kwaigonegin
Colonel
From an aerodynamics standpoint I like to see how a tailless delta can outmaneuver a 4th generation gun fighter... unless of course they intend 6th gen aircraft to be everything BVR.
US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Well It's still conceptual and the Concepts change regularly. Boeing is the one who seems to be going Tailless.
Boeing's F/A-XX concept 1.0
Update 1.1
Update 1.2
2.0
2.1
They may be thinking of using 3D thrust vectoring or since the last two images were only shoring the top of the fighter perhaps the they have vertical stabilizers on the underside.
Lockheed Martin has Pelican Tails and is pretty consistent
Version 1.0
Last edited:
Not gonna happen boss, I'm sorry, but you pilotless, tailless characters, just don't get Fighter Aircraft, and if its all gonna be BVR, why bother to build a fighter? why not just put your junk on a 747 or A380???? you're missing something here?
Now having said that, I do like the Boeing, but it really does need a tail, I mean it is a Fighter Aircraft, and keep those drones??? we have enough of those on the human side?
Last edited:
The last image:
This actually shows two aircraft. One flying regular, and the second, trailing aircraft, is inverted. No vertical stabilizors there. But they have added the canards.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
First Gents It's not a Tail that is missing it's a Vertical stabilizer. and mostly on the Boeing. There have been and are fighters that lack a conventional horizontal. they can be made up for with wing design ( particularly split ailerons) Canards and advanced fly by wire. laking a Vertical stabilizer is the major issue. can it be flown? Well McDonnell Douglas thought so... Hang on Every body these Flash backs can be killers especially with all the wavy trippy lines...
Meet the JSF.
shhh Don't tell her she lost it might end up in a time paradox...
one time paradox later.
[video=youtube_share;qbZ2Q6lStJE]http://youtu.be/qbZ2Q6lStJE[/video]
This Was the McDonnell Douglas/ BAE entry of the JSF. now look at it carefully and then look back at the Concepts from Boeing and Lockheed for the sixth generation fighter... Go on I'll wait.
Okay So what happened? Well Meet the .
The X36 and the MD JSF are the root of both Concepts. when MD failed in it's bid the company went into financial trouble and merged with Boeing. So all that X36 data is likely why there concepts are Tailless. X36 showed that it can be done and the maneuverability was acceptable with the added advantage of stealth
Ironically the LockMart concept also uses a MD JSF development. the Which was also on the MD offering YF23. this also has a reduced radar cross section and very good maneuverability.
So No Tail? No Problem.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Sorry jeff but check the angle on the Intakes. like the F22 the front of the intake leads forward well the bottom is to the rear thats a Dorsal view on both. Boeing for there marketing on this has been showing a cockpit fitted flight lead with a unmanned wingman everytime.The last image:
This actually shows two aircraft. One flying regular, and the second, trailing aircraft, is inverted. No vertical stabilizors there. But they have added the canards.
A Bar Brother
Junior Member
I'm not saying they are going to take the SH and modify it into a new bird. My point was there may be three designs, a brand new design or an upgraded F-35, both of which you yourself have mentioned. And the third and possibly the cheapest option is a limited capability long range strike fighter and not a full fledged development. I mean, it may not have internal bays or VLO qualities, that's why the article uses the term "Hornet-like." All they may be looking for is just a long range missile truck to complement the F-35 while getting it to carry some really advanced weapons, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles. A role the F-35 isn't well designed for. You don't need stealth (or supercruise) if you plan on releasing weapons at 300 Km or more.
As far as the USAF is concerned, there may be similarities in avionics and even the engine, but I doubt the airframe would be the same. If the USAF wants a high altitude supercruiser versus the navy's demand for a carrier aircraft, then they could be very different airframes.
Anyway, this is an article about new variable cycle engines.
You are exaclty right...that is a drone...did not see it until you pointed it out!
My bad and thanks for the eyes on!
The last image:
This actually shows two aircraft. One flying regular, and the second, trailing aircraft, is inverted. No vertical stabilizors there. But they have added the canards.
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one on here that needs specs, # 2 is actually a DRONE----COUGH Cough! aaaaarrrrrggggghhhh! yes the NAVY loves drones, they prolly think Naval Aviators are prima donnas,,,, why should air ops determine the whereabouts of this lovely vessel??? notice that Navy is in proper orientation?
thunderchief
Senior Member
Camouflage works when you are stationary against background . Airplanes are moving targets . As I said, by 2035 I would expect missile sensors to be equivalent of human eye and brain. If a human could discern aircraft shape moving against background, so would missile .
Actually, US don't have lasers that could shoot down even basic artillery shells painted with anti-flash paint (bright white) . That is one of the reasons THEL project was shelved in favor of Iron Dome missile defense , although THEL project promised much lower cost of destroying incoming projectiles :
Stealth is not bluff, but it is not panacea either . So far it was not cost effective (i.e. same job could have been done by non-stealthy planes much cheaper ) . What would happen to 5th gen stealthy planes (especially F-35) would largely influence this so called 6th generation .