US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
MODERATOR INSTRUCTION:
Zeitergeist, we notice you are very often citing WantChinaTimes.
Be advised, WantChinaTimes is not viewed as a credible source for defense news here on SD because it is so often out and out wrong, or purley politically biased.
Please find another source for your news reports.
See:SD Master Thread for not-so Reliable Sources
Thanks
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.
Zeitergeist, we notice you are very often citing WantChinaTimes.
Be advised, WantChinaTimes is not viewed as a credible source for defense news here on SD because it is so often out and out wrong, or purley politically biased.
Please find another source for your news reports.
See:SD Master Thread for not-so Reliable Sources
Thanks
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.
Last edited:
Ultra
Junior Member
1999? I think you got that wrong Jeff. I would give you the same advice you gave Silvestre... Please do more research before you post such things.
The Hornet entered operational service with at on 7 January 1983, and with Navy squadron in March 1983, replacing F-4s and A-7Es, respectively
Sorry, Ultra...you are not reading all of what was written or in the context it was written. Try to do that, and get the story straight by reading Silvestre's post that I responded to, before you go back to older posts, knee jerk and seek to win points.1999? I think you got that wrong Jeff. I would give you the same advice you gave Silvestre... Please do more research before you post such things.
I happened to work on the A-7, doing design work on that aircraft myself, and know exactly when the original F-18 Hornets were introduced.
But we were not talking about the original Hornets. We were talking about the F/A-18 Super Hornet. That is what Sivestre was talking about serving until the 2070s, and they did indeed enter service in 1999.
Jeez.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Okay lets just add a detail or two to that,
In the 1970s the USAF and USN partnered for the lightweight fighter program. Two fighters were entered the YF16 Viper and YF17 Cobra. YF16 was the direct predecessor to the F16A/B and later models the Air Force liked it.
F16 A/B though had issues and those quickly resulted in F16C/D Fighting Falcons
The Navy was less then impressed and preferring the YF17. They wrangled Congress into funding the YF17 development into the YF18 the direct processor to the F18A/B. These were adopted by the Navy and Marines and eventually upgraded in turn to F18C/D Hornet
Now later on in the late 80s 90s the Navy deemed a need for a multi role carrier strike fighter with beter radar and some improvements in RCS as well as more powerful engines. Now this was the end of the cold war era congress and Presidents Bush Sr. And Clinton were moving on hatching the cold war gout of military hardware launching a new project was not a popular move. So the navy cheated. They built there new fighter by disguise calling it the FA18E/F Super Hornet. Other then a superficial resemblance between the two and may be a few minor common parts the two are very different aircraft.
A little earlier the USAF did the same thing with the Strike Eagle externally looks 90% same as the F15C/D but look beyond the skin and its just about anything but.
In the 1970s the USAF and USN partnered for the lightweight fighter program. Two fighters were entered the YF16 Viper and YF17 Cobra. YF16 was the direct predecessor to the F16A/B and later models the Air Force liked it.
F16 A/B though had issues and those quickly resulted in F16C/D Fighting Falcons
The Navy was less then impressed and preferring the YF17. They wrangled Congress into funding the YF17 development into the YF18 the direct processor to the F18A/B. These were adopted by the Navy and Marines and eventually upgraded in turn to F18C/D Hornet
Now later on in the late 80s 90s the Navy deemed a need for a multi role carrier strike fighter with beter radar and some improvements in RCS as well as more powerful engines. Now this was the end of the cold war era congress and Presidents Bush Sr. And Clinton were moving on hatching the cold war gout of military hardware launching a new project was not a popular move. So the navy cheated. They built there new fighter by disguise calling it the FA18E/F Super Hornet. Other then a superficial resemblance between the two and may be a few minor common parts the two are very different aircraft.
A little earlier the USAF did the same thing with the Strike Eagle externally looks 90% same as the F15C/D but look beyond the skin and its just about anything but.
Well this thread is as cold as the sixth gen seems to be, any real news of real work going on with the six gens?? (hard isn't it, when supposedly knowledgeable people don't "know" what form six gen will take), gag me with a spoon??
I still think the smart strategy in the interim is an Improved/Simplified/Updated F-22, heck call it the F-25, install two F-135s, sans OVT, incorporate the F-35 avionics, helmet, etc possibly push super cruise into the Mach 2 range, optimizing L/O through refined shaping, possibly looking at new electronic technologys, possibly enlarging the weapons bays to carry larger, heavier weapons?
Brumby
Major
The present political climate in the US would make this a non starter. The prospect of a full year CR is very real and that would severely degrade every ongoing program in the US military besides stopping new programs. I think this prospect hasn't sunk in with many who doesn't understand US funding politics.
A sixth gen. plane is a difficult proposition because you are effectively trying to vision what air warfare and conflict would be in the 2030's to 2050's. The build would be expensive and getting it wrong would be disastrous. I think intuitively it is to go faster, more manoeuvrable, and carry more weapons. So far, the noticeable phrase that has caught my attention is spectrum domination. Is future warfare all about electronics warfare?
I certainly don't believe so, and frankly I think LRSB is going to be an overpriced, underperforming concept. I think the heavy Raptor upgrade that I have described would be a much more beneficial package, and have the long legs and heavier weapons to make a deep strike. While I am most definitely onboard with the F-35, I am far more concerned about the lack of Raptor capability aircraft. The Raptor really needs a follow on, and I just don't see development money falling out of the sky, my Daddy always used to say go with what you got!
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Brat we have yet to even see roll out. I know Bombers are not sexy but the Son of the B2 is overdue. B52 can't keep doing the job with all the threat changes, B1 is fine but aging. B2 is great but numbers are dwindling. Besides if they can pull of a stealthy bird of half the scale of a B2 and produce it in numbers it can take some of the Air to ground stress of the fighters and even be plugged into other jobs in the USAF.
Mission aim of sixth gen is 2030s Raptor will more then lead us there. and so will F35 but your F25 is more something of today then 2030.
I mean if 2030 rolls around and we are flying F22C's that are little more then F22 Airframs with F35A guts against Fighters that laser missiles out of the sky what happens then? yes you fight with the Airforce you have but how do you get it?
Still I hear you B so here is a treat. Such a good little Brat love that costume but holloween is still a few weeks away.
P&W, GE submit proposals for next-gen fighter engine development
- 15 SEPTEMBER, 2015
- BY: JAMES DREW
- WASHINGTON DC
Pratt & Whitney and General Electric’s proposals for the next phase of the US Air Force’s sixth-generation fighter engine development effort are due tomorrow, with the two sides anticipating sole-source contract awards in June or July of 2016.
The Adaptive Engine Transition Programme (AETP) is the next step in the development of a highly efficient and adaptive military engine for combat jets and the five-year effort could be worth as much as $950 million to each team.
The Air Force Research Laboratory has been working with GE and P&W on an adaptive, three-stream engines since 2008 with the ultimate goal of introducing a new engine in the 45,000lb thrust class with 25% to 30% better fuel efficiency. The new sponsor is USAF’s Propulsion Directorate.
P&W's director of advanced programs and technology Jimmy Kenyon says the air force originally anticipated a competition for one “winner takes all” $900 million contract for AETP, but through industry engagement has decided to carry two teams forward instead.
Kenyon says an approximately one-year schedule adjustment has also eliminated much of the overlap between the current Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) effort, which started in 2012 to bring two designs up to a preliminary design review.
Pratt & Whitney
The air force now expects to assemble two competing designs for engine testing before transitioning to a competition in the early 2020s for development of a sixth-generation “F-X” and “F-XX” fighter engine.
“There was a lot of concurrency between what they were doing in AETP and what we were still trying to finish in AETD, the current programme, and that posed a lot of risk,” says Kenyon. “It was going to be a fixed-price contract with a lot risk in it – a $900 million winner-takes-all.
“They’ve since taken a step back, because one of the things the air force is hot on is maintaining a competitive industrial base.”
P&W has been pursuing AETP as a critical bridge between the end of F135 development in 2016 for Lockheed Martin's F-35 and the competition for a sixth-generation aircraft.
The company says its current work on AETD will result in product improvements for the F135, which Kenyon says represent a 5% to 7% fuel savings. This next programme is mostly about positioning for the next big development opportunity, but some components could roll into an F135 mid-live overhaul.
“Now you’re thinking five years into the future and where you need to be [in preparation for the sixth-generation fighter engine competition]. How to get to the end of the five years and be in the best position possible?” he says.
“We have a very successful design and we are projecting to meet all of the performance requirements. We have a lot of experience with the fifth-generation fighters and fifth-generation integration, and we can bring all of that experience to bear.”
Brumby
Major
Philosophically, an "enhanced Raptor" makes sense because it bridges a quantitative gap until the on set of a "6th gen". I think politically and funding wise it would be improbable because you would be competing against strategic programs like LRSB and the next gen Ohio's besides the F-35 roll out across the services. There is just no appetite for such a program.
I think a better bet is an enhanced F-35 with an ADVENT type engine. It is easier to sell politically because it will be a development of an ongoing program. The F-35 is better wired for future upgrade. An ADVENT type engine will at least improve distance, not sure about aerodynamics. The story behind the transition of the Hornet to a Super Hornet is instructive on how to migrate from one platform to another within Washington politics.