It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Air Force Wants 6th Gen Fighter, not More F-22s

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I couldn't agree less...just look at the similarities and the real dad is obvious....
Northrops doesn't resemble the B2 much....there had to be a Horten in the woodpile somewhere....
(I suppose you want to see my poetic licence now too....?)





posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Yea its better to chase the next one that restart a program (see the B1b aka the Bone) in the short time I worked them I lost track of the number of parts I had to send back to supply because they didnt fit due to different manufacturers.

Ill leave my rant about the idiot that is Gen Welsh for another time and place.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: bandersnatch

The B-2 doesn't look like either exactly but it looks a lot more like a YB-49 than an Ho.229. There was no reason for Northrop to copy the Horton's work when they had access to Jack Northrop's work already. They had a baseline for the design already.

That's like saying Chevy threw out the Corvette design to copy a Porsche design for their new Corvette.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

He still beats McPeak.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Well, until they figure out anti-gravity and the ability to negate air resistance, we're probably going to be seeing similar aerodynamic shapes for a long, LONG time. Why reinvent the wheel? The biggest changes are under the hood and the not-so-apparent things, correct? Senors, RCS, avionics, engines, ect...

EDIT: Is "dog fighting" even going to be a thing in the future? With drones and distance-based weaponry...are two fighter planes going to be in close enough proximity to be executing tight CQC maneuvers? Or is the future going to be all about seeing the other guy first and firing first?
edit on 9-3-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The future is "if you can see it, you can kill it" at least in the subsonic regime.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
So let me get this straight.

1) we didn't build enough B-2's so 30 years later we're building something quite like it, but newer, in hopes that it'll be cheap enough to build in anything approaching acceptable quantity

2) we didn't build enough F-22's so 20 years later we're looking to build something new to cover that gap

3) we're going to build 2000 F-35's which are of questionable capabilities in the first place

4) Navy needs an air superiority fighter since the F-35 can't cut it

Why does it feel like we spend more for much less compared to others?

How much did we spend on the new Marine One?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: PhantomTwo

No.

1. The B-2 is over 20 years old and needs replacing because it will reach the same point the F-117 did and hit the point of diminishing returns on skin replacement. The B-21 superficially looks like the B-2 but is as different from it as you could imagine. It will be cheaper as the production contract will be fixed price.

2. Sixth generation fighters were going to be built regardless of if we built 400 F-22s, or 20 F-22s.

3. The F-35 capabilities aren't questionable except to people that hate it and lock on to anything bad about it.

4. The Navy has needed an air superiority fighter since the F-14 was retired. The F-35 was never designed to be one.

You have it backwards. No one else has a stealth bomber operational, or has even had stealth aircraft operational. The US has had them since the early 80s. We're 30 years ahead when it comes to stealth capabilities. The technology levels we're talking about are expensive. Others don't have the tech levels our aircraft do and are designed with a quantity over quality philosophy.
edit on 3/9/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

For the US, CQC will be less important than the sensors ability to be able to "see" that target that can now be killed. It will still be taught for those pilots that still fly manned fighters (6th gen will probably be the last) but it will be less important as technology advances.
For other countries that can't afford or develop the stand-off tech that we have it will still be important, as no other nation on earth will probably have the ability to not get into a WVR conflict like we will.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: PhantomTwo
Others don't have the tech levels our aircraft do and are designed with a quantity over quality philosophy.


And I guess that's what my mini rant was all about. Our philosophy scares me. When you come to believe you're invincible because of your super weapons bad things can happen.

Say we get into an actual shooting war with Russia or China & we fly our 20 B-2's over thinking we'll wipe the floor with them, get in and out and all will be fine, then they manage to shoot down half of our fleet because of some capability we never knew existed then what? How can we produce enough new bombers quickly enough to make up for what's lost?

I know our tech is great but it's the sheer lack of numbers that scare me.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: PhantomTwo

The people that actually matter, know full well what they're capable of, and the best way to use the technology. That's why they train the way they do. They deliberately hamstring themselves to learn what they can and can't do.

When an F-22 goes into a fight at, say Red Flag, they have a number of "for wartime use only" systems turned off. They're fighting with one hand behind their back. Same with the B-2. They're fully aware that they're not invincible and at some point, with so few aircraft, they're going to get dropped into the pot and have to fight their way out of it, and have prepared for it.

They're also prepared for unknown threats to pop up. They'll turn around and get the hell out of Dodge if they see something unusual that they're not ready for. They're not afraid to abort a mission and live to fight another day.
edit on 3/9/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
So..... we already have something flying that's 6th gen and want to build those now?

Or am I reading that wrong?


No, like they will build a 6th gen cheaper than the F-22 or its buddy the F-35? Those craft are stop-gap fillers something to tide us over until the real machines get out there operational and out from under cover. I take it that they are about ready to be public in a couple of years.

'Course, they have something new hidden, but it ain't a 6th generation, but as I name it, (IMHO) it is a First Evolution, a human-styled, massless craft from alien UFOs.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Kind of sad that 600 BILLION a year and "everything is falling apart"

Sounds the the typical rehearsed mumbo jumbo.

So Zaph, how many more BILLIONS and TRILLIONS until we no longer have everything falling apart?

Just like the CA teachers union, 100B a year in education, not enough, every year, need 5 Billion-10 Billion-30 billion more, for the kids and because the whole school system is falling apart.

SKY IS FALING SKY IS FALLING!!!!

SO, wheres all the money going? Are they lighting it on fire?

IF 600 Billion isn't enough, then might as well call it a day, pack it in and go home. We are 19 T in debt brother. The jig is up.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

all those trillions are growing to pay the next space race.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Would I be wrong to say that the USN has dreams of building a post-post cold war airwing that isn't altogether that different from the much more diverse airwings of the 70's and 80s?

The F-35C is basically an EA-6 and an A-7 rolled into one, and it's about as good of an air-superiority platform as the Rhino. It's a perfect day-one ground attack aircraft like the A-12 was supposed to be, and it'll be as good as the Hornet was when it comes to bullying 3rd-world air forces.

Meanwhile, the F/A-XX could well end up as the F-14 replacement we've all been waiting decades to see, and I have a feeling the "A" part of its role will have a heavy, anti-fleet aspect to it, something the USN hasn't ever really had before.

The Hornets/Rhinos now can fill the role that the F-4 and the A-4 did in the 70's and 80's, filling out the air wing numbers-wise, and the Growler will still have a place of it's own until some UAV replaces it.

And of course the E-2 keeps soldiering on...

As the world heats up, it's kind of cool to see that the USN might be meeting their once-legendary carrier-based capabilities once again.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

It's easily verifiable if you get off your butt and put a little work into it. Look at mission capable rates. Look at the age of the Air Force fleet. Look at the sortie rate. For once do some actual research instead of just mouthing off because you don't like someone.

Click those little blue things in that post you replied to. You'll see other little things you can click on and find more information. And that's where you can start. Everything I've said can be verified with a little work, if you're not scared you'll be wrong again.
edit on 3/9/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

It would be nice to see a multi plane air wing again, wouldn't it.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
Meanwhile, the F/A-XX could well end up as the F-14 replacement we've all been waiting decades to see, and I have a feeling the "A" part of its role will have a heavy, anti-fleet aspect to it, something the USN hasn't ever really had before.


Subhunting where it's too dangerous for the P-8? That seems like the main danger. Surface fleet is too easy to sink already.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You mean the Hornet and the Rhino don't count as different aircraft?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Nor does the Growler. I miss the days of five different types on deck.



new topics




 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join