by Islamist also on in both Iraq and Syria.
Dispersion, concealment, tunnel burrowing, entrenchment in civilian areas but also a dispersed command structure with a network capability that allow them to mount on large scale military operations with a short notice?
Cruising at more than mach 3 doesn’t seems me to help at all in facing such kind of opponents.
Probably It will mean to left definitely aside the ideas of having another “jack of all trades” like the F-35 capable to cover all spectrum of possible missions and revert toward an, hopefully not too vast array of more specialized planes.
MarcellogoYeah pretty soon when the PAK-FA comes online the F-35 will be a modern day mig-21, it will need a setting with 42% more thrust to be on par… for block 4.2 maybe… 😀
What … comparing a fighter to what a MiG21 was at its time would only be an high praise.
MarcellogoAgreed on the kinetic aspect of it. But a 360° IRST would provide 360° detection and tracking at a significantly lower cost than side AESA arrays. Against LO targets an IRST might have the same kind of range – might depend on weather conditions. If you are trying to lower the cost of the plane the all aspect IRST saves maybe several millions.
The plane would have to turn in the direction of the target for the launch to increase the missile’s range, but right after the launch the plane can escape while continuing to guide the missile.
One thing however, concerning the use of a HEL, is the accuracy of the tracking of an IRST vs a radar. In order to use a laser, I guess the most important is to have the best accuracy in direction, an IRST might be better than a radar for that, not sure
A cheap (5,5 or)6-gen plane? Actual ones are just so costly than anything designed to superate them would be a budget breaker anyway.
Let say that if F-22 has to be considered as a 5,0 gen aircraft both F-35 than the T-50, but in a lesser way also the Y-20, has taken some evolutionary step toward a new generation or better to the half of it, if we want to stitch to my initial post.
MarcellogoInteresting, it looks like the british are interested in that kind of capability.
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
Sometime you hear about the typhoon’s ability to supercruise at Mach 1.4-1.5, maybe it is with this 15% extra thrust.
I know russian carrier-based planes has such a feature to have maximum possible thrust on takeoff.
It can be useful when similar short duration necessities arise as taking off, consistent SEP loss and reaching supersonic , no way it would be used in dry thrust however.
Sign In
