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.

 

6th Generation Fighter Meta Thread

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I've said it before and I'll say it again, as a starting point for 6th gen, you could do far worse than a B-21 with conformal AESAs, something like an AAM-ified Patriot or Standard, carried by the dozen on a pair of rotary launchers, and God's own fire control system with something like a HELLADS descendant for point defense.

Speed and maneuverability are much less important here than stealth, range, and the ability to hit the other guy farther out than he has a chance of hitting you.

A more reasonable, less incendiary suggestion is that while the American 5th gen was basically a stealth-ified F-15 (speed, maneuverability, two engines) and a stealth-ified F/A-18 (a smaller, less athletic multirole grunt), the American 6th gen will likely resemble a stealth-ified F-14 (massive radar, massive missiles, massive airplane, moderate speed, mediocre maneuverability).
edit on 1-1-2019 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Putting yourself up that high makes you a perfect target for a laser. Once DEWs are 100 kw plus, stealth is really, really important.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

You're not wrong in many ways, but the cost for that is far, far too high. The B-21 is going to come in between $500 to $550M per bird in 2015 $. And you're talking about adding to the baseline B-21 capabilities. The recent report that made everyone flinch placed the potential costs of the PCA at $300M and that was considered possibly too high. Starting at $500M and going up, well, that would probably kill the program.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   


Whats the best airframes available to be highly manoeuvrable at very high speeds and altitudes currently

Eurofighter and SAAB Gripen E/F come to mind.
How mature is self healing skins and wing morphing tech?They have been playing with it for a while now.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Sounds stupid expensive.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Yeah, but what isn't these days...



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 04:14 AM
link   
You will see big changes in the cockpit too, not massively different to the F-35 but that will be the end of traditional cockpits, all in the helmet with no instruments at all.

Talking about pushing thin air to select something if necessary and yes, just like those adverts and the matrix gate controllers in Zion.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woody510
There won't be scramjet engines in fighters you've been watching the film Stealth too much. They'll just burn way too much fuel and there's no stealthy tankers at this time to help with that. There's not a chance they'd send a KC135 or KC46 in with them as they'd just be huge targets. The speeds of 6th gen fighters will pretty much be the same as now.


You also forgot they totally destroy stealth. As there thermal heat signature goes through the roof. It be stupid to put a scram jet on a fighter. One they can be highly unreliable your trying to cause an explosion in air that's moving at supersonic speeds. Like trying to light a match on a motorcycle. You might get it lit but it isnt going to be when you need it to.


Scram jets are overated tech. We have had such inprovements in engine design there is no reason to go backwards to scram jets

edit on 1/6/19 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Didn't really think of that either. I think the European 6th gen may vary a bit compared to the US 6th gen but not a lot. If its the Pacific theatre they're looking to cover range and stealth will be a lot more important than speed. Is there even the need to reach mach 2 apart from the odd dash?



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




You also forgot they totally destroy stealth


Eh, IR attenuates quickly even under ideal conditions. Terminal guidance? Sure. But IR seekers typically have a narrow field of range, and if you're chasing a rather high/fast hotspot, you're already waaaaay behind the eightball. You need to put it into the small box of sky the target is going to be in. Which on a Mach 3+ aircraft can change dramatically with even small maneuvers. And to do that, you'll need a solid radar return at a frequency high enough to get you the information you need.

[Quote]
Is there even the need to reach mach 2 apart from the odd dash? [/Quote]
It'd be very desirable. The reason we don't see the higher Mach numbers for fighters is entirely fuel/endurance primarily; airframe design/material considerations second. If you shoot your wad in three minutes, there's very little use for a dash. If you have sufficient endurance at speed, everybody would be doing it. The old joke was noone knows how fast a Starfighter can truly fly because it runs out of fuel while still accelerating. Conversely, if you have to build the airframe stronger/heavier and/or out of expensive exotic alloys, well, that's probably not a winning combo for most mission sets either. If you just want it to carry more fuel, you need to make it stronger and heavier, so you need to carry more fuel, so you need... etc, etc. You can quickly end up chasing your own tail.
edit on 6-1-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Not sure you understand how stealth works. First spotting them in general is easy. Even the stealthiest of aircraft can be found using longer wavelengths such as 1 meter for example. The problem is you can't get a lock because location can be several hundred meters off. But it will let you know precisely where to look for an IR signature.

This is why stealth try to lower their IR signature by doing things like cooling their exhaust. They also use coatings in an attempt to emit IR radiation at frequencies that are less useful for sensors and/or better absorbed by the atmosphere.

But now you want to put a scram jet which is just controlled explosions and expect stealth to work?



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Stealth has come a long way in the last 10 years. Long wave radar is less effective against the F-35 than other platforms. There's work that has long been rumored that is very close to making a true multi aspect stealth platform.
edit on 1/6/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I'm pretty aware. Long wavelengths are bandwidth-limited. At one meter, you cannot differentiate between objects within a mile of each other. It's also very vulnerable to jamming an noise. Angular resolution sucks. So no, not a hundred meters off af range. Many degrees off rather. And at range, that can be 20-35km off. It's not as easy as" it's right there".
And again, attenuation in IR is extreme. iR won't help much until it gets close anyway.
Fun fact: altitude increases the distance to the transmitter the increase of which reduces by a factor of four the detection threshold. It also severely hampers the engagement threat bubble. Also at very high speeds another fun thing begins to happen which effects your signature across all bands...



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dragonridr

Stealth has come a long way in the last 10 years. Long wave radar is less effective against the F-35 than other platforms. There's work that has long been rumored that is very close to making a true multi aspect stealth platform.


My predictions are that hiding becomes the most important not speed. The plane hides commanding swarms of drones. These swarms will be the one doing the fighting. Imagine a fighter having hundreds of drones to control. To many to shoot down and no way to defend from them.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 03:28 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Nice, but it isnt April 1st Blackfinger.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: jinka

The physics of electromagnetism are pretty comprehensive as "theories" go.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The popular usage of the word 'theory' and the scientific one are pretty divergent. The popular one seems to match the scientific definition of 'hypothesis.'

I know. I know. It's the National Interest:

nationalinterest.org...



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

One rarely hears Einstein's theory of relativity discussed with the same disdain as Darwin's theory, for example.

I think both probably need a little work, but are the best things on the table for their applicable fields at the moment.


Reducing signatures has over half a century of applied science behind it. EM behaviour is pretty well nailed down after nearly a century and a half... They're both workable theories that have a history of demonstration. Sort of odd to call stealth "just a theory."
edit on 9-1-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join