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.

 

Lockheed to Offer new Fighter to Japan Using Hybrid of F-22 & F-35 Tech

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And I've not been so fortunate. stompstompstomp.




posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Of course, none of it means much until they finally pull the trigger.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Something got triggered to go into the air. Whether it leads directly to the PCA or whatnot, it remains to be seen.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

There are a lot of things in the air right now. You just don't realize just how much is going on right now.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm in the other place where lots of things are happening. Just not ones that get in the air. Mostly.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I am seriously looking forward to future hunting trips. Even if we only catch white stuff, there's some interesting clues as to what's out there.



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I do not think that it is going to be that simple, and that the tariffs are going to slow down, if not throw a monkey wrench into the entire situation. These tariffs are hitting allied countries, and starting to cause some problems in other treaties, where countries are having to make real decisions on if they should continue to honor said treaties or vote to scrap them and leave the US. And part of that goes with the military contracts as well.



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Except that it will be. They're not going to tariff components that are completed, that are coming in for assembly. The tariffs are being applied to raw materials, and completed products, not completed components. Even if they do get applied to components, there are many ways around them that are very easy to do.
edit on 7/19/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

I don't think blaming Trump, is off point. It is the tariffs that Trump is putting out that would put deals like this in danger. The tariffs on aluminum, for example, that is going to affect a large number of products, including the military areas. There are some military hardware that is produced that requires aluminum, such as aircraft.

And the proposed tariffs on auto vehicles are going to cause a problem, especially for Japan, cause then it would cut off a valuable market, making the product go up, slowing down sale, meaning less revenue, and with less revenue, less taxes, and cuts will have to be made. That may end up meaning the new aircraft or other items that would be normally gotten from the USA would have to be either cancelled or reduced down fully.

All of this is very interconnected, and will cause some problems down the line, on all levels, including national security, as there are those now questioning why their countries are so involved with the US, that some items, such as military hardware are gotten exclusively from the USA. That puts other treaties and agreements in danger of being withdrawn, and that will also affect the US economy for years.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   

With a Raptor’s body and the JSF’s brain, the new jet would aim to answer the next decade’s Russian and Chinese threats.

Lockheed Martin is quietly pitching the U.S. Air Force a new variant of the F-22 Raptor, equipped with the F-35’s more modern mission avionics and some structural changes, Defense One has learned.

It is one of several options being shopped to the U.S. military and allies as Lockheed explores how it might upgrade its combat jets to counter Russian and Chinese threats anticipated by military officials in the coming decade, according to people with direct knowledge of the plan.

“You’re building a hybrid aircraft,” David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who is now dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “It’s not an F-22. It’s not an F-35. It’s a combination thereof. That can be done much, much more rapidly than introducing a new design.”

The new variant — similar to one Lockheed is pitching to Japan — would incorporate the F-35’s more modern mission system and “other advancements in the stealth coatings and things of that nature,” according to a person familiar with the proposal.


www.defenseone.com...

I think a 6th gen would be better. Just IMO.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

5 Gen systems are mature. I'd probably bite depending on the price tag. Not bleeding edge is a lot of money saved. We have a need to recap. Too few F-22's. Slow roll 6 gen until it matures.

Similar reasons for the Russians to buy their proven product and slow roll their next gen.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

This is effectively a new plane. Which, at best, will require at least 5 to 7 years to go from where it is now, to starting production. You can't cut'n'paste the avionics from the 35 into a 22 body. They're a bit more tightly coupled than that and will require a good chunk of ironing out.

Besides, based on the funding profilee of the NGAD, we're going to "see" demonstrators shortly and then an RFP shortly after that. They are looking, it seems, to use the same development style as the B-21.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:14 PM
link   
A brand new plane, essentially, but with mature systems and largely proven planform. Timeframe and budget are much reduced using mature, OTS systems. And you can always add or adapt new systems to types in service. LRSB is already 15+ years old and hasn't had it's CDR. If you want something serviceable in the next decade, you're better off buying into a cheaper, less ambitious program that you could upgrade with systems as they mature. Depends on how urgent you think the need is and the pricetag. Letting international partners piggyback will also help drive down costs, which is something we won't do on an LRSB/NGAD/PCA program, but probably would on a 5+ program.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha

I think a 6th gen would be better. Just IMO.

dont stress out about it
Its the same as with all those proposals for upgraded 4th fighters for the last ten years. Some looked great on paper, some didnt make any sense and some would have been worth it. All have one thing in common: Congress would never fund them.
The same is true here. The Air Force wont even try and risk their NGAD/PCA/PEA effort for an F-22 on Steroids, no matter what Lockheed is *pitching* or some retired General thinks is interesting.



originally posted by: RadioRobertLRSB is already 15+ years old and hasn't had it's CDR.

The LRSB program is not 15+ years old. Yes, i draws (heavily) from progess made during the Next Generation Bomber program and other efforts, but it began in 2009 and will complete CDR this year.
*NGAD* will be managed in a similar way and be drwaing from other programs too.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

They "killed" NGB in June to wait on the October QDR and then put mostly the same people into LRSB right after it concluded. You can parse the programs however you want to, but we both know that LRSB is not a standalone program that began work in 2009.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert
And neither is NGAD/PCA/PEA.

As i see it, NGB and LRSB were very different programs. NGB was aiming for a much more advanced 'do it all' system while LRSB is less ambitious, at least with most members of its family.
NGB was about pushing the envelope. LRSB took everything they could do today from NGB and cut the next gen, exotic cutting edge stuff.
*NGDAD/PCA/PEA* will be similar in this regard (at least the part of the effort that is getting prototypes know if you believe the budget) and wont be true *6th Gen* at all.
So off the shelf result in quick and comparativley risk free development.
edit on 31-8-2018 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

This is where I get a bit - actually more than a bit - confused: is what is now known as the 2037 bomber the true spiritual successor tot he NGB, with the benefit of around 2 decades extra technological development and - of course - the chance to actually find the money for it?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Borys

As i understand it the 2037 was the Next Generation Bomber, also referred to as Next Generation Long Range Strike.
It was supposed to be supersonic, very long range, high payload, very low observable and god knows what else. Completey unaffordable, another B-2 Disaster in the making IMO. In the QDR 2006 the program was restructured (subsonic and VLO basically, less emphasis on the rest with the family pitching in ) and (briefly) referred to as the 2018 bomber because of the proposed IOC date in 2018. The financial crisis (and other factors too) pushed the IOC post 2018 and it became known as the LRS-B.
Prior to the QDR 2006 there was the Interim, regional bomber proposal to fill the gap between the B-2 and the 2037 bomber. FB-22 and the like.
As to whether or not *something* from the original 2037 NGB effort survived (with emphasis on the supersonic part) is an open question. Sort of.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

You've basically got it. The original road map was for an ambitious, beyond-bleeding-edge design for the 2030's. The USAF was content with upgrading the existing bomber fleet and improving munitions. They figured with attrition rates and maintainability, they would be set until 2037. They were also broke, pushing urgent needs in the C-17, JSF, and F-22 acquisition programs. Working backwards, that set development for the NGB to begin around 2017. Congress disagreed and actually appropriated money for new bomber development immediately to seed solutions for 2037, and possibly a B-2B style program available much more rapidly. The USAF (relatively) quickly came to the rational conclusion that when someone offers to sell you technology 30 years away, they are really just asking for seed money to find new ways to fail. There's nothing wrong with seeding money to find new ways to fail -- it helps find an eventual solution -- , but it really doesn't get you a product. If someone asks you to invest in a business proposition involving technology "only 20 years away", check your wallet and walk away. They maintained the money into other programs was better than reopening a B-2B line.
A few issues popped up in the fleet, including the newest models, regarding availability and survivability. Shortly after 11 September 2001, the bomber fleet started to get a regular workout and more combat hours. It also represented cementing the shift toward using B-52's and Bones tactically as part of a comprehensive gameplan in Iraq and Afghanistan that began in Desert Storm. Other developments in other programs matured relatively quickly in comparison to the bomber upgrade road map. They then decided (after having Congress throw money at them) they would be better off recapping quickly and pushed for a more immediate solution taking anything they could that might actually be ready by 2018 and stripping it down for cost-containment. B-2B was basically killed slightly earlier than this shift as they were tired of paying to keep the line at ready when they (probably) weren't going to use it (also the B-2 has built-in political baggage). They pushed it back a little more for the LRS-B after the QDR gave them a little more room on the timeline and a clearer idea of how much support there would be for funding.
My understanding is the 2037 bomber program is dead, but many of the technologies are still being seeded alone or through different programs.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

$190M each if 140 are ordered. I suspect it would end up being around $170M/each if the US went all in with the Japanese and ~350 are ordered. That's about twice the cost of the F-35A.

www.thedrive.com...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join