Boeing’s latest sixth-gen fighter concept is a tail-less canard

[GR!FF!N]

Sixth gen should not have pilots! It should be a UAV jet fighter!

nope..there will be always a manned version of fighter jets..so that if someone hacked into system or ASATs destroy all you sattelites,atleast your fighter fleet will not fall out from sky or become sitting ducks..got it??

 

[Zabaniyah]

So it's more ethical to kill people, when people could solve their differences by just playing a very large-scale game of chess.

Sixth gen should not have pilots! It should be a UAV jet fighter!

Blasphemy. Utter blasphemy

 

[500]

Our resident jew now knows more than the army of engineers that Boeing has.

I posted arguments, you can only go to personality and post idiotic smilies. So far Boeing's fighters have miserably failed:

Same will happen to this concept.

 

[Arzamas 16]

I posted arguments, you can only go to personality and post idiotic smilies. So far Boeing's fighters have miserably failed:

Same will happen to this concept.

The problem isthat you have one track mind, you think only S-ducks can reduce RCS on the engine area.

Sukhoi tested Magical S-ducks on Su-47 back in 90s, and was not impressed, same with Boeing and North Grumman, and X-32 failing had noting to do with Stealth issues unless you can prove other wise.

 

[RazorMC]

I posted arguments, you can only go to personality and post idiotic smilies. So far Boeing's fighters have miserably failed:

They've got McDonnell Douglas in their corner btw. Things will start to look up for these guys. But I still like Lockheed's designs better

 

[500]

The problem isthat you have one track mind, you think only S-ducks can reduce RCS on the engine area.

Sukhoi tested Magical S-ducks on Su-47 back in 90s, and was not impressed, same with Boeing and North Grumman, and X-32 failing had noting to do with Stealth issues unless you can prove other wise.

YF-22 with S-duct won YF-23 without S-duct.
X-35 with S-duct won X-32 without S-duct.

Now Boeing redesigned failed YF-23 and called it 6th generation.

Failed 5th gen:

Super duper 6th gen (according to Boeing ):

You buy it, I dont.

 

[Arzamas 16]

YF-22 with S-duct won YF-23 without S-duct.
X-35 with S-duct won X-32 without S-duct.

Now Boeing redesigned failed YF-23 and called it 6th generation.

Failed 5th gen:

Super duper 6th gen (according to Boeing ):

You buy it, I dont.

Unless you can prove that the YF-23 and X-32 were rejected because stealth issues originating from a lack of S-duck, then your comparisons mean absolutely nothing, they could of been rejected for dozens of reasons.

 

[500]

Unless you can prove that the YF-23 and X-32 were rejected because stealth issues originating from a lack of S-duck, then your comparisons mean absolutely nothing, they could of been rejected for dozens of reasons.

Americans chose S-duct for both of their new stealth fighters. Europeans chose S-duct fro their new fighter. Frenchs chose S-duct for their new fighter, Chinese chose S-duct for both of their new stealth fighters. You can consider all that a coincidence if it makes u feel better. But can you explain me how Boeing's super duper "6th generation" is better than Boeing's failed 5th gen? Boeing reminds me Iranians who add another stabilizer to F-5 and call it next generation fighter.

 

[ptldM3]

Unless you can prove that the YF-23 and X-32 were rejected because stealth issues originating from a lack of S-duck, then your comparisons mean absolutely nothing, they could of been rejected for dozens of reasons.

They weren't the YF-23 had a lower RCS over the YF-22 something that the YF-23 "chief scientist" acknowledged after he was given the YF-22's classified RCS figures.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Unless you can prove that the YF-23 and X-32 were rejected because stealth issues originating from a lack of S-duck, then your comparisons mean absolutely nothing, they could of been rejected for dozens of reasons.

The YF-23 was too complicated, that is one reason why it was rejected.

 

[Arzamas 16]

Americans chose S-duct for both of their new stealth fighters. Europeans chose S-duct fro their new fighter. Frenchs chose S-duct for their new fighter, Chinese chose S-duct for both of their new stealth fighters. You can consider all that a coincidence if it makes u feel better. But can you explain me how Boeing's super duper "6th generation" is better than Boeing's failed 5th gen? Boeing reminds me Iranians who add another stabilizer to F-5 and call it next generation fighter.

S-duck technology is over 50 years old, not some super new tech, if you knew anything about aviation past your stupid meaningless comparisons you would know that but you don't your a fanboy.

Now I will say it again child, so listen carefully you might learn something.


Sukhoi tested S-ducks on Su-47 back in 90s, and it found out that its drawbacks out weigh its benefits.

 

[500]

S-duck technology is over 50 years old, not some super new tech, if you knew anything about aviation past your stupid meaningless comparisons you would know that but you don't your a fanboy.

Now I will say it again child, so listen carefully you might learn something.


Sukhoi tested S-ducks on Su-47 back in 90s, and it found out that its drawbacks out weigh its benefits.

Out of 7 new fighter designs by leading countries only Pak Fa is without S-duct. All the rest have S-duct. You may consider it a coincidence. Also you should learn the difference between the "duct" and "duck" instead calling me a kid.

But still u have not answered me how this "6 gen":

is better than this failed 5th gen:

 

[Arzamas 16]

Out of 7 new fighter designs by leading countries only Pak Fa is without S-duct. All the rest have S-duct. You may consider it a coincidence. Also you should learn the difference between the "duct" and "duck" instead calling me a kid.

But still u have not answered me how this "6 gen":

is better than this failed 5th gen:

Duck or Duct was a spelling mistake, we don't care about how or where the sheep is following their master (US) we have our own ideas that's is the reason why we are second only to USA when it comes to aviation, and for the third time Sukhoi tested S-ducks on Su-47 for at least for ten years so they must of had a very good reason to reject S-duct.


and I never called that concept drawing a "6th generation fighter", so stop putting words into my mouth Jew.

 

[500]

Duck or Duct was a spelling mistake

I also thought it was just spell mistake, thats why I did not note it the first time. Only when you repeated again and again.

we don't care about how or where the sheep is following their master (US) we have our own ideas that's is the reason why we are second only to USA when it comes to aviation, and for the third time Sukhoi tested S-ducks on Su-47 for at least for ten years so they must of had a very good reason to reject S-duct.

Testing and making an operational fighter are very different things. Fact is that all other countries prefer S-duct.

and I never called that concept drawing a "6th generation fighter", so stop putting words into my mouth Jew.

Your beloved Boeing with "the army of engineers" says so.

So after laughing and calling me names you agree with me that this so called 6th gen is nothing but Boeing's spin. They redesigned their failed 5th gen concept and are trying to sell it as 6th gen. Prolly after it also will be rejected they will add another stabilizer and call it a 7th gen.

 

[Arzamas 16]

Testing and making an operational fighter are very different things. Fact is that all other countries prefer S-duct.

Like i said before their is a good reason why we second only to US when it comes to aviation technology

Your beloved Boeing with "the army of engineers" says so.

So after laughing and calling me names you agree with me that this so called 6th gen is nothing but Boeing's spin. They redesigned their failed 5th gen concept and are trying to sell it as 6th gen. Prolly after it also will be rejected they will add another stabilizer and call it a 7th gen.

It would seem that you have reading comprehension issue's, because i was only mocking your wannabe expert analysis I never supported or denounced Boeing's concept.