USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

How about skipping the "family of capabilities" and going for the "extended family of capabilities" for the post 2050 timeframe?
 
I think it's difficult for them to forecast what their future fighter will be. It's kind of a chess match with China, what is China planning for their 2030+ Air Force? What kinds of capabilities will they have? Will they rely on cheap drones to do the fighting for them against 6th gen A/C?

I definitely agree US fighters of the future will certainly need much longer legs. Nimbleness and tactical maneuverability may not be necessary in the future if they just need to stand back and let a bunch of loyal wingmen do the fighting for them. Maybe a larger carrier aircraft will be part of the future, something able to deploy multiple recoverable or expendable drones across long distances into combat environments.

Who knows!
 
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

The US Air Force is in no hurry to commit to a next-gen fighter design

The service is taking its time to settle on a next-generation fighter design, awaiting instead lessons learned from the F-35 jet and playing the field with promising technologies, says a senior Air Force official.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

And why should the USAF be hurried into going 6th Generation, they still have plenty of F-22s left despite loosing some to accidents, plus they also have the F-35 coming on stream now as well.
 
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

The US Air Force is in no hurry to commit to a next-gen fighter design

The service is taking its time to settle on a next-generation fighter design, awaiting instead lessons learned from the F-35 jet and playing the field with promising technologies, says a senior Air Force official.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

And why should the USAF be hurried into going 6th Generation, they still have plenty of F-22s left despite loosing some to accidents, plus they also have the F-35 coming on stream now as well.
Click to expand...
Because if they start RIGHT NOW it might be into service in 20 years. If they decide in 10 years, "hey we need a new one NOW" they'll be SOL. The other guy will be building their NEXT one by then.
 
"The Air Force is developing new air-launched hypersonic weapons that will be able to fly at speeds of Mach 5 or faster and be highly maneuverable against enemy air defenses".

Hypersonic yet highly maneuverable? How does that work?
 
Foo Fighter said:
"The Air Force is developing new air-launched hypersonic weapons that will be able to fly at speeds of Mach 5 or faster and be highly maneuverable against enemy air defenses".

Hypersonic yet highly maneuverable? How does that work?
Click to expand...

*sigh* It's all relative. They don't mean "manueverable" like it's going to manuever like a biplane at the local airshow. They mean manueverable in comparison to typical hypersonic missiles/RVs have in the past. This should be obvious.
 
I fully expect the hypersonic BGV's to pitch up and do a falling leaf maneuver on their way to the target.
 
Foo Fighter said:
"The Air Force is developing new air-launched hypersonic weapons that will be able to fly at speeds of Mach 5 or faster and be highly maneuverable against enemy air defenses".

Hypersonic yet highly maneuverable? How does that work?
Click to expand...

I have heard there is a new coined term after the development of the iskander-m and kinzhal called, "quasi-ballistic" that describes missiles with capabilities to maneuver at every phase of their flight profiles other than just entering the terminal or re-entry phase which can already be done with just ballistic missiles. I only wish that a certain hypersonic missile project for a certain 5th gen aircraft gets an internal carry.
 
My impression was the Air Force needs the F-15 for its Mach 2.2 speed and payload capability for air-launched hypersonic missiles. F-35 slower at max Mach 1.6/7 with reduced payload and if launching a hypersonic missile it would need to be smaller, lower in weight, requiring a larger and heavier booster rocket to get up to hypersonic speed severely limiting its useful range and weapon payload?
 
@Cordy : Hypersonic missiles doesn't come in Coca can size. I am not sure that the Max Mach is significant enough there. Size maybe (the overall added drag of the missile is less in percentage with a bigger aircraft).
 
Cordy said:
My impression was the Air Force needs the F-15 for its Mach 2.2 speed and payload capability for air-launched hypersonic missiles. F-35 slower at max Mach 1.6/7 with reduced payload and if launching a hypersonic missile it would need to be smaller, lower in weight, requiring a larger and heavier booster rocket to get up to hypersonic speed severely limiting its useful range and weapon payload?
Click to expand...
And about a 120nm range at that speed and no external gas.
 
How do we deal with foreign sales? How will the United States sell fighters to other countries? Israel, Gulf monarchies, Australia, Japan, South Korea and perhaps Egypt are the countries that buy American-made fighters. If these fighters are built to fly only 20 years how can you upgrade them and sell them to allied countries?
 
Lc89 said:
How do we deal with foreign sales? How will the United States sell fighters to other countries? Israel, Gulf monarchies, Australia, Japan, South Korea and perhaps Egypt are the countries that buy American-made fighters. If these fighters are built to fly only 20 years how can you upgrade them and sell them to allied countries?
Click to expand...

If they are successful at doing what they are talking about, they can probably make "export" versions of the systems and make airframes tailored more to the needs of the foreign air force's requirements.
 
Lc89 said:
How do we deal with foreign sales? How will the United States sell fighters to other countries? Israel, Gulf monarchies, Australia, Japan, South Korea and perhaps Egypt are the countries that buy American-made fighters. If these fighters are built to fly only 20 years how can you upgrade them and sell them to allied countries?
Click to expand...
Probably the same way we do now.
 
rooster said:
Cordy said:
My impression was the Air Force needs the F-15 for its Mach 2.2 speed and payload capability for air-launched hypersonic missiles. F-35 slower at max Mach 1.6/7 with reduced payload and if launching a hypersonic missile it would need to be smaller, lower in weight, requiring a larger and heavier booster rocket to get up to hypersonic speed severely limiting its useful range and weapon payload?
Click to expand...
And about a 120nm range at that speed and no external gas.
Click to expand...

An F-15 would likely be able to get a large weapon up to a higher launch speed than an F-35. You don't need high Mach from the time you leave the runway.
 
It needs fuel enough to get ta launch point and if its going to hit mach 2 then its going to be dragged by a KC all the way there and back as it will not hit mach speeds greater than a f35 while it has external gas. A big heavy draggy missile, all internal fuel. Doesn't sound viable. All this is just nonsense anyways it isn't happening.
 
rooster said:
It needs fuel enough to get ta launch point and if its going to hit mach 2 then its going to be dragged by a KC all the way there and back as it will not hit mach speeds greater than a f35 while it has external gas. A big heavy draggy missile, all internal fuel. Doesn't sound viable. All this is just nonsense anyways it isn't happening.
Click to expand...

Put that big weapon on an F-35 and see how far it goes.
 
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

Amid heated aircraft carrier debate, the US Navy sees funding slashed for a next-generation fighter

Funding for the Navy's effort to develop a next-generation fighter to replace the F/A-18 Super Hornet was gutted by Congress in this year's appropriations bill.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
"A study released earlier this year by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments called for a total overhaul of the carrier air wing, starting with fully committing to the MQ-25 Stingray, an autonomous refueling tanker that the study said should be able to drag a limited number of Super Hornets out to ranges that make a new kind of concept of operations work against Chinese and Russian threats. "

Prior to my F-14 evolution post being deleted there could have been a discussion about a “Next Generation Advanced Engine effort,” allowing a F-14 size (more onboard fuel) swing wing stealth fighter bomber affording the range and low altitude infiltration which could render useful the carrier wing.
 
jsport said:
Prior to my F-14 evolution post being deleted there could have been a discussion about a “Next Generation Advanced Engine effort,” allowing a F-14 size (more onboard fuel) swing wing stealth fighter bomber affording the range and low altitude infiltration which could render useful the carrier wing.
Click to expand...

Still can be - in another thread. But then it would just devolve into an argument about how swing-wings are "old-fashioned".
 
I know the story has been already told with the Tomcat, but a Super C (F-35) will probably meet most of the urgent needs post 30's.
 
TomcatViP said:
I know the story has been already told with the Tomcat, but a Super C (F-35) will probably meet most of the urgent needs post 30's.
Click to expand...
Question for the aero-engineers out there. Take the F-35C and modify for two engines. Like a naval F-22? Total waste of time? Might as well develop a whole new airframe?
 
TomcatViP said:
I know the story has been already told with the Tomcat, but a Super C (F-35) will probably meet most of the urgent needs post 30's.
Click to expand...
The test of the F-35 verses the A-10 displayed the F-35 can not fight low low altit w/ high weight external stores.
 
bobbymike said:
Question for the aero-engineers out there. Take the F-35C and modify for two engines. Like a naval F-22? Total waste of time? Might as well develop a whole new airframe?
Click to expand...

Since the United States military is fully committed to the F-35, it's best to pray the 6th gen carrier a/c will fulfill future needs.. The USG knew the threat China posed as far back as the 90s but instead chose to indulge in the Global War on Terror for close to 20 years. They made their bed, now they can lay in it.
 
You could reuse the same avionics and a good number of vehicle systems, but structurally you'd have to nearly start from scratch.
 
80klb of thrust is a lot for an airframe the size of a F-35.
I personally don't understand this quest for a second engine when one suffice and make for a more reliable propulsion unit.
Every fighter need more thrust however. I agree with that. But that will be third stream, a more efficient engine designed to be swap without any major rework.
To me a Super C would only be slightly longer to hall more fuel and/or offering more internal volume for weapons keeping the same enlarged wing. Max lift (bring back weight) would be increased with collapsible mustaches or other aero refinement.
 
Real Super C should be at least 1.2 times the size or just have new and bigger airframe. At the very least for mounting more internal weapons.
 
In_A_Dream said:
bobbymike said:
Question for the aero-engineers out there. Take the F-35C and modify for two engines. Like a naval F-22? Total waste of time? Might as well develop a whole new airframe?
Click to expand...

Since the United States military is fully committed to the F-35, it's best to pray the 6th gen carrier a/c will fulfill future needs.. The USG knew the threat China posed as far back as the 90s but instead chose to indulge in the Global War on Terror for close to 20 years. They made their bed, now they can lay in it.
Click to expand...

Pray as though everything depends on God. Work as though everything depends on you. My sense is that the work is being done.
Maybe a USAF solution will be first, though? We'll see.

Tech is changing so quickly, hypersonics, etc. SpaceX will likely have 1200 additional satellites up each of the next five years. SpaceX expects to have Starship on the moon be mid decade. That's 100 tons into space with each launch.

No one will be lying down. Too many exciting things happening.
 
TomcatViP said:
80klb of thrust is a lot for an airframe the size of a F-35.
I personally don't understand this quest for a second engine when one suffice and make for a more reliable propulsion unit.
Every fighter need more thrust however. I agree with that. But that will be third stream, a more efficient engine designed to be swap without any major rework.
To me a Super C would only be slightly longer to hall more fuel and/or offering more internal volume for weapons keeping the same enlarged wing. Max lift (bring back weight) would be increased with collapsible mustaches or other aero refinement.
Click to expand...
understand maintainability, reliablity and thrust of a single engine in nexgen however two is faster:D Fuel efficiency would allow a longer legs and a large bay on craft the size of an F-14. Will mustaches give you the low low lift and control of a genuine swinger?
 
I don't know if variable sweep is really necessary (although it would definitely be really cool) but I do think a large twin-engine strike fighter is called for. Engine could be some AETP derivative roughly F119 sized.

I simply don't see how you could possibly turn the F-35C into that.
 
jsport said:
understand maintainability, reliablity and thrust of a single engine in nexgen however two is faster:D Fuel efficiency would allow a longer legs and a large bay on craft the size of an F-14. Will mustaches give you the low low lift and control of a genuine swinger?
Click to expand...
You are right, modern Variable geometry will certainly be at best to offer the low lift that is needed.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom