No stealth fighters until 2020, eh?

Grumman had nothing to do with the F-18; it was McDonnell Douglas that developed the 18.

 

Jim- My mistake. Typing faster than I was thinking. McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) bought or was given the YF-17 design, around which the F/A-18 was designed. I do not know if you knew this, but N-G is responsible for a large portion of the manufacturing for the F/A-18. That may have been part of the deal.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I'm sure that some people are in the know about this, and I'm speculating, but when the B-1 was cancelled by Carter everyone got upset, what he couldn't say, because it was classified, was that it was soon to be obsolete with the B2, and F117. I suspect, but don't know that something similar is happening here. Aren't we developing an unmanned fighter? F47 comes to mind. If that is the case, then all these "stealth" fighters will be obsolete.


My source for the Carter comment was Ben Rich's book: The Skunk Works"

Art

 

That's a interesting speculation..... To continue along those lines how much factor did the continuation of the B-1 and the large fleet of B-52s play in the cancellation of the B-2? My guess is that the B-2 would have still been limited to a very small production because of the high cost.

Unfortunately it's hard to have a lot of faith in the military acquisition process to assume the right thing is being done.

 

If so, that was all done by Northrop long before they acquired Grumman. For obvious reasons, we at Grumman were vehemently anti-Hornet!

 

Even with the B-2, canceling the B-1 turned out to be an epic blunder. The B-1 today is a workhorse in Afghanistan/Iraq. It's a long range, high speed bomber capable of carrying massive amounts of ordinance...the perfect bomb truck. I suspect history will show that canceling the F-22 was also a huge mistake, unless there is already another secret fighter in the pipeline, which is extremely unlikely. Unmanned "fighters" are not the same, especially given that pilot inputs via satellite links can take several seconds to propogate. In an air wars, manned fighters would have a huge advantage in anything besides BVR where maneuvering and quick-reflexes are required.

 

What is the big problem with the Marine version? I have seen videos going back a few years of it doing a vertical takeoff. Is it a reliability deal? Or maybe it can only hover while very lightly loaded?

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/06/351600/us-military-unveils-possible-f-35b-redesign-in-sweeping-budget.html

A few areas are in need of redesign on the F-35B

 

Jim- It was done way before the merger, but N-G is still building and improving parts on the F/A-18E/F. Does the YF-17 in this photo look familiar?

N-G cannot catch a break on aircraft. Win the tanker competition and then have the results thrown out. They did not even bother on this go-around.

Taz
Terry Phillips
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It flies!

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/01/video-first-chengdu-j-20-flies.html
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Must have a pretty good T/W ratio. Looks like he made a mil power take-off.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Doesn't look like they paid a lot of attention to the "stealth" at the rear of the plane. Compare it to an F22, and you'll see what I mean. If that if their final product, probably not intended to deal with our stuff.

Art

 

The U.K. already pulled out of the Bravo. With that, unit costs will increase.

Perhaps the USMC, will obtain the C model ?

Today, that is a toy paper airplane.

IOC, twenty years from today ?


__________________________


Don't sell the Chinese short. In a few years, they will make significant changes to the test-bed. Most likely, the airplane will achieve IOC, before Gates' assessment.

 

subscribed... very cool thread. (I just want to remember to revisit this when I have more time)

:thumbsup:

 

It probably sacrifices stealth for maneuverability.

 

Maybe, maybe not. If the air force is realistic about it's requirements, and uses a lot of OTS/already-developed hardware like they are promising, they might be able to pull this one out much faster. The problem with the B-2, F-22 and F-35 is that so much of the technology that went into those planes was new development. A new long range bomber could probably fulfill all of its requirements with current technology. The stealth tech is there, the radar is there, the sensors are there..all they should need is an airframe that can accommodate all of these things in an ISR and/or LRS platform, and maybe some new flight avionics. It will need to be able to use directed energy weapons too, of course (microwave, laser, etc).

We can't discount the possibility that they are already flying something down at Area 51 either There is of course a lot of speculation on that, especially given that they built a massive new hanger at Groom Lake a while ago (at least big enough to fit a B-2).

That doesn't mean much without knowing what sort of hardware/software they have on it. They can declare it IOC with some crappy engines and a rudimentary avionics suite, which wouldn't pose much of a threat initially. And, not to mention, just because it looks stealthy doesn't mean it is stealthy. There is no doubt the Chinese caught us with our pants down on this one, but that isn't necessarily cause for alarm. A stealthy looking airframe that is capable of getting off the ground doesn't mean they'll have something that will make our F-22s obsolete in 10 years. What it will most certainly do, though, is give a wake-up call to Congress. With any luck they'll buy some more F-22s as the F-35 gets deeper and deeper in the ****.

 

Then there is this:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af2e3b33f-93da-4076-8852-0b0e2b5f387d

"Airborne detection of stealth aircraft may have already been accomplished in a series of tests done at Edwards AFB, Calif. in the second half of 2009. Those with insight into the research say Lockheed Martin’s CATbird avionics testbed –a 737 that carries the F-35 joint strike fighter’s entire avionics system -- engaged a mixed force of F-22s and F-15s and was able to target the F-22s."

Perhaps they leaked that little nugget of information to remind us that the F-35 won't be useless against these emerging threats.

 

If China attacks Taiwan, the US and probably EU stop buying Chinese goods, game over for their economy.

This is all just saber rattling.

 

Took about three times as long for fifth gen from flight to IOC compared to fourth gen. It makes sense when you look at the sensors involved. Air warfare technology has become incredibly complex.

The F22 was declared IOC probably well before it could really do anything. Didn't matter much as it could afford to hang around home for a few years training pilots and upgrading systems.

F35 doesn't have that luxury. It needs to visit Afghanistan the day it goes IOC since it's been sold to the taxpayer as the replacement for everything else. It's got to actually be ready before they declare IOC.

 

It will cost a fortune, to develop a new hi-tech bomber and reach IOC, with limited numbers. How many airframes will be deployed on the ramp, after the airplane begins (very) low production, stretched over several years ? 20, 30, 35 ?


Perhaps they should have purchased more B-2 bombers, when they had the chance ?

It would have been more cost effective, to modify a larger fleet of B-2's.

My 'guess' the new Chinese 'stealth' project, when deployed, will probably be as capable, as today's Gen 4.5 (+) airplane. Of course, today's F-22 will be modified, to make it even more effective. The Chinese will build more than 187 airframes. Will a squadron or two of F-22's and F-15C's, have enough AMRAAM's, to meet the Chinese over the Pacific ?


Buying more F-22's ?

Forget it. I doubt anybody is talking about that. The F-22 production line, has already begun to close down. The small subcontractors, have already stopped producing a few components. The specialty skilled labor, in some of the small shops, have already moved on, in an effort to find more work. It would cost billions and take time, to re-start the production line.

What is ironic, the F-35 has ballooned in cost, where it has already approached the cost of the F-22. The F-35, is no longer a 'cheap' multi-role tactical aircraft. Later production blocs may come down in price, after the airplane has been purchased, in sufficient numbers.

The F-35, does not have the legs or the air-to-air capabilities of the F-22. Japan offered to buy the F-22E, and pay for the development costs. Australia and Israel, also wanted to buy the F-22. The F-22E, should have been developed and sold to those countries.

 

Yeah, and they should have purchased more F-22s, more B-1s, and probably more F-117s. However, that is irrelevant. It is unlikely that the current B-2 airframe can meet all of the current requirements of a new AF bomber/ISR platform anyways. Basically, my hypothesis is that all they need is a new airframe to carry all of the new tech that has been developed in the last 10 years. There are limits to how far the B-2 can be modified, and it won't be survivable forever. Even if they only buy 20 of them, it's better than 0. If they can get five B-2s airborne at any one time, that's potentially 400-1000+ dead targets on one mission depending on their loadout (500lb JDAMs vs SDBs). Like I said in my last post, the B-2/F-22/F-35 involved a ton of new development which led to huge budget and schedule overruns. I would hope, and it seems to be their goal, that this new bomber would use mostly technology that has already been developed and so the budget/schedule should be much easier to predict.

 

Terry, we have an Air Force lover

Call the recruiter and schedule an appointment.

 

Consider me a military-aerospace lover..Air Force, Navy, Marines..I don't discriminate

 

Just looking at the J-20, it will probably be modified heavily before it goes into production. The vertical stabilizers appear to be too small and their compensation for that was the two large ventral fins, which are pretty good radar reflectors. Looks like they rushed it for Gates' visit. They also did what appeard to be a mil power take-off, so not sure if the afterburners were not connected.

Aircraft appears to be closer to the YF-23 design than the YF-22. In the olden days we would have built both the F-23 and F-22 to reduce risk.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Alex,

You are not alone .