Where have the new planes gone?

[pookie]

I was looking at combat aircraft history the other day and I came up with an odd realization. If we look at US aircraft development (excluding cargo and other types) throughout history, we can definitely see a very dramatic drop in new aircraft since the 1970's. Up to that point, new aircraft were coming out of the factories at an incredible rate. In fact nearly all the planes we build models of today were designed during or before the 1970's. The only new combat aircraft since the 1970's are the F-117, B2 ( based on a much older design), the F-22 and the F-35. That comes up to 4 new planes introduced in the last 40 years... Why? The SR71 (A12) was designed in the late 50's and flew in the early 60's, since then no new fast aircraft has been developed, neither for military nor civilian use. That's SIXTY years ago.

I believe that some new technology ( not just satellites ) was discovered that made designing and building fast aircraft unnecessary. What has Lohckeed's Skunk works been doing for the last 40 years? Their last hit was the F-117, it was designed and built in the 1970's. I believe the US military complex has technologies that go far beyond conventional jet engine powered aircraft. What it is exactly? only they know. The overwhelming lack of new, innovative, evolutionary aircraft points to something else happening. The signs are there if you bother to pay attention.

I could be wrong :)

[Fellow Hobbyist]

The key difference between now and the Cold War was on the availability of funds to develop and purchase a wide array and quantity of combat planes. During the height of the Cold War that spending was not looked upon as a problem. Today that level of spending is considered unnecessary by many and often modernization programs are often impacted by arbitrary political decisions (Take the B-2 and the F-22 as an example of the latter).

[Tony Stark]

I was looking at combat aircraft history the other day and I came up with an odd realization. If we look at US aircraft development (excluding cargo and other types) throughout history, we can definitely see a very dramatic drop in new aircraft since the 1970's. Up to that point, new aircraft were coming out of the factories at an incredible rate. In fact nearly all the planes we build models of today were designed during or before the 1970's. The only new combat aircraft since the 1970's are the F-117, B2 ( based on a much older design), the F-22 and the F-35. That comes up to 4 new planes introduced in the last 40 years...

We used to kick out a new aircraft designs every few years, but then that design was obsolete pretty quickly. Either outclassed by the competition, or just by better options. And these aircraft weren't very complicated.

We no longer build aircraft for "the last war," we build aircraft to meet potential future threats. And we no longer build pure interceptors like the F-101, -102, -106, etc. We have a better radar in the F-15, which also happens to be a world-class dogfighter, so it can do both CAP, fighter sweep and interception. Ditto the F-22, plus it has a very good air-to-ground capability.

The F-117 was a dedicated ground strike aircraft. As such, it was limited and difficult to justify the continuing expense of maintaining that fleet when you have the F-22, the B-2 and forthcoming F-35.

The Navy replaced the A-7 and F-4 with the F/A-18, an aircraft that can do both jobs. The Marines replaced their F-4s and A-6s with the Hornet for the same reason. Same with the F-16; the USAF replaced many of their A-7s, F-4s, and F-106s with the Viper. Why? 1. We build very capable multirole aircraft these days. 2. It's more affordable to maintain, operate and train for a capable fleet of multi-role aircraft than it is for 3 fleets of limited aircraft.

These days, avionics is just as important as speed, agility, etc. But Avionics and the software that drive it, takes longer to develop than in the days of vacuum tubes.

Why? The SR71 (A12) was designed in the late 50's and flew in the early 60's, since then no new fast aircraft has been developed, neither for military nor civilian use. That's SIXTY years ago.

I believe that some new technology ( not just satellites ) was discovered that made designing and building fast aircraft unnecessary. What has Lohckeed's Skunk works been doing for the last 40 years? Their last hit was the F-117, it was designed and built in the 1970's. I believe the US military complex has technologies that go far beyond conventional jet engine powered aircraft. What it is exactly? only they know. The overwhelming lack of new, innovative, evolutionary aircraft points to something else happening. The signs are there if you bother to pay attention.

I could be wrong :)/>/>/>/>/>

What has the Skunk works been doing the last 40 years?

F-117...

A LO test article for the Navy

The YF-22

The Polecat, a prototype LO UAV

The X-33, a prototype for a Shuttle Replacement

The linear aerospike engine that would have propelled the X-33 and VentureStar

An unsolicited proposal for an unmanned fast moving spyplane...

And most recently...

Because if you want to travel to other planets in this solar system, you're going to need something like that.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Tony Stark

[CorsairMan]

The key difference between now and the Cold War was on the availability of funds to develop and purchase a wide array and quantity of combat planes....

Amongst other government programs.

Since then the lower tax base combined with a massive amount of debt and the costs associated with managing that debt have limited the ability to spend.

[Wizard_rkt]

All those new fancy-looking hamburgers at the fast-food restaurants....

THAT S WHERE ALL THE DESIGNING IS GOING INTO!

:monkeydance:/>

Edited November 28, 2014 by Wizard_rkt

[Tony Stark]

Three things replaced the SR-71:

I believe the US military complex has technologies that go far beyond conventional jet engine powered aircraft. What it is exactly? only they know. The overwhelming lack of new, innovative, evolutionary aircraft points to something else happening.

You cite a lack of new, innovative, evolutionary aircraft as pointing to something else happening. This is not true. The 5th gen is exactly this.

The F-22 combines agility that is better than the lightest-weight Viper, the F-16A...

F-16 on the inside, F-4E on the outside

with LO technology that gives it the ability to get closer to its target before it can be seen ("First look, first shoot, first kill")...

...a VERY capable air-to-ground capacity...

Seriously, it'll scare the pants off of you.

...and the weapons load out based on that of the most successful fighter ever produced - the F-15 - and builds upon that...

...with an ability to go really high up and look down on it's prey...

What's interesting isn't the first two bombs hitting the building; it's the next two that go through the holes left by the first pair. Weapons dropped from higher and faster than you might realize.

We've never had this kind of capability before. No one has. We've taken decades worth of experience and R&D and we're now rolling that all into new platforms. They may not look as exotic as the Blackbird, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own distinctions.

The signs are there if you bother to pay attention.

And what are those signs, Special Agent?

[11bee]

The only new combat aircraft since the 1970's are the F-117, B2 ( based on a much older design), the F-22 and the F-35.

Defined "combat aircraft" first of all.

Many new aircraft have been designed and introduced since the 70's. They include the F-18E/F (it's so far removed from the original that it really should have had new designation), the Predator & Reaper UAV's, a host of other UAV's used by the Army / Navy, the RQ-170 Sentinel, the RQ-180 which is supposedly close to becoming operational and what appears to be at least a few other platforms that are operational but still reside in the black world.

Edited November 28, 2014 by 11bee

[Tony Stark]

They include the F-18E/F (it's so far removed from the original that it really should have had new designation)

Just like how the F-106 was so far removed from the F-102 that it got it's own designation.

Super Hornet almost did get a new designation. But it was a political decision for it to keep the F-18 one.

[Darren Roberts]

Just like how the F-106 was so far removed from the F-102 that it got it's own designation.

Super Hornet almost did get a new designation. But it was a political decision for it to keep the F-18 one.

Good answer. It has a lot to do with funding as well. Making a new "variant" is "cheaper" in the budget than designing an entirely new airframe. It's the same reason why the F-16 CG and CJ aren't new designations. It was "cheaper" to fund "upgrades" than it was to fund a new "variant". It's pretty much a shell game.

[Tony Stark]

B2 ( based on a much older design)

Ok, something bothered me about your question and this is it. So because the B-2 has strong DNA from the YB-49 and XB-25, you don't consider it "new."

What, then, is "new?"

[Camus272]

Not only is this a noticable trend, but much of it is by design. In the 90s the Navy was promoting the new air wing which would consist of only F-18s and the common support aircraft which would replace the E-2, S-3 and EA-6 (until a 5th gen fighter could be introduced). The JSF was designed to give a single airframe to not only all of our services, but all allied countries. Given the development time frame of the F-22 and F-35, this MAY no longer be a great idea, but at this time there is no urgency (although this could change given the the development of rival fifth generation designs).

[pookie]

My observation, and it's just that, is that if we were to apply the same rate of progression in the last 40 years to the first 40 years of combat aviation, the USAF would still be flying P36's today.

[Aaronw]

My observation, and it's just that, is that if we were to apply the same rate of progression in the last 40 years to the first 40 years of combat aviation, the USAF would still be flying P36's today.

and that is why I find aviation pre-1960 so much more interesting than modern aircraft.

Really no conspiracy though, there has been a successful push for decades to adopt multi-role aircraft. Look at a US carrier wing in the late 1950s vs one in the 1980s and one today. A lot fewer aircraft types on the deck today.

Used to be there were day fighters and night fighters, light, medium and heavy bombers, attack aircraft (also bombers but for some reason not...), nuclear capable vs conventional bombers, deep penetration aircraft (super fast and or high altitude later replaced with stealth).

Now you have one aircraft the F-22 that does the same job as the B-58 (penetration), the F-106 (interceptor), the F-82 (night fighter), the F-16 (air superiority), RF-4 (recon) and the F-117 (stealth).

There you go, 6 aircraft in one, like I said boring, and to top it off, gray, they paint this total lack of variety gray. Now apply this to the handful of aircraft in service, and you probably have a dozen or two aircraft types in total currently serving the US military compared to hundreds in the past. How many separate basic trainers were used in the US, that is about as simple as it gets and there was more than one.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Aaronw

[Tony Stark]

My observation, and it's just that, is that if we were to apply the same rate of progression in the last 40 years to the first 40 years of combat aviation, the USAF would still be flying P36's today.

I don't see that. In 40 years we've gone from the F-4 to the F-22. We've gone from lots of different types that specialize (maybe) in one role or have one distinguishing performance characteristic, to the types of aircraft that are capable in excelling in multiple roles and performance characteristics.

And its not just us; it's everyone. The UK is undergoing a similar process in narrowing their fleet down to the Eurofighter and the F-35. As is China, Japan, France...

So again I have to ask; what is it that you want? What are you expecting? Planes that can fly just as well in atmo as in space, and oh by the way, can transform into robots? Laser weapons? This is now the second opportunity that you haven't defined what "new" should be.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Tony Stark

[Berkut]

B2 ( based on a much older design)

:huh:

Yeah, no. Just no.

[Tony Stark]

Used to be there were day fighters and night fighters, light, medium and heavy bombers, attack aircraft (also bombers but for some reason not...), nuclear capable vs conventional bombers, deep penetration aircraft (super fast and or high altitude later replaced with stealth).

Now you have one aircraft the F-22 that does the same job as the B-58 (penetration), the F-106 (interceptor), the F-82 (night fighter), the F-16 (air superiority), RF-4 (recon) and the F-117 (stealth).

There you go, 6 aircraft in one,

Aside from listing the F-15 as air superiority instead of the F-16 (which is a multi-role aircraft), this nails it. By the mid 1940s, we'd taken prop-driven aviation as far as it could go. The jet engine brought in a new era, one of speed and altitude. Improvements in engine design brought longer range. We'd taken jet engine technology pretty damn far by the late 1960s and since then those improvements have been more gradual in terms of reliability, thrust, and efficiency. That'll continue, but we're getting close to plateauing there. Some have said that LO is the biggest thing to happen to military aviation since the jet engine. I disagree. I think it's a combination of LO technology (which is really just electromagnetic camouflage) and advanced computers.

[pookie]

So again I have to ask; what is it that you want? What are you expecting? Planes that can fly just as well in atmo as in space, and oh by the way, can transform into robots? Laser weapons? This is now the second opportunity that you haven't defined what "new" should be.

Want? I don't want anything. I am simply pointing out a FACT, that the rate of new aircraft development is not the same as it was up until the 70's. Maybe it was a fluke, maybe the needs were so great back then that it created aircraft as advanced as the Sr-71 and the F-15 which is still relevant today. I tend to believe that the military has divided into the public and the not so public. The public military is the one we see on magazines, TV and drops bombs in foreign countries. The not so public military is relegated to UFO reports. No, I am not talking about aliens.

As far as new, there is only one meaning to the word new. If it's based or derived from something old, then it cannot be considered new. Improved, remodeled, advanced, reconfigured, enhanced... take your pick, but it cannot be called new.

Edited November 29, 2014 by pookie

[spejic]

I am simply pointing out a FACT, that the rate of new aircraft development is not the same as it was up until the 70's.

It's just the arc of technology. Things develop quickly at first because there is so much room for growth and initial designs are so inefficient. Then things taper off when you start running out of easy ways to improve things and start bumping into physical limits. You see the exact same thing in other technologies, or in various fields of medicine and other sciences. And when you get to that point you look for other avenues for improvement. The shift in combat aircraft towards sensors and a better pilot-plane interface instead of just increasing speed is like the shift towards multiple cores and larger caches in microprocessors instead of just increasing the mHz, or the shift towards comfort and safety and quality in cars.

Progress isn't linear. In fact, it cannot be.

[dahut]

"We have robot planes that roam the skies..."

There's your answer.

[pookie]

"We have robot planes that roam the skies..."

There's your answer.

Well... I guess. The folks who designed the A-12 back in the late 1950's would be impressed by today's remote controlled, propeller driven aircraft. ( Yes, I know about the global hawk )

[TaiidanTomcat]

All that stuff cost money. Its not like engineers suddenly ran out of ideas. The world changed, the country changed. The envelope got explored and pushed and then basically tapered off. This is also why you don't see ships going off to explore "the new world" a lot these days.

Well... I guess. The folks who designed the A-12 back in the late 1950's would be impressed by today's remote controlled, propeller driven aircraft. ( Yes, I know about the global hawk )

If this is an attempt at snark, youve come up short. Because yes, absolutely yes they would be impressed. No man on board, and incredible sensors that could also see in the dark, live.

No its not fast, but the whole purpose of fast was survivability to get information. If you can take the crew out and gather that info for MUCCCCHHHHHH less risk and money with better fidelity you bet they would be very happy. Don't forget the fleets of tankers attached to all Habu units. They were expensive, it was considered worth it, because it beat nothing. But the second they could be retired, they were.

Besides people hate things that push the envelope these days anyway:

If any of things run into trouble, they aren't worth having.

Its a different world now, all the "reformers" and "$600 screw driver" types have trained the public very, very well. Americans just aren't willing to spend at the 1950/60/70's levels anymore. All that stuff was built pre-internet, people generally trusted the government and the military and a lot of people served either voluntarily, or through the draft. A lot of "government oversight" to prevent the taxpayer from being bent over by companies, basically means they are know get bent over the by the overseers, who don't work for free. people are more cynical, more suspicious and give the few companies that still build high end military hardware very little latitude, even when they do things that are truly remarkable. and finally No buck, no buck rogers.

today's public would be appalled at the 1950's and 1960's style of weapons procurement not to mention 1970s and 1980s, beyond crashes and accidents, and cost a lot of them went into service only to be quickly withdrawn or obsolete after a lot of expenditure. people don't like seeing how the sausage is made, and these days they see it a lot better. You could probably go on at length about "whats wrong with the kids these days" and blah blah or how government money spent on social issues is far more popular than money spent on weapons for the sake of variety.

Edited November 29, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[dahut]

Note: I'm about to "go there."

Be warned.

There is also a decided push, both socially and politically, to be "nicer."

There is a feeling that we are bullies and shouldnt be pushing the world around with our mean old weapons.

Money has also become a socio-politic leverage point. We used to be proud of our techno achievements over our enemies. Cost was no object. Today, fewer and fewer people want to pay for grandiose toys.

Me, I reckon it's a shift in attitude as much as anything. Talidan Tomcat alludes to this above. The notion is that no real national enemies exist today. We battle with ideology now - most alive today cannot recall empirical warfare between nations. Our supposed enemies are more internal now.

Thus, one hears the pacifists cry more and more: "What do we need THAT for??"

Edited November 29, 2014 by dahut

[pookie]

The V-22 is cool, but it is very much based on a 1970's design.

The F-35 is a very neat aircraft as well, but it has taken nearly 40 years to get there since the days of the F16 and F15 and even much longer since the harrier. I see this going into a politics discussion and I am looking at this more from an engineering stand point. You guys seem to think that I am putting down the current aircraft, and I am not. I am simply highlighting the fact that it has taken several DECADES to move up one generation, something that had never happened before in the history of US combat aviation.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The v-22 and xv-15 are only similiar in the fact that they are both tiltrotors. I don't know how much you want to split hairs like Comparing the b-49 to the b-2...The wright flyer was a canard plane so the ef typhoon dates from 1903?

"We don't build anything new"

What about this? it's new

"Actually that's old because i think it's based on something I already saw "

OK...

If I was to give the shortest answer it would be that the cold war ended. And without a competitor trying to match or beat your designs there is little incentive to spend billions to develop new airplanes where then old will do. Many new aircraft that would have been fielded in the 1990s were canceled because they were expensive and their cost was no longer justifiable with no evil empire to fight

Russia is looking to field it's very first all russian and stealth airplane in a few years yet. People still think the teen series will last 50 more years.

Edited November 29, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[spejic]

There is also a decided push, both socially and politically, to be "nicer."

There is a feeling that we are bullies and shouldnt be pushing the world around with our mean old weapons.

No, I think it's the exact opposite. Americans want to kill with as little loss as possible - preferably zero. When every downed US aircraft makes the news, it means every plane needs to be the most survivable with the best weapon systems possible. You can't have any kind of hi/lo mix because giving any pilot a "lo" means we didn't give them the best chance we could.