The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 02:06

mixelflick wrote:Let's talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room, funding.

Does everyone here think our nation can afford two very high end air superiority platforms? PCA and F/A-XX aren't going to be cheap. Unless they considerably lower the specs, these are going to be big, heavy birds laden with pricey sensors, weapons etc..I don't even want to think about cost per flight hour. Where's the $ going to come from?

So here's how I see things going down: PCA will be big $, but the USAF has hopefully learned the hard lesson about truncating the F-22 buy - PCA will be built in number. Call it 350ish. The Navy's going to get into F/A-XX pretty deep, before ultimately realizing it can't afford it. Two squadrons per carrier plus training and aircraft to account for attrition is likewise going to be about 350, maybe 400 airframes.

A naval version of PCA will ultimately be pitched, but just like naval versions of the F-15 and F-22 before it, it will be rejected. The Navy will then just buy upgraded F-35C's and call it a day...


The USAF didn't truncate the F-22 procurement - the politicians did, and the politicians can truncate any procurement of any thing. And the generals and lt cols who fought for the F22 were fired.

Costs can be minimized with OTS technology and maybe the USN and the USAF can get creative and share systems. Why do we need 2 engines for USAF and USN? You don't.

The USAF and USN will have to develop their sales pitch as the new aircraft being required for things the F35 can't do. The USAF can't sell it alone as a raider escort as we will be lucky to get the raider in quantities actually needed.

It will be interesting because they've already sold the F35 as the end all and be all of air combat.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2166
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 07:26

I'd like to get one thing straight.
Are F-X and PCA 2 separate programs or are they the same?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5641
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 08:32

zero-one wrote:I'd like to get one thing straight.
Are F-X and PCA 2 separate programs or are they the same?



The F-X/PCA is the USAF 6th Generation Fighter Program and the F/A-XX/NGAD is the USN/USMC 6th Generation Program.


Unless somebody have information to the contrary? :|


I just wish they could get the names straight! :?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5641
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 09:01

mixelflick wrote:Let's talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room, funding.

Does everyone here think our nation can afford two very high end air superiority platforms? PCA and F/A-XX aren't going to be cheap. Unless they considerably lower the specs, these are going to be big, heavy birds laden with pricey sensors, weapons etc..I don't even want to think about cost per flight hour. Where's the $ going to come from?

So here's how I see things going down: PCA will be big $, but the USAF has hopefully learned the hard lesson about truncating the F-22 buy - PCA will be built in number. Call it 350ish. The Navy's going to get into F/A-XX pretty deep, before ultimately realizing it can't afford it. Two squadrons per carrier plus training and aircraft to account for attrition is likewise going to be about 350, maybe 400 airframes.

A naval version of PCA will ultimately be pitched, but just like naval versions of the F-15 and F-22 before it, it will be rejected. The Navy will then just buy upgraded F-35C's and call it a day...


I disagree and think we could see multiple programs with multiple partners!

If, true the US could still afford to develop both the F-X/PCA and F/A-XX/NGAD Programs.


This is based on the success of todays JSF/F-35 Program. As most of the existing partners would easily join another such program. As a matter of fact it's already happening. With Italy joining with the UK on the Tempest. While, Spain did the same with France and Germany on the NGF.

In addition it's not like we are close to running out of potential partners. As a number of countries are currently waiting in the wings and eager to join in! For example I see both India and Japan as major partners in a future 6th Generation Program. So, one could easily join the F-X/PCA and the other the F/A-XX/NGAD. These would be supported by smaller nations in the Pacific like Australia, Canada, and South Korea or European Nations like Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, etc. etc.

Seems like everybody wants to get in on the piece of the action....
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 12:42

Corsair1963 wrote:
zero-one wrote:I'd like to get one thing straight.
Are F-X and PCA 2 separate programs or are they the same?



The F-X/PCA is the USAF 6th Generation Fighter Program and the F/A-XX/NGAD is the USN/USMC 6th Generation Program.


Unless somebody have information to the contrary? :|


I just wish they could get the names straight! :?


NGAD program refers to weapons, platforms(s), technology for the 2030 Air dominance plan, USAF, and is referred to as that in budget. PCA will be one platform developed under NGAD umbrella.
The Navy used NGAD title for it’s AoA that was initiated in 2016 to study what will be need for its next generation fighter (F/A-XX).

Considering the USAF/Navy programs will leverage the some of the same R&D programs for sensors, propulsion, etc.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3349
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 13:23

Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Let's talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room, funding.

Does everyone here think our nation can afford two very high end air superiority platforms? PCA and F/A-XX aren't going to be cheap. Unless they considerably lower the specs, these are going to be big, heavy birds laden with pricey sensors, weapons etc..I don't even want to think about cost per flight hour. Where's the $ going to come from?

So here's how I see things going down: PCA will be big $, but the USAF has hopefully learned the hard lesson about truncating the F-22 buy - PCA will be built in number. Call it 350ish. The Navy's going to get into F/A-XX pretty deep, before ultimately realizing it can't afford it. Two squadrons per carrier plus training and aircraft to account for attrition is likewise going to be about 350, maybe 400 airframes.

A naval version of PCA will ultimately be pitched, but just like naval versions of the F-15 and F-22 before it, it will be rejected. The Navy will then just buy upgraded F-35C's and call it a day...


I disagree and think we could see multiple programs with multiple partners!

If, true the US could still afford to develop both the F-X/PCA and F/A-XX/NGAD Programs.


This is based on the success of todays JSF/F-35 Program. As most of the existing partners would easily join another such program. As a matter of fact it's already happening. With Italy joining with the UK on the Tempest. While, Spain did the same with France and Germany on the NGF.

In addition it's not like we are close to running out of potential partners. As a number of countries are currently waiting in the wings and eager to join in! For example I see both India and Japan as major partners in a future 6th Generation Program. So, one could easily join the F-X/PCA and the other the F/A-XX/NGAD. These would be supported by smaller nations in the Pacific like Australia, Canada, and South Korea or European Nations like Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, etc. etc.

Seems like everybody wants to get in on the piece of the action....


Highly unlikely IMO...

The likelihood we're going to share some of our most advanced technology with another nation is dubious, IMO. Other nations may have invested in the F-35, but you can bet they don't know its real secrets. If we did let those go, why wouldn't another country just start building their own? We're going to give up a 20, maybe 30 year lead in jet engine technology.... why?

No, PCA and F/A-XX will be closely guarded by the US aerospace firms developing it. There may be some foreign involvement in building parts of it (but even then, I doubt it). No, PCA/FA-XX will be American birds only. The fact foreign operators are banding together is proof they know they won't get PCA/FA-XX IMO, not the other way around..
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1082
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 13:36

The USA has the most aircraft/structure/aerodynamics R@D know-how. Very hard to beat that experience.

It also has the most engine R@D and most of all ; Metallurgy technology.

Every "modern" country can build, can assemble, but the R@D part is the hardest (and take the most time and resources).

And then comes the software.
Pretty sure most F-22 and F-35 software will stay in the USA.
Again : The chips and boxes can be build everywhere, but the software will go in them in the USA.

It goes a bit like this:

"Can you build such and such landing gear?"

Company, "Sure we can. For what aircraft is it?"

"Don't ask ; Just build that landing gear to specs."
Offline

ChippyHo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2006, 16:43
  • Location: Montreal

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 18:30

rotosequence wrote:So by this author's opinion, the next generation of US combat aircraft are going to be huge, complex, and designed to do anything and everything? If that turns out to be the case, I expect this program to be about as successful as the F-111 was.


Granted the Navy 'Vark was a total flop. But are you seriously saying that the mud moving 'Varks were a failure as well???
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5641
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Apr 2019, 00:53

mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Highly unlikely IMO...

The likelihood we're going to share some of our most advanced technology with another nation is dubious, IMO. Other nations may have invested in the F-35, but you can bet they don't know its real secrets. If we did let those go, why wouldn't another country just start building their own? We're going to give up a 20, maybe 30 year lead in jet engine technology.... why?

No, PCA and F/A-XX will be closely guarded by the US aerospace firms developing it. There may be some foreign involvement in building parts of it (but even then, I doubt it). No, PCA/FA-XX will be American birds only. The fact foreign operators are banding together is proof they know they won't get PCA/FA-XX IMO, not the other way around..


Sorry, your argument is weak as the F-35 today is by far one of the most "classified" Weapons Program that the US has going. Yet, for some reason you believe that will change with the PCA/NGAD? In addition the F-22 was canceled mainly on costs grounds. While, the F-35 included many partners. In order to fund it..............(i.e. as even the US can't afford to go it alone).
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post18 Apr 2019, 01:29

Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Highly unlikely IMO...

The likelihood we're going to share some of our most advanced technology with another nation is dubious, IMO. Other nations may have invested in the F-35, but you can bet they don't know its real secrets. If we did let those go, why wouldn't another country just start building their own? We're going to give up a 20, maybe 30 year lead in jet engine technology.... why?

No, PCA and F/A-XX will be closely guarded by the US aerospace firms developing it. There may be some foreign involvement in building parts of it (but even then, I doubt it). No, PCA/FA-XX will be American birds only. The fact foreign operators are banding together is proof they know they won't get PCA/FA-XX IMO, not the other way around..


Sorry, your argument is weak as the F-35 today is by far one of the most "classified" Weapons Program that the US has going. Yet, for some reason you believe that will change with the PCA/NGAD? In addition the F-22 was canceled mainly on costs grounds. While, the F-35 included many partners. In order to fund it..............(i.e. as even the US can't afford to go it alone).


Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5641
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Apr 2019, 01:38

crosshairs wrote:
Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.



You can believe what you want but the US needs and more importantly will have partners for the PCA/NGAD. So, your argument holds little water.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5641
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 00:11

crosshairs wrote:
Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.



Really, the US doesn't need partners???

QUOTE:


4:14 pm, April 18, 2019




The Yomiuri Shimbun
The United States has proposed disclosing some of the top-secret details of its state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jet to Japan to encourage joint development of an aircraft that will succeed the Air Self-Defense Force’s F-2 fighter, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The ASDF also has some F-35s. The U.S. plan, which was proposed to the Defense Ministry, would open the door to a jointly developed successor jet based on the F-35 and other fighters, which would be one of the world’s leading fighter aircraft.

According to Japanese government sources, the United States has indicated a willingness to release confidential details about the software installed in the F-35 airframe to control parts including the engine and the missiles. If the F-35 software, currently held exclusively by the U.S. side, is diverted to the F-2 successor aircraft, the United States will disclose the source code to the Japanese side.



If the joint development goes ahead, the United States reportedly is prepared to allow components made in Japan to be replaced with U.S.-made parts that are planned to be used in the F-2’s successor. If these proposals materialize, it would widen the scope for Japanese companies to participate in the aircraft’s development.

The Japanese and U.S. governments started seriously discussing the U.S. proposal at the end of March. The Japanese government intends to decide on the course of the aircraft’s development, including whether to accept the U.S. proposal, by the end of this year...............

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0005683861
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 01:49

Corsair1963 wrote:
crosshairs wrote:
Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.



Really, the US doesn't need partners???

QUOTE:


4:14 pm, April 18, 2019




The Yomiuri Shimbun
The United States has proposed disclosing some of the top-secret details of its state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jet to Japan to encourage joint development of an aircraft that will succeed the Air Self-Defense Force’s F-2 fighter, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The ASDF also has some F-35s. The U.S. plan, which was proposed to the Defense Ministry, would open the door to a jointly developed successor jet based on the F-35 and other fighters, which would be one of the world’s leading fighter aircraft.

According to Japanese government sources, the United States has indicated a willingness to release confidential details about the software installed in the F-35 airframe to control parts including the engine and the missiles. If the F-35 software, currently held exclusively by the U.S. side, is diverted to the F-2 successor aircraft, the United States will disclose the source code to the Japanese side.



If the joint development goes ahead, the United States reportedly is prepared to allow components made in Japan to be replaced with U.S.-made parts that are planned to be used in the F-2’s successor. If these proposals materialize, it would widen the scope for Japanese companies to participate in the aircraft’s development.

The Japanese and U.S. governments started seriously discussing the U.S. proposal at the end of March. The Japanese government intends to decide on the course of the aircraft’s development, including whether to accept the U.S. proposal, by the end of this year...............

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0005683861


No, the US doesn't need partners. Period. No partners for b21, Columbia, new icbm, spy sats, ford carriers, new alcm, and the list is quite long (and the numbers huge $$$) if you want me to name everything the usa doesn't have a partner for but has recently built or developing or planning to buy. But uh oh, a twin engine fighter, oh sh-i-t how can we afford that? We have never designed a twin engine stealth fighter before. We'll have to reinvent everything from scratch. :roll: Better partner with the Netherlands if we need a new fighter. :roll: there is nothing new under the sun that hasn't already been done before that they aren't going to cram into its outer mold line. Its flight envelope will probably be very raptor like with supercruise and top speed limited to around 2.0m. It won't be clint eastwwood's Firefox flying at 100,000 and mach whatever demanding engineers to invent everything from scratch like blackbird or something else exotic.

JSF was designed at day zero to be an international consortium to dominate the future of fighter sales and ensure congress didn't kill it. Fiscally, there is no need to have Europe and Asia fund a new fighter for the US unless its created to be another jobs program

JSF is the first system to be designed with surviving liberal politics involved.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 774
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 03:32

blain wrote:
I noticed the B-21 escort requirement for the PCA. The range requirement is key. Is the increase in combat radius to 1,000 nm or is it more in keeping with the B-21? Because if it is the latter then the planform will be a lot more like a flying wing or "cranked" kite than the F-22.

NG went back to the original B-2 design for something more affordable, trading off some capabilities for lower cost and a faster development time. I wondering if the USAF should go back to the F-23 for a fighter with greater range and potentially better stealth than the F-22 if it the former if the range requirement is modest.

Another option to protect B-21s is a long range UCAV loaded with AAMs/AARGM. The B-21 is suppose to optionally manned. Certain functions could be offloaded to a remote pilot. The onboard crew could control the UCAV through a stealthy data link like MADL, conducting EA, SEAD, or OCA/DCA.


Gates descoped things like supersonic dash and self-defense capability from NGB which resulted in LRS-B.
And possibly range which is why you have something like LRSO since the bomber isn't likely to have the fuel/payload
capacity to visit the same B-2 target set with shorter range weapons.

So the family-of-systems approach has been imposed from without.

The UCAV escort argument isn't a bad one and echos the Stillion concept. It does however require a institutional
rethink of what a fighter is given that it has meant 9G and 50 degree AoA. And probably a third crew-member
on the B-21 assuming they follow they B-2's crew complement.

And the Navy completely blowing the UCAS-D effort means it's going to require a separate program to mature a
UCAV that can deliver A2A ordnance.

The Navy completing the AoA for the F/A-XX this summer is hilarious given that they are retiring CVNs at
a rate far greater than they are replacing them. Unless you have a credible plan for what carrier aviation
looks like in the 2030s there's no point in closing an AoA for what's likely to be the major constituent of
the CVW.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5641
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 03:43

crosshairs wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
crosshairs wrote:
Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.



Really, the US doesn't need partners???

QUOTE:


4:14 pm, April 18, 2019




The Yomiuri Shimbun
The United States has proposed disclosing some of the top-secret details of its state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jet to Japan to encourage joint development of an aircraft that will succeed the Air Self-Defense Force’s F-2 fighter, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The ASDF also has some F-35s. The U.S. plan, which was proposed to the Defense Ministry, would open the door to a jointly developed successor jet based on the F-35 and other fighters, which would be one of the world’s leading fighter aircraft.

According to Japanese government sources, the United States has indicated a willingness to release confidential details about the software installed in the F-35 airframe to control parts including the engine and the missiles. If the F-35 software, currently held exclusively by the U.S. side, is diverted to the F-2 successor aircraft, the United States will disclose the source code to the Japanese side.



If the joint development goes ahead, the United States reportedly is prepared to allow components made in Japan to be replaced with U.S.-made parts that are planned to be used in the F-2’s successor. If these proposals materialize, it would widen the scope for Japanese companies to participate in the aircraft’s development.

The Japanese and U.S. governments started seriously discussing the U.S. proposal at the end of March. The Japanese government intends to decide on the course of the aircraft’s development, including whether to accept the U.S. proposal, by the end of this year...............

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0005683861


No, the US doesn't need partners. Period. No partners for b21, Columbia, new icbm, spy sats, ford carriers, new alcm, and the list is quite long (and the numbers huge $$$) if you want me to name everything the usa doesn't have a partner for but has recently built or developing or planning to buy. But uh oh, a twin engine fighter, oh sh-i-t how can we afford that? We have never designed a twin engine stealth fighter before. We'll have to reinvent everything from scratch. :roll: Better partner with the Netherlands if we need a new fighter. :roll: there is nothing new under the sun that hasn't already been done before that they aren't going to cram into its outer mold line. Its flight envelope will probably be very raptor like with supercruise and top speed limited to around 2.0m. It won't be clint eastwwood's Firefox flying at 100,000 and mach whatever demanding engineers to invent everything from scratch like blackbird or something else exotic.

JSF was designed at day zero to be an international consortium to dominate the future of fighter sales and ensure congress didn't kill it. Fiscally, there is no need to have Europe and Asia fund a new fighter for the US unless its created to be another jobs program

JSF is the first system to be designed with surviving liberal politics involved.


Your wrong.......
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests