VF-19 Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Saw this posted on the Aircraft Resource Center Forums. Good to see F-14 still flying... Sort of.
David Hingtgen Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Lockheed unveiled their F-22 replacement proposal: Huh. Looks kinda like a certain F-22 competitor, only flattened. So we could apparently have had the F-22's successor, years ago, had we just gone with Northrop in the first place...
Graham Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Lockheed unveiled their F-22 replacement proposal: Huh. Looks kinda like a certain F-22 competitor, only flattened. So we could apparently have had the F-22's successor, years ago, had we just gone with Northrop in the first place... Is that really from Lockheed? Looks like something out of an Ace Combat game! Any links to articles? The F-22 is not that old, we need a replacement already? Mind you with the lengthy development and procurement processes these days, I guess it's probably time to start thinking about it. Graham
David Hingtgen Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/picture-lockheed-reveals-conce.html
kalvasflam Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Lockheed unveiled their F-22 replacement proposal: Huh. Looks kinda like a certain F-22 competitor, only flattened. So we could apparently have had the F-22's successor, years ago, had we just gone with Northrop in the first place... Hmmm, you know the obvious thing to do with the F-22 replacement, is have the competition between Northrop, Boeing, and Lockheed. Then just pick the Northrop version and call it the seventh generation, and we will save ourselves a full cycle of development cost. I wonder what the starting numbers are going to be; the #s on the F-22 changes a few times before they settled on 183. I may be biased here, but I truly hope Lockheed doesn't win this one. The crap they put up called the F-35 should already disqualify them from the race. Ah well, wonder what the cost of R&D will be for this one.
electric indigo Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 At least it looks better than the F-22. And the competition: The Northrop Bomber is Ace Combat material:
kaos13 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Lockheed unveiled their F-22 replacement proposal: Huh. Looks kinda like a certain F-22 competitor, only flattened. So we could apparently have had the F-22's successor, years ago, had we just gone with Northrop in the first place... looks like a cross between the yf 23 black widow and the raptor then flat n Edited January 5, 2012 by kaos13
GU-11 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Question is, can the USAF/Pentagon/US afford a replacement so early? I remember George W getting a crapload of flak for authorizing the F22 project, and the economy back then was way better than it is now. Unless this new jet has some super new tech like a visual cloaking device or force field thing, I don't see how the project will ever get the green light.
pfunk Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 http://www.flightglo...eals-conce.html Self Healing structure and systems
Shadow Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Question is, can the USAF/Pentagon/US afford a replacement so early? I remember George W getting a crapload of flak for authorizing the F22 project, and the economy back then was way better than it is now. Unless this new jet has some super new tech like a visual cloaking device or force field thing, I don't see how the project will ever get the green light. That's even more true now with the defense cuts that are coming. As for the design. Not really fond of it but I haven't liked much from Lockheed since the SR-71. I miss the days when you still had Grumman and General Dynamics making aircraft.
Bowen Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) At least it looks better than the F-22. And the competition: You know, that middle picture reminds me of a UCAV featured in a certain movie which must not be named, while the bottom one (at least viewed from the top like that) kinda has a BSG Viper thing going on IMO... Edited January 5, 2012 by Bowen
Ghost Train Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I think that as part of the new "leaner" Pentagon, we will move more and more towards drones - they already do amazing sh!t (including getting the US in trouble ). Also, my experience in the Consulting business suggests that the process of requisitioning hot new fighter jets is no different than delivering software, which usually amounts to having beautiful powerpoint slides promising unrealistic capabilities, specifications, and project timelines. At the end, either one of the two things happen: you deliver 20% of what you promised, or you deliver 100% of what you promised at 1000% the cost. Edited January 5, 2012 by Ghost Train
GU-11 Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 I agree. Drones are the way to go. If anything, they've proven to be exceedingly effective against terrorists [at least that's what Discovery Channel and certain news articles say ], which are basically the US's number one enemy right now. Fighter jets, while cool and awesome, really are more of a deterrent these days than anything else. IMO, most governments aren't too keen on fighting open wars anymore [at least not against the US], and most weapons are made/bought for the sole purpose of deterrence. Just my personal opinion, though.
Omegablue Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) LOL, will this F-22 replacement really happen with the present state of the world? Think about it? A third world war is going to halt it's development. The economy isn't going to improve until a new system replaces the present failed monetary structure. As well, petrol based engines will not be cost effective in such jet fighters? If anything they'll move forward with the drone project. It's cheaper to produce, easier to execute missions with, and training also won't cost as much. Sadly the era of the ace pilot is coming to a end. No Macross here. Edited January 6, 2012 by Omegablue
David Hingtgen Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 How times change---"we've got way too many P-38's, let's just dump them all in a big pile to get rid of them".
kalvasflam Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I agree. Drones are the way to go. If anything, they've proven to be exceedingly effective against terrorists [at least that's what Discovery Channel and certain news articles say ], which are basically the US's number one enemy right now. Fighter jets, while cool and awesome, really are more of a deterrent these days than anything else. IMO, most governments aren't too keen on fighting open wars anymore [at least not against the US], and most weapons are made/bought for the sole purpose of deterrence. Just my personal opinion, though. Not so sure about drones. The loss rate in Afghanistan is quite high, and from what I've heard (can't remember the source), the # of people involved in staging drones far outnumber those involved with conventional combat aircraft. Now, that said, drones don't need CSAR. I think air superiority is still going to be important, the only question is how much of that is going to be manned elements.
Noyhauser Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Is that really from Lockheed? Looks like something out of an Ace Combat game! Any links to articles? The F-22 is not that old, we need a replacement already? Mind you with the lengthy development and procurement processes these days, I guess it's probably time to start thinking about it. Graham The problem with the -22 is that its avionics are a disaster. They are basically unable to be upgraded due to what seems to be an extreme case of vendor lock in. Even small incremental updates are cost prohibitive. Plans to replace it with the F-35's avionics suite scrapped because of cost and technical challenges. Then they looked at adding a second, more upgradable system along side the core avionics. IT seems they have scrapped that plan and commissioned LM to look for a new solution. Not good. Then there are other problems. Its got some serious corrosion problems due to galvanic corrosion. The RAM skin problems are well known as well (though its apparently been resolved by reskinning with a variant of the F-35's carbon fiber system). Then there is the Oxygen generator issue which apparently still is unresolved. Given these issues and the small size of the actual fleet... we might only get 20 years out of them.
GU-11 Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Not so sure about drones. The loss rate in Afghanistan is quite high, and from what I've heard (can't remember the source), the # of people involved in staging drones far outnumber those involved with conventional combat aircraft. Now, that said, drones don't need CSAR. I think air superiority is still going to be important, the only question is how much of that is going to be manned elements. High losses in Afghanistan? Didn't know that. I did read that Predators scored quite a few high-profile kills, though. Besides, drones should be far more cost-effective than manned fighters or even infantry. I agree that air superiority is important for most any country, and will remain so in the foreseeable future, but pilots seem to be more of a limiting factor than anything else. Most experts [in Discovery Channel ] say that modern fighters are limited only by the G's a pilot is able to endure. Take the human factor away, and aerial performance enters a whole new level. Drones will pose their own set of problems, but cost effectiveness and massively increased performance are tempting factors.
IAD Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Yes, except the latency on BLOS links can be pretty bad, and the current generation of gimballed sat-link antennas can't keep up with aggressive maneuvers... So, until you either take the man out of the loop, and go fully autonomous, or come up with some entirely new ultra-high-bandwidth, low-latency BLOS links, going to a UAS won't buy you an automatic maneuverability improvement. ~Luke
Fatalist Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) You know, that middle picture reminds me of a UCAV featured in a certain movie which must not be named, while the bottom one (at least viewed from the top like that) kinda has a BSG Viper thing going on IMO... Beat me to it. Like an early predecessor of the Viper. So does that mean we'll be seeing saucer-ish/crescent shaped drone craft coming out of Russia?!?! Edit: The last one also kind of looks like something out of the Wipeout vid game. Edited January 7, 2012 by Fatalist
Shadow Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I agree. Drones are the way to go. If anything, they've proven to be exceedingly effective against terrorists [at least that's what Discovery Channel and certain news articles say ], which are basically the US's number one enemy right now. Fighter jets, while cool and awesome, really are more of a deterrent these days than anything else. IMO, most governments aren't too keen on fighting open wars anymore [at least not against the US], and most weapons are made/bought for the sole purpose of deterrence. Just my personal opinion, though. Unfortunately with the higher dependencies on drones to do missions will come a higher risk of being countered with newer electronic countermeasures and even espionage. While fighters may be seen a deterrent in the near future, there is really no telling what kind of conflict we may be forced into and I don't think talking about (by politicians) and preparing for fighting only low intensity conflicts in the future is a smart move. Even if we reach a point where drones can do most of the air operations, an enemy force may be advanced enough that any or most drones are rendered ineffective in a combat area and we have to resort to using human piloted aircraft.
GU-11 Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 Yes, except the latency on BLOS links can be pretty bad, and the current generation of gimballed sat-link antennas can't keep up with aggressive maneuvers... So, until you either take the man out of the loop, and go fully autonomous, or come up with some entirely new ultra-high-bandwidth, low-latency BLOS links, going to a UAS won't buy you an automatic maneuverability improvement. ~Luke Well, I've read that they're looking into swarm-based AI that's basically free of human influence. Just program it into the system, and the AI goes about it its own way. Sort of like Global Hawk. No real-time maneuvering. Not a reliable system by any means, but that's the direction UCAV technology seems to be heading. Unfortunately with the higher dependencies on drones to do missions will come a higher risk of being countered with newer electronic countermeasures and even espionage. While fighters may be seen a deterrent in the near future, there is really no telling what kind of conflict we may be forced into and I don't think talking about (by politicians) and preparing for fighting only low intensity conflicts in the future is a smart move. Even if we reach a point where drones can do most of the air operations, an enemy force may be advanced enough that any or most drones are rendered ineffective in a combat area and we have to resort to using human piloted aircraft. Good point. The threat of systems being hacked is always present, to say nothing of EMP's. But that said, for every counter-offence, there will be a counter-counter-offence in the form of EMP-shielding and what not. That's the way the arms race has been for the past few decades, and that's probably the way it will be in the future. No one stays on top for very long.
kalvasflam Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 High losses in Afghanistan? Didn't know that. I did read that Predators scored quite a few high-profile kills, though. Besides, drones should be far more cost-effective than manned fighters or even infantry. I agree that air superiority is important for most any country, and will remain so in the foreseeable future, but pilots seem to be more of a limiting factor than anything else. Most experts [in Discovery Channel ] say that modern fighters are limited only by the G's a pilot is able to endure. Take the human factor away, and aerial performance enters a whole new level. Drones will pose their own set of problems, but cost effectiveness and massively increased performance are tempting factors. Here is a link, this is an old article; almost 18 months. But it is still valid: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/06/world/la-fg-drone-crashes-20100706 38 crashes of predators and reapers in the middle east alone. That's an awful lot of crashes. I do agree that drones have their place. But they are very far from ready to replace manned systems, and it might not be as cost effective as we think if the drone truly has a larger logistical tail than a manned system. You could argue these are still teething pains, but combat drones are not ready (at least not for the next 10 years IMO) to replace manned systems.
GU-11 Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Here is a link, this is an old article; almost 18 months. But it is still valid: http://articles.lati...rashes-20100706 38 crashes of predators and reapers in the middle east alone. That's an awful lot of crashes. I do agree that drones have their place. But they are very far from ready to replace manned systems, and it might not be as cost effective as we think if the drone truly has a larger logistical tail than a manned system. You could argue these are still teething pains, but combat drones are not ready (at least not for the next 10 years IMO) to replace manned systems. That was an interesting read. Wow, visual equipment from Radio Shack? Locating the "kill engine switch" beside the one that lowers the landing gear? I'm surprised there were'nt more crashes. You're right in that 38 crashesis a lot of crashes, though. I agree that UCAV technology hasn't reached the point where it can completely replace manned fighters, and even then, manned fighters will still be in use in certain "delicate" areas of combat. To be honest, it's hard to say exactly what the future holds, as technology often goes in completely unexpected directions and leads us to paths we'd never have thought of. BTW, I didn't say that UCAVs are ready to replace manned fighters, only that current fighter technology has reached a plateau because of the limited G's a pilot can endure, and that aerial performance can be substantially boosted once the human factor is removed. Edited January 9, 2012 by GU-11
Graham Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 At least it looks better than the F-22. And the competition: Looks like crappy rear visibility for the pilot And saying, "well these things are designed for BRV combat, so we don't need rear visibility", is all well and good, but outside of planned and scripted air exercises, how often do rules of engagement and the political situation, actually allow a BRV shot in a real combat situation!? While I'm no expert, seems like everything available in the public domain regarding modern air combat always points to the need for pilots to get a confirmed visual ID with the MK I eyeball, before being allowed to shoot. And I don't see that changing. Graham Yes, except the latency on BLOS links can be pretty bad, and the current generation of gimballed sat-link antennas can't keep up with aggressive maneuvers... So, until you either take the man out of the loop, and go fully autonomous, or come up with some entirely new ultra-high-bandwidth, low-latency BLOS links, going to a UAS won't buy you an automatic maneuverability improvement. ~Luke Yeah, I work a lot with COFDM video & telemetry transmission systems and latency can be a bitch sometimes. Graham
David Hingtgen Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Oh, this is a good one--the F-35C's tailhook is too short--it can't land on carriers! http://theaviationis...-hook-problems/ Seems they just copied the F-18's overall design, but made it shorter and at a different location relative to the main gear, ending up with the highest point on the shortest hook ever. Just looking at it you can tell it doesn't look right compared to other planes. And it can't catch the wire, going 0 for 8 in the last tests at Lakehurst. That's not good, considering a runway with wires is much more forgiving than a moving, pitching, rolling carrier... Changing the point/tip alone MAY help, but actually changing where the hook's attached to the aircraft would likely be unfeasible, since such massive stress/energy/load is transferred through the structure during an arrested landing.
Beltane70 Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Despite living only about 10 miles away from Lakehurst and passing it on my way to work, I never get to see any of the planes from there flying around.
kalvasflam Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Looks like crappy rear visibility for the pilot And saying, "well these things are designed for BRV combat, so we don't need rear visibility", is all well and good, but outside of planned and scripted air exercises, how often do rules of engagement and the political situation, actually allow a BRV shot in a real combat situation!? You could always position a rearward camera for that one, and have it up as a part of the HUD. The BVR comment is part of the reason why there is such a long kill chain involved in weapons release for drones. Supposedly, there are now private contractors involved in the decisions to launch a missile from a drone for example. Not enough people to analyze the constant streams of video data. But then, this is another reason why manned systems will never go away entirely. If only they could slave drones to a manned fighter, a la VF-27 and drones in the second MF movie. That would be very nice, oh wait... I think that would be called funnels.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Oh, this is a good one--the F-35C's tailhook is too short--it can't land on carriers! Seriously. Do you even need a live test or compuer modeling or even calculations to figure that it wouldn't have worked? I wonder how Kelly would have reacted if this happened on his watch.
F-ZeroOne Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) He would probably have given up and given the Air Force its money back. But it was a different time and the Skunk Works sometimes had their own problems, some of which proved to be nearly as or just as intractable as any modern aircraft program. Edited January 12, 2012 by F-ZeroOne
Knight26 Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 The tailhook issue is not insurmountable, but it shows a lack of understanding on the nature of carrier operations by LockMart. Think about it, what other aircraft does/has Lockheed ever produced that lands on a carrier, other than the S-3 Viking, I can't think of any off the top of my head. However, if the new cleat doesn't solve the problem, which I think it won't, and if it does will cause maintenance issues with the aircraft and the carrier, then the logn term solution will be ugly and non-stealthy as moving the tailhook will not be practical, instead a longer tailhook will be required, but even that will have maintenance and sustainabilty problems. Ultimately any fix will limite the life of the F-35C, and possibly lead to an earlier naval 6th gen fighter, or will lead to a faster ramp up to widespread naval UCAS usage.
Noyhauser Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Seriously. Do you even need a live test or compuer modeling or even calculations to figure that it wouldn't have worked? I wonder how Kelly would have reacted if this happened on his watch. Kelly never ran Lockheed, and part of me thinks he would have never agreed to take the F-35 on in the first place. He avoided programs with excessive government oversight, and his success in building general purpose fighters was mixed. However ask him to make something that had to operate in one or two specific performance areas and he could create magic. The F-35 is really three programs operating at the same time, that had to excel in a number of different performance areas and meet stringent government oversight. (sorry for the digression) The tailhook issue is not insurmountable, but it shows a lack of understanding on the nature of carrier operations by LockMart. Think about it, what other aircraft does/has Lockheed ever produced that lands on a carrier, other than the S-3 Viking, I can't think of any off the top of my head. Well unless you count the U-2 and the C-130, they haven't. However they did have a certain manufacturing partner that basically made 1/2 of the navy's fighters in the past 60 years... Another wrinkle to this story was that NAVAIR signed off on this design. Apparently their earliest problems was wheel barrowing, which resulted in this configuration. However, if the new cleat doesn't solve the problem, which I think it won't, and if it does will cause maintenance issues with the aircraft and the carrier, then the logn term solution will be ugly and non-stealthy as moving the tailhook will not be practical, instead a longer tailhook will be required, but even that will have maintenance and sustainabilty problems. Ultimately any fix will limite the life of the F-35C, and possibly lead to an earlier naval 6th gen fighter, or will lead to a faster ramp up to widespread naval UCAS usage. Quite possible. Of all the issues raised by the Ahern Report, this one was probably the worst (because there is a classified annex that some believe relate to its stealthiness and the high AoA buffeting has not been fully explored.) Edited January 12, 2012 by Noyhauser
David Hingtgen Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 A Mirage 2000 took down an F-15! (by, um, erm, colliding with it in mid-air---does that count?)
David Hingtgen Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 When your 100th plane is awesome, you gotta let people know:
Recommended Posts