The F-35 replacement

[McColm]

The USAF has already started to look for the replacement for the F-35 Lightning,  concept artwork resembles the Grumman F-14D but in stealth mode or an updated Lockheed F-117A with a second seat either for the Weapons Systems Officer or artificial intelligence.
The Whiffing potential is limitless in these early stages 

[jcf]

Not an F-35 replacement, the 6th-gen concepts are for an aircraft, or collection of aircraft,
that would be used alongside the F-35.

[Snowtrooper]

The way I have understood the recent articles is that they are looking forward to a new "Century series" -- smaller batches of progressively improved fighters from various manufacturers, each with slightly different roles and capabilities, instead of waiting for 30+ years for the next generation's one-size-fits-all quantum leap with completely new aerodynamics, materials, and systems. Also on the wish list is that this would also lead to much shorter teething troubles than the F-35's 20 years have been, since the wheel and every other component need not be reinvented for every new plane because existing technologies would be used where it's more practical rather than try to force a half-ready stuff into production.

So you could have F-40 heavy fighter, F-41 interdictor, F-42 light fighter, F-44 strike fighter, F-45 another light fighter, etc.

[McColm]

The YF-23 seems a likely candidate as the Japanese are very interested in getting their version of it into production.

[Jesse220]

F-49 Strike Fighter?

[kerick]

The way I have understood the recent articles is that they are looking forward to a new "Century series" -- smaller batches of progressively improved fighters from various manufacturers, each with slightly different roles and capabilities, instead of waiting for 30+ years for the next generation's one-size-fits-all quantum leap with completely new aerodynamics, materials, and systems. Also on the wish list is that this would also lead to much shorter teething troubles than the F-35's 20 years have been, since the wheel and every other component need not be reinvented for every new plane because existing technologies would be used where it's more practical rather than try to force a half-ready stuff into production.

So you could have F-40 heavy fighter, F-41 interdictor, F-42 light fighter, F-44 strike fighter, F-45 another light fighter, etc.

I don't know if DoD will actually go for this concept personally I love the idea. Lots of whiff ideas in this too. Maybe someone will realize the best replacement for an A-10 is a new A-10 or something an awful lot like it. Problem will be Congresspeople thinking the services are asking for a whole new aircraft every time and not understanding the evolutionary process of it.

[NARSES2]

I don't know if DoD will actually go for this concept personally I love the idea. Lots of whiff ideas in this too. Maybe someone will realize the best replacement for an A-10 is a new A-10 or something an awful lot like it. Problem will be Congresspeople thinking the services are asking for a whole new aircraft every time and not understanding the evolutionary process of it.

Couldn't you simply carry on using the same name/designation but simply add a new suffix ? It's been done before on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US surely the F.84F was a different aircraft to the E variant ? And in the UK there is an argument that says that once the Spitfires lost their elliptical wings they were a different aircraft, rather than a new Mk No and should have gone through the procurement process again ? The argument against that of course was that it was wartime.

[PR19_Kit]

Couldn't you simply carry on using the same name/designation but simply add a new suffix ? It's been done before on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US surely the F.84F was a different aircraft to the E variant ? And in the UK there is an argument that says that once the Spitfires lost their elliptical wings they were a different aircraft, rather than a new Mk No and should have gone through the procurement process again ? The argument against that of course was that it was wartime.

The Bell Huey Cobra got as far as a Z variant (and then they started again!) so there's a good precedent.

[zenrat]

I don't know if DoD will actually go for this concept personally I love the idea. Lots of whiff ideas in this too. Maybe someone will realize the best replacement for an A-10 is a new A-10 or something an awful lot like it. Problem will be Congresspeople thinking the services are asking for a whole new aircraft every time and not understanding the evolutionary process of it.

Couldn't you simply carry on using the same name/designation but simply add a new suffix ? It's been done before on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US surely the F.84F was a different aircraft to the E variant ? And in the UK there is an argument that says that once the Spitfires lost their elliptical wings they were a different aircraft, rather than a new Mk No and should have gone through the procurement process again ? The argument against that of course was that it was wartime.

Tu 22 and TU 22M for example?

Surely a long drawn out development process would be preferred by whoever won the contract as it gives such a good opportunity to extract maximum possible dollars from the customer.

[Jesse220]

How about a Swing Wing stealth fighter Bomber for example?

[McColm]

I had a go at adding swing wings to a 1/72 F-117, I think that I used the wings from a F-111A. Maybe the wings from a F-14 would be more suitable 

[NARSES2]

Surely a long drawn out development process would be preferred by whoever won the contract as it gives such a good opportunity to extract maximum possible dollars from the customer.

I know what you mean, but I'm not sure it's true. I would have thought it was better to keep producing improved products which you can not only sell to your prime customer, but you can take the older designs, refurbish them, perhaps remove some of the more sensitive equipment and sell on to second tier and latter maybe third tier customers ad-infinitum ? Keeps you lines going with minimum re-tooling costs as well.

[PR19_Kit]

Surely a long drawn out development process would be preferred by whoever won the contract as it gives such a good opportunity to extract maximum possible dollars from the customer.

I know what you mean, but I'm not sure it's true. I would have thought it was better to keep producing improved products which you can not only sell to your prime customer, but you can take the older designs, refurbish them, perhaps remove some of the more sensitive equipment and sell on to second tier and latter maybe third tier customers ad-infinitum ? Keeps you lines going with minimum re-tooling costs as well.

Just like Hawker did with the Hunter.....................

[jcf]

Surely a long drawn out development process would be preferred by whoever won the contract as it gives such a good opportunity to extract maximum possible dollars from the customer.

It's not that simple as numerous factors influence development time, one of the highest
impact being engineering changes caused by the customer changing requirements, such
as adding features, sometimes scope creep as to role, etc.
All of which has a massive impact on the most important part of any modern aircraft:
Systems Integration.
The knock-on effects of what may appear from the outside to be a simple change can
create huge problems, and headaches for the engineering folks. I have my own
experiences with the effects, but if you want chapter and verse talk to Evan about his
F-35 travails.

All of these changes have a negative effect on timelines with the inevitable Slide to the Right,
and can often lead to extensive changes in the test plan.
The greater the complexity the longer it will take, it's just a fact of life.

[zenrat]

I know all about systems integration from my previous life on the railways.  I was involved with Systems Review for Railtrack's West Coast Route Modernisation project - running Pendelino tilting trains from London to Manchester.
I was bad enough doing it for trains, I dread to think what it'd be like with a military aircraft.