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

a reply to: Zaphod58

I can only imagine that world events going into a midterm election around the time of that sighting might have had a bit to with the supposed Edwards South LRS-B flyoff that was planned never happening.

a reply to: BlackDog10

What is your issue here?

Technically he was correct at the time. Zaphod's a lot better at putting two and two together from bits of info on the net than apparently some of the newer, more critical members here. In that instance that you hastily pointed out, things changed in the program's time table between then and now. And I didn't even need inside info to figure that out.

...but by all means attack Zaphod on semantics, you wouldn't be the first and you probably won't be the last. After each time they do, the more attentive and dedicated members here have vetted and supported the efforts he has put into making this forum a sanctuary for the analytical aviation nerds.

If you can't appreciate that then may I suggest you find sanctuary elsewhere. You won't find many friends here trying to under mine the pillars of this forum.

a reply to: Barnalby

Combination of election, and them reworking the program because of other screw ups coming to light. That's why it was delayed until late last year, instead of April or May as planned.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So you throw a hissy fit when as soon as someone tries to criticise you? I have nothing against making such claims, but if you really like to claim they are true, then you should provide some kind of evidence such as quotes that proved you knew about things before they were disclosed. Saying 'I forgot' is not enough. Otherwise it seems much easier to prove the opposite.

a reply to: BlackDog10

You should really just drop it.

You obviously haven't been here along time so I guess that is an excuse for ignorance.

Sometimes in the world of military and private contracting the people involved can drip

Feed or leave bread crumbs and sometimes even nudges in the right direction.


Sometimes when your new you should sit back and read and research before you try calling get out people who are respected, and for a good reason. No one here is going to back you up because we already know what's what.


This isn't a personal attack just a little advice

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you think there are plans on the board yet? Or just a hazy cloud of ideas on what they want but not sure how the want to package it, or how to package it.

With the new s-400's and 500 systems developing it seems you need extreme speed great stealth (optical, IR, UV) and amazing ECM.

Seems like thints we could easily start making test platforms for.

a reply to: penroc3

So I'm just supposed to believe blindly? If it's all so credible here, a little bit of evidence shouldn't be so hard to dig up. That's all I ask for.

I've been here on this account for about 2 years now and have lurked for many years before that, by the way.

a reply to: BlackDog10

I never Said you should have blind faith in anyone but what is your standard of proof? We're on a public Internet fourm, if you have been here for years you would know the players on this fourm.

I wouldn't say I'm a player here but I have been around and post allot and I love all things that fly, and have a little military experience so I think that gives me a good b.s detector on a few subjects.

Sometimes the best proof is personal contact and 'relationships' that we make on this fourm. And again we are on a public fourm, proof is sometimes in between the lines.

a reply to: BlackDog10

Not at all. You want to criticize be you go right ahead. But when person after person comes on here with an agenda to go after me, eventually I'm going to be done with it. I have gained nothing from posting what I have, and have posted it because it's fun and interesting. And yet time and time again people go after me for it. And I'm just supposed to sit here and be good natured about it? Screw that.

As for quotes you seriously expect me to have quotes for this? And expect me to post sources for you to vet? Almost all of this is word of mouth from people that know and I'll be dammed if I'm going to burn them because you think you have a right to know who they are. Believe me or don't believe me, I don't give a god damn either way. But you sure as hell aren't getting quotes and sources. We're talking about programs that are still classified or very Grey. You're not getting evidence, so deal with it or not, I really don't care.

a reply to: penroc3

Some aspects are already pretty far along but the whole package hasn't been put together yet.

As a researcher you go to a few known sources first.After a while you know its not what is being said its the intent and the things between the lines that you take notice of..Aircraft are easy,they all need engines,fuel,sensors,aerodynamics so you look at what companies are doing what as projects usually have a long gestation period.Especially tech so you can go back 20 years and see what they were playing with back then..I know everyone bags Wikipedia but it leads back to a source.And from that source you cross reference to other fun things..Zaph sucks as he knows a lot but due to his sources confidentiality anything that breaks that trust will get him shut out for good and be in a world of hurt.Best thing is to tease him about him and go through the hundreds of threads and pick out the notable facts.

a reply to: Zaphod58





With some programs that are pretty mature, or at least flying now. Like the green lady that I assume is air breathing its clear we got some nasty engines.

Could said engine be made available for main line forces with mantinance and all the logistical support, that I don't know.

I guess we'll have to wait and see the requirements to makeep more accurate guesses on what she'll have on board

My feeling stealth is going to be the biggest challenge, sensor fusion I think they nailed with the f35. But ir, UV and visual stealth plus high speed platforms past what we have now that Flys in the atmosphere seems like a huge challenge

Add MHD for power and a advent engine and fuel cooling I think will solve laser/power issues

a reply to: Zaphod58

Gained nothing, aside from many people who cling on to your every word...

I didn't say anywhere that I expect you to divulge you sources (if they exist), what I asked for are simply posts from here that proves you know something we don't. That's all I'm asking for, yet it's funny how much of a big stir up that's caused.

a reply to: penroc3

The engines themselves, no. They're too specialized and maintenance intensive because of the regime they operate in. Some of the technology from them however probably will be.

As for stealth, one of the papers found in archive that was largely wiped from the net talked about advances in stealth, including visual, IR, multi frequency and microwave. They also demonstrated visual stealth in a 2 meter uav that reduced the signature to almost 0 at 2100 feet.

a reply to: BlackDog10

Wow. Followers on the Internet. That gets the bills paid alright.

And what proof would that be? Again. Black and Grey projects. They're not exactly posting specs online that you can find. Believe, don't believe, that's all on you.

Although maybe you can figure out how I was able to tell someone in another country within 10 minutes when they'd see something go overhead if I don't know anything.

a reply to: Zaphod58

active visual stealth? i have seen some strange pain jobs with triangles and other such shapes and simple colors do some pretty strange things at a bit of a distance.

BAE was showing off there active IR camo on tanks making them look like cars and other non military things or just blend into the back ground. i always wondered if the tiles could be used on a air craft, weight being the major issue.

as far as the multi spectral stealth goes, i would assume the the ECM suite would have to fill the bubble of nothing the aircraft would make(compared to just normal background noise) or is the bubble the size they talk about when they say the RCS is the size of a bumble bee? if that was the case then no need but if you have a B-2 sized hole going across the sky just shoot at whats not there and then let a IR seeker do the rest

a reply to: penroc3

The problem with the current visual system is that above a certain speed the panels tend to debond. More than one chase pilot took a panel to the canopy. Fortunately they're light and thin enough to cause no damage.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The article with images is in that thread.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: penroc3

The engines themselves, no. They're too specialized and maintenance intensive because of the regime they operate in. Some of the technology from them however probably will be.

As for stealth, one of the papers found in archive that was largely wiped from the net talked about advances in stealth, including visual, IR, multi frequency and microwave. They also demonstrated visual stealth in a 2 meter uav that reduced the signature to almost 0 at 2100 feet.

That is pretty darn impressive ! It is a shame that the materials we have to work with (so far) are so darn hard to keep up to a stealth status.

a reply to: 727Sky

That was back in like 2007. In sure it's been improved quite a bit since.