Donald Trump Announces New F-55 Fighter Jet
Newseek,
by
Theo Burman
&
Shane Croucher
Original Article
Posted By: Ruhn,
5/15/2025 12:32:15 PM
President Donald Trump has announced that his administration is looking to upgrade U.S. fighter jets by creating a F-55 model.
Trump said in Qatar on Thursday that there will be a "simple upgrade" to the F-35, but that he also wanted to go further by developing an entirely new model. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, commonly referred to as the F-35, is a cornerstone of the U.S. Air Force, and has been used in missions across the world. (snip) Commenting on the development of a F-55 fighter jet, he said: "That's going to be a substantial upgrade, but it's going to be also with two engines..."
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Hazymac 5/15/2025 12:39:06 PM (No. 1950350)
Great news, but ... shouldn't that be "jet fighter"?
10 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
DVC 5/15/2025 12:45:04 PM (No. 1950351)
Jet fighter.
Jet fighter.
Jet fighter.
Jet fighter.
There never has been such a thing as a "fighter jet" outside of brainless comic books and idiot news writers.
OK, it will be interesting to learn more about it. Why jump 20 numbers? Typically we were pretty numerical. F-100, F-101, F-102, skipped F-103, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-107 was a prototype never produced, ....then they ended the "century series" because the USN F4B Phantom II was used by the USAF....and they called it the F4, too.
Previous to that USN and USAF designations for the same aircraft were different. The USN A-3 was the same as the USAF B-66, many other examples. Robert McNamara, the outside destroyers as SecDef, was too lazy to learn the numbers and ordered the USN and USAF to have the same numbering schemes.
Again....why skip 20 numbers? Why not F-36 or F-38?
8 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Phantomll 5/15/2025 12:45:31 PM (No. 1950353)
Amen #1! There are jet fighters but, despite the media, so such thing as "fighter jets"!
8 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bpl40 5/15/2025 2:16:42 PM (No. 1950379)
The way price tags on these things are going, they probably will be able to afford one apiece.
5 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Starlifter Nav 5/15/2025 2:21:20 PM (No. 1950383)
From the idiots at Newsweek:
"...higher thrust... which is better for flying at higher altitudes and carrying heavier cargo..."
Which is relevant how, exactly, for a fighter aircraft? Which will never be carrying cargo... (Yes , I know... fuel oad, weapons payload...)
Talk to me about thrust to weight ratio and high g force maneuverability... or maybe find a writer who knows anything about military aviation. There's a thought.
12 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
planetgeo 5/15/2025 2:46:11 PM (No. 1950395)
I'm a big supporter of President Trump...but aerospace tech isn't his strong point. Stay in your lane, President Bro. You're doing great on your main checklist. Stay on it!
4 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Californian 5/15/2025 3:14:32 PM (No. 1950404)
2, the skipped numbers were craft that the public never saw. Some were just drawing board, some were built as demonstrators and abandoned for various reasons, and so on.
What's it matter anyway? They could call the next jet, "The Lollypop 67", and as long as it's better than anyone else's who cares?
10 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 5/15/2025 5:10:00 PM (No. 1950450)
The next major war is likely to be over the Pacific, with very, very long range air-to-air missiles coming back into vogue. It will be interesting to see if, this time, we'll ever get 'weapons free' to use any of our Beyond Visual Range missiles.
We had the Talos USN long range anti-aircraft ship missile, but in the Vietnam war I think it was used about twice because there were only a very, very few days when the air control folks could guarantee that there were no US aircraft over that part of Vietnam, so the Navy was cleared to shoot. And the F-14 had the AIM-54 Phoenix long range air-to-air missile which could, in certain circumstances shoot down aircraft over 100 miles away. I don't think the USN ever fired a single Phoenix in anger. The Iranians used them many times, some of their F-14 pilots getting ace status in the Iran-Iraq war with Phoenix missiles.
Now the Brits have brought out their Meteor long range air-to-air missile, and the Chinese have their PL-15 missile. The ChiCom missile is estimated to outrange our AMRAAM, currently our longest ranged missile. We have the new AIM-260 "coming soon". Our AMRAAM (AIM-120) with newest versions up to 96 miles, but PL-15 claims up to 180 miles. Our AIM-260 is supposed to have "at least 120 miles", still classified. And ChiComs always exaggerate all their magical weapons' capability, so their 180 mile claim is highly questionable, given the technology shown in the photos of the PL-15.
The best long range missiles use ramjet second phase propulsion, where the oxidizer to burn the rocket fuel comes from the air. This gives far greater range for a given weight, and the ramjet inlets are obvious on one of those types. The PL-15 is a straight up solid rocket motor, so the range is probably not as great as they claim. Our AIM-260 (coming soon!) has been very, very highly classified, so no photos even though it has been in live aerial testing for five years, and is nearing full production. No info on whether it has ramjet propulsion like the Meteor and old Talos. Some sources say the AIM-260 will have a 180-190 mile range....just classified too much at this point to know.
So.....big, heavy long range missiles, and a bunch, and a need for LONG over water flights to fight in the Pacific, this means a big aircraft, more what used to be called an interceptor than a dogfighter. So, the F-55 is going to be big....weapons carriage inside, and a lot, means bigger weapons bays, too. Bigger.
10 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 5/15/2025 6:19:20 PM (No. 1950484)
What's the price tag? Check the debt lately?
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Strike3 5/16/2025 7:01:58 AM (No. 1950651)
It's better to have it and not need it. Just don't let the Chinese have the technology this time.
7 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
billa57 5/16/2025 8:04:02 AM (No. 1950689)
What happened to the Aurora?
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
TCloud 5/16/2025 8:53:19 AM (No. 1950710)
Hey Wokesters! If there if a Fighter Jet, then there has to be a Bomber Jet...right? Jeez Man!
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Zumkopf 5/16/2025 9:30:23 AM (No. 1950731)
#12, you’re trying to shame (what did you call them? The “Wokesters”?) for their ignorance. It won’t work. The Progressives are PROUD of not knowing anything about military systems and weapons. They believe that those people familiar with guns are morally inferior.
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Zigrid 5/16/2025 9:47:49 AM (No. 1950739)
Does it matter poster #1?... Jet fighter...or fighter jet...it's still the same good news and I plan to enjoy the win.....looks like the Washington DC's Friday night cocktail parties will be buzzing with all the good news from the Middle East...OR...comy trying to inject himself into being relevant .....and then there's the Sunday fake news program lineup....not discussing the progress in the fabulous visits President Trump made...but comy will be the headliner....
3 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
3XALADY 5/16/2025 1:20:54 PM (No. 1950834)
Personally, I think poster #8 should be shoulder to shoulder with our SecDef.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ruhn"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
This is Lockheed-Martin's attempt to salvage their lost NGAD bid by incorporating sixth-generation technology into the F-35 (plus a twin engine configuration).