• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Northrop Grumman Ad Teases 6th-Generation Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joezie

Member
Rubenov said:
Dude, LRS-B is a bomber. The "B" denotes it as a bomber. The whole purpose of the LRS-B is to replace the old as fuck B-52s and the B-1s. So yes, the title is incorrect.

LRS-B = Long-Range Strike Bomber
Click to expand...

I misread. Thought you were referring to the author of the story not the OP.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Oh, and for people who still wonder why they're doing it, Northrop Grumman also have this lovely website to drum up support for this project -

http://www.americasnewbomber.com/

2yHAunn.png


Just lovely.
 
E

Eighty Deuce

Banned
Averon said:
After the mess that is the F-35, NG needs all the support it can get from the public to convince Congress to sign off on another multi-year, multi-billion dollar program.
Click to expand...

The F35 was a failure, but at least it became a test bed of new technologies
 
GTP_Daverytimes

GTP_Daverytimes

Member
Something that wont see the light of day for the next 3 decades probably is already being advertised, seems incredible to me or maybe its just that they have no confidence in Lockheed Martins 5th gen fighter aircraft lasting that long(?)
 
J

Joezie

Member
GTP_Daverytimes said:
Something that wont see the light of day for the next 3 decades probably is already being advertised, seems incredible to me or maybe its just that they have no confidence in Lockheed Martins 5th gen fighter aircraft lasting that long(?)
Click to expand...

This isn't being made to replace the F-35.

This is the "high" in the High-Low mix of US fighter development.

Edit: And if current fighter development schedules remain in tact, It'll likely be 2 decades or so. No more than the F-22, Eurofighter, Rafael, or Gripen(and likely F-35 at around 23 or so years) fighters in terms of development schedules
 
GTP_Daverytimes

GTP_Daverytimes

Member
Joezie said:
This isn't made to replace the F-35.

This is the "high" in the High-Low mix of US fighter development.
Click to expand...

So the F22 then? I realize restarting F22 production would be a herculean task, probably will end up being as expensive as a new program. But starting advertising for a 6th gen aircraft when the 5th gen has barely begun to roll out of the assembly line? come on. And what exactly gave them the idea that their new aircraft will be 6th Gen and not 5++, have we sufficiently gone beyond stealth? lasers maybe? i guess we will see when the time comes.
 
S

Shogmaster

Member
Joezie said:
The article specifically states that the LRS-B is still under secrecy and that this hardware is likely not it.

Not to mention the fact that NG does have a 6th gen fighter in development which matches what we're seeing here. Larger shape, like a bomber, and tail-less

Sixth-generationa-fighter-concept-Northrop-NGAD-1.jpg


EDIT: and to the author of the Article, no it isn't too soon. 6th Gen fighters are Air superiority geared. They will be replacing the F-15, 22 and Super Hornets. The F-35 won't be replaced for a while unless the whole program falls apart.
Click to expand...
F-22 will be replaced before it ever see combat lol. Ridiculous
 
J

Joezie

Member
GTP_Daverytimes said:
So the F22 then? I realize restarting F22 production would be a herculean task, probably will end up being as expensive as a new program. But starting advertising for a 6th gen aircraft when the 5th gen has barely begun to roll out of the assembly line? come on. And what exactly gave them the idea that their new aircraft will be 6th Gen and not 5++, have we sufficiently gone beyond stealth? lasers maybe? i guess we will see when the time comes.
Click to expand...

Yes, the F-22 equivalent at least conceptually. We'll buy less of them, but they'll be far more capable at least in theory, as compared to the F-35(the low)

As for generation debates, Ask the Navy, or the Air Force, or France's Dassault who skipped 5th gen entirely to focus more on 6th gen on what they consider such defining features. Hell even the Russians are looking into their own definitions of 6th gen in spite of the lack of T-50's
 
C

Chichikov

Member
GTP_Daverytimes said:
So the F22 then? I realize restarting F22 production would be a herculean task, probably will end up being as expensive as a new program. But starting advertising for a 6th gen aircraft when the 5th gen has barely begun to roll out of the assembly line? come on. And what exactly gave them the idea that their new aircraft will be 6th Gen and not 5++, have we sufficiently gone beyond stealth? lasers maybe? i guess we will see when the time comes.
Click to expand...
It's not meant to replace F-22, it's for the B-1, B-52 and maybe the B-2.
 
J

Joezie

Member
Chichikov said:
It's not meant to replace F-22, it's for the B-1, B-52 and maybe the B-2.
Click to expand...

The actual LRS-B bomber no, this fighter concept(OP got LRS-B designation wrong) will if it wins presumably.

Shogmaster said:
F-22 will be replaced before it ever see combat lol. Ridiculous
Click to expand...

The F-22 saw deployment in Syria, but not against another air force. It was used as a strike craft rather than AS. Still disappointing though.
 
M

Mindlog

Member
Joezie said:
The F-22 saw deployment in Syria, but not against another air force. It was used as a strike craft rather than AS. Still disappointing though.
Click to expand...
It can be used to jam IEDs!
Amazing that the A-10 had such a hard time justifying its painfully obvious utility.
 
L

luckygodzilla

Member
Mindlog said:
It can be used to jam IEDs!
Amazing that the A-10 had such a hard time justifying its painfully obvious utility.
Click to expand...

Actually the A-10 exists in this odd spot where it is too much plane for how we are using it, and not enough plane for what it was designed for. We don't need the hog to thwack insurgents in technicals, the main gun can't pop any armor that is more advanced than what is found on the T-62, and once you actually move up to IADS, or heck even an airspace with mild proliferation of MANPADS it's a sitting duck.

We have historical precedent for this as well. During desert storm the A-10 suffered more losses than any other fixed wing aircraft in the entirety of the coalition. It got so bad that it was intentionally held back from striking Republican Guard positions, a role that was handed over to the F-16. And that was against a military equipped with 70's era highly outdated soviet equipment.

Frankly I agree that the F-35 shouldn't replace the A-10, but rather something much more sensible for the actual role that the aircraft finds itself in nowadays, be it a Super Tucano or Texetron Scorpion.
 
M

Mindlog

Member
It's probably the last weapon they'll ever have that will be even close to filling the role. Once the F-35 proves to be totally unsuited to the task my best guess is the Army trying to get a new gunship or drone. As cheap as the program promises to be I doubt the Scorpion or its like will gain any traction domestically.
 
L

luckygodzilla

Member
Mindlog said:
It's probably the last weapon they'll ever have that will be even close to filling the role. Once the F-35 proves to be totally unsuited to the task my best guess is the Army trying to get a new gunship or drone. As cheap as the program promises to be I doubt the Scorpion or its like will gain any traction domestically.
Click to expand...

Well I mean F-35 was the only asset to emerge completely unscathed from green flag '15, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it in the CAS role. After all, the mudhen was the real work horse for the CAS during the majority of our time in the middle east (Rhino has that honor now against ISIL), so the air force (and Navy!) are not exactly inept when it comes to providing effective fire support from up high and fast.

Heck if anything, the four most important aspects for CAS are time on target, loitering capabilities, targeting, and magazine depth. The Mudhen is obviously the best for that, but we can't discount the fact that the F-35 doesn't need to sacrifice any pylons for targeting or fuel, and can carry 18k pounds or ordinance. Heck in every single one of those metrics, the F-35 finds itself second only the mudhen (save of course targeting), while providing a much more survivable airframe in contested airspace.

Still, I agree that it's a crying shame that the airforce will probably never even make a serious attempt to get on board with the truly cost effective platforms.
 
M

Mindlog

Member
luckygodzilla said:
Well I mean F-35 was the only asset to emerge completely unscathed from green flag '15, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it in the CAS role. After all, the mudhen was the real work horse for the CAS during the majority of our time in the middle east (Rhino has that honor now against ISIL), so the air force (and Navy!) are not exactly inept when it comes to providing effective fire support from up high and fast.

Heck if anything, the four most important aspects for CAS are time on target, loitering capabilities, targeting, and magazine depth. The Mudhen is obviously the best for that, but we can't discount the fact that the F-35 doesn't need to sacrifice any pylons for targeting or fuel, and can carry 18k pounds or ordinance. Heck in every single one of those metrics, the F-35 finds itself second only the mudhen (save of course targeting), while providing a much more survivable airframe in contested airspace.

Still, I agree that it's a crying shame that the airforce will probably never even make a serious attempt to get on board with the truly cost effective platforms.
Click to expand...
F-35 in CAS has always struck me as a disproportionate response. I hope it excels at the role as the primary concern here is making sure the boots have the air cover they need.

This got me digging down the rabbit hole of refreshing my memory on Army/Marine Corps aviation. Plenty of questionable platform decisions there too.

I remember the pre A-!0 now. This thing was truly deserving of the name Warthog.
pWXCZeH.jpg

Everything I read basically points to drones.
If anyone has hot new on new Helicopter Gunships feel free to post them. Are they done?
 
D

Droplet

Member
ThoseDeafMutes said:
I don't get it. Like who is the target audience for that? Are they buying superbowl ads to impress congress members who are at the game? Or are they trying to be like "look how cool we are, please come work for us" to the mass audience? Johny Average isn't going to go home and be like "Jane, I think we should buy a sixth generation fighter jet".
Click to expand...

Johnny Average's taxes are going towards the military buying them though. It keeps the American public interested in the military and helps justify spending money on it.

I don't really think it's to advertise to future employees though. Or at least whenever I see them recruiting engineers, they almost always seems to focus on their satellites.
 
Surface of Me

Surface of Me

I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
These look a lot like generic future jets movies/games show fighting off alien invasions.


Hmmm.
 
C

cirrhosis

Member
Looks sweet. 7th generation fighter will be rad; hope it is a triple changer, like changing into a robot and tank too.
 
F

funcojoe

Member
That looks f ing badsss. As for showing it during the Super Bowl, lol what you think if any other country could be as bad ass as ours they wouldn't be flaunting that shit during during their biggest sporting event? Come on now.
 
J

Jackpot

Banned
funcojoe said:
That looks f ing badsss. As for showing it during the Super Bowl, lol what you think if any other country could be as bad ass as ours they wouldn't be flaunting that shit during during their biggest sporting event? Come on now.
Click to expand...

hur dur amurica!!!!!!!!!!

Mil-Ind complex is effing scary how brainwashed it has the US. It's the biggest corporate welfare programme in history.
 
C

commedieu

Banned
Yet, no money for healthhcare, education, or clean drinking water. This country is pathetic.

So now our super dooper military will be able to do..... ? Not get it a direct fight with any of our enemies, and profit?

Even our old shit will trump anyone. We spend more than everyone else. Such a fucking waste of our taxes. And its cheerleaded.
 
Nikodemos

Nikodemos

Member
luckygodzilla said:
Actually the A-10 exists in this odd spot where it is too much plane for how we are using it, and not enough plane for what it was designed for. We don't need the hog to thwack insurgents in technicals, the main gun can't pop any armor that is more advanced than what is found on the T-62, and once you actually move up to IADS, or heck even an airspace with mild proliferation of MANPADS it's a sitting duck.

We have historical precedent for this as well. During desert storm the A-10 suffered more losses than any other fixed wing aircraft in the entirety of the coalition. It got so bad that it was intentionally held back from striking Republican Guard positions, a role that was handed over to the F-16. And that was against a military equipped with 70's era highly outdated soviet equipment.

Frankly I agree that the F-35 shouldn't replace the A-10, but rather something much more sensible for the actual role that the aircraft finds itself in nowadays, be it a Super Tucano or Texetron Scorpion.
Click to expand...

Sort of. A gun is actually very good against a modern tank, and I mean a truly modern tank, not something like an M1A2 with a TUSK kit. A modern tank has a literal shitload of relatively poorly-armoured equipment hanging off it (ex. ADS micro-turrets and their ranging electronics, optronics masts, shot detectors, mine-sniffer radar, soft-kill dazzlers etc.) which can get easily ripped off; in addition, it causes the ERA bricks to go off, removing a vital part of a modern tank's protection scheme. If anything, an A-10 successor needs a bigger-calibre, slightly-slower-firing gun (the GAU-8 expends ammo too quickly), something like the NEXTER 30 from the Rafale, but in 35 mm.

The A-10's biggest problem is its dogshit power-to-weight ratio. It has some ridiculously anemic engines, meaning the pilot can't GTFO after s/he has dropped the boom. Stronger engines would help a successor spend less time in the MANPADS/autogun zone where most of A-10 losses were taken. Dive in, unleash, zoom out.
Small CAS birds like the AirLand Scorpion are only good for low intensity warfare on a limited budget. Less Afghanistan/Iraq, more French mission to Mali.

On-topic, is it just me or does the mock-up resemble a Mmrnmhrm X-Form in Y-wing mode?
 
P

Prinz Eugn

Member
Nikodemos said:
Sort of. A gun is actually very good against a modern tank, and I mean a truly modern tank, not something like an M1A2 with a TUSK kit. A modern tank has a literal shitload of relatively poorly-armoured equipment hanging off it (ex. ADS micro-turrets and their ranging electronics, optronics masts, shot detectors, mine-sniffer radar, soft-kill dazzlers etc.) which can get easily ripped off; in addition, it causes the ERA bricks to go off, removing a vital part of a modern tank's protection scheme. If anything, an A-10 successor needs a bigger-calibre, slightly-slower-firing gun (the GAU-8 expends ammo too quickly), something like the NEXTER 30 from the Rafale, but in 35 mm.

The A-10's biggest problem is its dogshit power-to-weight ratio. It has some ridiculously anemic engines, meaning the pilot can't GTFO after s/he has dropped the boom. Stronger engines would help a successor spend less time in the MANPADS/autogun zone where most of A-10 losses were taken. Dive in, unleash, zoom out.
Small CAS birds like the AirLand Scorpion are only good for low intensity warfare on a limited budget. Less Afghanistan/Iraq, more French mission to Mali.

On-topic, is it just me or does the mock-up resemble a Mmrnmhrm X-Form in Y-wing mode?
Click to expand...

Yeah, going to have to disagree with that. Knocking parts off can disable a tank... or merely make life marginally more annoying for the crew. It might make it easier to kill later, but then something has actually to come along later.

Guns for killing tanks I think is a dead concept for now. Going in for guns is much more dangerous than simply using a Brimstone or some other missile from altitude, and a huge gun imposes a pretty severe penalty on the airframe. The masturbatory A-10 line about it being designed around the gun cuts both ways- if you don't need the gun, well, that's a lot of wasted space and weight that could be used on something else. With missiles, you simply don't take them if you don't need them.

luckygodzilla is basically right. We're facing a future where basically anything that's not high and stealthy is going to get wrecked versus a high-end adversary, and low-end scenarios where you might as well use something much cheaper and lighter than an A-10, like the Super Tucano.
 
F

funcojoe

Member
Jackpot said:
hur dur amurica!!!!!!!!!!

Mil-Ind complex is effing scary how brainwashed it has the US. It's the biggest corporate welfare programme in history.
Click to expand...


God damn right Murcia! Buncha communist little shit stains in this thread.

It's a privilege to watch them flex our military might.
 
F

funcojoe

Member
I also send my kids to private school and live comfortably. Public schools will always be shit, our infrastructure will always be shit, and our health care will always suck, but fuck it. I can afford it and I love the fact that we can flaunt shit like this when N Korea is showing off a long range missile, o boy!
 
J

Joezie

Member
homelessscootaloo said:
Pretty cool but I guess this means no reduction in military spending anytime soon...
Click to expand...

Military spending has actually gone down a bit. Around 2010 or so it was 700 billion. This year will be 585 Billion, next it will probably be 589, and I'm fairly sure that includes R&D. Still a big number overall as you can see however.
 
L

luckygodzilla

Member
Nikodemos said:
If anything, an A-10 successor needs a bigger-calibre, slightly-slower-firing gun (the GAU-8 expends ammo too quickly), something like the NEXTER 30 from the Rafale, but in 35 mm.
Click to expand...
Just responding to this particular point since Eugn basically said everything else I was going to. See I'm not so certain of the benefits of designing another attack plane around an even bigger gun. We struggle to penetrate modern armor with 120mm shells, so I'm not entirely certain how much more appreciable killing power you're getting for the additional five mm.

Frankly the gun is most useful for hitting infantry or soft transport, and 30mm is already overkill for that. Regardless of my opinions on the validity of building another gun-centric platform, you'd probably be better served with a four barreled 25mm with more magazine depth than 35mm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wing Commander 3, Released 29 years ago.
37
2K
AJUMP23 replied
PlayStation Plus Game Catalog lineup for February: Horizon Forbidden West, The Quarry, Resident Evil 7 Biohazard and more
2 3 4 5
218
16K
Shifty1897 replied
Exoprimal |OT| A Crisis of Dinosaurs
4 5 6 7 8
384
19K
MrMephistoX replied
  • Poll
Rate The Game Awards 2023
News 2 3
107
7K
Shakka43 replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
22K
Elysium44 replied
Top Bottom