>Bomb truck with xbox-huge range/endurance
Pretty much the same reason the Aussies were talking about purchasing B21s. They never wanted strategic bombers, what they wanted were strike fighters/interdictors with the range to hit Chinese fleets beyond Australias immediate maritime borders.
>purchasing
Nah we'll just rotate them out of Darwin and Amberley the second America is ready to. We're going to do that with US submarines out of Perth or Henderson
>interdictors
We used to call them "bombers" back in the day
It sounds like Australia wanted something that could replace the F111s they buried
Of course
Those F-111s were the most capable weapon systems in the region for a long while.
Now that the Asian arms race has been going on for quite some time, Australia wants something that will put them comfortably ahead of the competition once more.
Its primary purpose is slinging tons of missiles at shit without being seen. Targeting data is likely going to come from other sources than NGADs internal sensors, so there's not really any reason it couldn't hit land or sea based targets as well.
>The F-35 can't compete with the FCAS and GCAP 6th gen fighter
It isn't supposed to. The F-35 in any operating environment with a 5th (F-22) or future 6th-gen dedicated air superiority fighter will be ISR/EW or other support. The same will be true for Euro partners that field whichever promising 6th-gen air superiority fighter they ultimately choose.
You make a fair point but I'm thinking more along the lines of the way the US never seemed too keen on exporting the F-22. Granted the disparity in capability compared to what Europeans were cooking up with Gripens, Eurofighters, and Rafales is probably significantly less relative to the NGAD and FCAS/GCAP, so you could be right. Has there been any sort of preliminary mumblings or indication the US would be looking to export the NGAD.
I also can't wait for some proper nomenclature and/or designations. These acronyms are getting fricking cancerously soulless.
>Granted the disparity in capability compared to what Europeans were cooking up with Gripens, Eurofighters, and Rafales is probably significantly less relative to the NGAD and FCAS/GCAP, so you could be right.
I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever if the F-22 is so fricking hax that it will still dunk on everything besides the NGAD into the goddamn 2050s with an upgrade package.
>Has there been any sort of preliminary mumblings or indication the US would be looking to export the NGAD.
No, they've been adamant so far in any discussions saying NGAD will NOT be exported, though they have explicitly stated they're open to sharing 6th generation technologies with allied nations (specifically in reference to at the time the different UK/Japan projects)
So expect the US to maybe share networking/sensors/missiles/drone wingmen tech, but not airframe/engines/radars.
>the global market for 6th gen fighters would be dominated by Europeans if Europeans can agree to make a single fighter instead of making 3 competing fighters plus half of them buying US aircraft giving up all independence in air-defense.
As an European I had to fix your post
As a German, I might also have to add that we will have extra wishes, which will then make the plane overly expensive, add features only relating to safety in civilian airspace while making the plane way heavier, and will take so long for type certification that NNGAD is ready by then.
>German
Do not forget that because you are a trustworthy members of the European Union who trust his partners, you will require to know all of their secrets so next time you do not need them to produce your own airfighter, not that you really care since you'll probably just buy US.
Realistically it's 2 competing fighters, and one of them is running a decade later than the other.
GCAP (UK/ItalyJapan) is going forward full steam ahead, FTBs, engine demonstrators, etc by the end of next year, flying prototypes within a few years after that.
FCAS (France/Germany/Spain) is mired in political frickery (again) and is slated for flying prototype in the mid to late 2030s with production model in the early to mid 2040s and entry into service in the mid to late 2040s.
FS2020 is a pipedream, I think it's more likely Sweden will end up buying GCAP than going forward with FS2020.
And since NGAD isn't getting exported and china wont be offering exports to European nations, GCAP seems to be the clear front runner at the moment, and as we're 10-15+ years out from service entry anyway for GCAP, it's likely going to be the primary next generation fighter for Europe.
i said it elsewhere before but the combination of a sears haack body, high aspect ratio wings and the area rule will result in nothing but long supersonic triangles and wide subsonic triangles.
technically aspect ratio in general, but i meant high aspect ratio. it's the reason why the subsonic planes are so W I D E. high aspect ratios give you better fuel economy due to a better lift to drag ratio. in fighters, this is limited by maneuverability, but should that ever become less important (due to bvr engagements), they will become wide as well. there are more factors at play here, for example the bulging bodies of the fighters due to internal weapon bays - in the past, low aspect ratio wings weren't just chosen for their maneuverability, but also for their rigidity. the thin airfoils of supersonic jets would simply not be rigid enough for high aspect ratios and the wings would fail. thicker wings would allow for more rigidity, so the new fighter designs would once again go for a higher aspect ratios. the only limit is the wing sweep which is necessitated by going supersonic.
Those drones are meant to be carrier based iirc. NGAD should have the range to operate out in the Pacific without needing aerial refueling. If anything they'd be more useful for F-22s so that they could refuel at a carrier instead of being tethered to airfields and conventional tankers.
>If anything they'd be more useful for F-22s so that they could refuel at a carrier instead of being tethered to airfields and conventional tankers.
Then they need drones with refueling booms, af planes use boom + receptacle for in-flight refueling, navy planes use drogue and probe. They're not compatible with each other.
The NGAD almost assuredly will be a 2-seater. The size makes perfect sense for it. Hand off the minutia to the flight engineer, and the software controlling each drone in the first place.
The NGAD almost assuredly will be a 2-seater. The size makes perfect sense for it. Hand off the minutia to the flight engineer, and the software controlling each drone in the first place.
It could probably be combined with the remote control satellite concept so significant parts of that fleet could be controlled by remote pilots/AI/etc... Plus they should be able offload/exchange control at will between eachother.
I'm thinking in a high attrition situation you would also be rotating fleets of drones, so you're commanding the ones at the front currently engaging the enemy and also there's another group linked in that's en route from the closest airbase to take over.
Plus things like networking to help with automation, like a fuel tanker hooking into the local control for better latency so it can refuel the fleet, and then transferring back to remote control to rtb.
And those drones are definitely not the only things it'll be controlling, it's possible considerable amounts of it's overhead will be taken up with networked ground assets, flocks of smaller drones, etc...
Also also, if this thing is supposed to cross the pacific like an unholy combination of a strategic bomber and a fighterjet, can those drones keep up with it or are they going to have to be launched from carriers? If they CAN keep up it means they can ALSO be launched from across the pacific, which implies an entire AIRFORCE that can operate over china while based in the continental US! Rotate that around over the atlantic and it could be the reason they don't plan on sharing it with NATO like the f35 is THEY DON'T NEED TO!
going hard into BVR combat, lots of fuel and space for loitering around the Pacific withots of cruise missiles/long range AA missiles
large so the flat, tailess delta wing design works,
it's basically an air superiority b-21
>Air combat is going to be even more of a BVR-fest
I'm torn, on one hand close-in visual engagements are stunning. However, BVR jousting is wondrous in its own way
I wouldn't be surprised if air combat of the future is more chest board than dog fight. Manned fighters and drones moving around the board trying to one up each other in highly congested environments. Honestly, I'd go so far as saying we'll need a new breed of fighter pilots .
>I wouldn't be surprised if air combat of the future is more chest board than dog fight.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's what air combat is already like.
We're already watching the webms of their kills and cheering on e-celebs like nuckingfuts and Predator, and awarding them hero weapons.
It's only a matter of time before they get company sponsorship and endorse consumer products in addition to weapons.
Blizzard was right, this is the future of air combat, /k/.
I wouldn't be surprised if air combat of the future is more chest board than dog fight. Manned fighters and drones moving around the board trying to one up each other in highly congested environments. Honestly, I'd go so far as saying we'll need a new breed of fighter pilots .
BVR with missiles is still very much like a dogfight, you have to aggressively maneuver to survive and kill the enemy
Might be different if it's BVR with AI drones, then you basically act like the AWACS
That's crazy, this is creeping up on the B21 territory, while still having a fighter's maneuverability I assume
Wouldn't NGAD eventually make stealth bombers obsolete too? Why send out a B21 when you can replace it with 1/2 NGAD and a clusterfrick of drones
NGAD is probably going to be expensive as frick to fly given they're gonna slap some absolutely silly stealth coating on it since they're aiming for multi-spectrum stealth and not just an optimized RAM like the F-35 and B-21 is getting. Of course, there's nothing that says you can't have a NGAD with a whole frickton of expendable stealth drones to allow it to bring the pain since those might be designed to be more cost effective which would allow the NGAD system as a whole to function effectively as a strike fighter on a dollar per bomb basis, especially if you're sending them into a contested air space where losing an F-35 is a much bigger deal then a loyal wingman.
Man they are really betting it all on their stealth tech. Wasn't there some german company that said they detected the F-35 through passive radar imaging? I think these planes are much less stealthy over densely populated areas than people would like to imagine
>Wasn't there some german company that said they detected the F-35 through passive radar imaging?
That's unavoidable, low observable aircraft attempt to absorb all energy first (RAM coating and other materials) then reflect all remaining energy in the most useful direction. For the F-35 that's generally from the front to the sides and (IIRC) from the sides to nearly vertical. This means that from the perspective of a ship or aircraft you don't get a usable return from your own radar.
Any passive radar network capable of analyzing emissions from a powerful emitter (FM radio, TV, etc) and detecting the bounced reflections from the F-35 will be able to detect it.
The problem is doing this in wartime, where the enemy may decide to destroy all high power transmitters knowing you have this capability.
>The problem is doing this in wartime, where the enemy may decide to destroy all high power transmitters knowing you have this capability.
Also doing it with sufficient high resolution in real time to actually get a useful firing solution, repeatedly, and before their weapons can obliterate you.
For some reason it's long been a meme that "stealth" = "cloaking device", and people sperg out when someone shows they've "detected" a stealth aircraft. But stealth aircraft are for war environments, and the point has always been to improve statistics not be a magic invisibility field.
Like total toy example, if without stealth a SAM system can engage at 100 miles and the jets can't engage until 80 miles then that's a big advantage for the SAM. Whereas with stealth the system can engage at 50 miles. Stealth still means the jet can be attacked, so attackers still have to be careful and still take risks, but now the jet has the advantage in attacking first. It's all about varying tradeoffs.
>they detected the F-35
Yeah? At what range though? And could it distinguish the F35 from clutter? Or did they eyeball the F35, see a speck on their screen, and call it a day? >through passive radar imaging
That's been known for donkeys years.
But it's not a weapons grade track.
Also, the F35s currently fly with Luneburgs and they're also not actively jamming or launching HARMs at your German friends' radar.
>But it's not a weapons grade track.
To be fair to the Chinese (not the Russians after the events of the last year though frick 'em), suspecting a flight of F-35s is within a 25x25km area and shooting a long range dual seeker active radar/infrared missile at them might disrupt them a bit.
I know
Fact remains that the seeker head isn't that long ranged >as far as we know
11 months ago
Anonymous
>seeker head
What seeker head? I'm talking about a hypothetical system. I know SM-6/SM-2 could theoretically do it but I'd rather not tie my argument to any actual system as although the concept probably works, the implementation might not. We really don't know what type of SAM will be operational in 2040-2050 when NGAD is mature.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>What seeker head?
You're talking about finding the rough location of the F-35 by passive means and then firing an active missile iirc in "Maddog" mode at a patch of airspace before locking on
>At what range though?
They tracked them for 150km, the Luneburg lenses don't matter for passive radar imaging
https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/sensors/2019/09/30/stealthy-no-more-a-german-radar-vendor-says-it-tracked-the-f-35-jet-in-2018-from-a-pony-farm/
Couple months after this news broke the US also tried to buy the company, so I'm leaning towards it beeing legit
Why would Luneburg Lenses not matter for passive detection? The US sources say they do, the Hensoldt ones say they don't. I am inclined to believe that they do, because we can't know the spectral refractivity of the F35's lenses without access to them, and if I was engineering F35 I would have built it with multispectral passive radar in mind, including the reflectors, because it was a known near-future threat during the desin phase. Finally, the 150km Hensoldt track claims lines up with their other claim about Polish FM transmitters being important because that's the expected track range diffraction limit for FM band. This raises an eyebrow because the US (indeed Lockmart) has FM band passive radars (and F35s), and also the F35 (most aircraft actually) have very sophisticated FM band receivers and sometimes transmitters for their radio aeronavigation systems (which sits immediately next to the commercial FM band, from a EM standpoint the same band). Given all those facts together, I don't find it hard to believe that an F35 could make a passive radar think it had an band track whether or not it really did, and it also lends a little support to US claims (since they are the world leaders in EW, DSP, RADAR and stealth and seem to think the RADAR wouldn't see the plane without help).
>Why would Luneburg Lenses not matter for passive detection?
Just passing by but Lüneburg lenses are retro reflectors, they reflect em radiation precisely back to the transmitter. In the scenario here there are em sources all over the place (civilian radio, etc) that emit, the waves hit the plane, the Lüneburg-lenses reflect that radiation back to the individual source, but the radiation that hits other parts of the plane gets scattered in other directions and eventually forms part of the passive tracking doodad, no?
Lüneburg lenses are just for direct radar illumination, they're supposed to give a much stronger return by nature of being retro reflective, so it's hard to judge the planes natural radar return.
Hensoldt being sold has nothing to do with F-35.
The article is full of a lot of "allegedlys" and not much by way of detail.
Of course I don't think Hensoldt lied, but like I said, it doesn't say anything about the radar's ability to adequately distinguish the contact, given they admitted that they confirmed the location of the jets by ADS-B.
They "detected" them when they knew the exact flight path and were expecting them and the F-35 wasn't trying to stay hidden and had a transponder on anyhow.
logically, if someone can detect a stealth fighter like the F-35 at range, wouldnt that make non-stealth fighters be detected at an even further range?
Endurance/range, radar/passive detectors, payload.
If there's some close quarters maneuver required such as an everyday interception then drones or other planes will do it.
Size isn't directly related to G either. I haven't seen the contracts obviously but I'd be stunned if they're asking for an air superiority fighter that can pull less than 5G. It'll likely have outrageously powerful engines, HOBS missiles and maybe a fleet of support drones around it. It'll probably take a nuke to kill it once it's in the air and fighting.
Out of curiosity: wouldnt the unmanned wingmen increase rcs and emit radio waves from communication with the main plane, which then can get picked up easily? If thats the case, wouldnt some sort of cluster-antiradiation missile just counter the whole ngad idea?
>increase rcs
They don't need to fly within meters of the main plane. Also the main plane is capable without the wingmen and can fly alone if maximum stealth is needed.
>and emit radio waves from communication with the main plane
I think it can be done with directed emisions, pointed in their specific directions. Also they'll supposedly have an AI so they might not need constant communications to operate and they might be able to do simple tasks under radio silence.
You can't just "buy" hensoldt they are a strategic asset for the german government. Also this whole twinvis thing seems a bit sketchy. I doubt you can reliably obtain a track using UHF radars. Chinese, Russian, Indians and others periodically states they have defeated stealth technology with their new long wave radars, however they never mentions that it is impossible to obtain a good enough track for a fire solution. Also relying on TV and radio transmissions seems unreliable at least, the signal would be extremely weak and being dependent on civilian infrastructures it can be easily jammed or disturbed. Also their claim that the Luneburg lens made no difference in that occasion seems a bit absurd. It seems more like a pr stunt which would worn only if you knew what, where and when to look for, a bit like the serbs shooting down the f117, which defeats the concept of a search radar
God i sure hope they won't actually look like that
I can't stand the thought of it influencing everyone and all future planes end up looking like flying dorito
New generations of aircraft will likely be "optionally manned" and set up to utilize drone wingmen for various tasks.
Also once SpaceX establishes a satellite network locked for military use only there will be precious little need for a human pilot in any wienerpit of any aircraft, because every portion of the planet excepting the highest and lowest polar latitudes will have seamless 20-30ms network coverage with no gaps large enough to be meaningful. A pilot from anywhere in the world could fly an unmanned fighter, bomber, or interceptor anywhere else in the world.
To be fair, the rest of the world can't even afford to try, let alone have a decent chance to succeed. Only China, Russia, France, UK, and Japan have any real chance, and the main reason UK/Japan have a chance is because they're working together.
It's big because it's never going to be in a dog fight. NGAD is essentially a micro-bomber with a integral wing of drone fighters to back it up. It it ever has to do evasive maneuvers you've already fricked up.
If you lose power in a plane like that you have zero control. Using cameras for navigation is not new.
NTA but I don't see the point to making the wienerpit opaque. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the wienerpit's glass poses radar issues where the point of making the vehicle stealthy is the problem you wish to solve. I also think any pilot would like to be able to see out of their plane just in case. Not because they lose control of the vehicle, but just to help curb instances of confusion and disorientation.
Whatever they make the wienerpit from is going to be by definition less stealthy then the super RAM coating that they used on the rest of the airframe, or they would make the entire plane out of the wienerpit material. How much of an issue this is vs the trade off of being able to actually just look out the window if you need to, who knows, but it does clearly come at some cost. It's not like the plane isn't going to have a 360 degree camera system like that on the F-35 where you can look through solid metal with your helmet feeding in the camera data to make a composite visual.
>pilot would like to be able to see out of their plane just in case
Just have a RAM-coated shutter / canopy like on the Independence Day spacecraft, and pilot the aircraft using cameras.
When the wienerpit electronics fails, retract / blow out the shutter and fly home.
At the point whereby the wienerpit electronics fails, the aircraft is mission killed anyway.
New generations of aircraft will likely be "optionally manned" and set up to utilize drone wingmen for various tasks.
Also once SpaceX establishes a satellite network locked for military use only there will be precious little need for a human pilot in any wienerpit of any aircraft, because every portion of the planet excepting the highest and lowest polar latitudes will have seamless 20-30ms network coverage with no gaps large enough to be meaningful. A pilot from anywhere in the world could fly an unmanned fighter, bomber, or interceptor anywhere else in the world.
>there will be precious little need for a human pilot in any wienerpit of any aircraft
There will always be a need for a crew because the enemy might take down those fancy shmancy datalinks one way or another
That is why a lot of money is spent making sure JDAMs and JASSMs etc have onboard inertial backups and don't rely entirely without recourse on external guidance
Ditto vehicles
What will end up defining the 6th gen? 5th gen is obviously stealth, but will all 6th gen projects focus on the drone leader concept or will Chinks and Russians have their own spin on future?
>What will end up defining the 6th gen?
Wingman drones integration or another arbitrary meme so the current leader of the industry can pretend whatever he do is ahead of time
a whole lot of fuel
Range, weapons, drone wingman systems.
>I have an erection.
Why can't I see it?
>Verification not required.
Mainly fuel, if I had to guess. The Pacific is a big ocean
Fits more stuff on board
Bomb truck with xbox-huge range/endurance.
>Bomb truck with xbox-huge range/endurance
Pretty much the same reason the Aussies were talking about purchasing B21s. They never wanted strategic bombers, what they wanted were strike fighters/interdictors with the range to hit Chinese fleets beyond Australias immediate maritime borders.
>purchasing
Nah we'll just rotate them out of Darwin and Amberley the second America is ready to. We're going to do that with US submarines out of Perth or Henderson
It sounds like Australia wanted something that could replace the F111s they buried
>interdictors
We used to call them "bombers" back in the day
Of course
Those F-111s were the most capable weapon systems in the region for a long while.
Now that the Asian arms race has been going on for quite some time, Australia wants something that will put them comfortably ahead of the competition once more.
You aren't getting any b21s bro, give it up and stop talking about it
Feel free to keep deep throating American wiener tho it feels good
Its primary purpose is Air Dominance, not Air to Ground.
Its primary purpose is slinging tons of missiles at shit without being seen. Targeting data is likely going to come from other sources than NGADs internal sensors, so there's not really any reason it couldn't hit land or sea based targets as well.
Long distance air2air missile hauler can probably take 3 to 4 times the amount of missiles the f35 can take in stealth configuration.
NGAD needs an export version. The F-35 can't compete with the FCAS and GCAP 6th gen fighter
>The F-35 can't compete with the FCAS and GCAP 6th gen fighter
It isn't supposed to. The F-35 in any operating environment with a 5th (F-22) or future 6th-gen dedicated air superiority fighter will be ISR/EW or other support. The same will be true for Euro partners that field whichever promising 6th-gen air superiority fighter they ultimately choose.
the global market for 6th gen fighters would be dominated by Europeans if US allies can't buy the NGAD
You make a fair point but I'm thinking more along the lines of the way the US never seemed too keen on exporting the F-22. Granted the disparity in capability compared to what Europeans were cooking up with Gripens, Eurofighters, and Rafales is probably significantly less relative to the NGAD and FCAS/GCAP, so you could be right. Has there been any sort of preliminary mumblings or indication the US would be looking to export the NGAD.
I also can't wait for some proper nomenclature and/or designations. These acronyms are getting fricking cancerously soulless.
>Granted the disparity in capability compared to what Europeans were cooking up with Gripens, Eurofighters, and Rafales is probably significantly less relative to the NGAD and FCAS/GCAP, so you could be right.
I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever if the F-22 is so fricking hax that it will still dunk on everything besides the NGAD into the goddamn 2050s with an upgrade package.
>Has there been any sort of preliminary mumblings or indication the US would be looking to export the NGAD.
No, they've been adamant so far in any discussions saying NGAD will NOT be exported, though they have explicitly stated they're open to sharing 6th generation technologies with allied nations (specifically in reference to at the time the different UK/Japan projects)
So expect the US to maybe share networking/sensors/missiles/drone wingmen tech, but not airframe/engines/radars.
>the global market for 6th gen fighters would be dominated by Europeans if Europeans can agree to make a single fighter instead of making 3 competing fighters plus half of them buying US aircraft giving up all independence in air-defense.
As an European I had to fix your post
As a German, I might also have to add that we will have extra wishes, which will then make the plane overly expensive, add features only relating to safety in civilian airspace while making the plane way heavier, and will take so long for type certification that NNGAD is ready by then.
>German
Do not forget that because you are a trustworthy members of the European Union who trust his partners, you will require to know all of their secrets so next time you do not need them to produce your own airfighter, not that you really care since you'll probably just buy US.
Realistically it's 2 competing fighters, and one of them is running a decade later than the other.
GCAP (UK/ItalyJapan) is going forward full steam ahead, FTBs, engine demonstrators, etc by the end of next year, flying prototypes within a few years after that.
FCAS (France/Germany/Spain) is mired in political frickery (again) and is slated for flying prototype in the mid to late 2030s with production model in the early to mid 2040s and entry into service in the mid to late 2040s.
FS2020 is a pipedream, I think it's more likely Sweden will end up buying GCAP than going forward with FS2020.
And since NGAD isn't getting exported and china wont be offering exports to European nations, GCAP seems to be the clear front runner at the moment, and as we're 10-15+ years out from service entry anyway for GCAP, it's likely going to be the primary next generation fighter for Europe.
the nip-bong-pasta droneship will prob be the go-to export 6th gen, for cost reasons.
NGAD will never be exported. Primarily due to cost, but also due to tech secrecy a la the F-22.
You realise there are no images of NGAD, no dimensions and no specifications. You're literally just blogging about fan art.
Anon... They're hiding it in plain sight. This is quite likely what it will look like
this artist rendering was released before the B-21 reveal. looks very similar to the real one
i said it elsewhere before but the combination of a sears haack body, high aspect ratio wings and the area rule will result in nothing but long supersonic triangles and wide subsonic triangles.
Meta is as meta does.
Did you mean low aspect ratio wings?
technically aspect ratio in general, but i meant high aspect ratio. it's the reason why the subsonic planes are so W I D E. high aspect ratios give you better fuel economy due to a better lift to drag ratio. in fighters, this is limited by maneuverability, but should that ever become less important (due to bvr engagements), they will become wide as well. there are more factors at play here, for example the bulging bodies of the fighters due to internal weapon bays - in the past, low aspect ratio wings weren't just chosen for their maneuverability, but also for their rigidity. the thin airfoils of supersonic jets would simply not be rigid enough for high aspect ratios and the wings would fail. thicker wings would allow for more rigidity, so the new fighter designs would once again go for a higher aspect ratios. the only limit is the wing sweep which is necessitated by going supersonic.
looks like that FB-22 that got proposed years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_FB-22
some versions of the pitch were tailless
>1000nm
>pacific
still not enough for it to operate over China if they breach the first island chain
>first island chain
Outdated concept
its full on "Protect Guam" hysteria now
everything the US creates from now on is shit for Guam, protecting Guam, and operating out of guam
>stealth
>(visual)
>everyone learns it had thermoptic camo when it does a mach 1.5 flyby of that years victory day parade
That’d be some shit hug
>Fighting Falcon
>Eagle
>Raptor
what's next?
my vote is
>Terror Bird
>Thunderbird
>Screech (owl)
Starfire
Starfighter
Starfighter would be good, but they would append II to the end of it; thus ruining it.
EPSILON DART
>Super Skyray
or
>Skyray II
>1000 nanometers
NGMI
Nautical miles
>0.00000000054 nautical miles
NGMI
You don't export top shelf equipment.
So are the F-35/FA18 + MQ25 Stingray refueling tests a preparation for NGAD?
Those drones are meant to be carrier based iirc. NGAD should have the range to operate out in the Pacific without needing aerial refueling. If anything they'd be more useful for F-22s so that they could refuel at a carrier instead of being tethered to airfields and conventional tankers.
>If anything they'd be more useful for F-22s so that they could refuel at a carrier instead of being tethered to airfields and conventional tankers.
Then they need drones with refueling booms, af planes use boom + receptacle for in-flight refueling, navy planes use drogue and probe. They're not compatible with each other.
> 200 pilots trying to control 1,200 aircraft, while flying.
What could possibly go wrong?
The NGAD almost assuredly will be a 2-seater. The size makes perfect sense for it. Hand off the minutia to the flight engineer, and the software controlling each drone in the first place.
It could probably be combined with the remote control satellite concept so significant parts of that fleet could be controlled by remote pilots/AI/etc... Plus they should be able offload/exchange control at will between eachother.
I'm thinking in a high attrition situation you would also be rotating fleets of drones, so you're commanding the ones at the front currently engaging the enemy and also there's another group linked in that's en route from the closest airbase to take over.
Plus things like networking to help with automation, like a fuel tanker hooking into the local control for better latency so it can refuel the fleet, and then transferring back to remote control to rtb.
And those drones are definitely not the only things it'll be controlling, it's possible considerable amounts of it's overhead will be taken up with networked ground assets, flocks of smaller drones, etc...
Also also, if this thing is supposed to cross the pacific like an unholy combination of a strategic bomber and a fighterjet, can those drones keep up with it or are they going to have to be launched from carriers? If they CAN keep up it means they can ALSO be launched from across the pacific, which implies an entire AIRFORCE that can operate over china while based in the continental US! Rotate that around over the atlantic and it could be the reason they don't plan on sharing it with NATO like the f35 is THEY DON'T NEED TO!
Smalller drones may be in service first before the larger ones. These will be launched from the NGAD itself.
Nobody cares that the Lightning, Typhoon, Thunderbolt, and Phantom are all IIs
going hard into BVR combat, lots of fuel and space for loitering around the Pacific withots of cruise missiles/long range AA missiles
large so the flat, tailess delta wing design works,
it's basically an air superiority b-21
>Air combat is going to be even more of a BVR-fest
I'm torn, on one hand close-in visual engagements are stunning. However, BVR jousting is wondrous in its own way
I wouldn't be surprised if air combat of the future is more chest board than dog fight. Manned fighters and drones moving around the board trying to one up each other in highly congested environments. Honestly, I'd go so far as saying we'll need a new breed of fighter pilots .
>fighter pilots
AI engineers
cybernetic pilots.
>I wouldn't be surprised if air combat of the future is more chest board than dog fight.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's what air combat is already like.
>external weapons
RIP RCS
>mfw when Macross and Firefox were the future all along
Get into the fricking drone booth, Shinji!
>future air combat is just TFT with unmanned teaming
I suppose it's a good thing we can draw potential pilots from Korean internet cafes
We're already watching the webms of their kills and cheering on e-celebs like nuckingfuts and Predator, and awarding them hero weapons.
It's only a matter of time before they get company sponsorship and endorse consumer products in addition to weapons.
Blizzard was right, this is the future of air combat, /k/.
BVR with missiles is still very much like a dogfight, you have to aggressively maneuver to survive and kill the enemy
Might be different if it's BVR with AI drones, then you basically act like the AWACS
>BVR combat is a dogfight but you cant see the enemy
spooky
Stealth and EW will actually reduce engagement range.
Even ignoring that your little missile radar seeker will need guidance through the entire engagement envelope.
It looks like it can stealthily carry everything the F-15EX can.
How heavy must it be. 45,000kg?
F22 tops out at 38 tonnes MTOW and this is quite a bit larger, I'm expecting a 105 to 110,000 pound MTOW, 50 metric tons.
That's crazy, this is creeping up on the B21 territory, while still having a fighter's maneuverability I assume
Wouldn't NGAD eventually make stealth bombers obsolete too? Why send out a B21 when you can replace it with 1/2 NGAD and a clusterfrick of drones
NGAD is probably going to be expensive as frick to fly given they're gonna slap some absolutely silly stealth coating on it since they're aiming for multi-spectrum stealth and not just an optimized RAM like the F-35 and B-21 is getting. Of course, there's nothing that says you can't have a NGAD with a whole frickton of expendable stealth drones to allow it to bring the pain since those might be designed to be more cost effective which would allow the NGAD system as a whole to function effectively as a strike fighter on a dollar per bomb basis, especially if you're sending them into a contested air space where losing an F-35 is a much bigger deal then a loyal wingman.
This thing will be capable of a >3500 mile ferry at 65k feet in supercruise. Fricking astounding now give me the god damn SR72
>now give me the god damn SR72
Tom Cruise isn't done with it yet
Man, it may have good numbers, but it's ugly as balls.
Embrace the arrowhead future, old man.
N'GAD frfr no cap
Su-57 fodder lol
This thing will send Su's to another dimension
it can make removing the mask extremely painful for you
Fuel load for the Pacific
But will it be completed too late to stop thr based Chinks?
The F-22 and F-35 already dab on your gen 4.5 insectoid jet, chang.
Probably not when the second fall of Communism happens. I believe at this point F-22s will overmatch the enemy into the 2100s
Man they are really betting it all on their stealth tech. Wasn't there some german company that said they detected the F-35 through passive radar imaging? I think these planes are much less stealthy over densely populated areas than people would like to imagine
>Wasn't there some german company that said they detected the F-35 through passive radar imaging?
That's unavoidable, low observable aircraft attempt to absorb all energy first (RAM coating and other materials) then reflect all remaining energy in the most useful direction. For the F-35 that's generally from the front to the sides and (IIRC) from the sides to nearly vertical. This means that from the perspective of a ship or aircraft you don't get a usable return from your own radar.
Any passive radar network capable of analyzing emissions from a powerful emitter (FM radio, TV, etc) and detecting the bounced reflections from the F-35 will be able to detect it.
The problem is doing this in wartime, where the enemy may decide to destroy all high power transmitters knowing you have this capability.
>The problem is doing this in wartime, where the enemy may decide to destroy all high power transmitters knowing you have this capability.
Also doing it with sufficient high resolution in real time to actually get a useful firing solution, repeatedly, and before their weapons can obliterate you.
For some reason it's long been a meme that "stealth" = "cloaking device", and people sperg out when someone shows they've "detected" a stealth aircraft. But stealth aircraft are for war environments, and the point has always been to improve statistics not be a magic invisibility field.
Like total toy example, if without stealth a SAM system can engage at 100 miles and the jets can't engage until 80 miles then that's a big advantage for the SAM. Whereas with stealth the system can engage at 50 miles. Stealth still means the jet can be attacked, so attackers still have to be careful and still take risks, but now the jet has the advantage in attacking first. It's all about varying tradeoffs.
>they detected the F-35
Yeah? At what range though? And could it distinguish the F35 from clutter? Or did they eyeball the F35, see a speck on their screen, and call it a day?
>through passive radar imaging
That's been known for donkeys years.
But it's not a weapons grade track.
Also, the F35s currently fly with Luneburgs and they're also not actively jamming or launching HARMs at your German friends' radar.
>But it's not a weapons grade track.
To be fair to the Chinese (not the Russians after the events of the last year though frick 'em), suspecting a flight of F-35s is within a 25x25km area and shooting a long range dual seeker active radar/infrared missile at them might disrupt them a bit.
Lol have you seen them try doing that in DCS? it's terribly inaccurate.
>DCS
Kek at least cite Command or something senpai
I know
Fact remains that the seeker head isn't that long ranged
>as far as we know
>seeker head
What seeker head? I'm talking about a hypothetical system. I know SM-6/SM-2 could theoretically do it but I'd rather not tie my argument to any actual system as although the concept probably works, the implementation might not. We really don't know what type of SAM will be operational in 2040-2050 when NGAD is mature.
>What seeker head?
You're talking about finding the rough location of the F-35 by passive means and then firing an active missile iirc in "Maddog" mode at a patch of airspace before locking on
>At what range though?
They tracked them for 150km, the Luneburg lenses don't matter for passive radar imaging
https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/sensors/2019/09/30/stealthy-no-more-a-german-radar-vendor-says-it-tracked-the-f-35-jet-in-2018-from-a-pony-farm/
Couple months after this news broke the US also tried to buy the company, so I'm leaning towards it beeing legit
Why would Luneburg Lenses not matter for passive detection? The US sources say they do, the Hensoldt ones say they don't. I am inclined to believe that they do, because we can't know the spectral refractivity of the F35's lenses without access to them, and if I was engineering F35 I would have built it with multispectral passive radar in mind, including the reflectors, because it was a known near-future threat during the desin phase. Finally, the 150km Hensoldt track claims lines up with their other claim about Polish FM transmitters being important because that's the expected track range diffraction limit for FM band. This raises an eyebrow because the US (indeed Lockmart) has FM band passive radars (and F35s), and also the F35 (most aircraft actually) have very sophisticated FM band receivers and sometimes transmitters for their radio aeronavigation systems (which sits immediately next to the commercial FM band, from a EM standpoint the same band). Given all those facts together, I don't find it hard to believe that an F35 could make a passive radar think it had an band track whether or not it really did, and it also lends a little support to US claims (since they are the world leaders in EW, DSP, RADAR and stealth and seem to think the RADAR wouldn't see the plane without help).
>Why would Luneburg Lenses not matter for passive detection?
Just passing by but Lüneburg lenses are retro reflectors, they reflect em radiation precisely back to the transmitter. In the scenario here there are em sources all over the place (civilian radio, etc) that emit, the waves hit the plane, the Lüneburg-lenses reflect that radiation back to the individual source, but the radiation that hits other parts of the plane gets scattered in other directions and eventually forms part of the passive tracking doodad, no?
Lüneburg lenses are just for direct radar illumination, they're supposed to give a much stronger return by nature of being retro reflective, so it's hard to judge the planes natural radar return.
Hensoldt being sold has nothing to do with F-35.
The article is full of a lot of "allegedlys" and not much by way of detail.
Of course I don't think Hensoldt lied, but like I said, it doesn't say anything about the radar's ability to adequately distinguish the contact, given they admitted that they confirmed the location of the jets by ADS-B.
They "detected" them when they knew the exact flight path and were expecting them and the F-35 wasn't trying to stay hidden and had a transponder on anyhow.
logically, if someone can detect a stealth fighter like the F-35 at range, wouldnt that make non-stealth fighters be detected at an even further range?
NGAD is around the size of the Chinks J-20 "5th gen fighter"
F-22 and f-35 chan are just smol
Overengineered videogame crap designed by trannies and diversity hires. Pragmatic Russian and Chinese designs will blow this thing out of the water
Endurance/range, radar/passive detectors, payload.
If there's some close quarters maneuver required such as an everyday interception then drones or other planes will do it.
Size isn't directly related to G either. I haven't seen the contracts obviously but I'd be stunned if they're asking for an air superiority fighter that can pull less than 5G. It'll likely have outrageously powerful engines, HOBS missiles and maybe a fleet of support drones around it. It'll probably take a nuke to kill it once it's in the air and fighting.
Out of curiosity: wouldnt the unmanned wingmen increase rcs and emit radio waves from communication with the main plane, which then can get picked up easily? If thats the case, wouldnt some sort of cluster-antiradiation missile just counter the whole ngad idea?
>increase rcs
They don't need to fly within meters of the main plane. Also the main plane is capable without the wingmen and can fly alone if maximum stealth is needed.
>and emit radio waves from communication with the main plane
I think it can be done with directed emisions, pointed in their specific directions. Also they'll supposedly have an AI so they might not need constant communications to operate and they might be able to do simple tasks under radio silence.
I’m pretty confident they’d use a laser link communications system.
You can't just "buy" hensoldt they are a strategic asset for the german government. Also this whole twinvis thing seems a bit sketchy. I doubt you can reliably obtain a track using UHF radars. Chinese, Russian, Indians and others periodically states they have defeated stealth technology with their new long wave radars, however they never mentions that it is impossible to obtain a good enough track for a fire solution. Also relying on TV and radio transmissions seems unreliable at least, the signal would be extremely weak and being dependent on civilian infrastructures it can be easily jammed or disturbed. Also their claim that the Luneburg lens made no difference in that occasion seems a bit absurd. It seems more like a pr stunt which would worn only if you knew what, where and when to look for, a bit like the serbs shooting down the f117, which defeats the concept of a search radar
NGAD isn't real stop posting this shit
t. seething chink/zigger/pajeet
Internal weapons bay, wizzo/drone controller, larger fuel tanks so no need to refuel in/near hostile environment, new dual-cycle engine tech.
It'll be in service for ~60 years so they want room to upgrade.
How do the wingmen probably work? A mothership? Pilotless refueling? Carrier launched?
God i sure hope they won't actually look like that
I can't stand the thought of it influencing everyone and all future planes end up looking like flying dorito
When they get downed... 'the dorito has hit the salsa'
su27 and F15 are roughly that size. f15 is 63ft long, su27 is about 72ft long
less edges, more room for exhaust cooling
Will we still need manned aircraft in the 2030s? What do they bring vs. autonomous/manned drones at this point?
The manned platform is there to provide low latency control over the squad of UAVs wherever they're operating.
As a Lockmart engineer said about the SR-72 being manned, sometimes you need grey matter in the wienerpit.
Jamming/EW also becomes less of an issue.
New generations of aircraft will likely be "optionally manned" and set up to utilize drone wingmen for various tasks.
Also once SpaceX establishes a satellite network locked for military use only there will be precious little need for a human pilot in any wienerpit of any aircraft, because every portion of the planet excepting the highest and lowest polar latitudes will have seamless 20-30ms network coverage with no gaps large enough to be meaningful. A pilot from anywhere in the world could fly an unmanned fighter, bomber, or interceptor anywhere else in the world.
>Xbox-huge
It's a little bigger than a J-20. It's just the wing area that's insane, kinda reminds me of the FB-22
It's a fast bomber. Launch missiles and drones, go away. Manoeuvrability was always a meme.
>other countries don't even have 5th gen aircraft
>U.S. already making plans for the 6th gen
REST OF THE WORLD, ARE YOU EVEN TRYING!?
To be fair, the rest of the world can't even afford to try, let alone have a decent chance to succeed. Only China, Russia, France, UK, and Japan have any real chance, and the main reason UK/Japan have a chance is because they're working together.
>No pictures of the real NGAD for size
>Everyone ITT is just jerking themselves over computer graphics for the press
not too long ago we were looking at artist renders of the B21
This rendering is probably accurate anyway because the Air Force said they have been flying a demonstrator for like two years now.
As if based Chinks aren’t already working on J-30
If by that you mean waiting for America to complete NGAD so they can poorly copy the design, then yes, I'm sure that's what they're doing.
It's big because it's never going to be in a dog fight. NGAD is essentially a micro-bomber with a integral wing of drone fighters to back it up. It it ever has to do evasive maneuvers you've already fricked up.
Honest question: why even bother with a transparent wienerpit canopy anymore?
Just because you can see through the wienerpit doesn't mean you should have to rely on it all the time
If you lose power in a plane like that you have zero control. Using cameras for navigation is not new.
NTA but I don't see the point to making the wienerpit opaque. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the wienerpit's glass poses radar issues where the point of making the vehicle stealthy is the problem you wish to solve. I also think any pilot would like to be able to see out of their plane just in case. Not because they lose control of the vehicle, but just to help curb instances of confusion and disorientation.
Whatever they make the wienerpit from is going to be by definition less stealthy then the super RAM coating that they used on the rest of the airframe, or they would make the entire plane out of the wienerpit material. How much of an issue this is vs the trade off of being able to actually just look out the window if you need to, who knows, but it does clearly come at some cost. It's not like the plane isn't going to have a 360 degree camera system like that on the F-35 where you can look through solid metal with your helmet feeding in the camera data to make a composite visual.
>pilot would like to be able to see out of their plane just in case
Just have a RAM-coated shutter / canopy like on the Independence Day spacecraft, and pilot the aircraft using cameras.
When the wienerpit electronics fails, retract / blow out the shutter and fly home.
At the point whereby the wienerpit electronics fails, the aircraft is mission killed anyway.
>there will be precious little need for a human pilot in any wienerpit of any aircraft
There will always be a need for a crew because the enemy might take down those fancy shmancy datalinks one way or another
That is why a lot of money is spent making sure JDAMs and JASSMs etc have onboard inertial backups and don't rely entirely without recourse on external guidance
Ditto vehicles
>NTA but I don't see the point to making the wienerpit opaque
Lasers.
Also Glass wienerpit can't be covered in radar absorbent materials
At this rate we'll reach Longsword Fighter/Bomber from Halo sizes sooner rather than later
It needs those huge control surfaces to turn quickly + bigger wings help with range
Size doesn't have much to do with RCS
>f35 is smaller than the f22 but has a larger rcs
>b2 bomber is huge but has the RCS of an f22
What will end up defining the 6th gen? 5th gen is obviously stealth, but will all 6th gen projects focus on the drone leader concept or will Chinks and Russians have their own spin on future?
>What will end up defining the 6th gen?
Wingman drones integration or another arbitrary meme so the current leader of the industry can pretend whatever he do is ahead of time
aren't they supposed to be super fast stealth missile boats that control drone fighters?