# Thoughts on potential and development



## delcyros (Jan 6, 2006)

What are Your ideas about next generation offensive and defensive air weapons?
My favourite in the offensive would be a remotely controlled or independent acting warhead in a stealthy environment (think of a small size semi ballistic stealth missile with either EMP warhead or conventional one with high preciseness). This could be developed quite soon.
A good defensive system must have ability to either attack low orbital targets (sattelites) or disrupt orbital communication by means of EMP-forces.
Is there any place for human pilots in next generation designs?
What about a revival of advanced armor/material tech?


----------



## R988 (Jan 8, 2006)

The next generation of aircraft are supposed to be 'pilotless' according to offical policy of the RAF who consider the Typhoon and F-35 to be their last fighter aircraft. But then the RAF said that about 50 years ago as well


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

I dont see that happening in the very near future. Atleast another 30 years or more.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

giving plenty of time for annother generation of manned fighters, sub orbital's the nest step........


----------



## delcyros (Jan 9, 2006)

Agreed. 
What do you think is more important for the next step: mask the origin or superior performance?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

well the way things are going they're likely to get an extremely effective combination of both...........


----------



## Chris_G (Jan 10, 2006)

Stealthy UAV's are gonna be the next step imo. Probably not too far off of the Stealth film ideal.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2006)

Manned fighters with several UAVs as a support flight


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2006)

yes it'll be a while before unmanned vehicles are used as all out fighters, although in the recon role i believe they're already being used..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Yes they are already in use in the Recon role and even in the Attack role. While we were in Iraq we used images for our Air Assault flights to plan the mission taken from UAV's and in Afganistan they have fired missles at ground targets from UAV's.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 11, 2007)

I expect that we shall be seeing stealth aircraft go naval. It is a pity that it didn't happen with naval aircraft such as the F-117N Seahawk which was originally intended to be an improved F-117A Nighthawk. It was intended to be a naval version of the F-117B Nighthawk which never really went into service. The true one though is the A/F-117X Seahawk which never saw service even though it would have really been a winner in terms of naval attack. Sadly though it has been killed off by US politicians who would automatically get in a knot if this technology was proposed to be sold to anyone else other than them...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I expect that we shall be seeing stealth aircraft go naval. It is a pity that it didn't happen with naval aircraft such as the F-117N Seahawk which was originally intended to be an improved F-117A Nighthawk. It was intended to be a naval version of the F-117B Nighthawk which never really went into service. The true one though is the A/F-117X Seahawk which never saw service even though it would have really been a winner in terms of naval attack. Sadly though it has been killed off by US politicians who would automatically get in a knot if this technology was proposed to be sold to anyone else other than them...


Once again you're talking out of your @ss. The naval versions of the F-117 was never bought by the US Navy simply because they didn't need it and wanted aircraft like the super hornet and the F-35 which will have a stealth capability.

Stealth technology is now no secret - it the black boxes that go into the aircraft that are subject to scrutiny.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2007)

I really dont think the F-117 would have been ideal for Carrier Operations anyhow...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 11, 2007)

Guess this thread isn't dead...

Think putting a pilot in there is something of a waste of space. Also, affects the whole design of the aircraft. You can make an automated aircraft do wonders without putting a pilot in there. G forces are not limited to the human frame. Big advantage. 

Also, the data links are getting better. Not perfect, probably not even good. But getting better. Easier to have a crew of 3 or 4 on the ground running an air strike than having them in the aircraft. 

Instead of thinking in terms of pilots, we should be thinking in terms of systems operators. The cockpit of the future is going to look more like the computer room of a large company than a stick and rudder cockpit. With sensors, cameras and multiple sources of info, a crew located in a location with ability to use an analyse all the sensor data will the flight crew of the future.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2007)

With Healz around no thread is dead...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 11, 2007)

High powered AESA radars that allow spoofing, intrusion, data mining, information transfer and narrow beam EMP that either disables or destroys electronics.

Netcentric communications with UCAVs that allowing swarming techniques to overwhelm ground sensors, SAMs, and targets.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 18, 2007)

Still the whole point is that stealth strikes and attacks may have been an even bigger advantage when the naval F-117 was proposed due to the fact that an aircraft carrier moves around and it is harder to get a lock on these aircraft, thus it means that it is harder for the enemy to simply follow your aircraft on radar and then destroy the carrier. Strike, return and you are hard to track. This was 1980s right through to 1994 that this project was ongoing. It was only the airforce that killed the F-117 project by threatening the F-22 Raptor project that destroyed any chance this great aircraft had. It should have been in service as the start of a naval upgrade but it has died. Naval aviation is only just beginning to catch up with Stealth which the airforce has had since October 1983. With the naval versions of the F-117 project at least the strike capability would have caught up with land...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Still the whole point is that stealth strikes and attacks may have been an even bigger advantage when the naval F-117 was proposed due to the fact that an aircraft carrier moves around and it is harder to get a lock on these aircraft, thus it means that it is harder for the enemy to simply follow your aircraft on radar and then destroy the carrier. Strike, return and you are hard to track. This was 1980s right through to 1994 that this project was ongoing. It was only the airforce that killed the F-117 project by threatening the F-22 Raptor project that destroyed any chance this great aircraft had. It should have been in service as the start of a naval upgrade but it has died. Naval aviation is only just beginning to catch up with Stealth which the airforce has had since October 1983. With the naval versions of the F-117 project at least the strike capability would have caught up with land...



I don't know where you're coming up with this stuff but once again someone is dreaming. The F-117 could carry only 2 bombs - the US Navy didn't want it based on the bomb loads and capabilities of aircraft currently in use. There was no ongoing Navy F-117 program, I worked at Lockheed through the 80s and was at one time on the program. The F-22 was conceived and developed under an entirely different specification and program - its an air-to-air fighter!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2007)

Woh the enemy is going to know where that carrier is no matter what Healz. Where do you come up with this Sci Fi stuff?


----------

