USAF 6th Generation Fighters

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2019/09/16/the-us-air-forces-radical-plan-for-a-future-fighter-could-field-a-jet-in-5-years/

Amazing and apparently they are not so innovative

Arrow wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2019/09/16/the-us-air-forces-radical-plan-for-a-future-fighter-could-field-a-jet-in-5-years/

Amazing and apparently they are not so innovative

And just like the F-35 it wont have half the shit operational but will receive an operational sticker attached to it anyways.

Arrow wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2019/09/16/the-us-air-forces-radical-plan-for-a-future-fighter-could-field-a-jet-in-5-years/

Amazing and apparently they are not so innovative

The century series as a role model of good development practise, NOW I have seen everything.

Of all them the only real successful one was... the F-4.

F-100 was obsolete in less time it got to be developed, F-101 from the very beginning , F-102 was an F-106 without area ruling, F-104 began to be,I wouldn't say , effective but almost to have a sense only when Germans and Italian respectively went to correct the ludicrous operative role USAF gave them first, F-105 was nicknamed the "THUD", guess why? and the F-106 was a Century series passed trough a second phase of development i.e. it was the exact contrary to what the article called for...

marcellogo wrote:

Arrow wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2019/09/16/the-us-air-forces-radical-plan-for-a-future-fighter-could-field-a-jet-in-5-years/

Amazing and apparently they are not so innovative

The century series as a role model of good development practise, NOW I have seen everything.    

Of all them the only real successful one was... the F-4.

F-100 was obsolete in less time it got to be developed, F-101 from the very beginning , F-102 was an F-106 without area ruling, F-104 began to be,I wouldn't say , effective but almost to have a sense only when Germans and Italian respectively went to correct the ludicrous operative role USAF gave them first, F-105 was nicknamed the "THUD", guess why? and the F-106 was a Century series passed trough a second phase of development i.e. it was the exact contrary to what the article called for...

Luftwaffe dubbed the Starfighter the flying coffin because they lost so many qualified/experienced pilots

Godric wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Arrow wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2019/09/16/the-us-air-forces-radical-plan-for-a-future-fighter-could-field-a-jet-in-5-years/

Amazing and apparently they are not so innovative

The century series as a role model of good development practise, NOW I have seen everything.    

Of all them the only real successful one was... the F-4.

F-100 was obsolete in less time it got to be developed, F-101 from the very beginning , F-102 was an F-106 without area ruling, F-104 began to be,I wouldn't say , effective but almost to have a sense only when Germans and Italian respectively went to correct the ludicrous operative role USAF gave them first, F-105 was nicknamed the "THUD", guess why? and the F-106 was a Century series passed trough a second phase of development i.e. it was the exact contrary to what the article called for...

Luftwaffe dubbed the Starfighter the flying coffin because they lost so many qualified/experienced pilots

Which explains why the Luftwaffe was more than willing to let go of purchasing Lockheed F-35's (let alone VTOL variants).

Paralay is the best fucking troll out there man It took me awhile to get the joke, and I started laughing even more like an idiot when the bottom user did not know that Paralay was fucking around made it even more funny. https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=57828&p=478963#p478963 I will share the screenshots to be sure they don't get deleted later.









Those that dont get the Joke he basically made his own 6th gen Russian design but used it with 1st stage Su-57 engines to go mock the **** out of the NGADs engine performance. We know that the Su-57 1st stage engines is 3,500kms max range and 4,500kms with fuel tanks and the thrust parameters look the same on wikipedia. The 4th photos is for laughs because what Paralay posted was a joke that went over users head and apparently, he missed it. Over 80 users were looking at the thread and no one after the user hkultala posted so far for quite some time. I think they were able to at least process the joke. I am in tears because it is like a dead silence, and I am wondering if anyone will break the ice or move along with the topic of their thread.

Would the PAK-DP not qualify as a 6th generation "fighter" by the standards the americans have set?

more than likely a 7th gen based on NGAD being classified as 6 with those specs.

NGAD got cancelled -

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/06/allvin-no-decision-made-on-ngad-but-difficult-choices-loom/

https://defensescoop.com/2024/06/21/air-force-ngad-delay-cancellation-analysis/

Many implications for VKS

Tech refresh III is a failure

Indian programmers can’t debug the C language

Using C is just evidence of shortage of technical skill, the US military was flying high on ADA, now they can barely outsource debugging to Indian C programmers

The death of NGAD is also the end of F35

Soon they will find some excuse to stop production of that as well

And they will be left with some 300-400 F35

And F15X

And Supa dupa 6th gen was reduced to paltry F35 with old software and F15X as the controller for wingman drones

Hilarious

Better for VKS to focus on implanting their best AESA and unmanned software and continuing to make Su57 in big numbers

No one besides China is left in the race

J20 and su57 will be the last standing 5/6 gen fighters

GarryB wrote:SU-75ski?

This configuration seems to be a trend

Not only might the US not afford NGAD but it looks like their R&D capability is hitting the buffers. This is a good take on it.

Today in competency crisis news, the Air Force is "taking a pause" on the NGAD program after a decade of muddling along on a sixth-generation fighter with no real progress made towards fielding hardware.  Rumor is the price tag is looking astronomical.

This is unsurprising for anyone who follows defense procurement, as the US military-industrial establishment seems to have largely lost the ability to develop and field new technology, or even to reliably continue to produce certain kinds of old but demanding technology.  Right now the Air Force is - absolutely unironically - replacing their F-22s with F-15Es with upgraded flight control systems, and the Navy's answer to long-range Russian and Chinese air-to-air missiles has been to kludge an existing SAM onto an aircraft Iran-style.  Price tags for replacement nuclear missile submarines and ICBMs - basic nuclear triad items to replace aging and increasingly unserviceable Cold War relics - have skyrocketed to the point of absurdity.

The reason for this is simple - high-tech industry requires investment and American companies hate making investments.  Instead of running an industrial business model where they produce and sell new products, executives in this country vastly prefer a rent-seeking business model where they figure out new ways to monetize existing products, or ways to privatize and monetize what were formerly public goods.  And with no new projects, the underlying talent rapidly dissipates.  Engineers retire, or find more interesting lines of work outside of the defense sector.

Unfortunately this rent-seeking mindset is now firmly entrenched in the defense-industrial sector.  Thus, basic engineering expertise has rotted out to the point that what were once banal military hardware-replacement projects turned into all-consuming defense megaprojects, and lately into PowerPoint presentations promising the Moon at a million dollars a slide with no hardware forthcoming.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/too-

F-22 are not replaced. They are just not produced anymore.

F-15EX with its 24 amraam has a different role which is shoting down anything it sees. Mostly to counter cruise missiles and the hundreds of chinese 3rd and 4th gen fighters.

F-22's mission is to rule the skies and maintain air dominance and superiority.

Isos wrote:F-22 are not replaced. They are just not produced anymore.

F-15EX with its 24 amraam has a different role which is shoting down anything it sees. Mostly to counter cruise missiles and the hundreds of chinese 3rd and 4th gen fighters.

F-22's mission is to rule the skies and maintain air dominance and superiority.

Actually Russia-Ukraine air battles told us the opposite story.
You need a very capable, very fast, very heavy and very long range missile in small quantity.
Usually Su-35 and Mig-31BM have only two R-37M and accelerated to max speed and fired them at the longest range as possible after locking the enemy then immediately turned back.
And Russia won every air battle until today including a shootdown of a Mig-29 at 219km away 3 days ago without a single loss of Su-35 and Mig-31BM.
F-15EX with its 24 amraam is as clumsy as a donkey and has a big RCS, they have to drop all of them once locked >300km away and start evading maneuver.
And USN does have a reason to put a Standard 6(300km range) on F/A-18E/Fs.
Here Russians and Americans have a mutual understanding..

Hole wrote:

F-22's mission is to rule the skies and maintain air dominance and superiority.

Maybe against Swasiland.

Most chinese fighters will end up being submarines if they face the f-22. Their fleet is mostly made of outdated 4 gen fighters that are worse than first su-30.

F-22 is made to hunt such aircraft.

Isos wrote:

Hole wrote:

F-22's mission is to rule the skies and maintain air dominance and superiority.

Maybe against Swasiland.

Most chinese fighters will end up being submarines if they face the f-22. Their fleet is mostly made of outdated 4 gen fighters that are worse than first su-30.

F-22 is made to hunt such aircraft.

Agree on this...

xeno wrote:
Actually Russia-Ukraine air battles told us the opposite story.
You need a very capable, very fast, very heavy and very long range missile in small quantity.
Usually Su-35 and Mig-31BM have only two R-37M and accelerated to max speed and fired them at the longest range as possible after locking the enemy then immediately turned back.
And Russia won every air battle until today including a shootdown of a Mig-29 at 219km away 3 days ago without a single loss of Su-35 and Mig-31BM.
F-15EX with its 24 amraam is as clumsy as a donkey and has a big RCS, they have to drop all of them once locked >300km away and start evading maneuver.

No you don't need a r-37M against a cruise missile or mig-21 derivated aircraft.

F-15EX is made to counter such threats. Amraam will destroy them quite easily.

Top fighters will be engaged by f-35 and f-22. Those chinese radars in their 4th gen fighter won't even see them and they have primitive RWR and probavly no datalinks.

Having a r-37M with 400km range is useless if your su-30 can see a 5m2 target at only 140km. Chinese flankers are very bad.

Location of the fight, which is above the sea will give total advantage to the f-22 since chinese will have no where to hide and get closer.

Only a fool would consider the amraam bad. They are quite effective.

If you meant China against US scenario then I agree.