6th Generation Fighter Meta Thread

Having a F-35 for multiple decade with poor capabilities and little legs is the solution for sure.

a reply to: darksidius

One of the arguments made in the article is if you are still buying 4th gens, why do you need 6ths?

sigh.

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Thats always been the problem.Have multiple aircraft types with different parts and logistic paths.One thing the Israelis got right by standardizing their armour divisions.
Other way is have a standardized part and logistical trail between all the manufacturers and just use different airframe shapes but use a standard way of manufacturing them.Makes training a lot easier too.
Maybe Im just dreaming that...

There is some standardised parts, if you think DZUS rails, 19” rack mounts, some of the switches, ej seats, radars and engines. Also some of the EW and Comms. Some of the guys on here will know more having worked on multiple types.

It probably goes as far as it can but different customers and tasks, aircraft sizes and designs, plus technology moving so fast would make it hard to do more.

a reply to: anzha
Still buying 4 th gen now is realy a bad joke. Why don't restart the F-4 Phantom it was a great warplane.

a reply to: darksidius

Because it's SO much better to let our pilots fly planes that need new wings and longerons, and are developing structural issues due to age, so we can spend billions and years developing the latest and greatest. That's a much better solution.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The right thing to do was to kick off the 6th gen, whatever that means, back in 2012. The damned F-35 program - not plane - pretty much screwed that pooch though.

a reply to: anzha

Of course it was, but when has the Pentagon done the right thing? At this point our options are fly them until they fall apart, pay through the nose for required upgrades and maintenance, get rid of the worst and reduce our fleet size, or buy new aircraft as a stopgap.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So what is the issue with the F-35, it’s still a better aircraft than anything other than the F-22?

Why not replace all F-16/F-18 and A-10 through attrition with F-35 until next gen is ready.

The Russian and Chinese efforts at 5th Gen will probably not be as good as F-35, it’s not really a stop gap is it?

To me the F35 arrived a little bit early before the tech was mature enough.A good start in the right direction though.

a reply to: Blackfinger
I don't think so , for me F-35 arrive ten years too late, now Chinese and Russia are on the verge to have the same kind of airplane in their inventory. With that USAF was still in advance with one generation over ennemy in the past and now 5th G to 5th G you lose the surprise over your ennemies, now with Will Roper vision on NGAD it can restore the surprise but it seem that politician are not taking this seriously. We heard about NGAD since a decade and now there is a demonstrator flying buy less F-35 and jumping in high speed in new century series. China is not staying with the mouse open looking they advance and at a high speed , if USAF don't want to be second in ten years speed speed now ....

a reply to: Forensick

There isn't an issue with the F-35 itself, but the delay in full rate production. The current low rate production numbers were full rate production for most earlier aircraft, but mean that it's going to be additional years to remove the planes that need removing. So the stopgap is buying more F-15s until that happens, and NGAD starts to show up.

a reply to: darksidius

The J-20 and Su-57 aren't even close to the F-35. The F-35 does things they can only dream of, and will never be able to do.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You and I have discussed this, but for public consumption...

The danger isn't the F-35 being overtaken by the J-20 and Su-57. The issue is what comes after. Not for the Russians, so much, as they are struggling with the intro of their first '5th gen,' financially, technologically and with quality control. However, the Chinese have been going pedal to the metal for development and have started their next gen fighter as well as more 5th gens (J-XY and another with a nebulous name).

The danger is the US will be complacent and get stuck on the great F-35. The Chinese 6th gen could outdo the capabilities in 10 years with the J-20 successor or even 15 years. If the next fighter takes 20 years to deliver, we're in trouble.

a reply to: anzha
I m on this position , its like politicans are too confident about F-35 its time to speed up NGAD because China is running very fast, and don't care if the old plane in inventory are not removing , a USAF with 800 F-35 , 120 F-22 some legacy 4th gen and 100 NGAD is equal better than only 1500 F-35. A lot of mission of the F-35 could be done by futur B-21 , its a mistake to replace plane one by one by F-35 too much time lost. Mr Ropper give the solution and governement must hurry to catch it.

a reply to: darksidius

Roper's solution isn't going to work. You can't develop new aircraft at the technological level that we're at now every five years. It worked with the Century Series because they weren't doing the things we're asking current aircraft to do. They were advanced for their time, but they didn't have 18 million lines of code to work out, or sensor fusion to the level we're at now. We can develop faster than we are, but not that fast.

a reply to: Zaphod58
When Ropper speak about each five years I think He is too much confident, but may be in the futur family system He may mean Central new fighter staying and each 5/10 years another UCAV or missile or something else of the family, it make more sense , I m agree if you build a long range fighter I can't trust build another type in 5 years.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ahhh I see, thanks.

a reply to: darksidius

Roper was talking about new aircraft every five years, using modular hardware, and containerized software. Each production run would be short, and their service lives would be shorter than current aircraft. The idea was to create distinct variants of aircraft, possibly using a common airframe. But that would end up with very specialized aircraft, because you would have to remove existing hardware to add new hardware, unless you had insane power and cooling systems, and you were able to build very small but powerful systems. You can't turn an F-15 in an F-35 in terms of sensor capabilities, because they don't have the power and cooling to do it.

Back to the UK's Tempest programme.

Yesterday the UK Prime Minister announced an increase in the defence budget which included a continuation of support for Tempest. There has been low-level reporting on Tempest, including around some of the innovative tech which is being developed etc., plus pressure to maintain soverign capability which benefits UK industry rather than (for example) French industry!

Alongside an antagonistic UK/EU relationship which many predict, it's possible that this continued investment will reduce the possibility of Tempest being merged into the Franco/German/Spanish FCAS programme, something which has been occasionally reported by the leaders of Airbus (who run the FCAS programme), and who want this to happen. Airbus don’t want competition, but they do want UK cash, expertise and to retain leadership.

The materials tech hadnt advanced much since Honeycomb composites were an industry standard.Much of the airframe are still CNC Machined aluminium bulkheads or Titanium center sections.Carbon fibre and kevlar started coming in on the mid 70,s machines.3D laying carbon fibre skins is fairly new and fastener tech is still HiLoKs,TaperLoks,rivets among others.
Its the technical innovations in software,avionics hardware and systems that will drive the new fighters along with engine upgrades,radar and flight control systems.
Getting the new airframe packages together,tested and "bug free" in rapid time is a good idea but a hell of a lot of stress on manufacturing and design teams.
China and Russia are well ahead in hypersonics but the USA is fast catching up...Once they decide what they are going to do...