US Navy and US Air Force Sixth Generation Fighters Will be Separate Platforms

The US Air Force apparently has decided it does NOT want to repeat the F-35 experience. I can't imagine why.

The USAF has stated the sixth gen requirements for the USAF and USN are rather distinct and not really compatible. I imagine some pieces will still be shared (engines? sensors? weapons?), but the frame and probably a good portion of the avionics will be rather different.

The navy has stated they want long endurance above all else. I suspect the relatively short legs (without refueling) for the Rhino is whats driving this.

The USAF has stated they want stealth. I can imagine what other items the Air Force wants. However, making sure they are compatible and create another budget monster is going to be important. Its a lesson all of the armed services are going to need to take to heart.

li nk.

a reply to: anzha

Good for them.. I just hope whatever either force decides upon works better than the last few programs.. The time for corruption and cost over runs with stuff still not working 10 years into a program needs to be stopped. Contractors and directors need to have their directorships pulled as some march off to jail IMO.

Building platforms to carry all the new equipment too:
youtu.be...

yes, the truth is fine.....the f35 truth.....just get the truth out there is the directive the head of the project wants.....while he mires in muck leftover friggin nightmares about how to get an f35 and it's helmet agoin'.....proud of that man.....he inherited the project? sounds like something that would happen to me...ha

these new projects will be so thought-out.....modern man gonna finally build the birds right....gotta

etadd....been 18 years working on that f35a

a reply to: GBP/JPY

I have no clue what you are trying to get across with this post.

a reply to: Pyle

sorry, I'm terrible....the head man of the entire project met in secret....told the reporter to get the truth out there no matter what...and he is stuck with things like the coating on the skin failing at the back end.....and he couldn't see why it wasn't tested correctly before it was approved. It's taking so long to iron out the problems, he's living a nightmare.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

And you have something other than someone's word, who probably can't even tell and F-35 from an F-15, right?

originally posted by: anzha
The navy has stated they want long endurance above all else. I suspect the relatively short legs (without refueling) for the Rhino is whats driving this.

I think, deep in their hearts, they always wanted a Grumman *-cat like the good old days, and still pine to this day.

It's already set. Advent engines, heavy, wing morphing (to replace the swing wing), very long range air-breathing missiles, and NG is making it.

All there is left to decide is the first part of the name. Tomcat II? Hellcat II?, Bearcat II, Wildcat II, Bobcat, Tigercat, Sabrecat, Thundercat, Coolcat?

Comes with motorcycle & mirrored shades.

This is not a bad idea, but if they manage to share engines, avionics and - especially - software development costs - then they should be able to save a fair bit. Also, even though the airframes may look different, new materials and manufacturing techniques may also be able to be shared...

a reply to: mbkennel

They do want a fleet interceptor. However, they also need a fighter bomber, an Rhino replacement.

I think a Sea Avenger (UCAV) married to a version of the HELLADS laser is the way to go for the F-14 replacement. Put flights of three in orbits at 30k ft and have them just circle at half the range of the laser. It carries a lot of missiles plus the laser. They are sorta interceptors and not meant to be dog fighters at all. They stay within LOS of the carriers, just extending the missile barrier out another 200 km (+/-).

Now if they would add that to the 'robo car park' technologies to put the UCAVs in a stacked config in the hangar deck...

a reply to: mbkennel

As I have said before, I am not sure the morphing wing tech will be mature enough.

The lesson (I sure as frak hope) learned over the last generation has been risk needs to be seriously curtailed in new projects. Do the tech development BEFORE and only use mature or mostly mature tech in acquisitions.

Sea Avenger is to slow to replace the Tomcat, laser don't resolve all the problems. You still need to intercept the ennemy fighter not just waiting doing circle in the skies.

a reply to: darksidius

The Tomcat in the original mission wasn't required to be fast. That's why it had the Phoenix, to hit targets a long way out, before they could close to their own launch range.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The only problem being the Phoenix missiles are heavy as fsck.

Any hypersonic missile will be as well. After all, they use an ATACMS as the first stage for the hypersonic scramjet test beds...and that would require something much, much bigger than a Sea Avenger to have any sort of serious load out.

A Sea Avenger MIGHT be able to carry one monster missile. oy.

a reply to: anzha

They won't need to be hypersonic. They just need to build a longer ranged missile, that is similar size as the AMRAAM. A ramjet powered missile would be perfect.

Different missions require different capes.

B, C, and D are flying or getting ready to,
at Groom.

A is flying sorties over Syria.

a reply to: Lexvr2
B, C, D for what model do you speak ?

originally posted by: darksidius
a reply to: Lexvr2
B, C, D for what model do you speak ?

Exactly what I posted.

There are X and F models flying.

Two B models.

a reply to: Lexvr2

Of what. Those are generic letters that could be from anything flying.

Sorry.

The -35.

a reply to: Lexvr2

You're so wrong then it's not funny. There is no D model F-35, no X-35s are flying anymore, and there are no A models flying missions over Syria. The A hasn't reached IOC, so isn't capable of flying missions anywhere. They're also not flying out of Groom.