Two questions:
Why are there four rival US Navy, US Air Force, Japan/UK/Italy and France/Germany/Spain fighters, and not another wide collaboration design like the F-35?
Are they REALLY all going to be flying Doritos?
Sixth Generation Fighters
Two questions:
Why are there four rival US Navy, US Air Force, Japan/UK/Italy and France/Germany/Spain fighters, and not another wide collaboration design like the F-35?
Are they REALLY all going to be flying Doritos?
One of the big problems with the F-35 program was tying a carrier craft to a wider program for a 5th gen aircraft. So now they’ve decoupled it for the 6th gen, to save on money and time and to have better specific tools.
Also, no one knows what they’ll look like but there’s scuttlebutt that the US won’t be using control surfaces and that it’ll be shaped like a triangle or arrowhead. No actual real sources, just chatter
They've had those flying triangles for decades
While the F-35 is FINALLY turning out to be a great platform, no one really wants to jump in on another multi-decade joint development program.
As for why there are 4, the USN and USAF have different needs and always will, they can never have a shared design because you make too many sacrifices for one or the other (or both).
France/Germany/Spain have domestic industry they're trying to support
Japan/UK/Italy also have domestic industry they want to support, and Japan in particular was a bit pissed when the US refused to sell them F-22s, so since the mid-late 2000s they've been pushing for a domestic fighter and now they think they can make a 6th gen with the UK for the export market.
Because the US is going full retard and sucking it's MIC dick by hoping that a ludicrously expensive big ste forward like F-22 will be the answer.
This philosophy falls apart as soon as you consider how big unmanned and optionally manned aircraft will become - this implies more aggressive use and higher air-frame losses - but the US is expecting NGAD to cost $200-300m before we get any spiraling costs. That's a huge cost that not even the US can afford to produce in large volume.
Alternative systems are aiming to be far more affordable opening up the possibility of using mass, autonomous AI systems and probably most importantly, a degree of exportability.
>the US is expecting NGAD to cost $200-300m
A third as much as an F-22? Sounds good
The total operating cost of F-22 including R&D and service life costs is like $225M per airframe.
Pretty sure USAF was talking about NGAD airframes costing 200-300M+ each with long term lifetime operating costs going well beyond that.
>This philosophy falls apart as soon as you consider how big unmanned and optionally manned aircraft will become - this implies more aggressive use and higher air-frame losses - but the US is expecting NGAD to cost $200-300m before we get any spiraling costs. That's a huge cost that not even the US can afford to produce in large volume.
>Alternative systems are aiming to be far more affordable opening up the possibility of using mass, autonomous AI systems and probably most importantly, a degree of exportability.
Yeah NGAD is literally going to be a mothership controlling a number of loyal wingman drones who will probably carry the majority of the payload compliment, you don’t know anything
>>MUH MIC MUH BALLOONING COSTS MUH FAILURE MUH SMALL SCALE PRODUCTION
funny, I remember know-nothings saying this exact same thing about the F-35 program. How many units are we up to now?
>funny, I remember know-nothings saying this exact same thing about the F-35 program. How many units are we up to now?
Is that the program that the US was forced to admit failed in producing a low cost fighter?
How many units
The US has 450 F35 in total.
It currently has
250 A-10
900 F-16
250 F-18 A/B/C
500 F-16 E/F
100 Harriers
All of which are in line to be replaced. They have already scaled back superhornet plans due to F35's cost.
And, just for the class, how many F-35s have been exported, and how many F-35s have been ordered for export
>The US has 450 F35 in total.
Wrong
The US had 472 as of the end of 2022.
Superhornet cuts have dick all to do with the F35 as navair has said repeatedly the hornet was always a compromise fighter even 20 years ago and can't be expected to survive a peer fight so why would you acquire more
Better breakdown, your numbers are shit
>marines have more F-35s than the Navy
Wut
Wasps needed F-35s before Nimitzses's did
The B variant was the first built, initially it was the most attractive for foreign sales to navies with cuck carriers. So it's production scaled up faster. The C model is a bit bigger and more expensive and has exactly 1 buyer so it was by far the last one to reach production at scale.
My numbers are rounded but perfectly in line with what you just posted.
You can't even round correctly then.
When the number is less than 5, you round down, when it's 5 or more, you round up.
The US has 286 A-10s, that would round up to 300 as 275 is halfway between 250 and 300, and the real number is 286, which is more than halfway to 300, thus you should've rounded up.
You said 900 F-16s, the US has 935 F-16s so round up to 950 since 935 is more than halfway between 900 and 950.
You said 250 F/A-18 A/B/C but it's only 198, and if you want to include FA-18E/F then it's 745 total. So your 250 number is just plain wrong no matter how you slice it.
Your F-15 numbers are way high, you say 500 but there are only around 430.
About the only one you DID round correctly on was the harriers.
>rounded but perfectly in line
lol
lmao
>About the only one you DID round correctly on was the harriers.
>the program that the US was forced to admit failed in producing a low cost fighter
Maybe that was the case in 2015 but certainly not now
>failed in producing a low cost fighter
F-35A is remarkably cheap for the capability it brings, retard
>failed in producing a low cost fighter
literally kys
>F-35 cost, 2023: $70 million
>F-16V cost: $63 milion
>no stealth, shorter range, smaller radar, pod accessories sold separately
Those wing men will be the same aircraft but unmanned in many cases, that's the entire point of optionally manned aircraft.
"optionally manned" feels like a dumb meme because a homo sapiens represents such a compromise in size, weight, and aerodynamic concerns since you can't turn the poor meatsack into jelly pulling too many Gs
You are gay and stupid
I don’t think so. The wingmen will most likely be much cheaper and smaller drones, not optionally manned at all with outsized internal systems/missile/etc stowage from not having a cockpit of any kind. Though I think optionally-manned unmanned NGAD will exists and fly missions unmanned
Nah, the US bought into the Australian loyal wingman the Ghost Bat or whatever.
>optionally manned
So that's why they're preparing us for the LBGTQ future
>literally chud fighters
Tradbros… we lost
The F14 cost 253m in today's dollars and we built plenty of them.
No you see, it’s important you know that America’s military is bad and building new military vehicles, weapons and equipment is a waste of your I mean our taxes. It’s just so expensive, it’s basically a failure. garden gnomes want you to spend money on your military, and garden gnomes are bad so you should ask your I mean out representatives to cut down on the defense budget. And the F-35 isn’t even very good anyway, have you seen the latest J-20 news? I don’t think there are garden gnomes in China, it’s based!
uuuuuhm sweetie how do you handle yaw?
I hope 6th gen fighters get their own inbuilt ai copilots or onboard repair robots, have the cockpit in the middle, use solar panels, and turbolasers along with ion torpedoes
thrust vectoring
>inbuilt ai copilots
They're already working on it so I can't imagine it doesn't make it into not only 6th gen planes but also into an upgrade package on F35 at some point
I hope they're both flirty and snarky
This is the post-woke military so they will have bearded avatars and demand to be addressed as "Miss"
>thrust vectoring
>he doesn't know how torque works
The question isn't why there are four rivals, because the US will come out with the only sixth gen planes. The others, if they reach fruition (doubt) will be 5.5gen and already outdated on arrival (repeat of 4.5gen era).
The question then is why the AF and navy aren't working together. It's because they think they can avoid the issues of the F35 compromised design process. In reality I wouldn't be surprised if one got axed and the other ended up having to do both jobs anyway.
Anyone else just not seeing the Tempest and FCAS amounting to anything?
Those countries haven't even developed a 5th gen yet, how are they gonna make feasible 6th gen?
Well Tempest no longer exists. It's GCAP, so no shit that's not happening.
GCAP should be fine, Japan already made a 5th gen demonstrator, japan also had a functional 5th gen engine demonstrator (The XF9). Rolls Royce is also a world leader in engine tech, and the UK worked on the F-35 so they've got some experience with 5th gen anyway.
FCAS is probably fucked though, they're already talking about it being 5-10 years later than GCAP.
Military requirements, local industry, and timing
>French-German FCAS
The French are a pain in the fucking ass to work with, because TLDR they will take the lead in the project, give all their manufacturers the juicy contracts, and you're practically 80% buying off the rack from them. The only nation that is BOTH rich enough to join a custom fighter programme yet with a shit aerospace industry cucked enough to not join a better one is Germany. Wa la.
It is possible that the FCAS ("the F is for French") may have shorter range because of the European theatre; at least the option is open for discussion. It is likely to have a navalised variant so the French Navy can fly it, which would be a slight compromise compared to a dedicated land or carrier design. Also it will have to suit the Rafale replacement timing.
>British-Japanese-European GCAP
Mainly consists of people who don't want to get caught up in the inevitable French shitstorm, and will use a minimum of American kit if possible because the Yanks have been fucking around summat with ITAR lately. Otherwise, requirements are similar to the FCAS. BAe and Mitsubishi want very much to keep their in-house knowledge alive through this programme; the Italians are kind of here for the ride.
>US Air Force PCA
Basically the Dorito to rule them all, to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. Compared to the European ones, it may be bigger and have more fuel requirements, if the USAF intends to fight in the Pacific; we don't know.
>US Navy
As the F35A and 35C saga has shown, the US Navy insists that its carrier aircraft must be optimised for carrier ops, no navalised land-based compromise will do. Wa la.
>wa la
its voila you mouthbreather.
for all intensive purposes
>The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/23/the-us-air-force-just-admitted-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-has-failed/?sh=1144547f1b16
What a stupid fucking article, the F-16V and F-15EX cost just as much or more than the F-35A.
>F-16V and F-15EX cost just as much or more than the F-35A.
F-35 comes with compulsory software and hardware updates that add tens of millions. I'ts operating costs are also stratospheric in comparison. Oh and it needs a new engine already because of feature creep.
>add tens of millions
not per fighter, no
>operating costs
have been shown to be a direct consequence of low-rate production, they drop to acceptable levels when parts and training are made available
>needs a new engine
it doesn't NEED one you terminal moron, it would be nice to have that's all
Hahahaha the cope is real
>Oh and it needs a new engine already because of feature creep
Having a better engine option available doesn't mean it NEEDS that engine you stupid gay.
When your current engine is running too hot and not producing enough electricity, that's exactly what it means.
>https://breakingdefense.com/2022/11/9-reasons-why-the-f-35-needs-a-new-engine/
Lol, no one is saying a better engine wouldn't make a better plane, simply the F-35 doesn't NEED a new engine to be a great plane in the current world.
>David Axe
ignored
he's the moron who has shit on the F-35 his whole life and made it his career, he cannot be trusted and is literally the most interested party in churning out negative clickbait
Why are they even still manned?
The AF wants requirements that wouldn't be tenable for a carrier aircraft.
>and not another wide collaboration design like the F-35?
Because the F-35 is a nightmare in mismanagement and 99% of its issues stem from the fact that they tried to unified a single project around the collective needs of the USAF, USMC, USNavy and NATO allies.