Boeing unveils updated F/A-XX sixth-gen fighter concept - General

I don't know where this should go, but just some food for thought. [QUOTE]Boeing is unveiling an updated version of its F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter concept at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Exposition in Washington DC this week. The tail-less twin-engine stealth fighter design comes in "manned and unmanned options as possibilities per the US Navy," Boeing says. The design features diverterless supersonic inlets reminiscent of those found on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-unveils-updated-fa-xx-sixth-gen-fighter-concept-384291/[/url] And an opinion: How about this: Revise the YF-23 Design, enable the tailfins to lower (as in flatten)? I'm sure it's not hard to implement some hydraulic systems that can make this work. The design is already sound (was in the "Advanced Tactical Fighter" competition, battling the F/A-22) and has been proven to work.

[img]http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=50067[/img] No tail at all, these things are going to rely on computers too much.

What are the advantages of not having a tail? [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] And I think this thread should be in Sensationalist Headlines.

[QUOTE=SinineSiil;40206727]What are the advantages of not having a tail?[/QUOTE] they can't run from battle with the tail between their legs

[QUOTE=SinineSiil;40206727]What are the advantages of not having a tail? [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] And I think this thread should be in Sensationalist Headlines.[/QUOTE] For a stealth bomber, less chance of being picked up by radar, but they're notoriously hard to fly so they rely on computers pretty heavily.

Haven't quite a few of the latest bleeding edge airplanes made in the US been plagued with various reliability problems?

[QUOTE=acds;40206784]Haven't quite a few of the latest bleeding edge airplanes made in the US been plagued with various reliability problems?[/QUOTE] The only aircraft I can think of that is experiencing problems, is the F-35. And ALL aircraft go through some serious bugs during initial development.

that is one ugly aircraft

[QUOTE=Anders118;40206860]The only aircraft I can think of that is experiencing problems, is the F-35. And ALL aircraft go through some serious bugs during initial development.[/QUOTE] boeing 787 have been catching on fire f-22 had poor documentation on how to use the oxygen system so pilots were hurting themselves or something

Looks like something out of Supreme Commander.

I guess it will use thrust vectoring or something instead of a tail, I don't think boeing will have much of a chance considering all the money recently dished out on the F-35.

[QUOTE=acds;40206784]Haven't quite a few of the latest bleeding edge airplanes made in the US been plagued with various reliability problems?[/QUOTE] The F-35 and F-22 have been grounded a few times due to technical issues since they were adopted, IIRC. The F-22's oxygen system is complicated and lazy pilots who cut corners almost die because of it. The F-35 is a VTOL that uses way too many computers for it's own good and is needlessly complicated for a jack-of-all-trades aircraft.

[QUOTE=meppers;40207035]boeing 787 have been catching on fire f-22 had poor documentation on how to use the oxygen system so pilots were hurting themselves or something[/QUOTE] First, the 787 is hardly bleeding edge. Additionally it is private sector and every Boeing jet that came before it had serious problems in the beginning to. Also, it took so long to find the (non-existent) problem with the oxygen system because they were using experienced test pilots to try to find the problem. These pilots left the oxygen system on automated mode, and nothing ever happened. The problem was caused by pilots manually overriding the oxygen system, and cranking it up to 100%, which it was not designed to run at. This is not a reliability problem, this is just pilot error.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40206705]No tail at all, these things are going to rely on computers too much.[/QUOTE] Every modern military jet relies implicitly on computers. Anything fly-by-wire in general is reliant on computers to fly and will cease functioning during a total electronics failure. The F-117 would fall right out of the air without constant computer control, and we've advanced a lot since then. The problem with planes like the B-2 wasn't that they were computer-controlled, but that the systems they used to take input necessary to fly were unreliable. The crash on takeoff a few years ago, for example, was caused by moisture in an airspeed sensor. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=acds;40206784]Haven't quite a few of the latest bleeding edge airplanes made in the US been plagued with various reliability problems?[/QUOTE] By and large this has always been the case. The F-16 was originally nicknamed the 'lawn dart' since its fly-by-wire control system had a habit of failing.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40207361]The F-35 and F-22 have been grounded a few times due to technical issues since they were adopted, IIRC. The F-22's oxygen system is complicated and lazy pilots who cut corners almost die because of it. The F-35 is a VTOL that uses way too many computers for it's own good and is needlessly complicated for a jack-of-all-trades aircraft.[/QUOTE] i agree lets replace a computer with a couple thousand pounds of tailfin and drag computers aren't very expensive anymore, neither is flight software, if it's modern that is

[QUOTE=catbarf;40208341]Every modern military jet relies implicitly on computers. Anything fly-by-wire in general is reliant on computers to fly and will cease functioning during a total electronics failure. The F-117 would fall right out of the air without constant computer control, and we've advanced a lot since then. The problem with planes like the B-2 wasn't that they were computer-controlled, but that the systems they used to take input necessary to fly were unreliable. The crash on takeoff a few years ago, for example, was caused by moisture in an airspeed sensor. [/QUOTE] B-2's and F-117's aren't going to be under the same amount of stress that a modern combat fighter would be, and it should go without saying they're going to be a lot more complicated than a B-2 or F-117. I would not want to be a test pilot on these jets. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=edberg;40208382]i agree lets replace a computer with a couple thousand pounds of tailfin and drag computers aren't very expensive anymore, neither is flight software, if it's modern that is[/QUOTE] yes that was exactly my point thank you

Lots of fighters are built to be purposefully aerodynamically unstable to enhance their maneuverability. Planes that aren't ran by mind-boggling amounts of computers would be inferior to those that are simply because the engineers would be forced to actually obey the laws of physics.

I'd love to see the russians and chinese try to copy the design this time. I could imagine 10th generation fighters being giant flying computers with a pilot inside :v

I dont think people realize but the pilot in a commercial jet is only there to push buttons. With a few button clicks, the airplane will fly, and land (assuming CATIII) by itself.

Navy is going to beat USAF to gen. 6? Hmm. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] That thing looks downright dangerous.

We are getting closer to deploying these in space, that is a good sign.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40209155]I'd love to see the russians and chinese try to copy the design this time. I could imagine 10th generation fighters being giant flying computers with a pilot inside :v[/QUOTE] I think its far more likely that they would create their own aircraft like they did for the fifth, fourth, third, second and first generation. China maybe not, because they're a baby in comparison to the know how of the cold war rivals. Function typically dictates design, and why would the lower budget designs reinvent the wheel? Its aerodynamics, it isn't secret.

Neat.

I think it looks great, but [sp] how the hell it flies without a tail? [/sp]

[QUOTE=TheCreepyPryo;40211629]I think it looks great, but [sp] how the hell it flies without a tail? [/sp][/QUOTE] Thrust vectoring. We've been able to produce tail-less planes since the early 90's [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Image-Vector_X-31-2.jpg/745px-Image-Vector_X-31-2.jpg[/img]

This thing looks pretty crappy to be honest. I understand the idea of reducing radar profile, but I think adding more electronics and computers to control these is probably not a good idea. Rudderless aircraft really require computers to run them and I've heard of them (through my grandfather, who was in the AF and knew several pilots) they are really hard to fly. I imagine the loads on these would be much greater than a B2 or F117 and I could see that causing problems. I'll be interested to see where this goes. I hope it doesn't blow as much as the F-35 (fucking VTOL's WHY DAMNIT). And yeah, most new jets/aircraft have problems at the start, but they eventually get redeemed or fixed.

[QUOTE=paindoc;40214059]This thing looks pretty crappy to be honest. I understand the idea of reducing radar profile, but I think adding more electronics and computers to control these is probably not a good idea. Rudderless aircraft really require computers to run them and I've heard of them (through my grandfather, who was in the AF and knew several pilots) they are really hard to fly. I imagine the loads on these would be much greater than a B2 or F117 and I could see that causing problems. I'll be interested to see where this goes. I hope it doesn't blow as much as the F-35 (fucking VTOL's WHY DAMNIT). And yeah, most new jets/aircraft have problems at the start, but they eventually get redeemed or fixed.[/QUOTE] VTOL is retarded because jets require a support system, a support system that can only be delivered by cargo planes landing on already existing runways.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;40214289]VTOL is retarded because jets require a support system, a support system that can only be delivered by cargo planes landing on already existing runways.[/QUOTE] Exactly! The V-22 and troop transports make sense- rapidly dropping troops into areas without runways and being able to skedaddle like a plane afterwards. Also, can fly at higher altitude and avoid AAA. But VTOL Jets are plain dumb. No advantage. Catapults on aircraft carriers worked, and if you really need to, stick with STOL aircraft!

[QUOTE=paindoc;40214470]Exactly! The V-22 and troop transports make sense- rapidly dropping troops into areas without runways and being able to skedaddle like a plane afterwards. Also, can fly at higher altitude and avoid AAA. But VTOL Jets are plain dumb. No advantage. Catapults on aircraft carriers worked, and if you really need to, stick with STOL aircraft![/QUOTE] The advantage is that you can put them on ships without catapults or ramps, like LHD's. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/USS_Wasp_%28LHD-1%29_Osprey_2.jpg/800px-USS_Wasp_%28LHD-1%29_Osprey_2.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=laserguided;40214550]The advantage is that you can put them on ships without catapults or ramps, like LHD's. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/USS_Wasp_%28LHD-1%29_Osprey_2.jpg/800px-USS_Wasp_%28LHD-1%29_Osprey_2.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] True. But generally, don't LHD's have naval airgroup support? As an individual it helps, but it seems that in this case having CAG support would just be more efficient. I understand the advantage of having air support onboard though. edit; we might be heading to armchair general waters here