US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread

kwaigonegin

Colonel
From an aerodynamics standpoint I like to see how a tailless delta can outmaneuver a 4th generation gun fighter... unless of course they intend 6th gen aircraft to be everything BVR.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
From an aerodynamics standpoint I like to see how a tailless delta can outmaneuver a 4th generation gun fighter... unless of course they intend 6th gen aircraft to be everything BVR.
Well It's still conceptual and the Concepts change regularly. Boeing is the one who seems to be going Tailless.
Boeing's F/A-XX concept 1.0
15888836816_025b83173e_b.jpg

Update 1.1
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Update 1.2
15913987892_d614d08c76_b.jpg

2.0
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2.1
15727163638_e0a19b3092_b.jpg

They may be thinking of using 3D thrust vectoring or since the last two images were only shoring the top of the fighter perhaps the they have vertical stabilizers on the underside.


Lockheed Martin has Pelican Tails and is pretty consistent
Version 1.0
15292376584_37628977d0_b.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
From an aerodynamics standpoint I like to see how a tailless delta can outmaneuver a 4th generation gun fighter... unless of course they intend 6th gen aircraft to be everything BVR.

Not gonna happen boss, I'm sorry, but you pilotless, tailless characters, just don't get Fighter Aircraft, and if its all gonna be BVR, why bother to build a fighter? why not just put your junk on a 747 or A380???? you're missing something here?

Now having said that, I do like the Boeing, but it really does need a tail, I mean it is a Fighter Aircraft, and keep those drones??? we have enough of those on the human side?
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Well It's still conceptual and the Concepts change regularly. Boeing is the one who seems to be going Tailless.

They may be thinking of using 3D thrust vectoring or since the last two images were only shoring the top of the fighter perhaps the they have vertical stabilizers on the underside.
The last image:


15727163638_e0a19b3092_b.jpg


This actually shows two aircraft. One flying regular, and the second, trailing aircraft, is inverted. No vertical stabilizors there. But they have added the canards.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Not gonna happen boss, I'm sorry, but you pilotless, tailless characters, just don't get Fighter Aircraft, and if its all gonna be BVR, why bother to build a fighter? why not just put your junk on a 747 or A380???? you're missing something here?

Now having said that, I do like the Boeing, but it really does need a tail, I mean it is a Fighter Aircraft, and keep those drones??? we have enough of those on the human side?
First Gents It's not a Tail that is missing it's a Vertical stabilizer. and mostly on the Boeing. There have been and are fighters that lack a conventional horizontal. they can be made up for with wing design ( particularly split ailerons) Canards and advanced fly by wire. laking a Vertical stabilizer is the major issue. can it be flown? Well McDonnell Douglas thought so... Hang on Every body these Flash backs can be killers especially with all the wavy trippy lines...

Meet the JSF.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

shhh Don't tell her she lost it might end up in a time paradox...

one time paradox later.
[video=youtube_share;qbZ2Q6lStJE]http://youtu.be/qbZ2Q6lStJE[/video]
This Was the McDonnell Douglas/ BAE entry of the JSF. now look at it carefully and then look back at the Concepts from Boeing and Lockheed for the sixth generation fighter... Go on I'll wait.

Okay So what happened? Well Meet the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The X36 and the MD JSF are the root of both Concepts. when MD failed in it's bid the company went into financial trouble and merged with Boeing. So all that X36 data is likely why there concepts are Tailless. X36 showed that it can be done and the maneuverability was acceptable with the added advantage of stealth
Ironically the LockMart concept also uses a MD JSF development. the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Which was also on the MD offering YF23. this also has a reduced radar cross section and very good maneuverability.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So No Tail? No Problem.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The last image:


15727163638_e0a19b3092_b.jpg


This actually shows two aircraft. One flying regular, and the second, trailing aircraft, is inverted. No vertical stabilizors there. But they have added the canards.
Sorry jeff but check the angle on the Intakes. like the F22 the front of the intake leads forward well the bottom is to the rear thats a Dorsal view on both. Boeing for there marketing on this has been showing a cockpit fitted flight lead with a unmanned wingman everytime.
 

A Bar Brother

Junior Member
BB there are a lot of "Like's" in that statement. The stated aim is to replace the F/A18E-F Super Hornet. Now just because they are looking for a capacity set similar to Super Hornets does not mean it is a Advanced Super Hornet. The description given seems to indicate the emphasis being on Attack. But Super Hornets don't just strike ground targets they are multifunction fighters. The end product is not likely to have much Horner DNA in it. Especially since there is also the USAF involved. The Air force is looking for a fighter to replace or supplement Raptor and the last of the Eagles. There mission demands placed into the mix would push for a more fighter fighter.

I'm not saying they are going to take the SH and modify it into a new bird. My point was there may be three designs, a brand new design or an upgraded F-35, both of which you yourself have mentioned. And the third and possibly the cheapest option is a limited capability long range strike fighter and not a full fledged development. I mean, it may not have internal bays or VLO qualities, that's why the article uses the term "Hornet-like." All they may be looking for is just a long range missile truck to complement the F-35 while getting it to carry some really advanced weapons, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles. A role the F-35 isn't well designed for. You don't need stealth (or supercruise) if you plan on releasing weapons at 300 Km or more.

As far as the USAF is concerned, there may be similarities in avionics and even the engine, but I doubt the airframe would be the same. If the USAF wants a high altitude supercruiser versus the navy's demand for a carrier aircraft, then they could be very different airframes.

Anyway, this is an article about new variable cycle engines.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
SoBoeing for there marketing on this has been showing a cockpit fitted flight lead with a unmanned wingman everytime.
You are exaclty right...that is a drone...did not see it until you pointed it out!

My bad and thanks for the eyes on!
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
The last image:


15727163638_e0a19b3092_b.jpg


This actually shows two aircraft. One flying regular, and the second, trailing aircraft, is inverted. No vertical stabilizors there. But they have added the canards.

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one on here that needs specs, # 2 is actually a DRONE----COUGH Cough! aaaaarrrrrggggghhhh! yes the NAVY loves drones, they prolly think Naval Aviators are prima donnas,,,, why should air ops determine the whereabouts of this lovely vessel??? notice that Navy is in proper orientation?:p:p:p
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Camouflage is not invisibility good tactics and a smart planning are still needed. at a distance optical and thermal camouflage will be relevant just as camouflage clothing breaks up the human shape at a distance. If the Enemy gets too close that's where the fighter then switches it up by going on the attack. and Chances are the Next Generation Tactical Aircraft and Next Generation Air Dominance fighters will likely include super maneuverability and Advanced Air to Air engagement capabilities. In other words if all else fails it can still kick arse old school.

Camouflage works when you are stationary against background . Airplanes are moving targets . As I said, by 2035 I would expect missile sensors to be equivalent of human eye and brain. If a human could discern aircraft shape moving against background, so would missile .

Were Talking a tactical High energy laser. Filtering will only last as long as the protective coating. and the same for armoring the missile. The US Already has somewhat compact Tactical High Energy Lasers that can down drones and Missiles the power output and size is the only real limitations. the most effective counter would be Ablative armoring but Ablative operates by being burned of and if a Formation of fighters is using these lasers together it's not going to last long, as there is only so much armor that can be placed on the missile. And lasers are just one of the possibilities for DEW there is also microwave. that stated at the end of the day I still see Kinetic weapons as being at the heart of these future birds.

Actually, US don't have lasers that could shoot down even basic artillery shells painted with anti-flash paint (bright white) . That is one of the reasons THEL project was shelved in favor of Iron Dome missile defense , although THEL project promised much lower cost of destroying incoming projectiles :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Chances are Thunder Just like how the Russians keep Claiming Stealth to be a bluff and then started building PAK FA and PAK DA. Others will try and bluster but then convert.

Stealth is not bluff, but it is not panacea either . So far it was not cost effective (i.e. same job could have been done by non-stealthy planes much cheaper ) . What would happen to 5th gen stealthy planes (especially F-35) would largely influence this so called 6th generation .
 
Top