6th Generation Fighter Meta Thread

a reply to: Woody510
Yeah I know, but sometimes its good to immediately and directly confront trolls/fakes/d**kheads and shine the light on them to expose the vampire beneath. Plus he was just plain wrong.

a reply to: thebozeian

That's true. I think he's just about wrong in every thread he replies and I've not once seen him offer up any sources at all.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
We have a new contender entering the field.

www.flightglobal.com...

SO is the 'Use the Force" targeting system? Im also not sure about replacing "Bitching Betty" with say the soothing tones of Yoda

"Ahead high terrain there is, avoid you must Hmmmmmmmmmm"

up you must pull, up you must pull

a reply to: FredT

Thats cool I must admit. Some Lego sets cost the same as an F35 haha

I'm hearing Sweden have joined the Tempest programme now.

originally posted by: Woody510
I'm hearing Sweden have joined the Tempest programme now.

It’s interesting that they have been discussing this, but being as though it’s so early days it seems a bit soon to announce partners.

Does the technology define the mission or the mission define the tech?

Sweden’s mission seems different to UK, if we are not discussing Cold War interceptors for 6th Gen, then how do Britain and Sweden know their 6th Gen requirements are the same?

a reply to: Forensick

Just what I saw come up on the Telegraph website earlier

originally posted by: Forensick
...then how do Britain and Sweden know their 6th Gen requirements are the same?

They will never work out the closeness of the requirement, or not, if they don't work together. Besides, in the French-German programme of industrial defence monopoly in Europe (for that's what this is all about), the Swedish defence industry will be allowed to wither and die. For Sweden, the Tempest programme may be the only hope for a meaningful part to play in the future.

www.janes.com...

The FCAS fighter is now called the Next Generation Fighter.

The NGF is going to be optimized for carrier ops from the outset in a manner mimicking the Rafale.

a reply to: FredT

"LUKE, YOU'VE SWITCHED OFF YOUR HMD! IS SOMETHING WRONG?"

"Nothing, I'm all right!"

a reply to: Barnalby

Japan adding a request for the F-3 in the 2020 budget.

headlines.yahoo.co.jp...

In japanese.

a reply to: anzha

Well, I'd hardly expect them to do their budget requests in English

Looks like Italy are joining team Tempest

a reply to: Woody510

Signed a year long study agreement. It's interesting. The Swedes, Brits and Italians vs Germans, French and Spaniards so far.

www.flightglobal.com...

Which way do we think Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands will fall? They're not major players, but significant enough to provide parts and mitigate budget costs.

a reply to: anzha

I doubt they have much motivation to do anymore than Sweden or Italy. Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands are all going to have to finance their F-35 buys, and this is an area where a bird in the hand is worth more than 2 in someone else's bush.
Allocating token amounts to joint study groups is a far step from pursuing a production program.

Honestly, the smaller countries are probably better off joining France and Germany, because even though those heavyweights will dominate the program and freeze you out, their need for a modern, survivable combat aircraft is much more urgent than in the UK and Italy.

Apart from that consideration, I don't know why anyone would team with France unless you intend on being a complete passenger. France does not care about anyone but France (which is fine, but problematic in a joint-program). Also, not a slight on French design, because I think the Rafale design compromises ultimately made more sense than the Tiff's.


Maybe sanity will come to the continent and they'll realize there's probably only room for one healthy European program (still).

a reply to: RadioRobert

Why anybody would do a joint project with the French is beyond me and Europe should know better given the track record.

Not sure why the Germans are so up on it as they can barely keep the air force they have in the air

That being said I see little downside in the smaller guys joining the project. First it may allow early access to the technology and may give them preferential work share. It also allows them to hedge their bets on the upcoming 6th Gen US efforts as some of those elements may go the way of the F-22 and not be exported or force the US to offer something. In terms of financing, that decades down the road

Realistically this effort will be hard pressed to beat the the Next Generation Air Dominance and PCA, the USN and USAF are already working on given the financial constraints etc. And based on what little we know PCA may not resemble a single aircraft rather a family of aircraft connected and tailored to each individual mission.

If they were smart they would reach out to Japan who has already flown a prototype and may be willing to play

a reply to: FredT

Return of the platinum bullet proposal from the early Aughts.

The U.S. Air Force is preparing to radically alter the acquisition strategy for its next generation of fighter jets, with a new plan that could require industry to design, develop and produce a new fighter in five years or less.

On Oct. 1, the service will officially reshape its next-generation fighter program, known as Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD, Will Roper, the Air Force’s acquisition executive, said during an exclusive interview with Defense News.

Under a new office headed by a yet-unnamed program manager, the NGAD program will adopt a rapid approach to developing small batches of fighters with multiple companies, much like the Century Series of aircraft built in the 1950s, Roper said.

“Based on what industry thinks they can do and what my team will tell me, we will need to set a cadence of how fast we think we build a new airplane from scratch. Right now, my estimate is five years. I may be wrong,” he said. “I’m hoping we can get faster than that — I think that will be insufficient in the long term [to meet future threats] — but five years is so much better than where we are now with normal acquisition.”

www.defensenews.com...

Ugh

a reply to: RadioRobert Don't be too hard on them. It's probably quite challenging to come up with new and original ideas on how to screw yourself every six months.

a reply to: mightmight


On one hand, it'd be nice to see them take a serious approach to recapping with mature and affordable technology. But "affordable" and "small batches of fighters with multiple companies" are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I

If only there was an existing, affordable and relatively mature, low-risk program they could gear up for greater numbers and leverage the cost below $75M...

I think you can probably make a business case for a less-capable F-16 analogue. An LO lightfighter that leverages a few existing JSF systems that you can sell enough of to drive the cost down to the $50M range without all the bells and whistles. Then after you already own several hundred, you can worry about adding bells and whistles progressively in future updates. Share as many systems including propulsion as possible with the F-35, and just crank them out.

And dump the long-range PCA and develop a loitering, persistent and survivable MQ-X that has an A2A capability, or a derivative dedicated to A2A you can run Hunter-Killer ops with. Perhaps the same basic platform as PEA. Maybe in tandem with handing the Raider the same capabilities.

What they can't do is develop a bunch of different aircraft for boutique runs. Those days are long gone. Big runs of fewew types is how they have to climb out of the hole.