Where have the new planes gone?

[dahut]

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.

I completely agree with this philosophy. However, the people at large probably don't think this way. That's my point, I believe. The shift is away from any presence at all, from what I see.

[Tony Stark]

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.

By that logic - as you've applied to the B-2 - then nothing is new. Case in point...

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

Which to me suggests that you're expecting some sort of quantum revolution in aircraft design to have taken place within the last 40 years that would completely and totally redefine how we design aircraft in such a way that defy the laws of aerodynamics, thermodynamics and physics.

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.

- The Cold War ended* and requirements changed. The caused a re-evaluation of programs that became the JSF and the ATF (F-22) underwent redesigns to give it more of a multi-role capability than had previously been required.

- Budgets were (and still are being) cut. This has drawn out many programs longer than anticipated. As the saying goes, "No bucks, no buck rogers."

I am looking at this more from an engineering stand point.

Which is why we're all confused by what you've been saying because there have been multiple generations of jet fighter technology since WW2. Engineers use terms such as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th generation. You seem to think that we can kick out new types of manned, tactical aircraft every other year like what was done back in the 1950s and you think that the lack thereof is indicative of either laziness or some sort of conspiracy when the simple fact is, we don't need to do that any more. And it's not just the US, it's global. We've been reacting to world events, now, we're trying to get ahead of the curve. That takes longer than reacting to something that's already passed.

The two things that I'm reading from you are:

- You're complaining that it takes "several" decades to just undergo a single generation.

- You're disappointed that things aren't as exotic as the Blackbird. But when someone offers up something such as the B-2 or V-22, you start to split hairs and dismiss them as not being "new" enough.

When you started this thread, you made the following statements:

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.

Which is? You're suggesting something that sounds somewhat conspiratorial. And your highlighting propulsion is rather significant as well. Thus my repeated questioning of what it is you're suggesting. What is it exactly you want. You've made an observation (which isn't a new one by any means) and have suggested a very specific reason for it, but you haven't provided any evidence. So what are you thinking? Something cooked up at Los Alamos? Electrostatic ion thruster? Some other form of Electromagnetic propulsion? A gravity distortion field generated by bombarding Ununpentium with protons?

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 past seventy years of military aviation have precisely been evolutionary. I'll illustrate that later in this reply.

The signs are there if you bother to pay attention.

And what signs are the rest of us not paying attention to? Simply suggesting that the reduction of quantity of types is evidence of something doesn't make it evidence of something.

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.

One generation? Where are you getting your numbers from? Military aviation can only be measured by around 10-11 decades total and you claim that there's only been one generational change in 70 years? It's been seven decades since WW2 and we've seen FIVE generations of jet fighters. It is accepted by engineers that jet fighter generations break down as such:

1st Generation Jet Fighter - Me-262, F-80, MiG-15

- Similar in construction to their propellor driven predecessors

- Used 1st and 2nd generation turbojets for power

2nd Generation Jet Fighter - English Electric Lightning, F-104

- A focus on conducting operations in a nuclear warfare environment

- Technological advances in aerodynamics, propulsion and aerospace building materials (primarily aluminum alloys) permitted designers to experiment with aeronautical innovations, such as swept wings, delta wings, and area-ruled fuselages.

- Widespread use of after-burning turbojet engines

- Mach 2 speeds

- Started to regularly use onboard radar and passive-homing infrared-guided (IR) missiles

3rd Generation Jet Fighter - F-4, MiG-23

- Improved air-to-air missiles

- Improved radar systems (look-down/shoot-down)

- Improved avionics

- AAMs became the primary weapons for air superiority fighters, which employed more sophisticated radars and medium-range RF AAMs to achieve greater "stand-off" ranges,

- Guided ground-attack missiles

- First truly effective avionics for enhanced ground attack

- Terrain-avoidance systems.

- Air-to-surface missiles (ASM) equipped with electro-optical (E-O) contrast seekers – such as the initial model of the widely used AGM-65 Maverick – became standard weapons

- Laser-guided bombs (LGBs) became widespread

4th GenerationJet Fighter - F-15, Su-27

- Much higher maneuverability due to low static stability, made possible by fly-by-wire flight control system

- Advances in digital computers and system integration techniques

- System upgrades such as AESA, digital avionics buses and IRST (aka Gen 4.5, Gen 4+)

- High-Bypass turbofans replace the gas-guzzling turbojets while offering thrust-to-weight ratios around 1:1

5th Generation Jet Fighter - F-22

- General design concern about radar cross-section (all-aspect LO with a full weapons load)

- Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR),

- High-performance air frames,

- Advanced avionics features

- Highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theatre of war for situational awareness

- Supersonic speeds w/o use of afterburner

Every generation has built upon the successes of the previous one. Successful traits are passed on, less successful traits don't make it. This is the very definition of man-made evolution. And the more complicated something is, the longer it takes to develop. The F-35 has had mechanical issues to wring out, but it's the software that takes a lot of time. There are millions of lines of code that have to be written, tested, re-written, etc.

* Typically, innovation is driven by necessity. During wartime is when military technology sees the most improvements. Peacetime, it's civilian technology that leaps ahead.

[spejic]

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.

There are actual engineers in this thread and we are explaining why this happens. The designers of the F-35 are not just designing an aircraft. They are designing a whole suite of new sensor devices, a totally new kind of instrument display, a virtual-reality helmet, totally new radar-absorbing material, a new lift fan, and a lot more besides. The people designing the F-16 didn't have to do any of this.

The days when Ed Heinemann can lock himself in a motel room for a weekend and come out with a new aircraft design are over. Things are a lot more complicated now. It's not a political thing, it's not something that was decided, it's just what happens to technology. The idea that since we went 700 mph in the '50s and 2000 mph in the '60s means we should be going 8000mph now is a false one. Technology does not go in a straight line.

[dahut]

There are actual engineers in this thread and we are explaining why this happens. The designers of the F-35 are not just designing an aircraft. They are designing a whole suite of new sensor devices, a totally new kind of instrument display, a virtual-reality helmet, totally new radar-absorbing material, a new lift fan, and a lot more besides. The people designing the F-16 didn't have to do any of this.

The days when Ed Heinemann can lock himself in a motel room for a weekend and come out with a new aircraft design are over. Things are a lot more complicated now. It's not a political thing, it's not something that was decided, it's just what happens to technology. The idea that since we went 700 mph in the '50s and 2000 mph in the '60s means we should be going 8000mph now is a false one. Technology does not go in a straight line.

Excellent points, as far as development is concerned.

[Darren Roberts]

The scariest thing about all of this is that when I read Tony Stark's posts, I "hear" them in Robert Downey's voice!

[Tony Stark]

The scariest thing about all of this is that when I read Tony Stark's posts, I "hear" them in Robert Downey's voice! :rolleyes:/>/>/>

.

But if you'd prefer something else...

[pookie]

There are actual engineers in this thread and we are explaining why this happens. The designers of the F-35 are not just designing an aircraft. They are designing a whole suite of new sensor devices, a totally new kind of instrument display, a virtual-reality helmet, totally new radar-absorbing material, a new lift fan, and a lot more besides. The people designing the F-16 didn't have to do any of this.

The days when Ed Heinemann can lock himself in a motel room for a weekend and come out with a new aircraft design are over. Things are a lot more complicated now. It's not a political thing, it's not something that was decided, it's just what happens to technology. The idea that since we went 700 mph in the '50s and 2000 mph in the '60s means we should be going 8000mph now is a false one. Technology does not go in a straight line.

I see your points, but the challenges of today are very much in line with the challenges of old. If we look at the development of the A12 for example, they had to use a completely new material for the skin of the plane, titanium, never used in aviation before in that form. Not only that but they had to invent how to weld it, how to machine it, how to form it, etc. If we look at the engines, they invented a completely new jet engine. Same goes for the fuel, the oil used, the tires, just about everything in that airplane was something that had to be invented... it didn't take 40 years.

I know technology does not "necessarily" go in a straight line, but it is odd to see it reach a plateau as sudden and noticeable as the current one.

[Tony Stark]

I see your points, but the challenges of today are very much in line with the challenges of old. If we look at the development of the A12 for example, they had to use a completely new material for the skin of the plane, titanium, never used in aviation before in that form. Not only that but they had to invent how to weld it, how to machine it, how to form it, etc. If we look at the engines, they invented a completely new jet engine. Same goes for the fuel, the oil used, the tires, just about everything in that airplane was something that had to be invented... it didn't take 40 years.

Actually, it took them 59 years. They had to know how to build a airplane in the first place. They had to know how to build a control system, how to keep the plane under control at supersonic speeds, how to construct pressure suits to keep the aircrew alive at altitude. Everything that went into the design and construction of the A-12 was based on prior experience. Sure, there were plenty of new techniques developed, but that's always been the case with aviation or any other field of engineering. They developed the fuel based on what they already knew about combustibles and how jet engines worked. Etc. etc. etc.

You say that the B-2 and V-22 aren't new" because the technology that went into them was developed in the decades that preceded them, but the same is true for the Blackbird family.

We haven't built a new Blackbird because we can't, we haven't built a new Blackbird because we haven't needed to. They were solving for a specific series of problems and requirements, problems and requirements that simply don't exist at this time.

Meanwhile...

Here's a plane built from composite materials that circumnavigated the globe unrefueled and non-stop (nine days, 25,000 miles) in 1986...

Here's a rocket that lands vertically with the same engine it uses to take off with...

Here's a plane that's powered by liquid hydrogen...

Here's a cheap satellite powered by a four year old Nexus One smartphone...

Here's a rover sent to another planet that used a rocket to land instead of airbags because the rover was too heavy...

I know technology does not "necessarily" go in a straight line, but it is odd to see it reach a plateau as sudden and noticeable as the current one.

Damn you physics! Damn you aerodynamics! Damn you thermodynamics! Maybe you should go to your nearest engineering school and set them straight!

[TaiidanTomcat]

I see your points, but the challenges of today are very much in line with the challenges of old. If we look at the development of the A12 for example, they had to use a completely new material for the skin of the plane, titanium, never used in aviation before in that form. Not only that but they had to invent how to weld it, how to machine it, how to form it, etc. If we look at the engines, they invented a completely new jet engine. Same goes for the fuel, the oil used, the tires, just about everything in that airplane was something that had to be invented... it didn't take 40 years.

I know technology does not "necessarily" go in a straight line, but it is odd to see it reach a plateau as sudden and noticeable as the current one.

You should look into all the advanced and innovative construction and development techniques that are going into the f-35 alone.

[pookie]

Damn you physics! Damn you aerodynamics! Damn you thermodynamics! Maybe you should go to your nearest engineering school and set them straight!

I think we can take all sorts of tangents, but the point I have made since the beginning and the reason I posted, is the gap in COMBAT AIRCRAFT since the fighters of the 1970's (Teen series) and the aircraft of today F22 and the yet to be in active service F35. What new COMBAT AIRCRAFT fill the nearly 40 year gap? I am not negating or dismissing the technological advances in the current COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

[Grey Ghost 531]

During the first world war a completely new fighter design was conceived, developed, tested, produced and rendered obsolete in about 9 months.

I'd bet the F-35 is as complicated as every aircraft design built between 1903 and somewhere around 1960, all put together. No wonder it takes longer and costs more.

[spejic]

I know technology does not "necessarily" go in a straight line, but it is odd to see it reach a plateau as sudden and noticeable as the current one.

Any technology that depends on the physical world will eventually plateau out. In fact, it must do so. The physical world puts limits on us.

[Alvis 3.1]

The scariest thing about all of this is that when I read Tony Stark's posts, I "hear" them in Robert Downey's voice! :rolleyes:/>

I used to have that as well, but it ended once I started thinking what he'd sound like as "Pee Wee Herman". Now it's a whole lot funnier!

Alvis 3.1

[Tony Stark]

I used to have that as well, but it ended once I started thinking what he'd sound like as "Pee Wee Herman". Now it's a whole lot funnier!

Alvis 3.1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5DA5DG4_yo

[toadwbg]

Its been addresed above, a lot of the technology advancements have been on the software side, not the hardware.

The F-22 and F-35 will capitalize on software development over the next 50 years of their airframe lives. They have been designed around future upgrades.

[Aaronw]

I think we can take all sorts of tangents, but the point I have made since the beginning and the reason I posted, is the gap in COMBAT AIRCRAFT since the fighters of the 1970's (Teen series) and the aircraft of today F22 and the yet to be in active service F35. What new COMBAT AIRCRAFT fill the nearly 40 year gap? I am not negating or dismissing the technological advances in the current COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

I think you are looking at too narrow a subject. Jetfighters are no longer the main event, they are just the ride. Missiles, bombs and targeting systems are now the real weapon, not the jet. I think it is safe to say bombs and missiles have advanced considerably over the past 40 years.

Now targeting systems have gotten so good that there is a need to hide the bus, enter the F22 and F35.

The platform advanced to a point that it didn't need to get better until the munitions it carried were utilizing its full potential. Look at the capability of a fighter circa 1991 and 2010, might be the same plane but it can shoot down an enemy plane further out, and drop a bomb far more accurately.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I think we can take all sorts of tangents, but the point I have made since the beginning and the reason I posted, is the gap in COMBAT AIRCRAFT since the fighters of the 1970's (Teen series) and the aircraft of today F22 and the yet to be in active service F35. What new COMBAT AIRCRAFT fill the nearly 40 year gap? I am not negating or dismissing the technological advances in the current COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

The cold war ended. Lots of systems that would have been fielded in the 90s were canceled.

Its that simple. as for innovation its really what you are counting as innovative. if its only exotic titanium skin, and not composite stealth skin that can survive a beating and saltwater you are probably going to be pretty bored.

[ElectroSoldier]

The image that America has managed to push the technical envelope to the point it can no longer afford R&D costs is mildly amusing...

However I think its simply a case of no needing it to be like it was, after all look at the F-15, it is still one of the most capable fighters in the world today and how old is she now?

[IrishGreek]

And most recently...

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

Tony,

You getting a cut of this, since you did the whole Arc reactor thing first. Or is this not up to your standards...