Scorpius expectations?

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,225
6,093
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
I was thinking about it in line with the WWI combat biplanes like that of the Red Baron
I was looking at the F16 or F/A18 compared to the F14 or the P51 compared to the P47 or P38.

Wing loading not wing area would be the aerospace engineering term. While they can correlate it doesn't tend to, due to drag and structural integrity. If it did the TR-1 (formerly known as the U2) would be one of the most maneuverable planes ever built.
 
  • o7
Reactions: Talonsbane

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
4,842
14,040
2,850
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
IRL, total mass devided by control surface and flight surface area deternmines "wing loading" which is a fair measure of maneuverability. High wing loading is why the F-35 is such a shitty dog-fighter. Note most modern combat is just position and shoot missiles, so high maneuverability is not a necessity anymore.
 
  • o7
Reactions: Talonsbane

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,225
6,093
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
IRL, total mass devided by control surface and flight surface area deternmines "wing loading" which is a fair measure of maneuverability. High wing loading is why the F-35 is such a shitty dog-fighter. Note most modern combat is just position and shoot missiles, so high maneuverability is not a necessity anymore.
Dog fighting is all about positioning for a shot and always has been. The difference between WWII and now happened in 1954 with the introduction of the Sidewinder. All that changed was what you were shooting. :)
 

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
4,842
14,040
2,850
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
Sorry, but that's just not so. Dogfighters like the F-22 have low wing loading (377kg/m^2). That's what makes them air superiority craft. The F-35 is a flying brick because it has such high wing loading (525kg/m^2), but it doesn't matter because it is not intended to ever use its gun.
 
  • o7
Reactions: Talonsbane

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,225
6,093
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
Sorry, but that's just not so. Dogfighters like the F-22 have low wing loading (377kg/m^2). That's what makes them air superiority craft. The F-35 is a flying brick because it has such high wing loading (525kg/m^2), but it doesn't matter because it is not intended to ever use its gun.
Dogfighting is about positioning. The turning on someone's tail to stay there, like in Top Gun, is just Hollywood being Hollywood.

The wing loading of the TR1/U2 is the lowest of any current military aircraft at 40 lb/sq ft (200 kg/m2). It is a jet powered glider, but it isn't all that maneuverable. In fact it is one of the most difficult planes in the world to land.

"Speed is life."
 
  • o7
Reactions: Talonsbane

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
4,842
14,040
2,850
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
The ability to position for a missile shot is a function of speed, maneuverability, observability and sensor lock range-. Sixth generation fighters are not designed for dog-fighting, which by definition references use of a gun. Modern fighters--those being designed in light of the terrible F-35 debacle--have very low wing loading, high maneuverability, high speed and range, low observability, and no gun. The F-35 is a failure in part because its use relies upon missile shots taken out of radar lock range of an opponent, and opponents are learning how to observe stealth craft with new higher-frequency radars.

Sixth gen F-44 Manta and X-47C are triangle craft with foldable wings for use off a carrier, that use their entire surface as control and flight surface, so super low wing loading, and 2D thrust vectoring for even higher maneuverability. They were not like the F-35 designed to fire from out of range of an opponent and then flee.

IMHO, what the Pentagon is hoping for over the next decade is a 2 seat F-44 Manta type fighter-bomber that flies with a handful of X-47C high performance drones that do the future equivalent of dogfighting by turning 20g circles and launching air to air missiles on opponents, while the manned vehicle controls them and takes the money shot on its primary objective. For air superiority battles there's no need for pilots. Just send drones. Dogfighting is done. No point including a gun on any of these future craft.
 

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,225
6,093
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
The F22 and F35 are 5th Generation fighters.
The F22 was cancelled in favor of the NGAD which is 6th Generation.
The F35 is to replace the F16, the A10, the AV8 and, in some mission profiles, the A6. It is more ground attack than air combat.
Unlike the F22 the F35 is still in production and is not a failure. The F35 got bad press because of delays and cost overruns, specifically the delays with the B model, which is replacing the Harrier in US Marine and Royal Navy service. It is not a a failure.

The "X47" is not a fighter, nor is it intended to be a fighter. Like all of the previous X Planes they are technology exploration craft, and in the X47's case it is a drone. The X44 Manta is an older design and is a tailless F22, which makes it 5th Generation. (And is not what the Air Force is showing as the NGAD.)

Air Combat, aka dog fighting, has been missile combat since 1954. It is what the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (formerly Navy Fighter Weapons School) aka "Top Gun" has always taught. It is also what the United States Air Force Weapons School started training in 1954 with the deployment and successful use of the first AIM-9 Sidewinders in 1954.

It is what General Ritchie (Captain at the time) trained other pilots in, before he became the US Air Force's only ace pilot since Korea. In fact his 5th kill was textbook what he was taught and what he taught at the school, according to him.

General Ritchie is a great speaker, well worth listening to. :)
 
  • Glorious
Reactions: Talonsbane

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
4,842
14,040
2,850
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
Some of that is right. Most of it is wrong.

The F22 was not cancelled in favor of the NGAD. The production line was closed for the F22 more than two decades before the NGAD was a gleam in the Pentagon's eye.

The F35 is not going to replace the A10. In all its three versions, it is a multi-mission fighter like the F18. It is inadequate at CAS and despite Lockheed keeps trying to sell it for ground attack, the Pentagon just gave the A10 a wing replacement. It will be around for at least another fifteen years. This is primarily because the F35 does not have adequate ground attack ability to replace a flying gun with over 1,000 rounds.

Likewise, the F35 is not replacing the F16. The F35 costs many times what an F16 does. Even if you do not amortize the development costs of the F35 across any proposed number of planes, the costs of the F35 are so high that it will never find its way into National Guard use. Rather, if the F16 does more than evolve the way it has for decades, it will probably morph into the F36 Kingsnake. The F16 fills the role of an inexpensive fighter that can be had en masse and sold overseas without offering allies things like stealth technology. That's NOT an F35. (Countries can get non-stealth F35s, but they are over $120M@.) Note too, the F35 is so bloody expensive and ordinance poor that the Pentagon is actually proceeding with an updated F15.

Your distinction about the X47C being a drone is a distinction without a difference. It is going to replace fighter aircraft, so there's no point precising it isn't a fighter. The distinction is no longer germane. Odds are excellent that the X47B's next gen iteration is already aboard many aircraft carriers and the public knows nothing about this. What we do know is the 47B was cheap, and tested aboard carriers almost a decade ago. Rumors are the entire body of the X47B was wound by Northrup on a single composite filament mandrel in order to keep the costs fantastically low. Whatever followed it is very likley already in service. Note that US military doctrine has always been to have more capability than it claims publicly. We don't really know publicly what followed the X47B, but whatever it is you can be sure it is relatively inexpensive.

NGAD is probably the next generation of Manta. Though it has not been revealed to the public, anyone who tracks such things fully expect NGAD will be a tailess delta wing with modern electronics upgrades. Many people in the know are calling NGAD "Manta". Whatever the true nature of NGAD, it is indeed 6th gen, has already flown, but is not yet in production.
 
Last edited:
  • o7
Reactions: Talonsbane

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,225
6,093
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
Some of that is right. Most of it is wrong.

The F22 was not cancelled in favor of the NGAD. The production line was closed for the F22 more than two decades before the NGAD was a gleam in the Pentagon's eye.

The F35 is not going to replace the A10. In all its three versions, it is a multi-mission fighter like the F18. It is inadequate at CAS and despite Lockheed keeps trying to sell it for ground attack, the Pentagon just gave the A10 a wing replacement. It will be around for at least another fifteen years. This is primarily because the F35 does not have adequate ground attack ability to replace a flying gun with over 1,000 rounds.

Likewise, the F35 is not replacing the F16. The F35 costs many times what an F16 does. Even if you do not amortize the development costs of the F35 across any proposed number of planes, the costs of the F35 are so high that it will never find its way into National Guard use. Rather, if the F16 does more than evolve the way it has for decades, it will probably morph into the F36 Kingsnake. The F16 fills the role of an inexpensive fighter that can be had en masse and sold overseas without offering allies things like stealth technology. That's NOT an F35. (Countries can get non-stealth F35s, but they are over $120M@.) Note too, the F35 is so bloody expensive and ordinance poor that the Pentagon is actually proceeding with an updated F15.

Your distinction about the X47C being a drone is a distinction without a difference. It is going to replace fighter aircraft, so there's no point precising it isn't a fighter. The distinction is no longer germane. Odds are excellent that the X47B's next gen iteration is already aboard many aircraft carriers and the public knows nothing about this. What we do know is the 47B was cheap, and tested aboard carriers almost a decade ago. Rumors are the entire body of the X47B was wound by Northrup on a single composite filament mandrel in order to keep the costs fantastically low. Whatever followed it is very likley already in service. Note that US military doctrine has always been to have more capability than it claims publicly. We don't really know publicly what followed the X47B, but whatever it is you can be sure it is relatively inexpensive.

NGAD is probably the next generation of Manta. Though it has not been revealed to the public, anyone who tracks such things fully expect NGAD will be a tailess delta wing with modern electronics upgrades. Many people in the know are calling NGAD "Manta". Whatever the true nature of NGAD, it is indeed 6th gen, has already flown, but is not yet in production.
The last F22 was built a decade ago. NGAD didn't just appear out of nowhere. The Air Force knew they wanted NGAD before the F22 began production. Aircraft development is a bit more than draw a pretty picture, convert it to 3D and 3D print it. The F15 began as a design requirement in the early 1960s, and didn't see active service until 1973. The Last F4 didn't leave US Service until 1996.

The plan was to replace the F-16, AV8, A10 and some of the missions of the A6. The F35 is not slated to replace either the F18 or the F15. The A10 was partially removed from the list, because the Army screamed, again. The F16 is being phased out over the next (roughly) decade, replaced by the F35, unless something better comes along. In fact, Poland just asked to buy a couple of squadrons of used, retired USAF F-16s. The F35 is, primarily, a ground attack platform. The F16, AV8 and some A10 are the squadrons getting the F35. In fact the F35 is 90% likely to be the aircraft the Thunderbirds transition to in the near future.

The X47 isn't replacing anything. It is a stealth reconnaissance drone built as an experiment. It is not a fighter in any way shape or form, nor was it ever intended as such. If X Planes were more than tech experiments, then where is my Tokyo Express passenger liner that the X43 was supposed to become.

The "Manta" isn't anything, it was just an experiment to see if they could go tailless with an F22 and if VIFFing instead of control surfaces could be practical. There has been no funding for Manta since FY 2000. Whatever NGAD is, it isn't the X44.
 
  • o7
Reactions: Talonsbane

Boaty McBoatface

Lieutenant
Donor
Feb 21, 2022
6
19
75
RSI Handle
Boaty-McBoatface
Just pledged for one yesterday. Looking forward to getting in the seat.
 
  • o7
Reactions: Talonsbane
Forgot your password?