US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread

Air Force Brat said:

The F-22 will always remain superior to the F-35 in ACM, lasers while neat, will always have a down side as Mr. Jura for once gets something right in Air Combat, LOL, sorry Jura.....

Now Mr. Brumby, we do indeed need hardware and a platform, seems that you've been watching too many re-runs from "Battle Star Galactica", looks like you have at least one "Ceylon" bird in your little fleet?? LOL

while all of the cool toys are indeed cool, and we do need to engage our enemy as they attempt to disrupt our "command and control" from space, it will get complicated, but we do need to "stay the course" and maintain our "air superiority" in the conventional realm, because I assure you, our enemies will, they are not blinded by "pie in the sky, bye and bye".

Click to expand...

Jura said:

oh thank you, and no problem LOL
Prague
Saturday 16:00
Partly Cloudy

90
°F
with a thunderstorm approaching and since this is a 'futuristic' thread, let me tell you if ever airborne lasers are of any use (other than stuffing manufacturers' pockets), airframes will be made of heat-absorbing stuff (NASA's Space Shuttle tiles come to mind) in response

Click to expand...

Bear in mind this conversation is about 20 - 50 years into the future. While atmospheric conditions may impact the effectiveness of lasers as we know of it today, future advancement in lethality under all conditions may not be as limiting as you think. Time will tell.

Jura said:

oh thank you, and no problem LOL
Prague
Saturday 16:00
Partly Cloudy

90
°F
with a thunderstorm approaching and since this is a 'futuristic' thread, let me tell you if ever airborne lasers are of any use (other than stuffing manufacturers' pockets), airframes will be made of heat-absorbing stuff (NASA's Space Shuttle tiles come to mind) in response

Click to expand...

Rain mostly occurs at around 3000~4000 meters. Clouds itself does not dissipate/refract laser light enough.
Basically it's the same as radar since both are EM waves.
If a radar wave can reach the target then a laser beam will definitely will.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

First. By Super Raptor I was referring to a service life extension for the platform using the Lightning 2.0 systems.
Lasers thus far have proven a fair Terminal phase weapon. In essence attacking targets in the dozen Km range. As such missiles and performance still exists. F22 still has higher altitudes and faster speeds well still having excellent low observable and larger ammunition supply.

The point was however not competing against F35 2.0 but complimenting. Systems of systems.
It may not out maneuver light but missiles are still a kill mechanism it’s just a matter of finding a way to prevent the enemy from getting the reaction time to engage the laser or Maser.
Part of the failure of the F22 and F35 is that they cannot talk to each other. You have two stealth platforms F22 the older higher faster and F35 not as fast or as high or well armed in LO configuration but smarter. These two should “play together” complimenting the strengths and weaknesses of each other. But the management failed on that part.

You created that attachment which I like of distributing and off loading sensor networks. Okay but it shouldn’t just feed to Lighting it should feed to a number of kill chain assets and I would basically remove the E2.

Click to expand...

I think we actually are on the same page.

What I am saying is that the future development pathway is a lot less dependent on a new platform but that new technologies as they become mature will and possibly be added onto the existing platforms. In other words, Raptor to Super Raptor, F-35 to 2.0, and even F-15EX(X) if the platform can host lasers and hypersonics. My point is I don't see a strong value add new platform (NGAD) in the equation.

Air Force Brat said:

I believe Mr. Anzha that I "Told you So!" in one of our few disagreements here on SDF, and you informed me that their must be "proto-typing" proceeding apace... as there was money allocated and "being spent".

Click to expand...

Over a billion has been spent. It was spent on something. not just allocated.

I'll be the first to admit I was - in the end - wrong. In fact, I do seem to recall being the person who flagged it as the NGAD was shifting gears.

Now, here we are in "Will Roper Land", out beyond the "crab nebula" of thinking and military planning, in other words we are in "no where land"!!

Click to expand...

Roper is from the MDA. The MDA burns money like no tomorrow and delivers very, very badly. If I am gathering what you are saying you are also not a fan. However, please, if I am misreading your comments, by all means.

Its absolutely non-sense to propose a new proto-type every 3 to 4 years,

Click to expand...

Actually, rapid prototyping is a wonderful thing. That's how they went from the vague idea of stealth to the Have Blue to the F-117, very, very quickly. Or was the F-117 a mistake?

and sadly we are unlikely to end up with those updated very capable F-15EX's, which would be extremely helpful honestly, if they didn't take away from what we will really need...

Click to expand...

Relative to other 4th gen aircraft, the EX will be very capable. Relative to the 5th gen...sitting duck.

The EX is Shanahan feathering his post gov nest, plain and simple. You do know where he came from, right? You do know Boeing's done that sort of thing before? You do know some folks are in prison for those actions, right?

As the Russian's and Chinese continue to struggle to bring their 5th Gen fighter's up to speed, the "Star Gazer's" will "diddle around" with all this "bullshit" rather building a high end 5th Gen for the real world we live in.... thinking this gives us lots of time?? you never have enough time, never....

Click to expand...

Cite for the Chinese having problems? The Russians, I'll concede. But Beijing? After all, the US DIA thinks the J-20 will hit FOC in the next year or so.

I'd hate to have to come back here and say "I told you so", it gives me NO PLEASURE to be right! I wish it were I coming back to you and saying, "Damn, that's a cool "future fighter".... definitely manned, tail, (my preference) or no tail, build the damn airplane!

Click to expand...

The problem is whether its 2020 or 2024, the current NGAD will get shelved with the new administration. The Euros (!) have started their own 6th gens.

I doubt the F-22 will get more than cosmetic upgrades, tbh. I hope I'm wrong, but...more than likely, if no new platform comes along, it will be an F-35D around 2030. joy.

Turning to Brumby: the best reason to go with a new platform? range. The F-35, F-15, F-22 all have relatively short ranges without tanker support. We don't have Clarke anymore. That means we are fighting in the SCA from Guam unless its from a carrier. That means tankers will be over the SCA to support F-22s, F-35s and whatnot. That makes the vulnerable. If you could pull the tankers back to at least the Philippines, then that would be a much better position to prevent their loss. To get an F-22 with the range to do that is pretty much a new build. And if you are going to do a new build...

Oh well. I was wrong. And I think the USAF is pretty fscked.

Brumby said:

I think we actually are on the same page.

What I am saying is that the future development pathway is a lot less dependent on a new platform but that new technologies as they become mature will and possibly be added onto the existing platforms. In other words, Raptor to Super Raptor, F-35 to 2.0, and even F-15EX(X) if the platform can host lasers and hypersonics. My point is I don't see a strong value add new platform (NGAD) in the equation.

Click to expand...

The Problem I think that pushes a NGAD. Is numbers.
For the USAF
You get >1700 F35
> 180 F22
And >140 F15EX

Now given the Age and number of the F15C fleet even with the F15EX you are going to end up with 90 units aging out. And 210 F15E models aging out eventually
So that’s a gap in the future USAF vs the current in numbers of about 300 fighters. But the USAF like the Navy wants to grow.
So that’s 300+ The Air Force has shown that it doesn’t feel that they can use F35 in the same mission as F15s by the F15EX buy. And expanding the F15EX buy despite what some say doesn’t fit the bill. It’s fine for now but beyond they are getting diminished returns on the investment.
The Navy perhaps may move to a Single ship force. Today they pretty much have one with Super Hornets. For them it might make more sense to just go F/A35F yet at the same time I think the push will remain a new Super Hornet replacement.
The Marines have and view F35 as their future.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The Problem I think that pushes a NGAD. Is numbers.
For the USAF
You get >1700 F35
> 180 F22
And >140 F15EX

Now given the Age and number of the F15C fleet even with the F15EX you are going to end up with 90 units aging out. And 210 F15E models aging out eventually
So that’s a gap in the future USAF vs the current in numbers of about 300 fighters. But the USAF like the Navy wants to grow.
So that’s 300+ The Air Force has shown that it doesn’t feel that they can use F35 in the same mission as F15s by the F15EX buy. And expanding the F15EX buy despite what some say doesn’t fit the bill. It’s fine for now but beyond they are getting diminished returns on the investment.
The Navy perhaps may move to a Single ship force. Today they pretty much have one with Super Hornets. For them it might make more sense to just go F/A35F yet at the same time I think the push will remain a new Super Hornet replacement.
The Marines have and view F35 as their future.

Click to expand...

There are actually two related but yet distinct conversations that we are having. I think it is important to differentiate between the technological pathway and the capacity issues that you are alluding to which in turn is bout budgetary constraints. The reason why the F-15EX has traction and possibly Congressional support is because it has a lower sustainment cost than the F-35. In a June 14, 2019 article by AWST the following points were made :

Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) also appeared shocked during the hearing by what he called the “major shift in thinking” within the Pentagon. “For the last four years, in particular, we have been hearing about fifth generation, fifth generation,” he said. “And this year it was dropped on our laps about an F-15 coming into play.”

Behind the scenes, however, the Defense Department has been moving quietly toward the F-15. Its appeal was driven in part by the economics of flying an F-15EX compared to the F-35. The office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) estimates the cost per flight hour of the F-35A in 2024 will be $36,000 and then will increase as early-production models enter a depot maintenance cycle, Robert Daigle, then-CAPE director, told the committee during the hearing. By contrast, the F-15X is projected to cost $29,000 per hour.

Click to expand...

If your concern is about building capacity then NGAD is clearly not the way to go. Early estimates suggest that each platform will be in the vicinity of $300 million. A more affordable path in my view is to eventually build more F-35s than the official numbers and by adopting more future capabilities into successive blocks rather than having a new platform.to host future capabilities.

As for the USN, it first need to articulate a vision of what they want to achieve from a new platform if it wants to remain relevant. In terms of range I am of the view of building more B-21 is the way to go. Two B-21s carrying 24 LRASM each will easily take care of a whole Chinese carrier battle group. It then begs the question, what is the role of the USN in a high end fight? .

.

anzha said:

Actually, rapid prototyping is a wonderful thing. That's how they went from the vague idea of stealth to the Have Blue to the F-117, very, very quickly. Or was the F-117 a mistake?

Click to expand...

A mistake? No clearly not but a single trick aircraft. All it had was Low Observation. But even that was dependent on either knowing where the enemy radar was or having someone come along and assist in keeping the F117 from getting detected when it flew to close to a radar.
Was F117 a mistake? No. For the time for a very nitch job it was okay.
But to build the entire future of US air power around it? No way. It was built around one aspect and one aspect alone passive stealth.
Everything else was sacrificed on the alter to deflection and absorption of radar energy.

Okay so? So as we saw in 1999 that was fine unless you happened to be dealing with someone who had discipline, mobility intelligence in an anti aircraft system and unit.
They had the discipline to operate the radar for short periods, had the mobility to rapidly move where they wanted and break down in a hurry and the intelligence to know the path to put the weapons.
These proved not the folly but the flaws of F117 production.
They were fine in the right situation but increasingly that total sacrifice could easily loose ground.
but This should have and was easily seen after all this was just a tech demonstrator, that became a lack luster bomber.
Other demonstration aircraft had emerged in the space between 1979 and 1999. That introduced Passive electronic warfare ability and radar, refined the shapes to fly supersonic, and data links to allow faster harder to intercept communications.
Those lead to F22 and eventually F35.

Their survival aspect are based on integration. Sensors and VLO together not apart.

SamuraiBlue said:

Rain mostly occurs at around 3000~4000 meters. Clouds itself does not dissipate/refract laser light enough.
Basically it's the same as radar since both are EM waves.
If a radar wave can reach the target then a laser beam will definitely will.

Click to expand...

Pew! Pew! Pew!

Brumby said:

There are actually two related but yet distinct conversations that we are having. I think it is important to differentiate between the technological pathway and the capacity issues that you are alluding to which in turn is bout budgetary constraints. The reason why the F-15EX has traction and possibly Congressional support is because it has a lower sustainment cost than the F-35. In a June 14, 2019 article by AWST the following points were made :

Click to expand...

We are still fairly immature with the technology.
However sustainment for F15EX may be cheaper for operations at home and in training but vs a competent air defense system it’s cheaper to sustain F35 vs loosing an F15EX and pilot to a standing air defense system.
The USAF secretary stated that the USAF intends to maintain some level of 4th gen for some time. The goal was something like 60% Fifth gen 40% fourth gen. F15C is operating on something of life support however due to the age and manufacturing flaws of the Longeron. It was deemed as requiring early retirement. This you might recall lead to ideas like using F16s in the Domestic F15 role. However the end choice was F15EX

Brumby said:

If your concern is about building capacity then NGAD is clearly not the way to go. Early estimates suggest that each platform will be in the vicinity of $300 million. A more affordable path in my view is to eventually build more F-35s than the official numbers and by adopting more future capabilities into successive blocks rather than having a new platform.to host future capabilities.

Click to expand...

Cost point is a major issue. I fear the only real fix for the feared $300 million is to find some other means to build them.
Building more Lightning may be an option but I fear it would be sacrificing capability for numbers. As I have pointed to and reiterated F35 was designed to compliment not replace an Air-superiority fighter. If the wiry is for the Navy they are already more willing to I think sacrifice capability vs sustainment of a single platform. But the USAF I don’t think would make that buy. For them if that is the fate they are looking at I think you would more likely find them pushing a F35 F22 Hybrid than just F35A upgrades. Lower speed lower range, lower altitude, lower Low observable air to air load out they are Okay for the mission set chosen for F35 but only as long as you have a higher end sibling.

As for the USN, it first need to articulate a vision of what they want to achieve from a new platform if it wants to remain relevant. In terms of range I am of the view of building more B-21 is the way to go. Two B-21s carrying 24 LRASM each will easily take care of a whole Chinese carrier battle group. It then begs the question, what is the role of the USN in a high end fight? .

Click to expand...

You will never make a fighter as long a range as a large bomber. The carrier air wing has suffered diminished range as time as progressed but it’s become more and more self serving.

Brumby said:

Bear in mind this conversation is about 20 - 50 years into the future. While atmospheric conditions may impact the effectiveness of lasers as we know of it today, future advancement in lethality under all conditions may not be as limiting as you think. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

a cloaking device included in the roadmap of future upgrades

in the meantime I'll be hoping the NATO has enough pilots and money for gas