PDA

View Full Version : Next Generation Fighter Aircraft Concept?


Richard
10-07-2010, 10:04
Something to consider for the next generation of fighter aircraft? ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_mhE1_dnq8&NR=1

Richard :munchin

Richard
10-07-2010, 18:44
I don't get it:confused:

Producing a full-scale aircraft with that level of maneuverability...

Richard :munchin

PSM
10-07-2010, 19:13
Producing a full-scale aircraft with that level of maneuverability...

Richard :munchin

Thrust-to-weight=ain't going to happen. ;)

Pat

dr. mabuse
10-07-2010, 19:22
Super light, lots of flap angle ( 90 deg? ), hangs off the prop nicely. I thought he was going to hover like a helicopter when going straight up.

Not quite a UV-20A but....:D

PSM
10-07-2010, 19:32
Also, modern fighters fight BVR; no more dogfights. Only 3rd World countries would need this maneuverability and who could train the pilots? Sean? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1GVpyHYwtM)

Pat

Richard
10-07-2010, 20:23
Also, modern fighters fight BVR; no more dogfights. Only 3rd Wold countries would need this maneuverability...

If that's the case, why are we developing the F-35? :confused:

Richard :munchin

PSM
10-07-2010, 20:25
If that's the case, why are we developing the F-35? :confused:

Richard :munchin

Exactamente! ;)

Pat

ETA: On further reflection, are you suggesting that we are developing the F-35 solely for our allied/client states that rotate within visual range of the enemy?:confused:

The Reaper
10-08-2010, 07:53
If that's the case, why are we developing the F-35? :confused:

Richard :munchin

Stealthy CAS platform, in a fighter-led service, IMHO.

TR

SouthernDZ
10-08-2010, 15:42
They thought the same thing during I think Vietnam when they took the machine guns off the fighter planes because modern fighters supposedly only fought with missiles. Broadsword2004


I was going to say the same thing. During the 1970s There was a mad scramble to outfit the F-4 Phantom with guns; a removable machine gun pod under the fuselage was what they finally came up with. I was reminded of this when I attended a SWCS instructor offsite with GEN Boykin chairing. They were looking for an alternative to Robin Sage because, "We're never going to conduct UW - we might need to design a FID exercise." less than 20 months later we were operating with the Northern Alliance.

akv
10-08-2010, 16:23
Technology is great, but this reminded me of some of the late Col. Boyd's writing on guns and fighters, the general gist IIRC,

ROE and logistics possibly factor in as well, In Gulf of Sidra type confrontations long range air to air missile capability doesn't matter much if US pilots aren't allowed to fire first, and the enemy with guns but less technology waits inside missile range, or if a month into a large conventional air war both sides have used up the available supply of air to air missiles, it falls back to guns until replenished.

Green Light
10-08-2010, 17:16
I was going to say the same thing. During the 1970s There was a mad scramble to outfit the F-4 Phantom with guns; a removable machine gun pod under the fuselage was what they finally came up with. I was reminded of this when I attended a SWCS instructor offsite with GEN Boykin chairing. They were looking for an alternative to Robin Sage because, "We're never going to conduct UW - we might need to design a FID exercise." less than 20 months later we were operating with the Northern Alliance.

You're right, Mike. The F-4 didn't have guns at first. The Sparrow missiles for long range intercepts had about a 50%+ failure rate so they'd fire two at once to cover their bets. Still, more times than not, the missile would end up in some rice paddy. The sidewinders were good up close, but they couldn't be used against ground clutter and into the sun. There was nothing else when those were gone.

The no-gun design had its roots in the 1950s. The F-102 had only missiles and the F-106 (originally F-102B) had a Genie missile in the center bay. It was unguided: The pilot would point the aircraft into the general area of the formation of bombers, launch, and beat feet in the opposite direction. The warhead was a nuke. This bowling ball tactic was centered on the thinking at the time that large enemy bomber formations could be engaged from a distance and there would be no more dogfights. The NV Air Force, aided by Soviet pilots proved that wrong.

The F-4E had a nose-mounted Gatling gun. It was heralded as a huge step forward, except for the pilots who knew from the beginning that the doctrine from which the F-4 was originally designed.

Gen Boykin, not exactly a visionary, had the same line of thinking when he was looking for a removal of UW from the SF quiver. That's what happens when non-SF types command SF units and schools. The short-sighted are usually proven wrong, usually sooner than later.

(Richard - thanks for the cool video.) :cool:

PSM
10-08-2010, 19:33
I think for a UAV this could be good.



They thought the same thing during I think Vietnam when they took the machine guns off the fighter planes because modern fighters supposedly only fought with missiles.

I wouldn't remove guns because they are rarely needed anymore than I'd remove ejection seats for the same reason. I'm just saying that the technology and training for such a maneuverable a/c is not needed.

BTW, don't give the AF any new useless and expensive ideas. ;)

Pat

wet dog
10-08-2010, 20:22
Some day in the not too distant future, flying a RC aircraft will be a Soldier Level I Basic Combat Task.

I'm going back to reading old threads.

219seminole
10-08-2010, 21:19
Also, modern fighters fight BVR; no more dogfights. Only 3rd World countries would need this maneuverability and who could train the pilots? Sean? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1GVpyHYwtM)

Pat

This sort of thinking led USAF generals to omit guns from the F4. MiGs with guns over North Vietnam changed that thinking.

PSM
10-08-2010, 22:09
This sort of thinking led USAF generals to omit guns from the F4. MiGs with guns over North Vietnam changed that thinking.

Oh, you Air Force guys! :D You really should read the whole thread first. ;)

Also, how many years ago was that? I was 18 at the time.

Pat