The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2013, 02:40
by maus92
Yes, There Will Be a New Jet Fighter After the F-22 and F-35
Dave Majumdar | WIB

"America’s next jet fighter—a so-called “sixth-generation” warplane— could be fundamentally different than the current fifth-generation F-22 and F-35. But it’s not clear yet what exactly that means.

In fact, terms like “fighter” or “bomber” might be holding the Pentagon back from taking full advantage of new technology.

“The technology has taken us to a point that has exceeded the vocabulary and semantics that have described aircraft in the past,” says David Deptula, a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence chief and former F-15 pilot...."

-Or otherwise redefining the form and roles between what is traditionally considered a fighter or bomber.

"What technologies might be included in the new warplane is still an open question. “It’ll be some type of game-changing capability,” Hostage said earlier this year. “It’s not going to be an iterative growth of this [current] capability.”"

-So not a F-35 derivative as thought earlier.

"The Pentagon’s fringe-science Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has already started working on that problem alongside the Air Force and Navy. The two services each have their own sixth-generation fighter studies underway—the “F-X” and “F/A-XX,” respectively.

The Navy project appears to be running somewhat ahead of the Air Force project because of the sailing branch’s need to replace its F/A-18E/Fs in the 2030s.

In any event, for the next decade or so the Pentagon will build the F-35—the F-22's newer, smaller and more compromised cousin—just to keep up numbers."

- F-35 compromised, check.

"If future U.S. national security policy calls for operating over the vast reaches of the Pacific, a future fighter aircraft might be fundamentally different from anything that has come before. “We need to stop thinking about combat aircraft as bombers and fighters or ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] platforms for that matter,” says Mark Gunzinger, an air power analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

- Another example of role blending of future aircraft.

"To that end, the Pentagon needs to stop thinking in terms of simply replacing existing fleets of jets, Deptula says. “We need to think less about a one-on-one replacement of a particular type of aircraft and think more about the effects that we want those aircraft to be able to achieve,” Deptula says..."

-A concept that could be (re)introduced and tweaked with LRS-B/F-35 next decade.

"And whatever new plane the Pentagon buys should be capable of doing lots of different things—not just shooting down other fighters. “In the case of the F-X, F/A-XX, or whatever designation you are using, what they are focusing on is the need to achieve and maintain air dominance, and that’s fine, we will need that capability,” Deptula says..."

"Data-sharing will be vital, Deptula argues. Advanced aircraft of the future could be “critical nodes” of a much larger “combat cloud” architecture that further blurs traditional divisions within air power. He says diverse missions such as air-to-air combat, bombing and reconnaissance should be “integrated into a single platform,” something that today’s warplanes already do, to an extent...."

- ibid

"A full-scale technological conflict could prohibit U.S. aircraft from using large, fixed bases near the front lines, as these facilities could be vulnerable to enemy attack. Instead, warplanes would fly into battle from far away, carrying with them all the fuel and weapons they might need for a sustained fight.

“You might begin to conclude that we might want a future air-superiority platform that has more range than we typically think a fighter has,” Gunzinger says. “Maybe a lot more range. And, frankly, we might want something that carries a great deal more payload.”"

- Range is crucial, and so is payload. The need and complexity of tanking, and sorties are reduced.

"As such, the “the next-generation fighter might look more like a bomber,” Gunzinger points out.

""But a sixth-gen warplane probably will not look like the Air Force’s new Long Range Strike-Bomber, Deptula says. The bomber is likely to be long-legged but slow. By contrast, a new fighter will still need to be fast in order to do battle air-to-air.

“Speed is going to be a critical piece,” Deptula insists. Not coincidentally, the U.S. aerospace industry is working hard on advanced new engines that could operate efficiently at subsonic and supersonic speeds.

Meanwhile stealth is not going anywhere—advanced low observables are going to be as important as ever, Deptula says. But he grants that the ability to avoid detection by radar is no “silver bullet,” as Air Force leaders have sometimes portrayed it in the past.


"The Pentagon is likely to want a new fighter with wide-band stealth effective against the latest crop of low-frequency radars, which are better able to detect current stealth jets, including the F-22 and F-35. “I’m talking about something that is highly survivable,” Gunzinger says of a sixth-gen plane."

-Great article by DM
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/125212bd17b

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2013, 04:29
by rotosequence
So by this author's opinion, the next generation of US combat aircraft are going to be huge, complex, and designed to do anything and everything? If that turns out to be the case, I expect this program to be about as successful as the F-111 was.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2013, 05:14
by popcorn
It will be a flying compromise, like every aircraft that came before and that will come after it.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2013, 08:16
by lookieloo
I suspect a rather cynical effort on Dave's part to psych-up the fanboy's into idiotic frenzies that an F-35 substitute is somehow right around the corner. If not, he's a complete f^cking moron. IOC by the 2030s means that a competition should already be well underway, with contestants already selected for a fly-off and demonstrators under construction. No such program exists.

But hell, let's give him maximum benefit of doubt and assume that 2039 qualifies as "the 2030s." That still means demonstrators have to be in the air by 2024 for an aircraft that has more range, more engines, and more weapons than the F-35 while somehow weighing around the same or less... did someone stumble upon deposits of mithril, adamantium, or some other unobtainium?

Sorry to disappoint the kids, but F/A-XX in unlikely to be anything more than a later-block F-35C, and the F-22 has a better chance of reentering production than being replaced in Dave's ridiculous time-frame.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2013, 10:10
by disconnectedradical
The 6th gen Navy F/A-XX is in the RFI stage, which is where ATF is in 1981. Using the same time scale, IOC will be achieved in the mid to late 2030s (2037 to be "exact"). Then again, defense budget environment isn't quite like how it was back then.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2013, 10:27
by rotosequence
lookieloo wrote:But hell, let's give him maximum benefit of doubt and assume that 2039 qualifies as "the 2030s." That still means demonstrators have to be in the air by 2024 for an aircraft that has more range, more engines, and more weapons than the F-35 while somehow weighing around the same or less... did someone stumble upon deposits of mithril, adamantium, or some other unobtainium?


Thanks to a patent that's about to expire on titanium refining and the development and proliferation of laser sintering and other additive manufacturing technologies, it should be possible to create aircraft structures of a given strength at lighter weights, more quickly, and more affordably, than ever before.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2013, 06:03
by lookieloo
disconnectedradical wrote:The 6th gen Navy F/A-XX is in the RFI stage, which is where ATF is in 1981. Using the same time scale, IOC will be achieved in the mid to late 2030s (2037 to be "exact"). Then again, defense budget environment isn't quite like how it was back then.
More frustrating is the fact that it doesn't have to be this way. The development-cycles of modern, all-new fighters can basically be divided into two eras: Pre-DOT&E (4-5 years from prototype to IOC)... and post-DOT&E (~15 years from prototype to IOC). This is also why I find the IOC timeline for UCLASS to be such a joke, especially now that the USN has switched back to a full-on TACAIR requirement.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2013, 20:47
by madrat
Ironically an unobtainium has been acquired called generically 'grown metal' which is a cross between metal alloy technology, foam metal matrix technology, and electrolysis. It's akin to turning steels into Kevlar. Extreme fatigue resistance with equally extreme weight reductions.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2013, 02:14
by rotosequence
madrat wrote:Ironically an unobtainium has been acquired called generically 'grown metal' which is a cross between metal alloy technology, foam metal matrix technology, and electrolysis. It's akin to turning steels into Kevlar. Extreme fatigue resistance with equally extreme weight reductions.


Do you have any links you can direct us to for the mechanical properties of said materials?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2013, 08:42
by madrat
A few companies are racing to provide the best materials. Two I can think of Nanosteel and Modumetal.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 13:09
by rotosequence
The Air Force Research Lab has issued a solicitation for F-X laser systems development.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0

Synopsis:
Added: Nov 15, 2013 12:00 pm

The Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) is requesting information describing concepts for airborne laser systems for future air dominance platforms. The emphasis of this effort is to identify potential laser systems that could be integrated into a platform that will provide air dominance in the 2030+ highly contested Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment. Of particular interest are laser systems that are expected to be at TRL 4 or higher by October 2014 and could be demonstrated at TRL 5 or higher by 2022. Laser and beam control systems are being investigated independent of platform in the flight regime from altitudes Sea Level to 65kft and speeds from Mach 0.6 to 2.5

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2013, 22:21
by neurotech
madrat wrote:Ironically an unobtainium has been acquired called generically 'grown metal' which is a cross between metal alloy technology, foam metal matrix technology, and electrolysis. It's akin to turning steels into Kevlar. Extreme fatigue resistance with equally extreme weight reductions.

Do you have a reference for the specific type of unobtainium your referring to?

I'd heard scuttlebutt of similar but the details remain vague.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2013, 12:01
by rotosequence
When these jets start flying, is the sequential naming convention going to pick up from 23 or 35?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2013, 14:36
by hb_pencil
More like the 50s range.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2019, 07:45
by zero-one
Latest news on the F/A-XX


https://theaviationgeekclub.com/report- ... in-summer/
The F/A-XX air-dominance fighter will be a sixth-generation aircraft that eventually will replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighter in the Navy’s carrier air wings.
Rear Admiral Scott D. Conn, director of Air Warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, said on Apr. 4 that the analysis of alternatives (AoA) for U.S. Navy next-generation air-dominance fighter aircraft (F/A-XX) will be complete during spring of 2019.


Interesting that they are calling it an "Air dominance fighter". Is he just throwing that around to sound cool or does it mean something. Like this new fighter will be tailored for A-A with secondary Strike capabilities.

Makes sense as the F-35 will be the undisputed king of Strike missions for a very very long time

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2019, 08:17
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:Latest news on the F/A-XX


https://theaviationgeekclub.com/report- ... in-summer/
The F/A-XX air-dominance fighter will be a sixth-generation aircraft that eventually will replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighter in the Navy’s carrier air wings.
Rear Admiral Scott D. Conn, director of Air Warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, said on Apr. 4 that the analysis of alternatives (AoA) for U.S. Navy next-generation air-dominance fighter aircraft (F/A-XX) will be complete during spring of 2019.


Interesting that they are calling it an "Air dominance fighter". Is he just throwing that around to sound cool or does it mean something. Like this new fighter will be tailored for A-A with secondary Strike capabilities.

Makes sense as the F-35 will be the undisputed king of Strike missions for a very very long time



Yet, the F/A-XX (NGAD) fighter is replacing the Super Hornet. Which, is also a "Strike Fighter". :wink:


That said, I would expect much of the Super Hornet Fleet to be replaced by F-35C's. Just like the Super Hornet did with the Hornet. As the F/A-XX is a very long ways off.....

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2019, 10:56
by zero-one
I think they may want to go back to their old Hi-Lo mix roots

60s - 70s Era
Hi F-4: Primarily air to air with secondary Ground attack
Lo A-7 Primarily Strike

80s - 90s Era
Hi F-14: Primarily air to air
Lo F/A-18: Primarily Strike with considerable A-A capabilities specially at short range

00s - 10s Era
Hi F/A-18C: Primarily Strike with considerable A-A capabilities specially at short range
Lo F/A-18E: Primarily Strike with considerable A-A capabilities specially at short and medium range

10s - 20s Era
Hi F-35C: Primarily Strike with considerable A-A capabilities specially at short and medium range
Lo F/A-18E: Primarily Strike with considerable A-A capabilities specially at short and medium range

The 00s and 10s era's combat environment has the USN's primary threat on the surface. But we may be going back to a time where the Navy air crews will find themselves out numbered in the air. Hence the navy wants to get back to fighters with primary emphasis on A-A

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2019, 13:42
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:Latest news on the F/A-XX


https://theaviationgeekclub.com/report- ... in-summer/
The F/A-XX air-dominance fighter will be a sixth-generation aircraft that eventually will replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighter in the Navy’s carrier air wings.
Rear Admiral Scott D. Conn, director of Air Warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, said on Apr. 4 that the analysis of alternatives (AoA) for U.S. Navy next-generation air-dominance fighter aircraft (F/A-XX) will be complete during spring of 2019.


Interesting that they are calling it an "Air dominance fighter". Is he just throwing that around to sound cool or does it mean something. Like this new fighter will be tailored for A-A with secondary Strike capabilities.

Makes sense as the F-35 will be the undisputed king of Strike missions for a very very long time


I thought that verbage odd too, although I'm happy to hear it. Air superiority/dominance has been little more than an afterthought on platforms other than the F-22, and its high time that changed.

How it will dominate is another matter. Likely differently than it has in the past. But the focus should be there IMO and it should over-ride other elements of the design (when it comes time to compromise).

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2019, 14:17
by zero-one
^^
Well as you guys may already tell, I'm not a big fan of subtracting capabilities in favor of others.
6th gen programs like F/A-XX, F-X and PCA will be driven by how combat will theoretically be and not by actual high end combat experience. The last time we made aircraft like that, we ended up with the F-4. Great plane but it dominated in ways it wasn't really designed for. So theres a lot of talk of forgoing speed and maneuverability for more Stealth and range.

I'm just not yet convinced we can totally rule out close range engagements just yet. So I would prefer a platform that can dominate in new ways but also have no problem fighting old school. The F-22 and F-35 are prime examples of those. These are the benefits of designs influenced by actual combat.

But there is hope:
Rear Admiral Donald Gaddis--comments that the next-generation fighter must have far better kinematic performance and range than existing fighters. That is particularly true in an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment.

"If you look at the A2/AD environment, and that arc, overtime, is going to grow larger. We have to stay ahead of that," Moran says. "So the weapons have to be able fill that. And the only way you're going to do it is have greater kinematics."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... xx-370854/

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2019, 19:55
by blain
A key requirement of the F/A-XX is supposedly much more range, a combat radius to at least 1,000 nm. The planform might need to be different, trading maneuverability and some performance for range. Flying wing? A "cranked" kite like the X-47B will produce long range and endurance but its hard to imaging an aircraft like this in a dogfight.

Or can they stay within the confines of a traditional fighter planform? The YF-23 supposedly had greater range than the F-22. China's J-20 prioritized stealth and range. But will 1,000 nm be enough? Will the threat force the requirement to grow to 1,500 nm. That will affect the number of sorties a CVW can generate.

The introduction of the B-21 in numbers and the development of a bomber with hypersonic technology will likely change the role of the CSG in a conflict with a nation with robust A2/AD capability.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2019, 23:54
by chucky2
"...because of the sailing branch’s need to replace its F/A-18E/Fs in the 2030s"

Uh, that's the F-35C the taxpayer has already paid for, correct? Since the answer to that should be 'Yes', then WTF does Navy need F/A-XX for? How about getting F-35C done first...then they won't need F/A-XX...

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 00:05
by SpudmanWP
No.

The F-35C was to replace the Legacy Hornets (F-18A/B/C/D) and FA-XX was to replace the Super Hornets.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 01:36
by Corsair1963
chucky2 wrote:"...because of the sailing branch’s need to replace its F/A-18E/Fs in the 2030s"

Uh, that's the F-35C the taxpayer has already paid for, correct? Since the answer to that should be 'Yes', then WTF does Navy need F/A-XX for? How about getting F-35C done first...then they won't need F/A-XX...




The F/A-XX (NGAD) is a good twenty years off. Which, means by time it comes online in any real numbers. The early F-35C's will start to retire.....

Today you have the Hornet, Super Hornet, and F-35C. As they progress to the next generation. It will transit to the Super Hornet, F-35C, and NGAD. (F/A-XX)

Honestly, what's hard not to understand???

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 01:42
by chucky2
SpudmanWP wrote:No.

The F-35C was to replace the Legacy Hornets (F-18A/B/C/D) and FA-XX was to replace the Super Hornets.


Then we're getting a great design, because the F-35C is not only better than A-D, it's better than then E/F as well. F-35's with advanced engines ought to be sufficient given we have pretty much overwhelming carrier superiority. Billions saved...

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 01:54
by chucky2
Corsair1963 wrote:
chucky2 wrote:"...because of the sailing branch’s need to replace its F/A-18E/Fs in the 2030s"

Uh, that's the F-35C the taxpayer has already paid for, correct? Since the answer to that should be 'Yes', then WTF does Navy need F/A-XX for? How about getting F-35C done first...then they won't need F/A-XX...




The F/A-XX (NGAD) is a good twenty years off. Which, means by time it comes online in any real numbers. The early F-35C's will start to retire.....

Today you have the Hornet, Super Hornet, and F-35C. As they progress to the next generation. It will transit to the Super Hornet, F-35C, and NGAD. (F/A-XX)

Honestly, what's hard not to understand???


That at the rate the Navy is moving on F-35C, they can just finish rolling out F-35C+ and call it a day for a couple decades?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 02:13
by Corsair1963
chucky2 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
chucky2 wrote:"...because of the sailing branch’s need to replace its F/A-18E/Fs in the 2030s"

Uh, that's the F-35C the taxpayer has already paid for, correct? Since the answer to that should be 'Yes', then WTF does Navy need F/A-XX for? How about getting F-35C done first...then they won't need F/A-XX...




The F/A-XX (NGAD) is a good twenty years off. Which, means by time it comes online in any real numbers. The early F-35C's will start to retire.....

Today you have the Hornet, Super Hornet, and F-35C. As they progress to the next generation. It will transit to the Super Hornet, F-35C, and NGAD. (F/A-XX)

Honestly, what's hard not to understand???


That at the rate the Navy is moving on F-35C, they can just finish rolling out F-35C+ and call it a day for a couple decades?


YES The USN will acquire two squadrons of F-35C's per year over the coming decade for each CVW (Carrier Air Wing) as planned. Yet, my guess is the second that is complete. The USN will just continue F-35C Production. Which, would replace the remaining Super Hornets. Then post 2040 when the NGAD (F/A-XX) starts to come online. They would start to replace the oldest F-35C's.

Nothing surprising at all....

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 07:36
by zero-one
This seems to be the poster child for the NGAD program. So if we do end up with a platform similar in nature to this what can you tell about it.

1. No tail, so that tells me it will have more broadband stealth, although it does have those canards.
2. They may incorporate 3D TVC to keep stability and yaw control.
3. If they do, then they could also use that same TVC for combat maneuvering.
4. Canards tell me there is still some requirement for good pitch authority.

This could be far from the final design we end up with. But what it tells me that at least from the time of rendering this could be Boeing's proposal to the Navy's initial requirements.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 12:35
by mixelflick
Let's talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room, funding.

Does everyone here think our nation can afford two very high end air superiority platforms? PCA and F/A-XX aren't going to be cheap. Unless they considerably lower the specs, these are going to be big, heavy birds laden with pricey sensors, weapons etc..I don't even want to think about cost per flight hour. Where's the $ going to come from?

So here's how I see things going down: PCA will be big $, but the USAF has hopefully learned the hard lesson about truncating the F-22 buy - PCA will be built in number. Call it 350ish. The Navy's going to get into F/A-XX pretty deep, before ultimately realizing it can't afford it. Two squadrons per carrier plus training and aircraft to account for attrition is likewise going to be about 350, maybe 400 airframes.

A naval version of PCA will ultimately be pitched, but just like naval versions of the F-15 and F-22 before it, it will be rejected. The Navy will then just buy upgraded F-35C's and call it a day...

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 13:48
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:Let's talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room, funding.


Actually it's 3. Am I the only one who thinks the Air force's F-X and PCA are actually 2 separate programs.
The PCA seems to be a long range escort interceptor that can fly long distances with the B-21.
F-X is the actual potential replacement for the F-22 in the 2050 timeline.
https://www.businessinsider.sg/air-forc ... ?r=US&IR=T

Top Brass has hinted that these programs will use mature (cheaper) technologies instead of developing them from scratch which is what the ATF and JSF programs did. They also won't go through 10 year development cycles.

The reason why 5th gens were so expensive was because they were really a giant leap in technology, the USAF went from the F-15 to the F-22 which is superior in every imaginable way and more.

I think F-X or PCA will look more like the jump from an F-15 to a Typhoon. It will be less revolutionary and more evolutionary in nature.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 22:09
by blain
zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Let's talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room, funding.


Actually it's 3. Am I the only one who thinks the Air force's F-X and PCA are actually 2 separate programs.
The PCA seems to be a long range escort interceptor that can fly long distances with the B-21.
F-X is the actual potential replacement for the F-22 in the 2050 timeline.
https://www.businessinsider.sg/air-forc ... ?r=US&IR=T

Top Brass has hinted that these programs will use mature (cheaper) technologies instead of developing them from scratch which is what the ATF and JSF programs did. They also won't go through 10 year development cycles.

The reason why 5th gens were so expensive was because they were really a giant leap in technology, the USAF went from the F-15 to the F-22 which is superior in every imaginable way and more.

I think F-X or PCA will look more like the jump from an F-15 to a Typhoon. It will be less revolutionary and more evolutionary in nature.


I noticed the B-21 escort requirement for the PCA. The range requirement is key. Is the increase in combat radius to 1,000 nm or is it more in keeping with the B-21? Because if it is the latter then the planform will be a lot more like a flying wing or "cranked" kite than the F-22.

NG went back to the original B-2 design for something more affordable, trading off some capabilities for lower cost and a faster development time. I wondering if the USAF should go back to the F-23 for a fighter with greater range and potentially better stealth than the F-22 if it the former if the range requirement is modest.

Another option to protect B-21s is a long range UCAV loaded with AAMs/AARGM. The B-21 is suppose to optionally manned. Certain functions could be offloaded to a remote pilot. The onboard crew could control the UCAV through a stealthy data link like MADL, conducting EA, SEAD, or OCA/DCA.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 02:06
by crosshairs
mixelflick wrote:Let's talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room, funding.

Does everyone here think our nation can afford two very high end air superiority platforms? PCA and F/A-XX aren't going to be cheap. Unless they considerably lower the specs, these are going to be big, heavy birds laden with pricey sensors, weapons etc..I don't even want to think about cost per flight hour. Where's the $ going to come from?

So here's how I see things going down: PCA will be big $, but the USAF has hopefully learned the hard lesson about truncating the F-22 buy - PCA will be built in number. Call it 350ish. The Navy's going to get into F/A-XX pretty deep, before ultimately realizing it can't afford it. Two squadrons per carrier plus training and aircraft to account for attrition is likewise going to be about 350, maybe 400 airframes.

A naval version of PCA will ultimately be pitched, but just like naval versions of the F-15 and F-22 before it, it will be rejected. The Navy will then just buy upgraded F-35C's and call it a day...


The USAF didn't truncate the F-22 procurement - the politicians did, and the politicians can truncate any procurement of any thing. And the generals and lt cols who fought for the F22 were fired.

Costs can be minimized with OTS technology and maybe the USN and the USAF can get creative and share systems. Why do we need 2 engines for USAF and USN? You don't.

The USAF and USN will have to develop their sales pitch as the new aircraft being required for things the F35 can't do. The USAF can't sell it alone as a raider escort as we will be lucky to get the raider in quantities actually needed.

It will be interesting because they've already sold the F35 as the end all and be all of air combat.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 07:26
by zero-one
I'd like to get one thing straight.
Are F-X and PCA 2 separate programs or are they the same?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 08:32
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:I'd like to get one thing straight.
Are F-X and PCA 2 separate programs or are they the same?



The F-X/PCA is the USAF 6th Generation Fighter Program and the F/A-XX/NGAD is the USN/USMC 6th Generation Program.


Unless somebody have information to the contrary? :|


I just wish they could get the names straight! :?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 09:01
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:Let's talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room, funding.

Does everyone here think our nation can afford two very high end air superiority platforms? PCA and F/A-XX aren't going to be cheap. Unless they considerably lower the specs, these are going to be big, heavy birds laden with pricey sensors, weapons etc..I don't even want to think about cost per flight hour. Where's the $ going to come from?

So here's how I see things going down: PCA will be big $, but the USAF has hopefully learned the hard lesson about truncating the F-22 buy - PCA will be built in number. Call it 350ish. The Navy's going to get into F/A-XX pretty deep, before ultimately realizing it can't afford it. Two squadrons per carrier plus training and aircraft to account for attrition is likewise going to be about 350, maybe 400 airframes.

A naval version of PCA will ultimately be pitched, but just like naval versions of the F-15 and F-22 before it, it will be rejected. The Navy will then just buy upgraded F-35C's and call it a day...


I disagree and think we could see multiple programs with multiple partners!

If, true the US could still afford to develop both the F-X/PCA and F/A-XX/NGAD Programs.


This is based on the success of todays JSF/F-35 Program. As most of the existing partners would easily join another such program. As a matter of fact it's already happening. With Italy joining with the UK on the Tempest. While, Spain did the same with France and Germany on the NGF.

In addition it's not like we are close to running out of potential partners. As a number of countries are currently waiting in the wings and eager to join in! For example I see both India and Japan as major partners in a future 6th Generation Program. So, one could easily join the F-X/PCA and the other the F/A-XX/NGAD. These would be supported by smaller nations in the Pacific like Australia, Canada, and South Korea or European Nations like Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, etc. etc.

Seems like everybody wants to get in on the piece of the action....

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 12:42
by fbw
Corsair1963 wrote:
zero-one wrote:I'd like to get one thing straight.
Are F-X and PCA 2 separate programs or are they the same?



The F-X/PCA is the USAF 6th Generation Fighter Program and the F/A-XX/NGAD is the USN/USMC 6th Generation Program.


Unless somebody have information to the contrary? :|


I just wish they could get the names straight! :?


NGAD program refers to weapons, platforms(s), technology for the 2030 Air dominance plan, USAF, and is referred to as that in budget. PCA will be one platform developed under NGAD umbrella.
The Navy used NGAD title for it’s AoA that was initiated in 2016 to study what will be need for its next generation fighter (F/A-XX).

Considering the USAF/Navy programs will leverage the some of the same R&D programs for sensors, propulsion, etc.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 13:23
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Let's talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room, funding.

Does everyone here think our nation can afford two very high end air superiority platforms? PCA and F/A-XX aren't going to be cheap. Unless they considerably lower the specs, these are going to be big, heavy birds laden with pricey sensors, weapons etc..I don't even want to think about cost per flight hour. Where's the $ going to come from?

So here's how I see things going down: PCA will be big $, but the USAF has hopefully learned the hard lesson about truncating the F-22 buy - PCA will be built in number. Call it 350ish. The Navy's going to get into F/A-XX pretty deep, before ultimately realizing it can't afford it. Two squadrons per carrier plus training and aircraft to account for attrition is likewise going to be about 350, maybe 400 airframes.

A naval version of PCA will ultimately be pitched, but just like naval versions of the F-15 and F-22 before it, it will be rejected. The Navy will then just buy upgraded F-35C's and call it a day...


I disagree and think we could see multiple programs with multiple partners!

If, true the US could still afford to develop both the F-X/PCA and F/A-XX/NGAD Programs.


This is based on the success of todays JSF/F-35 Program. As most of the existing partners would easily join another such program. As a matter of fact it's already happening. With Italy joining with the UK on the Tempest. While, Spain did the same with France and Germany on the NGF.

In addition it's not like we are close to running out of potential partners. As a number of countries are currently waiting in the wings and eager to join in! For example I see both India and Japan as major partners in a future 6th Generation Program. So, one could easily join the F-X/PCA and the other the F/A-XX/NGAD. These would be supported by smaller nations in the Pacific like Australia, Canada, and South Korea or European Nations like Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, etc. etc.

Seems like everybody wants to get in on the piece of the action....


Highly unlikely IMO...

The likelihood we're going to share some of our most advanced technology with another nation is dubious, IMO. Other nations may have invested in the F-35, but you can bet they don't know its real secrets. If we did let those go, why wouldn't another country just start building their own? We're going to give up a 20, maybe 30 year lead in jet engine technology.... why?

No, PCA and F/A-XX will be closely guarded by the US aerospace firms developing it. There may be some foreign involvement in building parts of it (but even then, I doubt it). No, PCA/FA-XX will be American birds only. The fact foreign operators are banding together is proof they know they won't get PCA/FA-XX IMO, not the other way around..

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 13:36
by vilters
The USA has the most aircraft/structure/aerodynamics R@D know-how. Very hard to beat that experience.

It also has the most engine R@D and most of all ; Metallurgy technology.

Every "modern" country can build, can assemble, but the R@D part is the hardest (and take the most time and resources).

And then comes the software.
Pretty sure most F-22 and F-35 software will stay in the USA.
Again : The chips and boxes can be build everywhere, but the software will go in them in the USA.

It goes a bit like this:

"Can you build such and such landing gear?"

Company, "Sure we can. For what aircraft is it?"

"Don't ask ; Just build that landing gear to specs."

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 18:30
by ChippyHo
rotosequence wrote:So by this author's opinion, the next generation of US combat aircraft are going to be huge, complex, and designed to do anything and everything? If that turns out to be the case, I expect this program to be about as successful as the F-111 was.


Granted the Navy 'Vark was a total flop. But are you seriously saying that the mud moving 'Varks were a failure as well???

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 00:53
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Highly unlikely IMO...

The likelihood we're going to share some of our most advanced technology with another nation is dubious, IMO. Other nations may have invested in the F-35, but you can bet they don't know its real secrets. If we did let those go, why wouldn't another country just start building their own? We're going to give up a 20, maybe 30 year lead in jet engine technology.... why?

No, PCA and F/A-XX will be closely guarded by the US aerospace firms developing it. There may be some foreign involvement in building parts of it (but even then, I doubt it). No, PCA/FA-XX will be American birds only. The fact foreign operators are banding together is proof they know they won't get PCA/FA-XX IMO, not the other way around..


Sorry, your argument is weak as the F-35 today is by far one of the most "classified" Weapons Program that the US has going. Yet, for some reason you believe that will change with the PCA/NGAD? In addition the F-22 was canceled mainly on costs grounds. While, the F-35 included many partners. In order to fund it..............(i.e. as even the US can't afford to go it alone).

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 01:29
by crosshairs
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Highly unlikely IMO...

The likelihood we're going to share some of our most advanced technology with another nation is dubious, IMO. Other nations may have invested in the F-35, but you can bet they don't know its real secrets. If we did let those go, why wouldn't another country just start building their own? We're going to give up a 20, maybe 30 year lead in jet engine technology.... why?

No, PCA and F/A-XX will be closely guarded by the US aerospace firms developing it. There may be some foreign involvement in building parts of it (but even then, I doubt it). No, PCA/FA-XX will be American birds only. The fact foreign operators are banding together is proof they know they won't get PCA/FA-XX IMO, not the other way around..


Sorry, your argument is weak as the F-35 today is by far one of the most "classified" Weapons Program that the US has going. Yet, for some reason you believe that will change with the PCA/NGAD? In addition the F-22 was canceled mainly on costs grounds. While, the F-35 included many partners. In order to fund it..............(i.e. as even the US can't afford to go it alone).


Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 01:38
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:
Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.



You can believe what you want but the US needs and more importantly will have partners for the PCA/NGAD. So, your argument holds little water.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 00:11
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:
Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.



Really, the US doesn't need partners???

QUOTE:


4:14 pm, April 18, 2019




The Yomiuri Shimbun
The United States has proposed disclosing some of the top-secret details of its state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jet to Japan to encourage joint development of an aircraft that will succeed the Air Self-Defense Force’s F-2 fighter, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The ASDF also has some F-35s. The U.S. plan, which was proposed to the Defense Ministry, would open the door to a jointly developed successor jet based on the F-35 and other fighters, which would be one of the world’s leading fighter aircraft.

According to Japanese government sources, the United States has indicated a willingness to release confidential details about the software installed in the F-35 airframe to control parts including the engine and the missiles. If the F-35 software, currently held exclusively by the U.S. side, is diverted to the F-2 successor aircraft, the United States will disclose the source code to the Japanese side.



If the joint development goes ahead, the United States reportedly is prepared to allow components made in Japan to be replaced with U.S.-made parts that are planned to be used in the F-2’s successor. If these proposals materialize, it would widen the scope for Japanese companies to participate in the aircraft’s development.

The Japanese and U.S. governments started seriously discussing the U.S. proposal at the end of March. The Japanese government intends to decide on the course of the aircraft’s development, including whether to accept the U.S. proposal, by the end of this year...............

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0005683861

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 01:49
by crosshairs
Corsair1963 wrote:
crosshairs wrote:
Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.



Really, the US doesn't need partners???

QUOTE:


4:14 pm, April 18, 2019




The Yomiuri Shimbun
The United States has proposed disclosing some of the top-secret details of its state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jet to Japan to encourage joint development of an aircraft that will succeed the Air Self-Defense Force’s F-2 fighter, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The ASDF also has some F-35s. The U.S. plan, which was proposed to the Defense Ministry, would open the door to a jointly developed successor jet based on the F-35 and other fighters, which would be one of the world’s leading fighter aircraft.

According to Japanese government sources, the United States has indicated a willingness to release confidential details about the software installed in the F-35 airframe to control parts including the engine and the missiles. If the F-35 software, currently held exclusively by the U.S. side, is diverted to the F-2 successor aircraft, the United States will disclose the source code to the Japanese side.



If the joint development goes ahead, the United States reportedly is prepared to allow components made in Japan to be replaced with U.S.-made parts that are planned to be used in the F-2’s successor. If these proposals materialize, it would widen the scope for Japanese companies to participate in the aircraft’s development.

The Japanese and U.S. governments started seriously discussing the U.S. proposal at the end of March. The Japanese government intends to decide on the course of the aircraft’s development, including whether to accept the U.S. proposal, by the end of this year...............

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0005683861


No, the US doesn't need partners. Period. No partners for b21, Columbia, new icbm, spy sats, ford carriers, new alcm, and the list is quite long (and the numbers huge $$$) if you want me to name everything the usa doesn't have a partner for but has recently built or developing or planning to buy. But uh oh, a twin engine fighter, oh sh-i-t how can we afford that? We have never designed a twin engine stealth fighter before. We'll have to reinvent everything from scratch. :roll: Better partner with the Netherlands if we need a new fighter. :roll: there is nothing new under the sun that hasn't already been done before that they aren't going to cram into its outer mold line. Its flight envelope will probably be very raptor like with supercruise and top speed limited to around 2.0m. It won't be clint eastwwood's Firefox flying at 100,000 and mach whatever demanding engineers to invent everything from scratch like blackbird or something else exotic.

JSF was designed at day zero to be an international consortium to dominate the future of fighter sales and ensure congress didn't kill it. Fiscally, there is no need to have Europe and Asia fund a new fighter for the US unless its created to be another jobs program

JSF is the first system to be designed with surviving liberal politics involved.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 03:32
by marauder2048
blain wrote:
I noticed the B-21 escort requirement for the PCA. The range requirement is key. Is the increase in combat radius to 1,000 nm or is it more in keeping with the B-21? Because if it is the latter then the planform will be a lot more like a flying wing or "cranked" kite than the F-22.

NG went back to the original B-2 design for something more affordable, trading off some capabilities for lower cost and a faster development time. I wondering if the USAF should go back to the F-23 for a fighter with greater range and potentially better stealth than the F-22 if it the former if the range requirement is modest.

Another option to protect B-21s is a long range UCAV loaded with AAMs/AARGM. The B-21 is suppose to optionally manned. Certain functions could be offloaded to a remote pilot. The onboard crew could control the UCAV through a stealthy data link like MADL, conducting EA, SEAD, or OCA/DCA.


Gates descoped things like supersonic dash and self-defense capability from NGB which resulted in LRS-B.
And possibly range which is why you have something like LRSO since the bomber isn't likely to have the fuel/payload
capacity to visit the same B-2 target set with shorter range weapons.

So the family-of-systems approach has been imposed from without.

The UCAV escort argument isn't a bad one and echos the Stillion concept. It does however require a institutional
rethink of what a fighter is given that it has meant 9G and 50 degree AoA. And probably a third crew-member
on the B-21 assuming they follow they B-2's crew complement.

And the Navy completely blowing the UCAS-D effort means it's going to require a separate program to mature a
UCAV that can deliver A2A ordnance.

The Navy completing the AoA for the F/A-XX this summer is hilarious given that they are retiring CVNs at
a rate far greater than they are replacing them. Unless you have a credible plan for what carrier aviation
looks like in the 2030s there's no point in closing an AoA for what's likely to be the major constituent of
the CVW.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 03:43
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
crosshairs wrote:
Every weapons system ever bought has been too expensive (per politicians). Economics didn't kill the raptor - it was politics and it was the promise of having another stealth fighter in development - the JSF. Politicians always want to kick the can of defense spending down the road; which is why we are flying half century old bombers and have half century old ICBMs on alert. Why buy the F-22 now when we have a JSF in 10 years?

The US certainly did not need other countries to fund the JSF. It just made it more palatable to the politicians and made it harder to kill when it was going to be exported and provide jobs.

Had Japan and Australia been allowed in the F-22 ballgame, costs would have been lower. Nope. Pass a law banning exports but then allow countries like Turkey to buy a more advanced system. The raptor was barred from exports because it wee too good and politicians feared it would have made China uncomfortable to have a Japan equipped with stealth fighters. Yeah, that worked out real well and China hasn't developed stealth aircraft.

The US doesn't need other countries to develop new fighters. Who is helping fund the Columbia or the new ICBM? No one co-funded the Ford or the Virginia classes. The US can develop a twin engine fighter without financial assistance. So the US can develop carriers and ICBMs and submarines, but oh dear, we need help from Europe and Asia to build a new fighter.

Raptors costs were coming down with each build and everyone knew it who was crying we aren't feeding the starving people in Africa but we are buying stealth fighters, that oh no, were designed to beat an enemy that didn't exist anymore.



Really, the US doesn't need partners???

QUOTE:


4:14 pm, April 18, 2019




The Yomiuri Shimbun
The United States has proposed disclosing some of the top-secret details of its state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jet to Japan to encourage joint development of an aircraft that will succeed the Air Self-Defense Force’s F-2 fighter, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The ASDF also has some F-35s. The U.S. plan, which was proposed to the Defense Ministry, would open the door to a jointly developed successor jet based on the F-35 and other fighters, which would be one of the world’s leading fighter aircraft.

According to Japanese government sources, the United States has indicated a willingness to release confidential details about the software installed in the F-35 airframe to control parts including the engine and the missiles. If the F-35 software, currently held exclusively by the U.S. side, is diverted to the F-2 successor aircraft, the United States will disclose the source code to the Japanese side.



If the joint development goes ahead, the United States reportedly is prepared to allow components made in Japan to be replaced with U.S.-made parts that are planned to be used in the F-2’s successor. If these proposals materialize, it would widen the scope for Japanese companies to participate in the aircraft’s development.

The Japanese and U.S. governments started seriously discussing the U.S. proposal at the end of March. The Japanese government intends to decide on the course of the aircraft’s development, including whether to accept the U.S. proposal, by the end of this year...............

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0005683861


No, the US doesn't need partners. Period. No partners for b21, Columbia, new icbm, spy sats, ford carriers, new alcm, and the list is quite long (and the numbers huge $$$) if you want me to name everything the usa doesn't have a partner for but has recently built or developing or planning to buy. But uh oh, a twin engine fighter, oh sh-i-t how can we afford that? We have never designed a twin engine stealth fighter before. We'll have to reinvent everything from scratch. :roll: Better partner with the Netherlands if we need a new fighter. :roll: there is nothing new under the sun that hasn't already been done before that they aren't going to cram into its outer mold line. Its flight envelope will probably be very raptor like with supercruise and top speed limited to around 2.0m. It won't be clint eastwwood's Firefox flying at 100,000 and mach whatever demanding engineers to invent everything from scratch like blackbird or something else exotic.

JSF was designed at day zero to be an international consortium to dominate the future of fighter sales and ensure congress didn't kill it. Fiscally, there is no need to have Europe and Asia fund a new fighter for the US unless its created to be another jobs program

JSF is the first system to be designed with surviving liberal politics involved.


Your wrong.......

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 03:45
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
blain wrote:
I noticed the B-21 escort requirement for the PCA. The range requirement is key. Is the increase in combat radius to 1,000 nm or is it more in keeping with the B-21? Because if it is the latter then the planform will be a lot more like a flying wing or "cranked" kite than the F-22.

NG went back to the original B-2 design for something more affordable, trading off some capabilities for lower cost and a faster development time. I wondering if the USAF should go back to the F-23 for a fighter with greater range and potentially better stealth than the F-22 if it the former if the range requirement is modest.

Another option to protect B-21s is a long range UCAV loaded with AAMs/AARGM. The B-21 is suppose to optionally manned. Certain functions could be offloaded to a remote pilot. The onboard crew could control the UCAV through a stealthy data link like MADL, conducting EA, SEAD, or OCA/DCA.


Gates descoped things like supersonic dash and self-defense capability from NGB which resulted in LRS-B.
And possibly range which is why you have something like LRSO since the bomber isn't likely to have the fuel/payload
capacity to visit the same B-2 target set with shorter range weapons.

So the family-of-systems approach has been imposed from without.

The UCAV escort argument isn't a bad one and echos the Stillion concept. It does however require a institutional
rethink of what a fighter is given that it has meant 9G and 50 degree AoA. And probably a third crew-member
on the B-21 assuming they follow they B-2's crew complement.

And the Navy completely blowing the UCAS-D effort means it's going to require a separate program to mature a
UCAV that can deliver A2A ordnance.

The Navy completing the AoA for the F/A-XX this summer is hilarious given that they are retiring CVNs at
a rate far greater than they are replacing them. Unless you have a credible plan for what carrier aviation
looks like in the 2030s there's no point in closing an AoA for what's likely to be the major constituent of
the CVW.


Absurd the USN is retiring Aircraft Carriers one for one. Yet, feel free to provide us a source or sources to support your claim.
:roll:

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 05:46
by marauder2048
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd the USN is retiring Aircraft Carriers one for one. Yet, feel free to provide us a source or sources to support your claim.
:roll:


A young carrier that wasn't supposed to be retired this early is being retired.

And a future carrier that the Navy could have had in a three-ship block buy (CVN-82)
or at the very least in an EOQ is nowhere to be found.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 05:49
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd the USN is retiring Aircraft Carriers one for one. Yet, feel free to provide us a source or sources to support your claim.
:roll:


A young carrier that wasn't supposed to be retired this early is being retired.

And a future carrier that the Navy could have had in a three-ship block buy (CVN-82)
or at the very least in an EOQ is nowhere to be found.


No it is not....

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 07:20
by marauder2048
Corsair1963 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd the USN is retiring Aircraft Carriers one for one. Yet, feel free to provide us a source or sources to support your claim.
:roll:


A young carrier that wasn't supposed to be retired this early is being retired.

And a future carrier that the Navy could have had in a three-ship block buy (CVN-82)
or at the very least in an EOQ is nowhere to be found.


No it is not....


That's the POR. I'm open to other interpretations.

But when you also have the Navy deleting things like SSTDS and not really making
much effort to find a DBR-X replacement for CVN-79+ you start to wonder...

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 08:32
by blain
Gates - was/is an idiot. I have no idea what his involvement was with the B-21 program, but based on his track record I would say that it was probably bad.

He was full of himself as evidenced by the sacking of General Michael Moseley and Secretary of the AF Michael Wynne. Canceling the F-22 was sheer lunacy. Arguably, the two dumbest moves by Sec Defs since the end of the Cold War was capping the F-22 at 200 and the B-2 at 20. We are still dealing with the negative effects of both.

Is it any surprised that a failed CIA Soviet analyst did not anticipate China's military build up? Maybe he really believed that when China purchased the Varyag from Russia they were really going to turn it into a hotel and casino?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 08:37
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
That's the POR. I'm open to other interpretations.

But when you also have the Navy deleting things like SSTDS and not really making
much effort to find a DBR-X replacement for CVN-79+ you start to wonder...


The US Congress was never going to let the USN retire an Aircraft Carrier early! So, most believe the Navy was just playing politics. In hope of securing additional funding for other programs.

As for the SSTDS it was working great and then it wasn't? So, honestly not sure what is going on with that program???

While, the DBR-X will most likely be replaced by the EASR. Which, makes perfect sense... :wink:

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 15:25
by mixelflick
Really, the US doesn't need partners???

QUOTE:


4:14 pm, April 18, 2019




The Yomiuri Shimbun
The United States has proposed disclosing some of the top-secret details of its state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jet to Japan to encourage joint development of an aircraft that will succeed the Air Self-Defense Force’s F-2 fighter, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The ASDF also has some F-35s. The U.S. plan, which was proposed to the Defense Ministry, would open the door to a jointly developed successor jet based on the F-35 and other fighters, which would be one of the world’s leading fighter aircraft.

According to Japanese government sources, the United States has indicated a willingness to release confidential details about the software installed in the F-35 airframe to control parts including the engine and the missiles. If the F-35 software, currently held exclusively by the U.S. side, is diverted to the F-2 successor aircraft, the United States will disclose the source code to the Japanese side.



If the joint development goes ahead, the United States reportedly is prepared to allow components made in Japan to be replaced with U.S.-made parts that are planned to be used in the F-2’s successor. If these proposals materialize, it would widen the scope for Japanese companies to participate in the aircraft’s development.

The Japanese and U.S. governments started seriously discussing the U.S. proposal at the end of March. The Japanese government intends to decide on the course of the aircraft’s development, including whether to accept the U.S. proposal, by the end of this year...............

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0005683861[/quote]

No, the US doesn't need partners. Period. No partners for b21, Columbia, new icbm, spy sats, ford carriers, new alcm, and the list is quite long (and the numbers huge $$$) if you want me to name everything the usa doesn't have a partner for but has recently built or developing or planning to buy. But uh oh, a twin engine fighter, oh sh-i-t how can we afford that? We have never designed a twin engine stealth fighter before. We'll have to reinvent everything from scratch. :roll: Better partner with the Netherlands if we need a new fighter. :roll: there is nothing new under the sun that hasn't already been done before that they aren't going to cram into its outer mold line. Its flight envelope will probably be very raptor like with supercruise and top speed limited to around 2.0m. It won't be clint eastwwood's Firefox flying at 100,000 and mach whatever demanding engineers to invent everything from scratch like blackbird or something else exotic.

JSF was designed at day zero to be an international consortium to dominate the future of fighter sales and ensure congress didn't kill it. Fiscally, there is no need to have Europe and Asia fund a new fighter for the US unless its created to be another jobs program

JSF is the first system to be designed with surviving liberal politics involved.[/quote]

Your wrong.......[/quote]

I for one, don't think he's wrong. Did we partner with anyone on the F-14, F-15, F-16 or 18? How about the F-20, F-22 or 35?

It would be nice if a foreign nation kicks in some $, but expertise? Outside of the Israeli's and their "black box" EW systems, who's going to lend us expertise? The Japanese, who can't build carbon copies of the F-35 economically? The Brits, who are buying F-35's from us because.... they don't have anything close? The Russians, who can't get their own 5th gen off the ground? The Chinese, who's engines are even behind the Russians?

Or say the dozen or so countries that are buying the F-35 from us, because their own indigenous aircraft...... can't keep up? Again, more $ would be nice. But outside of some niche areas, what country do you think is going to contribute what to something like PCA/B-21 or F/A-XX??

I can think of only AAM's where I'd say, "yeah let's have that" (i.e. Meteor). But in terms of airframes, engines, stealth, avionics that improve SA.... who other than the US has next gen technologies that are even close?? And assuming we have all that expertise, why would we want to share??

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 21:05
by marauder2048
Corsair1963 wrote:The US Congress was never going to let the USN retire an Aircraft Carrier early! So, most believe the Navy was just playing politics. In hope of securing additional funding for other programs.


If the early retirement proposal had been accompanied by CVN-82 being included the 80/81 block buy, EOQ
or even just on the map then it would be much easier for Congress to accept.

Corsair1963 wrote:As for the SSTDS it was working great and then it wasn't? So, honestly not sure what is going on with that program???


In the absence of the other moves you could advance an innocent explanation. But I'm skeptical.

Corsair1963 wrote:While, the DBR-X will most likely be replaced by the EASR. Which, makes perfect sense... :wink:


EASR is S-band only.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 08:47
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
If the early retirement proposal had been accompanied by CVN-82 being included the 80/81 block buy, EOQ
or even just on the map then it would be much easier for Congress to accept.


Simple fact is the USN isn't going to retire any "Aircraft Carriers" early. Regardless, of any block buys....


In the absence of the other moves you could advance an innocent explanation. But I'm skeptical.


Honestly, beginning to wonder. If, the US isn't playing a little game of Cloak & Dagger???

EASR is S-band only.



EASR is the U.S. Navy’s next generation radar for aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships, providing simultaneous anti-air and anti-surface warfare, electronic protection and air traffic control capabilities.

The radar delivers increased performance, higher reliability and sustainability, and lower total ownership cost than the radars they will replace.

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/easr

EASR leverages the highly-scalable design and mature technologies of AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), in a tailored configuration to deliver superior capability to meet the mission requirements of carriers and amphibious ships. It features:
•Power, efficiency, size/weight, cost and reliability benefits of gallium nitride (GaN)
•Digital beamforming and advanced algorithms for operation in high clutter, near-land, electromagnetic interference environments.
•Built-in cyber resiliency

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 08:59
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
I for one, don't think he's wrong. Did we partner with anyone on the F-14, F-15, F-16 or 18? How about the F-20, F-22 or 35?

It would be nice if a foreign nation kicks in some $, but expertise? Outside of the Israeli's and their "black box" EW systems, who's going to lend us expertise? The Japanese, who can't build carbon copies of the F-35 economically? The Brits, who are buying F-35's from us because.... they don't have anything close? The Russians, who can't get their own 5th gen off the ground? The Chinese, who's engines are even behind the Russians?

Or say the dozen or so countries that are buying the F-35 from us, because their own indigenous aircraft...... can't keep up? Again, more $ would be nice. But outside of some niche areas, what country do you think is going to contribute what to something like PCA/B-21 or F/A-XX??

I can think of only AAM's where I'd say, "yeah let's have that" (i.e. Meteor). But in terms of airframes, engines, stealth, avionics that improve SA.... who other than the US has next gen technologies that are even close?? And assuming we have all that expertise, why would we want to share??


Really??? The F-X (PCA) and F/A-XX (NGD) would be equivalent to the development of the F-35. Yet, will no partners and both at the same time!

In addition the US is currently developing the B-21 Stealth Bomber, SSBN Submarine, and Helicopters for the US Army. Which, is just the tip of the massive iceberg we call the US Defense Budget. This while facing global threats from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

Did I mention many of the US Allies are spending under the minimum of 2% of GDP or the fact the future Defense Budget are very likely to decline in the coming decade.....

Sure we can go it alone no problem.......... :doh:

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 13:24
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
I for one, don't think he's wrong. Did we partner with anyone on the F-14, F-15, F-16 or 18? How about the F-20, F-22 or 35?

It would be nice if a foreign nation kicks in some $, but expertise? Outside of the Israeli's and their "black box" EW systems, who's going to lend us expertise? The Japanese, who can't build carbon copies of the F-35 economically? The Brits, who are buying F-35's from us because.... they don't have anything close? The Russians, who can't get their own 5th gen off the ground? The Chinese, who's engines are even behind the Russians?

Or say the dozen or so countries that are buying the F-35 from us, because their own indigenous aircraft...... can't keep up? Again, more $ would be nice. But outside of some niche areas, what country do you think is going to contribute what to something like PCA/B-21 or F/A-XX??

I can think of only AAM's where I'd say, "yeah let's have that" (i.e. Meteor). But in terms of airframes, engines, stealth, avionics that improve SA.... who other than the US has next gen technologies that are even close?? And assuming we have all that expertise, why would we want to share??


Really??? The F-X (PCA) and F/A-XX (NGD) would be equivalent to the development of the F-35. Yet, will no partners and both at the same time!

In addition the US is currently developing the B-21 Stealth Bomber, SSBN Submarine, and Helicopters for the US Army. Which, is just the tip of the massive iceberg we call the US Defense Budget. This while facing global threats from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

Did I mention many of the US Allies are spending under the minimum of 2% of GDP or the fact the future Defense Budget are very likely to decline in the coming decade.....

Sure we can go it alone no problem.......... :doh:


You didn't read my argument. Or perhaps, I didn't present it as clearly as I could have.

MONEY is always nice. And I agree with you/Trump that most of these nations need to start pulling their weight. But which of these foreign nations are going to contribute their EXPERTISE, and what is that?

Only ONE nation has built stealth fighters, bombers and strike fighters. Only ONE nation has true 5th gen engines flying. And only ONE nation has the sensor suite that so robustly enhances SA, it's a game changer. That would be the US.

Besides, even without foreign investment we'll just do what we've been doing - print more money. Is that a smart strategy? Nope. Will it come back to bite us in the end? For sure. But there will be no significant foreign expertise contributed, and quite likely no real (significant) $. Some of these nations are in a worse position financially than the US (many, in fact). So after they've all contributed to the F-35... how much $ is going to be left?

In either case, I think the foreign contributions will be negligible..

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 16:48
by zero-one
I also think going it alone will be the best strategy.
Making it a joint venture and having other allies foot the bill means they will also have a bigger voice in a program.

-France wanted to use their engines on the Eurofighter. They also wanted to spearhead the program.
-Israel wanted their own ECM suits in their F-35s.
-Japan, Korea, India and Turkey may put more emphasis on super maneuverability and super cruise as all their 5th gen proposals seem to be Raptor copies. While the US may put more emphasis on Range.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 15:00
by mixelflick
Exactly. Too many cooks in the kitchen..

When you have competing priorities, you wind up with a compromise. Look at the F-35. "Give us a supersonic, STOVL, air to everything fighter/fighter-bomber with ISR capabilities, stealth, capable of maritime operations with a gun/no gun and make it cheap". In all fairness, LM did about as good as could reasonably have been expected.

And that was only with USAF/USN/USMC wants and wishes. Start throwing in foreign operators and things get ugly, fast. Nobody wants to pay for capability they don't need, and to a certain extent there will always be something like that. The French always wind up going it alone. The Brits usually wind up with most of what they want (Typhoon), but sometimes not (Tornado).

Quite honestly, it's rapidly becoming a 2 country model in the West: The US builds combat aircraft, and foreign countries buy it. Sure, countries like Japan can develop the F-2. But look at what happened.. they got a marginally more effective F-16 for well over $100 million/pop. The technology for 5th gen isn't there, the numbers aren't there and the economies of scale aren't either. It's an exercise in national pride.

The Japanese were also smart to close their F-35 factory and buy direct from LM. Fact is, they simply couldn't build it cheaper (or even for the same price). Japan is a big economy, with extensive expertise in electronics, manufacturing etc.. And this was with us doing all developmental work up front.. Here you go, here are the plans - and they still couldn't make it happen. Can you imagine adding the cost of building a new airframe from scratch? Hello $300/million a copy.

India tried that, it's called the Tejas. Big (huge) economy, profound need for a strike fighter. Result? Tejas can't get out of its own way, and even if it did it'll be more expensive (and inferior) to the US models currently vying for the tender. If countries as big as India and Japan can't do it, what does that say about the smaller countries?

So by all means, these countries can send their $ if they'd like. But the best designs are those built by one and only one country. The specs are clearer, the mission set more defined. It's why we did so on the F-14, 15, 16, 18 and 22, and why they've all been so successful.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 16:19
by quicksilver
“Japan is preparing to step back from its assembly of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II fighters and instead concentrate on providing maintenance, repair, overhaul, and upgrade (MRO&U) services for the aircraft, the Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Agency (ATLA) has confirmed to Jane's...”

“Japan is scheduled to commence its focus on F-35 MRO&U activity in the early 2020s. Until then, MHI will continue to operate its final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility, also based in Nagoya, at which Japan's initial batches of F-35s are being assembled.”

https://www.janes.com/article/85838/jap ... 5-assembly

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 06:11
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
You didn't read my argument. Or perhaps, I didn't present it as clearly as I could have.

MONEY is always nice. And I agree with you/Trump that most of these nations need to start pulling their weight. But which of these foreign nations are going to contribute their EXPERTISE, and what is that?

Only ONE nation has built stealth fighters, bombers and strike fighters. Only ONE nation has true 5th gen engines flying. And only ONE nation has the sensor suite that so robustly enhances SA, it's a game changer. That would be the US.

Besides, even without foreign investment we'll just do what we've been doing - print more money. Is that a smart strategy? Nope. Will it come back to bite us in the end? For sure. But there will be no significant foreign expertise contributed, and quite likely no real (significant) $. Some of these nations are in a worse position financially than the US (many, in fact). So after they've all contributed to the F-35... how much $ is going to be left?

In either case, I think the foreign contributions will be negligible..


Your argument hardly holds water. As what you're arguing against is what the F-35 is today. Which, is highly successful in both price and capability. Nor, can we just "print more money" to go it alone........
:?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 06:16
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:Exactly. Too many cooks in the kitchen..

When you have competing priorities, you wind up with a compromise. Look at the F-35. "Give us a supersonic, STOVL, air to everything fighter/fighter-bomber with ISR capabilities, stealth, capable of maritime operations with a gun/no gun and make it cheap". In all fairness, LM did about as good as could reasonably have been expected.



Again your arguing against the same strategy we used with the F-35. Which, today has "NO EQUAL" and with a price "CHEAPER" than most 4th Generation Fighters.

Yet, according to your logic. That's a failed strategy??? :doh:

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 13:39
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
You didn't read my argument. Or perhaps, I didn't present it as clearly as I could have.

MONEY is always nice. And I agree with you/Trump that most of these nations need to start pulling their weight. But which of these foreign nations are going to contribute their EXPERTISE, and what is that?

Only ONE nation has built stealth fighters, bombers and strike fighters. Only ONE nation has true 5th gen engines flying. And only ONE nation has the sensor suite that so robustly enhances SA, it's a game changer. That would be the US.

Besides, even without foreign investment we'll just do what we've been doing - print more money. Is that a smart strategy? Nope. Will it come back to bite us in the end? For sure. But there will be no significant foreign expertise contributed, and quite likely no real (significant) $. Some of these nations are in a worse position financially than the US (many, in fact). So after they've all contributed to the F-35... how much $ is going to be left?

In either case, I think the foreign contributions will be negligible..


Your argument hardly holds water. As what you're arguing against is what the F-35 is today. Which, is highly successful in both price and capability. Nor, can we just "print more money" to go it alone........
:?


OK great.

When PCA's and F/A-XX's foreign partners are announced, do let me know. Those should be the same countries that are co-developing the B-21 with us, so that info should be out shortly too.

Can't wait to hear :)

This is how it really works: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... sal-report

LM is offering to share some of the F-35's code in an effort to build FOR THEM/JAPAN a new air superiority fighter. We're the ones providing the data/know how (and physical jet) not the other way around.

So now that America has decided to build PCA, we're to believe the Japanese are going to give us some pointers?

With respect to the F-35, Great Britain didn't tell LM how to build a VLO airframe. France didn't tell us how to build a stealthy/low IR emitting F-135. Germany didn't school us on how to develop DAS or EOTS. Like it or not, that expertise resides here.. and probably will for the forseeable future..

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 17:29
by honky43
This is how it really works: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... sal-report

LM is offering to share some of the F-35's code in an effort to build FOR THEM/JAPAN a new air superiority fighter. We're the ones providing the data/know how (and physical jet) not the other way around.

So now that America has decided to build PCA, we're to believe the Japanese are going to give us some pointers?

With respect to the F-35, Great Britain didn't tell LM how to build a VLO airframe. France didn't tell us how to build a stealthy/low IR emitting F-135. Germany didn't school us on how to develop DAS or EOTS. Like it or not, that expertise resides here.. and probably will for the forseeable future..


The United States is a great country but it didn't do and can't do everything on it's own like some people seem to think? Based on some of what I've read they learnt a lot in the Mitsubishi F-2 and Yakovlev Yak-141 programs which aided in the development of the F-22 and F-35 programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
No one was exactly above taking from advanced Nazi defense scientists either?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Alsos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 19:22
by SpudmanWP
F-2 and Yak-141 had ZERO to do with the F-22/35's design.

Ah, Wiki.. well, there is your first mistake :)

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 21:01
by honky43
SpudmanWP wrote:F-2 and Yak-141 had ZERO to do with the F-22/35's design.

Ah, Wiki.. well, there is your first mistake :)


I find what you say difficult to believe? :D

Look around enough and you'll see the same story all over the place? Most people are certain that the United States have taken data from elsewhere in the development of the F-35 and F-22. It's on company websites and quoted by company officials sometimes.

“The swiveling rear exhaust is a licensed design from the Yakovlev design bureau in Russia, which tried it out on the Yak-141 STOVL fighter. It was all or nothing … If the propulsion concept didn’t work, we obviously weren’t going to be competitive.” Daniels, the Boeing executive, said the lift fan concept was “probably the single most important feature” of the competition.”

To be clear, the F-35’s overall design is not modeled after the Yak-141: The former used a different method for stabilization (see the two jets firing on the front of the plane in the GIF below) and had a different aerodynamic profile. But it’s almost certain that the data gleaned from the old Soviet VTOL project were most likely utilized in the development of the VTOL variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. And that means the F-35 owes at least part of its existence to a Soviet-era weapons program that never truly took flight.

https://taskandpurpose.com/f-35-yak-141 ... e-vtol-jet
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... f-35-44777

What bugs me about the AESA/F-2 story is that the US tends to refuse technology transfer of it's most advanced technologies. This includes AESA to South Korea (for their K-FX program) which obviously needs the United States as a defense partner. This tends to make me believe that the Japanese probably came up with aerial combat AESA first (they were first to deploy it on most accounts) and helped the US or the US and Japan worked on AESA together on the F-2 and the US learnt from it and used this experience to help it with the F-22 and design of their first AESA?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-431682/
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... lapse.html
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 08661.html
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/j-apg-1- ... ar.583864/

US even has a history of shutting down rival advanced defense projects amongst allies from time to time as well? You can cross reference much of this material from various places not just Wikipedia.

DAIMLER-BENZ Aerospace (DASA) has revealed details of a previously top-secret Stealth aircraft research programme conducted in Germany during the 1980s.

The programme, known as Lampyridae (Firefly), or Medium Range Missile Fighter (MRMF), was run from 1981 to 1987 by what was then Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm (MBB), under a contract from the German air force.

The work led to the eventual development of a three-quarter scale piloted windtunnel model of a multi-faceted Stealth fighter. Former project leader Dr Gerhard Lobert claims that the design "very probably" had better radar characteristics than the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, despite the F-117 having more than twice the number of radar-scattering facets.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rch-22117/

The Lampyridae programme was conducted between 1981 and 1987. The reasoning behind the programme's unceremonious cancellation during 1987 is unknown, there having been no announcement on the subject made by either by MBB nor the government of West Germany at the time.[4] Aircraft publication Aviation Week attributed alleged closed-room pressure tactics on the part of the United States, who had recently been made aware of the programme's existence and not wanting a competing stealth aircraft to their own efforts to come to fruition, as having played a key role in its termination.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 14:10
by mixelflick
honky43 wrote:
This is how it really works: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... sal-report

LM is offering to share some of the F-35's code in an effort to build FOR THEM/JAPAN a new air superiority fighter. We're the ones providing the data/know how (and physical jet) not the other way around.

So now that America has decided to build PCA, we're to believe the Japanese are going to give us some pointers?

With respect to the F-35, Great Britain didn't tell LM how to build a VLO airframe. France didn't tell us how to build a stealthy/low IR emitting F-135. Germany didn't school us on how to develop DAS or EOTS. Like it or not, that expertise resides here.. and probably will for the forseeable future..


The United States is a great country but it didn't do and can't do everything on it's own like some people seem to think? Based on some of what I've read they learnt a lot in the Mitsubishi F-2 and Yakovlev Yak-141 programs which aided in the development of the F-22 and F-35 programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
No one was exactly above taking from advanced Nazi defense scientists either?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Alsos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229


The often repeated story about how the F-35 "owes" some of its design lineage to the Yak-141 is just that - a story. For all we know, LM may have bought their intellectual property - and completely discarded it. The F-35's lift fan sure looks a lot different than the YAK-141's, and we know it certainly performs different. There's also a difference between looking at a foreign countries work and working collaboratively (garnering expertise from them), which I believe is the real argument here.

So we won't be working with Russia, to tell us how to achieve a VLO design for F/A-XX. And we won't be getting tips from. China on engine tech, or Japan on sensors/weapons. Their expertise just isn't there. What they may contribute is $, which is always welcome.

But there will be no "co-development" insofar as aircraft/electronics/weapons design. And even if there were, the US would be foolish to go that route. Our most advanced fighters (PCA/FA-XX) would have all their secrets laid bare, and it'll only take one country to pull an Iran to hand US air superiority to a foreign power.

Not going to happen..

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 16:52
by SpudmanWP
The lift fan was not the issue with the Yak, it was the three-bearing swivel duct (3BSD) nozzle.

However, Convair was doing work with an actual 3BSD nozzle on a working engine stand back in the 1960s with the Convair Model 200.

000_2877-680x500.png


If anything, the Yak copied the Convair, which was a division of GD. The Convair division (along with all GD fighter activities {hello F-16}) was sold to LM, which then used it to make the 3BSD nozzle for the F-35B.

A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Navy wanted a supersonic STOVL fighter to operate from its ski jump equipped carriers. At what point the Yakovlev Design Bureau became aware of the multi-swivel nozzle design is not known, but the Soyuz engine company created its own variant of it. The Yak-41 version of the nozzle, from published pictures, appears to be a three-bearing swivel duct with a significant offset “kink.” The Yak-141 also used two RKBM RD-41 lift engines – an almost identical arrangement to the Convair Model 200 design. The aircraft was also re-labeled as a Yak-141 to imply a production version, but no order for follow-on series came from the Russian Navy.

The Yak-141 was flown at the Paris Airshow in 1991. The flight displays of the Yak were suspended when the heat from the lift engines started to dislodge asphalt from the tarmac. At the 1992 Farnborough show, the Yak was limited to conventional takeoffs and landings with hovers performed 500 feet above the runway to avoid a repeat performance of asphalt damage. But the Yak-141 does deserve credit for being the first jet fighter to fly with a three-bearing swivel nozzle – twenty-five years after it was first designed in the United States.

During the early days of the JAST effort, Lockheed (accompanied by US government officials from the JAST program office) visited the Yakovlev Design Bureau along with several other suppliers of aviation equipment (notably also the Zvezda K-36 ejection seat) to examine the Yakovlev technologies and designs.

Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits.

The 3BSD was invented in America in the 1960s, proposed by Convair to the US Navy in the 1970s, first flown by the Russians in the late 1980s, re-engineered from the 1960 Pratt & Whitney design for the X-35 in the 1990s, and put into production for the F-35 in the 2000s. Sometimes a good idea has to wait for the right application and set of circumstances to come along. One moral of this story is not to throw out good work done in the past. It just might be needed later on.


https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article ... tem_id=137

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 18:22
by honky43
The often repeated story about how the F-35 "owes" some of its design lineage to the Yak-141 is just that - a story. For all we know, LM may have bought their intellectual property - and completely discarded it. The F-35's lift fan sure looks a lot different than the YAK-141's, and we know it certainly performs different. There's also a difference between looking at a foreign countries work and working collaboratively (garnering expertise from them), which I believe is the real argument here.

So we won't be working with Russia, to tell us how to achieve a VLO design for F/A-XX. And we won't be getting tips from. China on engine tech, or Japan on sensors/weapons. Their expertise just isn't there. What they may contribute is $, which is always welcome.

But there will be no "co-development" insofar as aircraft/electronics/weapons design. And even if there were, the US would be foolish to go that route. Our most advanced fighters (PCA/FA-XX) would have all their secrets laid bare, and it'll only take one country to pull an Iran to hand US air superiority to a foreign power.

Not going to happen..


Bizarre argument? Why spend ~$385-400M USD for something that's worth nothing (that's about half the cost of the initial prototype required to enter the JSF competition)? Especially to your former Cold War rival? Everything I've read about the Cold War says that the US and the Soviets were neck and neck in many areas and if you track data across the board it's the same here (I may add more information later).

Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed-Martin for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8QKj4K8Ko4

Two contracts to develop prototypes were awarded on November 16, 1996, one each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing.[11] Each firm would produce two aircraft to demonstrate conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), carrier takeoff and landing (CV version), and short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). McDonnell Douglas' bid was rejected in part due to the complexity of its design.[12] Lockheed Martin and Boeing were each given $750 million to develop their concept demonstrators and the definition of the Preferred Weapon System Concept (PWSC). The aim of this funding limit was to prevent one or both contractors from bankrupting themselves in an effort to win such an important contract.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Str ... er_program

Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance aircraft 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141

The Yakovlev Yak-201 is a draft follow-up to the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft Yak-141 aircraft and Yak-43. The design was carried out in the mid-1990s Yakovlev Design Bureau.[1]

The aircraft was supposed to differ from Yak-141 / Yak-43 by an increased range. The aircraft is made according to the traditional scheme with two-tails, and a large angle of inclination. The plane is relatively stealthy, with few right angles.

The design was for a single lift-propulsion motor with a mechanical drive to a lifting fan installed behind the cockpit. The nozzle of the main engine was supposed to be vectorable. Flat and round nozzle options were considered. The ability to change the thrust vector makes the aircraft move manoeuvrable. The armament was to be placed in special compartments inside the fuselage. However, the project was never built.

In 1996-1997, the aircraft was offered to the customer, but the project remained unclaimed, primarily for financial reasons, and also due to the lack of certainty of the Ministry of Defense under the LFI program. After the Yak-141 and Yak-43 were developed, the engineers from the Yakovlev Design Bureau proceeded to the Yak-201. No layout or an experienced prototype was. The design was started on an initiative basis by the bureau officers in the mid-1990s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-201
http://avia-pro.net/blog/yak-201
https://www.revolvy.com/page/Yakovlev-Yak%252D201
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ak-201.htm
https://dagpolit.com/yak-201-why-is-it- ... the-su-57/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-36
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-30_(1960)

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 18:24
by sferrin
Yeah, the whole, "the F-35 is a Yak-141 with Stars and Bars" idea is complete nonsense glommed onto by fanbois.

Just FYI, there were engineers who worked on the Convair 200 who also worked the X-35/F-35. Thought that was interesting. The Model 200 family could have been a "4th-gen" JSF back in the 70s.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 19:11
by SpudmanWP
The most likely reason that LM paid for Yak data was to see data related to the operational use of a 3BSD nozzle and verify it against their internal studies & projections.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 19:15
by honky43
So we won't be working with Russia, to tell us how to achieve a VLO design for F/A-XX. And we won't be getting tips from. China on engine tech, or Japan on sensors/weapons. Their expertise just isn't there. What they may contribute is $, which is always welcome.

But there will be no "co-development" insofar as aircraft/electronics/weapons design. And even if there were, the US would be foolish to go that route. Our most advanced fighters (PCA/FA-XX) would have all their secrets laid bare, and it'll only take one country to pull an Iran to hand US air superiority to a foreign power.

Not going to happen..


You realise that many US breakthroughs came from foreigners/immigrants right? You also realise that the US has a history of leaking even their most closely guarded secrets (if other countries have breached US security they can only make limited use of the information anyhow because they are economically weaker)? The following is a list of only some of what I'm talking about.

Born to a Parsi family in Mumbai, India, he immigrated to the United States and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He joined Northrop in November 1968, and continued to work there until April 1986. As a design engineer, Gowadia was reportedly one of the principal designers of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, who conceived and conceptually designed the B-2 bomber's entire propulsion system and billed himself as the "father of the technology that protects the B-2 stealth bomber from heat-seeking missiles."[5] In 1999, he founded N.S. Gowadia, Inc., his own consulting company.

In October 2005, he was interviewed twice by the authorities, and his multimillion-dollar[6] home in Hawaii was searched. Later the same month, he was arrested, and charged with giving secret defense information to unauthorized parties. According to prosecutors, the information mostly related to the B-2 project, and at least eight foreign countries were shown documents relating to the B-2's stealth technology. In an affidavit, Gowadia admitted to transmitting classified information, and stated that he did so "to establish the technological credibility with the potential customers for future business."[7] Gowadia was held without bail after his arrest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noshir_Gowadia
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Noshir_Gowadia

Shortly after arriving at Caltech in 1936, Tsien became fascinated with the rocketry ideas of Frank Malina, other students of von Kármán, and their associates, including Jack Parsons. Along with his fellow students, he was involved in rocket-related experiments at the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at Caltech. Around the university, the dangerous and explosive nature of their work earned them the nickname "Suicide Squad."[10][11] Tsien received his PhD from Caltech in 1939.[12]

In 1943, Tsien and two other members of their rocketry group drafted the first document to use the name Jet Propulsion Laboratory, originally a proposal to the Army for developing missiles in response to Germany's V-2 rocket. This led to Private A, which flew in 1944, and later the Corporal, the WAC Corporal, and other designs.

Von Kármán wrote of Tsien, "At the age of 36, he was an undisputed genius whose work was providing an enormous impetus to advances in high-speed aerodynamics and jet propulsion."[13] During this time, he worked on designing an intercontinental space plane, which would later inspire the X-20 Dyna-Soar, a precursor to the American Space Shuttle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen

Between 2009 and 2013, Khazaee tried to send secret U.S. defense technology to Iran, according to the release. Khazaee, a dual citizen of Iran and the United States, with a degree in mechanical engineering, was employed by three different defense contractors between 2001 and 2013.

Although the statement did not name his employers, engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney has confirmed that Khazaee was an employee of theirs during this period. Pratt manufactures the engines for both the F-22 and F-35.

"Mozaffar Khazaee betrayed his defense contractor employers and the national security interests of the United States by stealing and attempting to send to Iran voluminous documents containing highly sensitive U.S. defense technology," said Deirdre Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, according to the statement.

Beginning in 2009, Khazaee corresponded by email with an individual in Iran to whom he sent sensitive documents containing information about the Joint Strike Fighter program, according to the statement. Khazaee was apparently seeking a job back in Iran, frequently contacting state-controlled technical universities offering access to the data.

Federal agents began investigating Khazaee in 2013 when he attempted to send a large shipping container to Iran. When agents inspected the container, they found thousands of pages of documents, including diagrams, test results and blueprints of the F-35 and F-22 engines, according to the statement.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/20 ... d-to-jail/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 4P20151023

The FBI do not reveal just how much Su made, but some emails obtained from Su read that he was hoping for "big money" from the sales, but also contain emails between the three arguing about the sale of the data — "they are too stingy!" Su wrote to one of the officers of a major Chinese aircraft manufacturer.

One report reads that the "mission" had, over the course of a year, made "important contributions to our national defense scientific research development." In other reports, they write that the stolen information on the F-22 fighter jet will let them "rapidly catch up with US levels" and "stand easily on the giant's shoulders."

The data being stolen was proprietary to the defense companies and was strictly forbidden from being exported.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kz9 ... ads-guilty
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... 35-secrets
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... -and-f-22/

Nov. 4, 1997 — When U.S. space shuttles started linking up with Russia's Mir space station in 1995, both sides owed a small debt to the old Soviet secret police, the KGB. According to documents obtained by NBC News, it was the KGB that successfully stole the U.S. shuttle design in the '70s and '80s.

That theft permitted the Soviet Union to build its own carbon copy of the U.S. system, called the Buran, thus unintentionally laying the groundwork for the compatibility between the U.S. and Russian systems.

Although the Soviet shuttle flew only once in 1990, it was planned in part as a space ferry to link up with Mir. That all-Soviet linkup never took place, and the Soviet shuttle was finally abandoned in 1994. But because the Soviet craft was so similar to the U.S. version, designing a Mir linkup for Atlantis and other U.S. shuttles proved simple and efficient. In fact, the first linkup between the Mir and the shuttle Atlantis in 1995 used the very system the Russians designed for their own shuttle.

The story of the Soviet shuttle is really the story of the competition between the two great space powers in microcosm, complete with Cold War intrigue and paranoia, mirror-image competition and all manner of spies, both human and electronic. It may also be the first recorded example of spying online.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686090/ns/t ... FF6uaIrKuV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

“I was a CIA director, we lied, we cheated we stole… like, we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment,” Pompeo told an audience in College Station, Texas earlier this month amid self-amused chuckles.

https://www.rt.com/news/457452-pompeo-c ... nterviews/

Even with Soviet Union's collapse Russia has sort of half picked itself up and still has a half-decent space/rocketry program? The US doesn't have a competitive engine according to many reports and hasn't been able to provide manned launch capability for many years, have had to purchase engines from Russia, and pay the Russians money to launch astronauts after the Space Shuttle program was shut down.

The reliable and relatively cheap RD-180 engine is designed by a Russian research and development company especially for the US Atlas carrier rockets, but there are reportedly plans to put them to use in the production of Russian super-heavy rockets.

The head of SpaceX Elon Musk has praised the RD-180's engine, designed and manufactured by Russia's NPO Energomash and used on the American booster Atlas V, noting though that the need to exploit it is "embarrassing:"

The Russian-designed liquid-fuel rocket engine RD-180 powers the first stage of the American rocket carrier Atlas V. As many as 85 flights of rockets powered by the engine have been conducted to date.

After US-Russia relations deteriorated over the Crimean issue in 2014, US lawmakers slapped limits on would-be RD-180 purchases, passing a law that required the US to phase out the Russian-made engines in favour of domestically produced next-generation rocket propulsion systems.

However, the following year, the US Congress passed a budget that included a provision allowing the country to go on buying the Russian RD-180 rocket engines. Shortly after, the ULA ordered an additional batch of 20 RD-180 engines at the Pentagon's request.

Separately, there were earlier reports on the intention to use the engine RD-180 in a Russian rocket of the super-heavy class.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Elon_ ... V_999.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russi ... e_999.html
https://spacenews.com/energomash-raises ... t-engines/

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 22:14
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:The most likely reason that LM paid for Yak data was to see data related to the operational use of a 3BSD nozzle and verify it against their internal studies & projections.


LM wanted access to Western STOVL info. The Brits said, "no" (BAE was part of a different team after all) so LM said, "well, let's take a look at the Russian stuff and see if there's anything worth using". There wasn't much.

3-bearing_zps9f61431f.jpg

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 11:16
by zero-one
I may have a solution between the exports and US requirement dilema.
some of you may not like it.
Make the thing modular.

The baseline aircraft is your typical hot rod tailor made for A-A Raptor..esq fighter.
The US wants to focus on range, then you install a modular CFT that preserves the stealth outline, it decreses the maneuverability to 5Gs but extends the range to 4000 NM.

Need additional sensors, there are spaces for those that will preserve the stealth outline. If you dont need them, then there are panels where you can cover them or just put CFTs on them.

This is basically the F-16's approach, it was such a great export hit because the bare aircraft was cheap and very high performance. Air-forces can also customize it the way they see fit.

As good as the F-35 is, there are a lot of features that don't necessarily appeal to other users all that much. Honestly the Japanese may have preferred a more A-A optimized F-35 with less SEAD/DEAD capabilities

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 15:53
by mixelflick
LOL at "many American breakthroughs came from immigrants/foreigners". Where on EARTH are you trying to take this?

I said foreign expertise in developing things like PCA, F/A-XX, B-21 etc is going to be slim to none. Money? Maybe. But the EXPERTISE is here in America. Now you're playing games by saying it must be immigrants who are responsible for those breakthroughs. Well duh, we're all immigrants. The freedoms in the U.S. and opportunity are what allows our people to be the best in the world (at military aircraft design, production and fielding). Really man, you're grasping for straws.

Still waiting for the list of foreign countries announced telling us how to make the B-21 VLO. Still waiting for those foreign countries who'll give us pointers on ADVENT engine (and beyond) technology. Still waiting to hear which country is going to send us electronics, E/W and sensor/SA tips for PCA and F/A-XX.

I'll keep waiting.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 16:58
by honky43
SpudmanWP wrote:The most likely reason that LM paid for Yak data was to see data related to the operational use of a 3BSD nozzle and verify it against their internal studies & projections.


You're obviously selectively quoting (knowingly or not). If you track through enough articles you'll realise that Lockeed Martin JSF prototype design was changed after consulting data from Yakovlev. The total cost of the transaction was speculated to vary from between tens of millions of dollars to $400M USD for several protypes and an evolved version of the Yak-141 that has very similar specifications and looks to the current JSF. I'm reasonably certain that Lockheed Martin gained far more then just V/STOVL data.

If you can not see similarities in specifications, drawings, between evolved designs of the Yak-141 and the JSF then you are lying to yourself, blind, etc...

The only question I have is over what articles are authentic.

1st a little background. When LM 1st decided to tender for the JSF they put forward plans for a smaller cunard foreplane aircraft (a la the Israeli Lavi, the Eurofighter, the Dassault Rafale etc). They even developed a Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) to demonstrate their JAST concept. A number of Small Scale Powered Models (SSPMs) were also tested to develop a basic understanding of the hover and transition regions. But pretty quicky they realised they could not get the design sorted out within the timeframe, so they went & knocked on the door of the Yakovlev OKB in Russia. In 1992, Lockheed Martin signed an agreement with the Russian Yakovlev Design Bureau & Pratt & Whitney signed one with the Soyuz Aero Engine Company for information on the supersonic Yak-141 STOVL fighter and its three bearing swivel duct nozzle, etc. Yakovlev was paid 'several dozen million dollars', P&W also spent some small change on a license from the Soyuz Aero Engine Company . Its no big secret outside of the US.

Now lets see what AeroWorld Net has to say: [slashdot.org]

..In 1992/93 Lockheed contracted Yakovlev on some work pertaining to short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft studies in reference to the JAST (JSF) project. Yakovlev shared its STOVL technologies with the US company for several dozen million dollars.

Former Yakovlev employees accuse Yakovlev heads of taking personal interest out of the deal with Lockheed, because the official sum of the contract did not correspond with the value of the information presented to the US company. The data was on the Yak-141 test program, aerodynamics and design features, including the design of the R-79 engine nozzles.

After a careful study of those materials, Lockheed - without much noise - changed its initial JSF proposal, including a design of the engine nozzles that is now very similar to those of the Yak-141...

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/02/ ... ompetition
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ovl-25571/
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... y=Yakovlev
http://avia-pro.net/blog/yak-201
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ak-201.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-36
https://designer.home.xs4all.nl/models/ ... yak-36.htm
http://www.airvectors.net/avredvt.html
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7908693
http://www.yak.ru/ENG/FIRM/HISTMOD/yak-36.php
Yak-36 and Yak-38
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pl ... 063b.shtml
Harrier Hover Capability
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0042.shtml
https://aircraft.fandom.com/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38

Yakovlev, Lockheed Sign Pact
By Anton Zhigulsky
Sep. 12 1995 00:00

Moscow's Yakovlev aircraft design bureau has signed an agreement with the American aerospace giant Lockheed-Martin to help develop a new U.S. supersonic fighter capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), a company official said Monday.

The contract is the latest partnership between Russia's struggling aviation companies and their Western counterparts, all trying to make ends meet in the post-Cold War world.

Arkady Gurtovoy, Yakovlev's deputy general director, said Lockheed Martin wants to tap the "huge experience" of the Russian company in developing the supersonic VTOL jets.

"The Yak-141 is still the most advanced aircraft of its kind in the world," Gurtovoy said, referring to a mid-1980s program that was shelved after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. No other countries have developed similar aircraft, he said, "so no wonder the Americans needed us."

The British Harrier jet that saw activity in the 1983 Falklands war is the most famous similar model, but it is not capable of supersonic speed. VTOL enables military jets to be deployed to combat zones without full-length carrier decks.

Under the contract, signed at the end of August, Yakovlev is to offer technical advice on American-built technology, Gurtovoy said.

He would not specify the value of the six-month contract, calling it "mutually profitable," but Interfax reported that Lockheed-Martin would spend approximately $400 million on research and development of the fighter by 1998.

Lockheed officials could not be reached for comment Monday.

Gurtovoy said the contract will help to reopen the Yak-141 program and keep specialists from leaving the cash-strapped company.

http://old.themoscowtimes.com/sitemap/f ... 34739.html

Yakovlev engineers completed work on an early-form VSTOL aircraft through the Yak-104 during the 1960s. This, based on a modified Yak-30 jet-powered trainer, laid the framework for a more advanced form still to come. When development of the Yak-104 was abandoned due to its complex lift system, attention turned to a more condensed model.

An initial single-engine approach was dropped in favor of a twin-engine product and the primary propulsion units would be featured in a side-by-side arrangement aspirated at the nose of the aircraft through a bifurcated intake. The same engines, mounted forward in the design, would also provide the necessary lifting power by way of swiveling exhaust nozzles set about the underside of the airframe. The design held a single pilot under a bubble-style canopy with minimal framing. A single vertical fin was featured at the tail with high-mounted horizontal planes. The wing mainplanes themselves were mid-mounted, swept-back, cropped-delta elements showcasing 37-degree sweepback along their trailing edges and slight anhedral (downward angle) overall. The undercarriage was of particular note, arranged in a "bicycle" pattern in which the main legs were inline under the fuselage's centerline. Outriggers were added to the wingtips to prevent tipping when ground-running.

The initial prototype was reserved for static tests so the second prototype was used in actual hovering, landing, and take-off actions. The third prototype was a more evolved model based on experiences gained with the first and second prototypes. The fourth prototype became another flyable example. The third and fourth units eventually crashed during tests with only the third example being rebuilt to continue work.

As a fighter development, it was envisioned that the production-quality Yak-36 would carry underwing hardpoints for conventional drop bombs, rocket pods, or cannon pods. Provision for 1 x 23mm GSh-12L series cannon was also planned. However, these were never fitted due to the design's lack of power - which kept it forever as a test platform and nothing more.

A first flight, though tethered for pilot safety, was held on January 9th, 1963 and a completely untethered test flight was recorded on June 23rd of that year. A first vertical-to-horizontal action was finally had on September 16th and March 24th, 1966 marked the first vertical-to-horizontal launch with vertical landing action undertaken (successfully). In July of 1967, the aircraft was publically showcased during the celebrations surrounding the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution. When identified in the West, it received the NATO codename of "Freehand".

The Yak-36 never materialized beyond the test articles as it lacked useful-enough qualities to become a combat-worthy platform - mainly operational range and power. Thusly, the Yak-36M was designed as a separate entry influenced by experience gained in the Yak-36 program - though the two aircraft held few similarities on the whole. The Yak-38 went on to become one of the few frontline VSTOL aircraft to see operational service - joining the vaunted British "Harrier" strike fighter appearing during the Cold War.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... ft_id=1604

Production of the Yak-38 Forger began in 1975 making it the world's second operational VSTOL aircraft, after the Harrier series. In the USSR, the first VTOL jet estimations were carried out in 1947, the idea was based on the use of the rotary nozzle. At the end of 1950 it was connected to the OKB-115 Design Bureau, which experts have proposed the Yak-104 project with two up-and-boosters (PMD) 1600 kg thrust and one lifting motor (PD) 600 kg thrust. Later vthe Yak-28VV fighter-bomber project with two jet engines, as well as attack aircraft with two jet engines and lift fan in the wing, equipped with a gas-dynamic drive system. Exotic solutions were dictated by the high proportion of the engines of the time, constituted the 0.2-0.25 kg / kg, whereas to ensure acceptable performance characteristics of the aircraft, this option had to be brought up to at least 0.08-0.1 kg / kg. In the end, it was decided to create a prototype single-seat fighter-bomber for the study of flight technical and operating issues, and in the future to move to more serious projects.

Four VTOL aircraft, the designation Yak-36 ("B", the Yak-B) were built at the end of 1962, which was preceded by a long-term testing of the individual systems and components, and flight studies on the experimental apparatus "Turbolet". Yak-36 was powered by two jet engines R27-300 thrust of 5,000 kg, with rotating nozzles in the area of the center of gravity. For transient and hovering Yak-36 was administered via jet rudders, nozzles which are in the rear fuselage, on the wingtips and the front bar. Yak-36 was the subject of numerous studies on the stability and controllability of the VTOL, the impact of the gas jet to the surface and the aircraft structure, the influence of the reflected streams on the behavior of the aircraft and the operation of the power plant, the efficiency of jet rudders, and more.
...
Application is not enough power would lead to the same problems, which were characteristic of the Yak-36:. the inevitable drop in thrust due to gas recirculation and air flow the jet control system, as well as the effect of the suction force becomes so great that it is not allowed to take off vertically, even with minimal combat load. The concept of the initiative group Mordovina eventually won, though it took a long time: the decision of the CC CPSU and the USSR on the establishment of the Yak-36M appeared immediately after the meeting of the NTS MAP in December 1967, and only 25 January 1969 Air Force Commander K .A.Vershinin approved TTT to a light attack aircraft Yak-36M vertical takeoff and landing with lifting and sustainer engine R-27B-300 and RD-lifting 36-35FV.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... yak-38.htm

I've worked with certain types of people before. They try to take credit even if it's not entirely deserved. In this case, I think you just need to give some credit to others. If the US were to suddenly weaken or disappear from the face of the Earth life would be a bit strange at first but it would go on, just in a different form.

Your tone sometimes seems to imply that it's almost as though only US citizens have the ability to think which is ridiculous? Several countries were working on SVOTL aircraft in the 1960s at exactly the same time US and Soviet Union were. There have been experiments with been supersonic SVTOL aircraft since 1950s and we know that through history the US has tried to shut down advanced work which can rival that of the US. Other countries have to work on some stuff in secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IIIV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWR_VJ_101

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 22:46
by hkultala
sferrin wrote:Yeah, the whole, "the F-35 is a Yak-141 with Stars and Bars" idea is complete nonsense glommed onto by fanbois.


No, it's your straw-man argument. Nobody is claiming anything like that.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 23:35
by SpudmanWP
Actually, there are plenty of people claiming that:
  • LM stole the idea of the F-35 From Yak
  • The F-35 would not have existed except for the Yak
  • LM bought the rights to the 3BSN from Yak
  • The idea of the 3BSN came from Yak
  • etc

These rank right up there with Sprey co-designed the F-16/A-10 :)

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2019, 10:33
by krieger22
And yet I can't find a single lift jet engine of the type so favored by Yakovlev on the F-35 design. Or, in fact, on any Western VSTOL design proposed around or after the 1990s.

It's almost as if lift jets are a terrible idea and an evolutionary dead end.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2019, 12:13
by madrat
Those 20:1 TWR lift jets on the Yak design should have been retractable engines for increasing takeoff performance and fighting ability. The pair of RD41's were capable of 9,000 pounds of thrust apiece. The R79 was a monster engine as it was, more powerful than Al-31's. They could have used those little twist-turn nozzles on the RD41's to cut the landing weight in half. And when they needed straight-line performance they had roughly 52,000 pounds of thrust. Takeoffs would have been quite a rush.

Arrestor landings and bigger wing area would have been better than their vertical options. They already only flew like 50 hours before being pulled, so they were already fine with high maintenance. Nowhere near F-35 performance, but clearly superior to Harrier in the open sea.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2019, 14:53
by sferrin
madrat wrote:Those 20:1 TWR lift jets on the Yak design should have been retractable engines for increasing takeoff performance and fighting ability.


If they're like most other lift jets, their MTBF was measure in minutes/low hours. The XJ99s as I recall didn't even recirculate engine oil but dumped it into the exhaust. 20:1 doesn't come cheap. As for mounting lift engines on retractable mounts. . .I've seen designs with engines mounted that way but they were never meant for anything other than vertical flight.

avs_2.jpg


AVS1.jpg


AVS2.jpg


Capture.PNG

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 08:50
by krieger22
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -air-wing/

Looks like the Navy is about to invest quite a bit more into the program

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is on the brink of an explosion in research and development funding for its next-generation fighter program — an effort that could make or break the mainstay of the fleet’s powerful strike arm.

The service this year proposed quadrupling funding for its next-generation air dominance program from last year’s paltry $5 million to $20.7 million, with plans to increase funding every year to at least 2024, when it peaks at $372 million, according to the Navy’s fiscal 2020 budget documents.


The rest is ranting that screams "I don't understand the survivability onion" and "I have never read How to Hide a Task Force", but at least there's a little meat.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 21:39
by blain
krieger22 wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2019/05/06/whats-killing-the-us-navys-air-wing/

Looks like the Navy is about to invest quite a bit more into the program

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is on the brink of an explosion in research and development funding for its next-generation fighter program — an effort that could make or break the mainstay of the fleet’s powerful strike arm.

The service this year proposed quadrupling funding for its next-generation air dominance program from last year’s paltry $5 million to $20.7 million, with plans to increase funding every year to at least 2024, when it peaks at $372 million, according to the Navy’s fiscal 2020 budget documents.


The rest is ranting that screams "I don't understand the survivability onion" and "I have never read How to Hide a Task Force", but at least there's a little meat.


I will believe it when I see it. Dividing procurement between two fighter programs is inefficient. If they want to transition to the NGAD they need to bite the bullet and end Super Hornet production and buy the F-35 at more efficient numbers so they can reduce the fly away cost and complete the buy. Then they can start transitioning to what is next.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 00:44
by charlielima223
@ Honky

did you just come here to troll?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 01:40
by crosshairs
blain wrote:
krieger22 wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2019/05/06/whats-killing-the-us-navys-air-wing/

Looks like the Navy is about to invest quite a bit more into the program

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is on the brink of an explosion in research and development funding for its next-generation fighter program — an effort that could make or break the mainstay of the fleet’s powerful strike arm.

The service this year proposed quadrupling funding for its next-generation air dominance program from last year’s paltry $5 million to $20.7 million, with plans to increase funding every year to at least 2024, when it peaks at $372 million, according to the Navy’s fiscal 2020 budget documents.


The rest is ranting that screams "I don't understand the survivability onion" and "I have never read How to Hide a Task Force", but at least there's a little meat.


I will believe it when I see it. Dividing procurement between two fighter programs is inefficient. If they want to transition to the NGAD they need to bite the bullet and end Super Hornet production and buy the F-35 at more efficient numbers so they can reduce the fly away cost and complete the buy. Then they can start transitioning to what is next.


Ha ha. Ok, remember when carriers had phantoms, skyhawks, crusaders and vigilante? I would include intruders but I wasn't a fan of the straight winged slug. Or do you remember the 80s when the navy was buying tomcats and hornets? While planning and engineering the A-12? There is no single airframe that can perform all the roles the navy needs just as it is true for the USAF.The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engine slug to perform every mission. Just a meager 10,000 lbs of fuel and 4 amraam and its already behind the power curve. We've yet to see how well RAM holds up at sea and how well maintainers can maintain RAM on a confined ship. Back to point, there is no single airframe the navy can buy to meet all requirements for all missions.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 01:52
by quicksilver
“We've yet to see how well RAM holds up at sea and how well maintainers can maintain RAM on a confined ship.”

You mean the Navy can’t do what the Marines have already done?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 01:59
by quicksilver
“The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engine slug to perform every mission.”

So it has bought, and continues to buy, a 34,000 lb twin engine — even slug-ier jet — to perform every mission.

Fly NAVY!

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 07:59
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engine slug to perform every mission. Just a meager 10,000 lbs of fuel and 4 amraam and its already behind the power curve. We've yet to see how well RAM holds up at sea and how well maintainers can maintain RAM on a confined ship. Back to point, there is no single airframe the navy can buy to meet all requirements for all missions.


Remember the F-35C has the highest lift limit of all F-35 variants. Test pilots who flew all 3 models say it is the best turner and climber (perhaps in instances where lift limit is a factor)

In fact, I would go as far as saying that the F-35C has a real shot in being the defacto best ACM platform the US navy ever had. the only real contenders are F/A-18C (with EPE engines), F/A-18E,

F-14 fans, sorry, the cat was a better interceptor than the bugs, but medium to close range is historically where all air combat took place (farthest confirmed air to air kill is just around 25 NM IIRC). So give me the Bug, lower RCS, better avionics and when we get to the phone booth, Aim-9X, JHMCS and perhaps the smallest turn radius of all 4th gens, yes please.

So Slug?? Lets rephrase that.
The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engined, extremely agile platform that may just be the best dogfighting machine the Navy ever got their hands on even though dogfighting will be it's last resort because its dang near invisible with all the SA anyone can ask for, to perform every mission


wait what?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 12:01
by madrat
If the F-14 had been equipped with AIM-9X with JHMCS, which seat controls it? How does it work in F-18F?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 12:17
by hornetfinn
From youtube videos, it seems that the pilot has the JHMCS system and WSO uses regular helmet. Of course the pilot has better and less restricted view to use the JHMCS more effectively. I'd also think that controlling both the aircraft and the sight system helps tracking the target.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 13:09
by madrat
I couldn't really imagine it could work from the backseat without a DAS type of system.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 14:16
by zero-one
madrat wrote:If the F-14 had been equipped with AIM-9X with JHMCS, which seat controls it? How does it work in F-18F?


I remember one of the Battlefield games having your character play a WSO with JHMCS. I shoulda just dismissed the whole thing as a game and left it at that. But I went digging instead. Heres what I found

viewtopic.php?t=20561
On Super Hornets, the JHMCS system is decoupled, so the pilot and WSO can both utilize it simultaneously.


and perhaps more importantly:
https://theaviationist.com/2012/08/27/p ... sh-helmet/

The picture show an F-15I’s WSO (Weapon System Officer) as his plane breaks from a formation (whose remaining two elements are visible above the aircraft in foreground).

The photograph provides a close-up view of the DASH (Display And Sight Helmet) helmet and its shape.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 14:33
by madrat
The bus architecture used to control weapons should be able to operate several simultaneously. If both seats can utilize the two then it adds quite a new dimension to a two-seater. HOBS especially.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 15:02
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:
crosshairs wrote:The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engine slug to perform every mission. Just a meager 10,000 lbs of fuel and 4 amraam and its already behind the power curve. We've yet to see how well RAM holds up at sea and how well maintainers can maintain RAM on a confined ship. Back to point, there is no single airframe the navy can buy to meet all requirements for all missions.


Remember the F-35C has the highest lift limit of all F-35 variants. Test pilots who flew all 3 models say it is the best turner and climber (perhaps in instances where lift limit is a factor)

In fact, I would go as far as saying that the F-35C has a real shot in being the defacto best ACM platform the US navy ever had. the only real contenders are F/A-18C (with EPE engines), F/A-18E,

F-14 fans, sorry, the cat was a better interceptor than the bugs, but medium to close range is historically where all air combat took place (farthest confirmed air to air kill is just around 25 NM IIRC). So give me the Bug, lower RCS, better avionics and when we get to the phone booth, Aim-9X, JHMCS and perhaps the smallest turn radius of all 4th gens, yes please.

So Slug?? Lets rephrase that.
The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engined, extremely agile platform that may just be the best dogfighting machine the Navy ever got their hands on even though dogfighting will be it's last resort because its dang near invisible with all the SA anyone can ask for, to perform every mission


wait what?


I agree with you, albeit he has a point with its thrust to weight ratio. Also, we know acceleration is an issue (at least relative to requirements). Hopefully, these deficiencies will be corrected with ADVENT/next gen engines. But...

IMO that $ would be better put into doing the F/A-XX right. I mean like, really right. Big(ger) than the F-35C - but not TOO big. Two monster engines that provide great range, time on station, speed, acceleration, supercruise etc.. Next gen stealth and SA.

And critically, design it from the ground up as multi-role, meaning a secondary air to ground capability. If we learned anything from the F-18, it's that it's a LOT harder to ask a "lightweight" fighter to morph into an air to everything platform vs. starting from a heavyweight with gobs of power, range and speed. And for the record, I don't buy for a second the "but it really wasn't based on the YF-17" nonsense. It most decidely was, and that original sin has carried through all the way to the ASH aka Super Duper.

In fact if it's done right, F/A-XX will be on carrier decks almost exclusively. You know, kind of like the Hornet/Super Hornet/Growler Hornet/Super Duper Hornet. The only difference being, it'll be immensely more capable and less "re-work" will have to be done as mission sets expand.

It may not be cheap, but quality never is..

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 16:25
by zero-one
I'm not really too fond of the PCA and F/A-XX just yet. I honestly think it's too soon.

The F-22 and F-35 were designed with the lessons learned from the Teen series's combat experience
The Teen series was designed with lessons learned from Vietnam's combat experience

Vietnam era fighters on the other hand were designed, not from combat experience, but from what air combat was expected to be. As good as they were, a lot of painful and embarrassing lessons had to be learned from them. I feel that PCA and F/A-XX are going to repeat the same mistakes that created the F-4. Designs heavily influenced by simulations and what combat is expected to now how it actually turned out to be.

The threat is also not there. The ATF program was created because intelligence reports suggest that the Flanker and Fulcrum fighter series will be near parity to the teen series. And for the most part they were right, the Su-27 is almost as good as the F-15 and in some ways, better.

However today, we all agree that the F-22 and F-35 are still far superior to the Su-57, J-20 and S-400 threats that they will face. So we can afford to delay the creation of PCA and F/A-XX until there is substantial combat data to influence the designs.

Just my own personal opinion. You don't need to agree with me

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 01:12
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:I'm not really too fond of the PCA and F/A-XX just yet. I honestly think it's too soon.

The F-22 and F-35 were designed with the lessons learned from the Teen series's combat experience
The Teen series was designed with lessons learned from Vietnam's combat experience

Vietnam era fighters on the other hand were designed, not from combat experience, but from what air combat was expected to be. As good as they were, a lot of painful and embarrassing lessons had to be learned from them. I feel that PCA and F/A-XX are going to repeat the same mistakes that created the F-4. Designs heavily influenced by simulations and what combat is expected to now how it actually turned out to be.

The threat is also not there. The ATF program was created because intelligence reports suggest that the Flanker and Fulcrum fighter series will be near parity to the teen series. And for the most part they were right, the Su-27 is almost as good as the F-15 and in some ways, better.

However today, we all agree that the F-22 and F-35 are still far superior to the Su-57, J-20 and S-400 threats that they will face. So we can afford to delay the creation of PCA and F/A-XX until there is substantial combat data to influence the designs.

Just my own personal opinion. You don't need to agree with me


Yes, that is a good idea. Let's have a conflict with a near peer and see how all 120 combat coded F-22s perform to see what we need to build into the next platform. That's why we train and train and train and why the USAF (as one example) has the Office of Foreign Technology - so we know what is needed now and in the near future. We don't need to fight a war to know what is needed in the next possible war.

You make it sound as if Vietnam never happened that the USAF and USN would have been flying new build Phantoms into the 80s and 90s, and heck for that matter even today because that was the only war the US didn't go into with overhwleming firepower.

F-15 would have happened regardless of Vietnam. What the final form would have been, is debatable. Same for the Tomcat, although Tomcat's form would likely still have been the same after the TFX failure and the requirements it was built to satisfy. We would have also had a smaller cheaper aircraft - an F-16 - to supplement the larger more expensive F-15. Then the same goes for the F-18.

Also you make the J-20 sound as if it's static - forever in its current state - and that the Chinese won't build upgraded versions with sensor fusion on par with stubby. What do you do then when its engines and avionics are on par with the US. because the Chinese are not far behind and only lack experience as they have the raw technical knowledge as anyone who has worked in China will tell you. Decades of stealing and spying has paid off for them.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 02:32
by marsavian
I'm not really too fond of the PCA and F/A-XX just yet. I honestly think it's too soon.


RANGE is needed to eventually make a stealthy replacement for F-15E not unless you want the F-15EX to live forever as the longest range US strike fighter. The US needs it in the Pacific and Israel needs it in the ME. As long as it's open competition the best designs should come to the fore, so some requirement like a 1200nm stealthy combat radius which would be even more with drop tanks.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 03:37
by Corsair1963
[quote="zero-one"]I'm not really too fond of the PCA and F/A-XX just yet. I honestly think it's too soon.

Honestly, 5th Generation Fighters will need to mature much more. Before we really know what the "Next Generation" would need to look like...........

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 03:42
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:
Yes, that is a good idea. Let's have a conflict with a near peer and see how all 120 combat coded F-22s perform to see what we need to build into the next platform. That's why we train and train and train and why the USAF (as one example) has the Office of Foreign Technology - so we know what is needed now and in the near future. We don't need to fight a war to know what is needed in the next possible war.

You make it sound as if Vietnam never happened that the USAF and USN would have been flying new build Phantoms into the 80s and 90s, and heck for that matter even today because that was the only war the US didn't go into with overhwleming firepower.

F-15 would have happened regardless of Vietnam. What the final form would have been, is debatable. Same for the Tomcat, although Tomcat's form would likely still have been the same after the TFX failure and the requirements it was built to satisfy. We would have also had a smaller cheaper aircraft - an F-16 - to supplement the larger more expensive F-15. Then the same goes for the F-18.

Also you make the J-20 sound as if it's static - forever in its current state - and that the Chinese won't build upgraded versions with sensor fusion on par with stubby. What do you do then when its engines and avionics are on par with the US. because the Chinese are not far behind and only lack experience as they have the raw technical knowledge as anyone who has worked in China will tell you. Decades of stealing and spying has paid off for them.


There is nothing on the horizon that likely could match let alone surpass the F-35. Especially, if the latter continues to receive the planned upgrades.

This should give the US plenty of time to develop and field the PCA and NGAD.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 03:45
by Corsair1963
marsavian wrote:
I'm not really too fond of the PCA and F/A-XX just yet. I honestly think it's too soon.


RANGE is needed to eventually make a stealthy replacement for F-15E not unless you want the F-15EX to live forever as the longest range US strike fighter. The US needs it in the Pacific and Israel needs it in the ME. As long as it's open competition the best designs should come to the fore, so some requirement like a 1200nm stealthy combat radius which would be even more with drop tanks.



The F-15E/EX Range is not that great when combined with a respectable payload..... :?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 07:25
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:
You make it sound as if Vietnam never happened that the USAF and USN would have been flying new build Phantoms into the 80s and 90s, and heck for that matter even today because that was the only war the US didn't go into with overhwleming firepower. F-15 would have happened regardless of Vietnam.


Wasn't the F-111 supposed to be what would replace the F-4? Vietnam made them realize what a mistake it would be.
The teen series was a direct response to what was learned from Vietnam. Aircraft with a focus on medium to short range combat.

crosshairs wrote:Also you make the J-20 sound as if it's static - forever in its current state - and that the Chinese won't build upgraded versions with sensor fusion on par with stubby. What do you do then when its engines and avionics are on par with the US.


If they make upgraded J-20s. then make up upgraded F-22s and F-35s. The F-4, F-111 and PCA have one thing in common. They are all designed from training simulations and expectations not actual combat

I think, unless 5th gens participate in a major conflict, preferably with an opponent that has peer technology or China and Russia churns out platforms that can clearly match the F-22 and F-35 then (like how the Flanker was a match for the Eagle) then PCA and F/A-XX can take its time.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 13:48
by mixelflick
Taking our time is a horrible idea IMO...

In fact, it's the reason why the Russians/Chinese have closed the gap so quickly. We took our time slow walking the F-22, because the powers that be thought the F-15 was good enough. Well, it isn't. Or at least isn't in the sense it conveys a clear cut, overwhelming advantage that we've been used to. Now castrate the F-22 buy, and you get where we are today.

Neutralize the F-22, and the F-15 is our best air to air platform (F-35 is coming along, but not quite there yet insofar as numbers). The J-10B/C, J-11, J-16, SU-30SM and SU-35 are plenty competitive, and in some cases superior to the F-15. Staying 1 step ahead isn't the American way - it's staying 3 steps ahead.

The F-35 will get us there, but just in the nick of time. Giving the Chinese time, allowing for more espionage etc. has allowed them to pump out competitive airframes, and what appears to be a very robust stealth fighter of their own. Had Russia or China instead opted to produce a light(er) stealth fighter in numbers, we'd be up the creek right now without a paddle.

We need to field PCA and F/A-XX ASAP, because the Russians and Chinese are working hard on 6th gen designs of their own. Dilly dallying around on either program only strengthens their hand, and weakens ours..

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 14:15
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:Staying 1 step ahead isn't the American way - it's staying 3 steps ahead.

Taking 3 steps ahead in the right direction.
I'm not an American but I'm worried, you guys nearly ended up with the F-111 as your next air superiority fighter and not the F-15.

mixelflick wrote:We need to field PCA and F/A-XX ASAP, because the Russians and Chinese are working hard on 6th gen designs of their own. Dilly dallying around on either program only strengthens their hand, and weakens ours..


Once their 6th gens take shape then build something to counter that. Right now they don't even know how to put their 5th gens in the air yet. and we're worrying about their 6th gens.

I'm just saying PCA looks like F-111 V.2 to me already.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 09:55
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Staying 1 step ahead isn't the American way - it's staying 3 steps ahead.

Taking 3 steps ahead in the right direction.
I'm not an American but I'm worried, you guys nearly ended up with the F-111 as your next air superiority fighter and not the F-15.

mixelflick wrote:We need to field PCA and F/A-XX ASAP, because the Russians and Chinese are working hard on 6th gen designs of their own. Dilly dallying around on either program only strengthens their hand, and weakens ours..


Once their 6th gens take shape then build something to counter that. Right now they don't even know how to put their 5th gens in the air yet. and we're worrying about their 6th gens.

I'm just saying PCA looks like F-111 V.2 to me already.


How is this different from F-22 and F-35 are also driven by what combat is expected to be. If the next war doesn’t happen, do we just sit on those two and wait and be reactive? Also, initial ATF concepts in early 80s were even faster and more agile than F-22 today because stealth was not as high priority. The RFP was changed in late 1985 to dramatically increase stealth and at that time stealth aircraft didn’t see combat yet. F-117 was first used in Panama in 1989 after ATF stealth requirements were increased in RFP.

Resting on the F-22 and F-35 or delaying PCA for making upgraded F-22 sounds foolish.

Also, even without Vietnam War, F-14 would have happened with how much trouble the F-111B had with carrier suitability. F-111 was politically pushed by McNamara to be common for both USAF and USN and that’s not the case for PCA and F/A-XX.

What does being American or not have any relevance?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 15:16
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Staying 1 step ahead isn't the American way - it's staying 3 steps ahead.

Taking 3 steps ahead in the right direction.
I'm not an American but I'm worried, you guys nearly ended up with the F-111 as your next air superiority fighter and not the F-15.

This isn't true, as the requirements for both aircraft were entirely different and in response to different threats. The F-111 design was based on what the threat was in the late 50's/early 60's. It was never going to be a dedicated air superiority machine. The closest it got to that was a naval interceptor. The F-15 was a direct response to the Mig-25, when it emerged in the mid/late 1960's. It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and to date is the world's most successful.

mixelflick wrote:We need to field PCA and F/A-XX ASAP, because the Russians and Chinese are working hard on 6th gen designs of their own. Dilly dallying around on either program only strengthens their hand, and weakens ours..


Once their 6th gens take shape then build something to counter that. Right now they don't even know how to put their 5th gens in the air yet. and we're worrying about their 6th gens.

I'm just saying PCA looks like F-111 V.2 to me already.


A couple of thoughts.. 1.) It's always better cheaper to be pro-active, not reactive - especially when you already have the lead. If we "wait to see" what Russian/Chinese 6th gens look like then by the time we design, test and build our own we'll be behind the curve. We also build a degree of over-match into our airframes, as the success of the F-14, 15 and 16 have displayed. Each of those handily dispatched not just of aircraft like the Mig-21, 23 and 25, but also aircraft designed to counter them - i.e. the Mig-29. They've all fallen to our 4th gen teen series.

I'm confused as to how you (or anyone?) can say PCA look like F-111 V.2, when nobody here knows what PCA is going to look like? There are artist conceptions, but even at this point I doubt USAF knows. I would bet they're narrowing designs now, but first flight of anything is a good ways off still. Also, PCA isn't being pitched as a be all, do all multirole airframe like the F-35. It's primary mission will be air superiority over GREAT ranges, with perhaps a secondary SEAD mission.

In any case, I think we're in better and better shape the more F-35's roll off the production line. Although it doesn't have the overwhelming advantage in every area the F-22 does, it restores a margin of superiority we've been accustomed to. In fact, it's considerably greater than that IMO. In prior red flags, it was explained the best blue air could do was have a 3:1 advantage over red air. With the F-35, we're seeing 15:1, 20:1 etc. That's incredible, and an amazing accomplishment IMO. It will only get better with better engines, sensors and weapons.

Russia is developing the Hunter UCAV, and plans to operate it in conjunction with the SU-57. China is undoubtedly not far behind, and may well obtain SU-57's of her own. Either one of them makes a breakthrough and the F-35 could lose its edge, which is why funding/building PCA is so important. It will not be the next F-111, far from it. I expect it to be as dominant as the F-22/35 are today, perhaps even moreso...


Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 15:47
by zero-one
disconnectedradical wrote:ATF concepts in early 80s were even faster and more agile than F-22 today because stealth was not as high priority. The RFP was changed in late 1985 to dramatically increase stealth and at that time stealth aircraft didn’t see combat yet.


I'd like to read more about this. Would you happen to have a link?

mixelflick wrote:I'm confused as to how you (or anyone?) can say PCA look like F-111 V.2, when nobody here knows what PCA is going to look like?


They are studying on what future combat aircraft may need.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-423994/
Grynkewich says range and payload are critical, but some studies show that speed, manoeuvrability and some level of low-observable shaping or stealth still have their place.


Okay so what will PCA need to focus on
Range, payload, speed, maneuverability, some stealth, all of the above?

What if they decide to lean towards other traits and marginalize others. There are already talks of the PCA looking more like a large bomber type aircraft instead of a fast and agile fighter. Thats the F-111 mentality I'm talking about.

Now this is just my opinion and I know you won't agree with this. So go easy on me.

But if the Russians can make all kinds of upgraded Flanker variants from the original Su-27. Then why not spend the money for PCA to restart the F-22 production and do the same. F-22C, F-22X etc etc,

You guys seem to have no problem with the F-35 getting continuous upgrades to face future threats then why should the F-22 be any different. It is already better than future threats (Su-57 and J-20) so upgrade it until actual combat comes around or we really get a good idea of what the threat will look like.

Range? The F-22 has short legs. I think you can mitigate that to an extent with ADVENT engines and Stealth Tankers, Both are already in their advanced stages of development. I just think retiring the F-22 in the 2040 - 2050 time line is way too soon

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 15:55
by madrat
F-22A has been regularly upgraded over the past decade.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2019, 12:39
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:ATF concepts in early 80s were even faster and more agile than F-22 today because stealth was not as high priority. The RFP was changed in late 1985 to dramatically increase stealth and at that time stealth aircraft didn’t see combat yet.


I'd like to read more about this. Would you happen to have a link?


AGAIN, if you read this book you’ll have answers to your questions that are already published. Look at the designs for 1981 ATF RFI. The stealth requirement was increased in the 1985 RFP and increased more especially in aft sector in November 1985.
https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Tactica ... 1563472821

FYI, one of the authors, Col Piccirillo, was program director of the ATF.

zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I'm confused as to how you (or anyone?) can say PCA look like F-111 V.2, when nobody here knows what PCA is going to look like?


They are studying on what future combat aircraft may need.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-423994/
Grynkewich says range and payload are critical, but some studies show that speed, manoeuvrability and some level of low-observable shaping or stealth still have their place.


Okay so what will PCA need to focus on
Range, payload, speed, maneuverability, some stealth, all of the above?

What if they decide to lean towards other traits and marginalize others. There are already talks of the PCA looking more like a large bomber type aircraft instead of a fast and agile fighter. Thats the F-111 mentality I'm talking about.

Now this is just my opinion and I know you won't agree with this. So go easy on me.

But if the Russians can make all kinds of upgraded Flanker variants from the original Su-27. Then why not spend the money for PCA to restart the F-22 production and do the same. F-22C, F-22X etc etc,

You guys seem to have no problem with the F-35 getting continuous upgrades to face future threats then why should the F-22 be any different. It is already better than future threats (Su-57 and J-20) so upgrade it until actual combat comes around or we really get a good idea of what the threat will look like.

Range? The F-22 has short legs. I think you can mitigate that to an extent with ADVENT engines and Stealth Tankers, Both are already in their advanced stages of development. I just think retiring the F-22 in the 2040 - 2050 time line is way too soon


F-22 is getting upgrades with 3.2B and also getting mid life upgrade in 2020s. Who said it’s retiring that soon? Current plan is to operate the F-22 to 2060 and will operate alongside PCA for a while like how F-15s and F-16s are still operating alongside F-22 and F-35.

Waiting until the next war for design inputs is a terrible idea. We train and train for a reason and we set requirements from what we learn from training. Sitting there and be reactive until the next war will just give more casualties. How do you know the F-22 will magically be suitable for the future? And why would the lessons learned from designing F-22 not be applied to PCA?

You want to take money from PCA to find something less capable?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2019, 13:51
by sferrin
Also, artwork can be found for most of them. Here are a couple (before stealth became a factor):

203-efda10088265f9b754bd0fc3b9ddd119.jpg


26-5.jpg


196-487024002a9e1e0f1aac75e9d8c26eae.jpg


0235c02e620958fd7800bc11b99eb287.png


5b87f64bf1f82ba15a1e0341f305bc91.jpg


There is tons of information over on Secret Projects if one looks.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2019, 14:10
by mixelflick
Building more F-22C's, X's or what have you has already been looked at. The fact is if the F-22 were to be re-started today, it would fundamentally be (almost) an entirely new aircraft. They then determined building something new from scratch would more accurately meet requirements. In particular, range and more robust stealth, sensors and weapons.

PCA is going to be a big aircraft, there's no getting around it. Something on the order of 1.5 to 2x's the size of the YF-23A. Has to be, in order to haul around as much gas as it's going to need. So unless a breakthrough has been made in engines/materials/fuel, it's going to be big.

Continuing on that theme, it's going to carry more than 8 AAM's. It's likely the long range weapon they're working on now will be bigger than AMRAAM, so again PCA is going to need much bigger internal weapons bays vs. the F-22 of today. Even a "stretched" F-22 would probably fall short. A new airframe is needed..

End of the day the F-22 was an incredible design. Still far and away better than anything the Russians/Chinese have flying. But PCA will need to be that much better, and will hopefully be here soon. It'll probably be the last "new" fighter I see in my lifetime, and I'm really looking forward to it.

Just my 2 cc's..

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 08:35
by zero-one
disconnectedradical wrote:
AGAIN, if you read this book you’ll have answers to your questions that are already published. Look at the designs for 1981 ATF RFI. The stealth requirement was increased in the 1985 RFP and increased more especially in aft sector in November 1985.
https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Tactica ... 1563472821

Until the F-22 faces real combat,
We have yet to fully acknowledge if that decision was right all along.
The F-15 and F-117 were also expected to perform spectacularly, but only got their validation once they finally saw combat. The same applies to the F-22 and F-35.

I know a lot of people won't agree with my unpopular opinion. My only point is this. Aircraft designed from combat experience are always spectacular all the time. Aircraft designed from simulations/expectations are hit and miss.
PCA is included in the latter group. Who knows it might be awesome, but it could also be the next F-111

disconnectedradical wrote:You want to take money from PCA to find something less capable?


We don't know what PCA will be yet, just because its newer doen't make it better. The F-111 was to replace the F-4, based on simulations and expectations of what air combat was supposed to be. but give me an upgraded F-4 instead of an F-111 to perform CAP any day.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 12:01
by marsavian
The F-111B was cancelled and replaced by the F-14 without a war needing to tell anyone that it didn't fit requirements. The most fundamental thing about F-22 is that it contains exactly the same internal fuel as the F-35 so their stealth range is always going to be in the same ballpark so buying new F-22 instead of F-35 is not really going to change the tactical stealth reach of your air force. If you are currently buying F-35 the F-22 doesn't really add much more to your force except for supercruise and a Mach 2 topspeed which all help for fast interceptions but are not really tactically relevant elsewhere at least for an aircraft primarily using stealth as its competitive advantage.

PCA and F/A-XX is a chance to design brand new aircraft with all the design experiences of F-22/YF-23/F-35/X-32 and build ultra modern stealth aircraft with all the advances of the following decades from these designs. Stealth/EW/IR/ range will all be taken to new levels to build modern aircraft that lead the current F-22/F-35 rather than just bolster them. There will be open competitions so the best design should win through. F-22 was a great spearhead, F-35 will be a great cheap stealth placeholder superior to the competition but PCA, F/A-XX will advance the stealth art to new levels.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 14:36
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:The F-111B was cancelled and replaced by the F-14 without a war needing to tell anyone that it didn't fit requirements.


The new requirements that the F-111B did not meet were a direct result of combat in Vietnam

https://web.archive.org/web/20120204215 ... m/vf15.htm
The F-111B had been designed for the long-range Fleet Air Defense (FAD) interceptor role, but not for new requirements for air combat based on the experience of American aircraft against agile MiG fighters over Vietnam. The Navy studied the need for VFAX, an additional fighter that was more agile than the F-4 Phantom for air-combat and ground-attack roles


Like I said, if it wasn't for combat, the Teen series would have been fiction and the USAF/USN would be stuck with the F-111.
It was bassed on what air combat was expected to be, just like the F-4 was then and just like what the PCA is now.

I'm not saying PCA will be a disaster. But it seems that everytime we jump the gun and design something based purely on expectations we end up with the F-4 or F-111. By any standard the F-4 eventually became a success story but after some very painful and embarrassing lessons.

But whenever we design something based on actual combat, we come up with the Teen series, P-51 and the F-22/35.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 14:43
by marsavian
What combat spawned the F-22/F-35 ?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 14:46
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:What combat spawned the F-22/F-35 ?


Experiences from the 70s - 80s Arab-Israeli wars, Desert storm, even Vietnam was still fresh. All of them contributed to the ATF and JSF programs.

Watch Paul Metz's lecture. He elaborates on the wealth of combat data analyzed that influenced the design of the YF-22/23

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 14:58
by marsavian
All very tangential, the only relevant stealth combat was that due to the F-117 which primarily highlighted the ability of VHF to spot current stealth technology which the PCA is directly trying to address with its current tail-less concept. If you are intimating that the PCA will be a big unmaneuverable beast (back to dogfighting yet again !) that is not a given and the USAF can specify minimum standards like they did with the ATF. With two 50 klb engines, large delta wing area and TVC nozzles the PCA may actually surprise everyone how maneuverable it can be in the last resort as how Stubby F-35 has. The most important things in air combat have not changed for a century now, SA and surprising your opponents and PCA should break new ground there as it's meant to.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 15:17
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:If you are intimating that the PCA will be a big unmaneuverable beast (back to dogfighting yet again !) that is not a given and the USAF can specify minimum standards like they did with the ATF.


They are studying on what future combat aircraft may need.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-423994/

Grynkewich says range and payload are critical, but some studies show that speed, manoeuvrability and some level of low-observable shaping or stealth still have their place.


As you can see, Only "Some" (not all or most) studies have shown that Speed, maneuverability and LO shaping have their place.

What if they throw one of those 3 away in favor of Range and payload. which are considered Critical

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 15:29
by mixelflick
I'm rather confused as to why/what you're referring to when mentioning "real" combat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you maintain that the teen series was so successful because of the real combat in Southeast Asia?

OTOH, you seem concerned that since there hasn't been a lot of "real" air to air combat in the last 20 years, we'll wind up with "another F-111". I don't think that argument holds water, and I'll tell you why...

The US has for the first time in a LONG time has been confronted by adversary aircraft that are the equal (some would say superior) to our 4th gen jets. That USAF officer who de-briefed the red flag exercise where India brought its SU-30MKI's said as much. But that was years ago, before the F-35 began to proliferate. With its large scale introduction, the qualitative edge we've historically enjoyed is being restored - and in no small way. Prior Red Flags resulted in (at best), blue air winning 3-1 in air to air engagements. The F-35 has scored anywhere from 15-1 to 28-1, depending upon the exercise.

Having said that, the world 20 years from now is going to look different. I would expect large numbers of J-20's and J-31's to be in the mix. Possibly quite a few J-31's exported. Russia "might" build the SU-57, albeit in more limited numbers. And of course, other countries will be building their own 6th generation jets to counter us. Which brings us to PCA/F/A-XX...

If you ask me, we're going to build that with a lot of hard lessons learned. Like not building enough F-22's. Like the F-22 and F-35 not having long enough legs for the SCS. Like not carrying enough missiles, or not being stealthy enough in all areas. They know this, they understand and won't ever again take air superiority for granted.

PCA/F/A-XX isn't going to be a day fighter built solely to dogfight. It won't be an overweight albatross, flying fast in a straight line. It will be an F-22 on steroids, in the same way the USAF wanted the F-22 to be an F-15 on steroids. It won't be another F-111...

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 15:32
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:As you can see, Only "Some" (not all or most) studies have shown that Speed, maneuverability and LO shaping have their place.

What if they throw one of those 3 away in favor of Range and payload. which are considered Critical


Then they throw them away which is something all dogfight fans will just have to deal with. There is a reason the ancient B-52 is still being kept alive, range, payload and increasingly longer standoff weapons which is why the Russians are building new Tu-160 too rather than than their proposed stealth bomber. If they get the analysis wrong well the DoD will have about 2500 F-35 to back them up. This fretting over the PCA ability in certain areas is pointless, frankly you could just as easily give AMRAAMs to B-21 and call it a day but the USAF did not want to dilute its function and modern technology gives a chance to create something special with PCA.

p.s. your link needs fixing.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 15:45
by sferrin
marsavian wrote: The most fundamental thing about F-22 is that it contains exactly the same internal fuel as the F-35 so their stealth range is always going to be in the same ballpark.


Uhm...wut? You do realize the F-22 has TWO engines while the F-35 has ONE right?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 16:22
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:Until the F-22 faces real combat,
We have yet to fully acknowledge if that decision was right all along.
The F-15 and F-117 were also expected to perform spectacularly, but only got their validation once they finally saw combat. The same applies to the F-22 and F-35.


You want an ATF before the stealth requirements was increased? Then you'll love Su-57. Purely as an airframe and with definitive engines, it's got more potential than F-22. It's got more range, more maneuverability, bigger weapon bay, etc. That would fit original ATF RFP better than F-22 currently.

zero-one wrote:Like I said, if it wasn't for combat, the Teen series would have been fiction and the USAF/USN would be stuck with the F-111.
It was bassed on what air combat was expected to be, just like the F-4 was then and just like what the PCA is now.


This is just wrong. F-111 was politically imposed by McNamara but F-X which became F-15 started before combat in Vietnam even began. Combat lessons from Vietnam did change the requirements, like making the airplane lighter and reducing maximum speed requirement. TFAX which became F-14 would also happen regardless of Vietnam because it didn't take combat for USAF and USN to see F-111 as failure.

zero-one wrote:As you can see, Only "Some" (not all or most) studies have shown that Speed, maneuverability and LO shaping have their place.

What if they throw one of those 3 away in favor of Range and payload. which are considered Critical


You're basing your fears on speculations. And even if they did, so what? If results from training show that, then what's the issue? And what experience do you have that your judgment should be trusted over USAF's? Guess USAAF and USN should rely on biplanes at start of WW2 because those single wing monoplanes are so unproven. :roll:

You seem to really want F-22 to be the "right" answer and you're trying to fit future doctrine and aerial warfare around it. Which is backwards and should be other way around.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 16:48
by sferrin
disconnectedradical wrote:This is just wrong. F-111 was politically imposed by McNamara but F-X which became F-15 started before combat in Vietnam even began.


Yep. It was in response to the Mig-25, which is why the F-15 initially had a Mach 2.7 requirement.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 17:33
by zero-one
disconnectedradical wrote:You want an ATF before the stealth requirements was increased? Then you'll love Su-57. Purely as an airframe and with definitive engines, it's got more potential than F-22. It's got more range, more maneuverability, bigger weapon bay, etc. That would fit original ATF RFP better than F-22 currently.


I was not against the increase of Stealth or the decrease in maneuverability. This is because those decisions were based on combat experience.

You seem to be implying that the reason I don't like the PCA and F/A-XX is because there is a possibility it won't be an airshow monster. No its not. My issue with both programs is that they won't be designed from recent combat data. They will instead be designed from training simulations and expectations.

When was the last time aircraft were designed using those 2 factors alone.



disconnectedradical wrote: TFAX which became F-14 would also happen regardless of Vietnam because it didn't take combat for USAF and USN to see F-111 as failure.

Why do you keep saying that. I've provided so many sources that just flat out counters that. they point to Vietnam as the catalyst for the Teen series. If you can provide your sources that specifically state that the F-14/15/16/18 would have been what they are regardless of Vietnam then we can debate that.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120204215 ... m/vf15.htm
The F-111B had been designed for the long-range Fleet Air Defense (FAD) interceptor role, but not for new requirements for air combat based on the experience of American aircraft against agile MiG fighters over Vietnam. The Navy studied the need for VFAX, an additional fighter that was more agile than the F-4 Phantom for air-combat and ground-attack roles


disconnectedradical wrote:And what experience do you have that your judgment should be trusted over USAF's? Guess USAAF and USN should rely on biplanes at start of WW2 because those single wing monoplanes are so unproven. :roll:
You seem to really want F-22 to be the "right" answer and you're trying to fit future doctrine and aerial warfare around it. Which is backwards and should be other way around.


I'm not, I'm saying trust the judgement of the people who issued the requirements for the F-X, VFX, LWF, ATF and JSF programs. Those guys based their judgement on recent combat experience.

People who are issuing requirements on PCA are the same kind of people who issued the requirements for the TFX.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 17:35
by zero-one
sferrin wrote:
Yep. It was in response to the Mig-25, which is why the F-15 initially had a Mach 2.7 requirement.


Exactly, if not for actual combat The F-15 would have been faster but less agile.
Thanks Sferrin

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2019, 18:25
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:I was not against the increase of Stealth or the decrease in maneuverability. This is because those decisions were based on combat experience.

You seem to be implying that the reason I don't like the PCA and F/A-XX is because there is a possibility it won't be an airshow monster. No its not. My issue with both programs is that they won't be designed from recent combat data. They will instead be designed from training simulations and expectations.

When was the last time aircraft were designed using those 2 factors alone.


F4U, P-38, P-47? What combat experience was used to design those?

Would you rather go into Vietnam with aircraft that preceded the F-4 then?

zero-one wrote:Why do you keep saying that. I've provided so many sources that just flat out counters that. they point to Vietnam as the catalyst for the Teen series. If you can provide your sources that specifically state that the F-14/15/16/18 would have been what they are regardless of Vietnam then we can debate that.


That isn't even what you first said, so now you're moving the goalpost. You said that without combat from Vietnam, there would be no teen fighters and F-111 would be the fighter to replace the F-4. That's fundamentally wrong, the F-14 and F-15 would still happen without Vietnam, but may not in the form that they are. LWF was more influenced by Vietnam combat, but the original version is for lightweight day fighter, and that's not what the F-16 is used for today. With how expensive F-14 was, a cheaper alternative like the F/A-18 was bound to happen.

zero-one wrote:People who are issuing requirements on PCA are the same kind of people who issued the requirements for the TFX.


What a load of sh*t. How do you know people issuing requirements for PCA isn't somehow using the same lessons as ATF and JSF did? Just because a few concepts out of the many aren't to your liking? Stop projecting what others think.

Sometimes there can be gamechanging technology that redefines air combat. For example, high power lasers.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 01:32
by crosshairs
disconnectedradical wrote:
zero-one wrote:I was not against the increase of Stealth or the decrease in maneuverability. This is because those decisions were based on combat experience.

You seem to be implying that the reason I don't like the PCA and F/A-XX is because there is a possibility it won't be an airshow monster. No its not. My issue with both programs is that they won't be designed from recent combat data. They will instead be designed from training simulations and expectations.

When was the last time aircraft were designed using those 2 factors alone.


F4U, P-38, P-47? What combat experience was used to design those?

Would you rather go into Vietnam with aircraft that preceded the F-4 then?

zero-one wrote:Why do you keep saying that. I've provided so many sources that just flat out counters that. they point to Vietnam as the catalyst for the Teen series. If you can provide your sources that specifically state that the F-14/15/16/18 would have been what they are regardless of Vietnam then we can debate that.


That isn't even what you first said, so now you're moving the goalpost. You said that without combat from Vietnam, there would be no teen fighters and F-111 would be the fighter to replace the F-4. That's fundamentally wrong, the F-14 and F-15 would still happen without Vietnam, but may not in the form that they are. LWF was more influenced by Vietnam combat, but the original version is for lightweight day fighter, and that's not what the F-16 is used for today. With how expensive F-14 was, a cheaper alternative like the F/A-18 was bound to happen.

zero-one wrote:People who are issuing requirements on PCA are the same kind of people who issued the requirements for the TFX.


What a load of sh*t. How do you know people issuing requirements for PCA isn't somehow using the same lessons as ATF and JSF did? Just because a few concepts out of the many aren't to your liking? Stop projecting what others think.

Sometimes there can be gamechanging technology that redefines air combat. For example, high power lasers.


Excellent post. Right on the mark.

There were many people other than Boyd that thought the USAF had lost a2a ability by the time Vietnam heated up. The F-111 was a failure for the USAF and USN as a ultimate fighter.

1. F-15 was designed in the late 60s and the basic platform was conceived in 66 or 67 - not sure about selection. How many Thuds and Phantoms had been lost to Migs by that time period? It was designed around lessons learned from F-111.

2. The mighty Tomcat was designed solely around lessons learned from the F-111. It had nothing to do with being better than the Phantom in a knife fight. The Navy had a gunfighter called the Crusader. Grumman really did a masterpiece work with the Tomcat and avoiding the F-111 pitfalls. But it had nothing to do with Vietnam and Migs. If it was going to be a gun fighter - truly so - the Navy wouldn't have accepted the tf30 fiasco. Had Vietnam not happened, the tomcat would likely still be the same tomcat.

Vietnam had heavily influenced the F-16 and hence the YF-17 for that competition. But the USAF and USN quickly gold plated both aircraft and increased their weights with avionics, thus sacrificing some raw performance for capability and thereby moving on and away from Vietnam.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 01:35
by southernphantom
crosshairs wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
zero-one wrote:I was not against the increase of Stealth or the decrease in maneuverability. This is because those decisions were based on combat experience.

You seem to be implying that the reason I don't like the PCA and F/A-XX is because there is a possibility it won't be an airshow monster. No its not. My issue with both programs is that they won't be designed from recent combat data. They will instead be designed from training simulations and expectations.

When was the last time aircraft were designed using those 2 factors alone.


F4U, P-38, P-47? What combat experience was used to design those?

Would you rather go into Vietnam with aircraft that preceded the F-4 then?

zero-one wrote:Why do you keep saying that. I've provided so many sources that just flat out counters that. they point to Vietnam as the catalyst for the Teen series. If you can provide your sources that specifically state that the F-14/15/16/18 would have been what they are regardless of Vietnam then we can debate that.


That isn't even what you first said, so now you're moving the goalpost. You said that without combat from Vietnam, there would be no teen fighters and F-111 would be the fighter to replace the F-4. That's fundamentally wrong, the F-14 and F-15 would still happen without Vietnam, but may not in the form that they are. LWF was more influenced by Vietnam combat, but the original version is for lightweight day fighter, and that's not what the F-16 is used for today. With how expensive F-14 was, a cheaper alternative like the F/A-18 was bound to happen.

zero-one wrote:People who are issuing requirements on PCA are the same kind of people who issued the requirements for the TFX.


What a load of sh*t. How do you know people issuing requirements for PCA isn't somehow using the same lessons as ATF and JSF did? Just because a few concepts out of the many aren't to your liking? Stop projecting what others think.

Sometimes there can be gamechanging technology that redefines air combat. For example, high power lasers.


Excellent post. Right on the mark.

There were many people other than Boyd that thought the USAF had lost a2a ability by the time Vietnam heated up. The F-111 was a failure for the USAF and USN as a ultimate fighter.

1. F-15 was designed in the late 60s and the basic platform was selected in 66 or 67. How many Thuds and Phantoms had been lost to Migs by that time period? It was designed around lessons learned from F-111.

2. The mighty Tomcat was designed solely around lessons learned from the F-111. It had nothing to do with being better than the Phantom in a knife fight. The Navy had a gunfighter called the Crusader. Grumman really did a masterpiece work with the Tomcat and avoiding the F-111 pitfalls. But it had nothing to do with Vietnam and Migs. If it was going to be a gun fighter - truly so - the Navy wouldn't have accepted the tf30 fiasco. Had Vietnam not happened, the tomcat would likely still be the same tomcat.

Vietnam had heavily influenced the F-16 and hence the YF-17 for that competition. But the USAF and USN quickly gold plated both aircraft and increased their weights with avionics, thus sacrificing some raw performance for capability.


The Crusader was underpowered, had guns that tended to jam if taken much over 1g, and had limited payload compared to the F-4. As a "gunfighter", it left a lot to be desired.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 01:41
by crosshairs
Another book and google authority. Everything was underpowered until the teen fighters and tomcat was underpowered itself.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 08:19
by zero-one
disconnectedradical wrote: You said that without combat from Vietnam, there would be no teen fighters and F-111 would be the fighter to replace the F-4. That's fundamentally wrong, the F-14 and F-15 would still happen without Vietnam,


You know what, you're trying really hard to look for holes in my argument. My point is simply this.
The F-14 and F-15 as they were actually built, not some alternate reality version, were influenced by the combat data from Vietnam.

Now could they have been built without Vietnam, maybe, I honestly think the F-15 would have been scrapped or just built in very small numbers. The F-14 was more likely since the navy didn't like the F-111B.

But would these alternate reality versions of the Teen series enjoy the same success they did in the Arab Israeli wars and ODS? I don't think so. For one thing it may have been the F-111 that carried the air superiority missions in those wars.





disconnectedradical wrote:
Sometimes there can be gamechanging technology that redefines air combat. For example, high power lasers.


High powered lasers have the potential to redefine air combat if they perform as expected.
Same thing they said about air to air missiles. But early air to air missiles did not perform as expected. Will these 1st generation lasers perform as expected? who knows.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 08:26
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:2. The mighty Tomcat was designed solely around lessons learned from the F-111. It had nothing to do with being better than the Phantom in a knife fight.


https://web.archive.org/web/20120204215 ... m/vf15.htm

The F-111B had been designed for the long-range Fleet Air Defense (FAD) interceptor role, but not for new requirements for air combat based on the experience of American aircraft against agile MiG fighters over Vietnam. The Navy studied the need for VFAX, an additional fighter that was more agile than the F-4 Phantom for air-combat and ground-attack roles


probably the 3rd or 4th time posting this.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 09:12
by disconnectedradical
Are you just going to parrot the same source over and over?

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft/vfx.htm

VFX was conceived in 1966-67, well before much of the air combat happened. The winning design Grumman model 303E was proposed in 1968. Other than that one source there’s nowhere else saying Vietnam had a big impact on F-14’s design.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 11:36
by marsavian
I remember the publicity and buzz around the F-15's birth at the time and it was pointed squarely at the Mig-25 Foxbat to be able to reach, intercept and shoot it down. Not once in all that time did anyone say in public we have to design a more maneuverable aircraft than Mig-21 because of Vietnam experience. So they put two big turbofan engines on a light body and went for climb and altitude records. Further proof is that the F-15A was originally rated only for 7.33g. As it happens with the thrust/weight ratio and low wing loading they built a maneuverable aircraft anyway which they completely unlocked with the F-15C 9g variant.

Talking about designing from war experience I repeat there still hasn't been a stealth fighter designed to counter resonant frequency detection at long wavelengths like VHF from war experience gained over 20 years ago which hopefully PCA should address. As for F-22 again, when will people finally realize its nothing more than a hotrod F-35 and let it rest in peace. New aircraft with the most modern stealth technology are needed now to counter the opponents latest moves not an updated blast from the past which intrinsically doesn't have stealth range greater than the always cheaper F-35 possesses.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 11:49
by zero-one
Yes, because its a perfect counter argument to yours
even if the designs were finalized early in the Vietnam war, fact is, the designs were influenced by what little combat data was available at the time.

Look my bottom line is this. The best combat aircraft ever built were all influenced by recent combat analysis.
on the other hand, aircraft created from expectations are hit or mis, they can be P-38s on one hand or F-111s on the other hand.

Lets not look further, The Soviets don't have as much combat data as the west. Isn't that a factor why their aircraft are always inferior to the west?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 11:59
by marsavian
Combat experience helps shape aircraft but that is a small factor compared to whether a design is good or not. The F-111 failed on so many levels to reach its design requirements in addition to the area you are concentrating on. The Russians have had decades to study stealth aircraft including the performance of their old SAMs against it yet still they concluded an evolved Flanker was the way to go forward for their next gen fighter, that's a conscious design choice made in spite of their war experience combating Western stealth aircraft via their proxies like Iraq and Serbia.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 12:40
by hornetfinn
marsavian wrote:Talking about designing from war experience I repeat there still hasn't been a stealth fighter designed to counter resonant frequency detection at long wavelengths like VHF from war experience gained over 20 years ago which hopefully PCA should address. As for F-22 again, when will people finally realize its nothing more than a hotrod F-35 and let it rest in peace. New aircraft with the most modern stealth technology are needed now to counter the opponents latest moves not an updated blast from the past which intrinsically doesn't have stealth range greater than the always cheaper F-35 possesses.


VHF radars have been well known systems for about a century and their ability to detect stealth aircraft has also been known for a long time. I think F-35 has been designed with that in mind and so were F-22 and B-2. Designing a maneuverable fighter jet to be fully stealthy even in VHF frequencies is difficult and costly. Easier and better to equip fighters with extremely capable ESM systems and extremely good situational awareness. F-117 was detected because it had no idea if there were any radars searching for it. Still even VHF radar had pretty short detection range against it even when the situation and geometry was very good for it. F-35 for example would likely have known there was P-18 operational and where it was. So it would've been able to go around it or kill it.

I'm not convinced that designing a fighter with stealth designed to counter VHF radars is really worthwhile. It's very likely that current stealth technologies will have pretty big impact even on VHF radar detection ranges. Even then those radars are necessarily very big (or have poor performance), limited to early warning and surveillance and are also very expensive. So there will be very limited numbers on them on battlefield and with modern ESM systems, they can be detected, geolocated and countered better with other options, IMO.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 13:34
by knowan
hornetfinn wrote:VHF radars have been well known systems for about a century and their ability to detect stealth aircraft has also been known for a long time. I think F-35 has been designed with that in mind and so were F-22 and B-2. Designing a maneuverable fighter jet to be fully stealthy even in VHF frequencies is difficult and costly. Easier and better to equip fighters with extremely capable ESM systems and extremely good situational awareness. F-117 was detected because it had no idea if there were any radars searching for it. Still even VHF radar had pretty short detection range against it even when the situation and geometry was very good for it. F-35 for example would likely have known there was P-18 operational and where it was. So it would've been able to go around it or kill it.

I'm not convinced that designing a fighter with stealth designed to counter VHF radars is really worthwhile. It's very likely that current stealth technologies will have pretty big impact even on VHF radar detection ranges. Even then those radars are necessarily very big (or have poor performance), limited to early warning and surveillance and are also very expensive. So there will be very limited numbers on them on battlefield and with modern ESM systems, they can be detected, geolocated and countered better with other options, IMO.


Worth mentioning again that a VHF-band JY-27 radar was destroyed by Israel on January 20.

It's unknown if they did use a F-35 or not to knock it out, but it doesn't matter much; either F-35s can get close enough to take the radar out, or even non-stealth airframes like F-15s and F-16s can do the same.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 13:56
by sferrin
crosshairs wrote:1. F-15 was designed in the late 60s and the basic platform was conceived in 66 or 67 - not sure about selection. How many Thuds and Phantoms had been lost to Migs by that time period? It was designed around lessons learned from F-111.

2. The mighty Tomcat was designed solely around lessons learned from the F-111.


1. The F-111 contributed approximately 0.00% to the development of the F-15.

2. The Tomcat was influenced by the need to deal with the Foxbat and bomber-launched antiship missiles as well as have better air combat performance. The only "lesson" from the F-111B was "don't be that fat".

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 14:11
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:I remember the publicity and buzz around the F-15's birth at the time and it was pointed squarely at the Mig-25 Foxbat to be able to reach, intercept and shoot it down. Not once in all that time did anyone say in public we have to design a more maneuverable aircraft than Mig-21 because of Vietnam experience.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell ... ly_studies
The F-15 can trace its origins to the early Vietnam War
Through this period, studies of combat over Vietnam were producing worrying results. Theory had stressed long-range combat using missiles and optimized aircraft for this role. The result was highly loaded aircraft with large radar and excellent speed, but limited maneuverability and often lacking a gun. The canonical example was the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, used by the USAF, USN, and U.S. Marine Corps to provide air superiority over Vietnam, the only fighter with enough power, range, and maneuverability to be given the primary task of dealing with the threat of Soviet fighters while flying with visual engagement rules.


Both Headquarters USAF and the TAC continued to call for a multipurpose aircraft, while both Disosway and Air Chief of Staff Bruce K. Holloway pressed for a pure air-superiority design that would be able to meet the expected performance of the MiG-25.

In September 1968, a request for proposals was released to major aerospace companies. These requirements called for single-seat fighter having a maximum take-off weight of 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) for the air-to-air role with a maximum speed of Mach 2.5 and a thrust-to-weight ratio of nearly 1:1 at mission weight


Not only was combat studies from Vietnam the primary contributing factor to the F-15's design, it was also expected to out perform the expected performance of the Mig-25 which was actually ill-informed at that point.

The problems I have with PCA is that its not being designed to counter anything at this point.
1. Its not addressing the combat lessons learned from the F-22 and F-35.
2. It is not being designed to counter Russian or Chinese super planes which will challenge the F-22/35's superiority.

It is actually just trying to address the Range problems with current 5th gens. The B-21 needs an escort to reach China and back.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 18:06
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:

Until the F-22 faces real combat,
We have yet to fully acknowledge if that decision was right all along.
The F-15 and F-117 were also expected to perform spectacularly, but only got their validation once they finally saw combat. The same applies to the F-22 and F-35.


The F-22 and F-35 were designed based upon the combat experiences of the F-15/16/18 and F-117. Both have succesfully flown in highly dense electronic environments (Russian, Chinese, Iranian radar/ESM/EW). Russian/Chinese jets have far less combat experience, as their basis (much less in pilot training.) Our pilots have the advantage of not only significantly more flight hours, but regular cross training with allies. The Russians/Chinese have no training analogue.

I know a lot of people won't agree with my unpopular opinion. My only point is this. Aircraft designed from combat experience are always spectacular all the time. Aircraft designed from simulations/expectations are hit and miss.
PCA is included in the latter group. Who knows it might be awesome, but it could also be the next F-111


See my post above. There aren't any new designs, that aren't based upon 60+ years of combat experience/training lessons. Every new design takes lessons learned, from previous generations of aircraft. The F-111 was an outstanding aircraft, by the way.


We don't know what PCA will be yet, just because its newer doen't make it better. The F-111 was to replace the F-4, based on simulations and expectations of what air combat was supposed to be. but give me an upgraded F-4 instead of an F-111 to perform CAP any day.


The only correct statement you made, is that we don't know what the PCA will be. What we do know, is that it will have more range, be stealthier against a broader array of sensors, and have even greater sensor fusion than either the F-22 or F-35. Based upon the Block upgrade roadmap for both the F-22 and F-35, we can expect similar capabilities to be included (greater use of AI, directed energy weapons, DIRCM/MSDM, EW/EA, etc...). It's also likely to have greater speed and agility, to overmatch threats. You seem to be under the impression that LM/Boeing/etc..... are just going to design aircraft in a vacuum, and show them to the USAF, rather than the USAF using lessons learned/Intel on threats, to come up with the specifications. The issue with the F-111B, was that it wasn't suited for carrier operations. The F-14 greatly benefited from the lessons learned, though.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 18:29
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:Not only was combat studies from Vietnam the primary contributing factor to the F-15's design, it was also expected to out perform the expected performance of the Mig-25 which was actually ill-informed at that point.

The problems I have with PCA is that its not being designed to counter anything at this point.
1. Its not addressing the combat lessons learned from the F-22 and F-35.
2. It is not being designed to counter Russian or Chinese super planes which will challenge the F-22/35's superiority.

It is actually just trying to address the Range problems with current 5th gens. The B-21 needs an escort to reach China and back.



The F-15 air superiority project started in 1965 whereas the Vietnam air war only started in 1964 so its lessons did not initiate the project. If anything it was Boyd's E-M theories that influenced the design rather than the small light Migs and a lot of fast century aircraft needed replacing too so a fast high energy fighter was created. If combat experience was the only driver then a Mig-21 clone would have been built.

If you wait to counter you will always be behind on innovation. What exactly is there to counter on J-20 and Su-57 ? Are you worried about super-maneuverability ? How difficult do you think it will be to retrofit a 3D nozzle to F-35 if the need arose ? Worried about ROFAR ? Plenty of time to find a RAM that works at 100 GHz. If we all waited for counters we would still be flying modernized bi/tri-planes because they still corner the best ! Also what combat experience has the F-22 had to base a requirement from ?

Stealth works and grants the owner surprise and survivability. However with current engine technology approaching double the thrust of the original F-15 there is a chance to now build a big stealth fighter with much greater range and extend the reach of stealth without sacrificing combat thrust/weight ratios or wing loading. F-35 cannot stealthily range all over Iran from UAE/Qatar and certainly not from Israel and Israel won't be buying any B-21 so there is already a pressing requirement for much greater stealth range not even considering the larger SCS/N Korea environment. European theatre is no longer the driver for fighter aircraft where air superiority was crucial irrespective of range.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 18:40
by crosshairs
"In April 1965, the Director of DDR&E called for studies on an air superiority fighter (FX configuration). An official requirements document was finalized in October 1965 and an RFP was sent out to 13 companies in Dec. 1965. Eight companies responded with proposals and following a downselect, four companies were asked to provide refined designs; in total, some 500 design concepts were developed. When the proposals were studied in July 1966, the resulting designs were roughly the size and weight of the TFX (F-111) and, like that configuration, they could not be considered an air superiority fighter.

In September 1968, a RFP for an "Air Superiority Fighter" was released to major aerospace companies. The RFP had requirements for a single-seat fighter having maximum take-off weight of 40,000 lbs for the air-to-air role with a maximum speed of M=2.5 and a thrust to weight ratio of nearly 1.0 at mission weight. It also called for a twin-engine design. Four companies submitted proposals, with the USAF eliminating General Dynamics, and awarding contracts to Fairchild Republic, North American Rockwell, and McDonnell Douglas for the definition phase in Dec. 1968. The companies submitted F-15 development proposals in June 1969. The Air Force announced the selection of McDonnell Douglas on Dec 23, 1969. The winning design resembled the twin-tailed F-14, but with fixed wings; the F-14 and F-15 were both based on configurations studied in wind tunnel testing by Langley. The F-15 first flew in July 1972 and entered service in 1976."

The air superiority fighter program was rolling before the Vietnam air war heated up. This quote is about as close to anything official I can find. I believe the basic configuration of what we think of as the F-15 was wind tunnel tested in 67 or 68 but wasn't the winning selection from MDD. The winning configuration as most of us know was like a single seat F-14. The as we know it F-15 design was selected later.

But back to point, the USAF had an air superiority fighter program underway before "learning it's lessons" from Vietnam. We don't wait for a war before advancing our air forces fleets.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 18:50
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:



The problems I have with PCA is that its not being designed to counter anything at this point.
1. Its not addressing the combat lessons learned from the F-22 and F-35.
2. It is not being designed to counter Russian or Chinese super planes which will challenge the F-22/35's superiority.


That is patently false. While no kinematic specifications have been determined yet, there's no evidence whatsoever that agility/speed/acceleration aren't factors in the PCA design. That being said, the biggest threat to aircraft, are enemy sensors and SAMs, which the PCA is clearly being designed to excel against.
Enemy aircraft are far less of a threat, which gives the PCAs systems an even bigger advantage against aircraft.
It is actually just trying to address the Range problems with current 5th gens. The B-21 needs an escort to reach China and back.


That is false. There's a lot more involved than just increasing range. I recommend taking a vacation from Wikipedia, for a while.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 18:51
by sferrin
This is what you want, The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development 1964-1972:

https://media.defense.gov/2012/May/16/2 ... 16-036.pdf

AFD-120516-036.pdf
(6.7 MiB) Downloaded 187 times


tailed-delta-mid-1968b.jpg

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2019, 18:21
by basher54321
sferrin wrote:This is what you want, The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development 1964-1972:



Great post thanks.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2019, 19:12
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:Not only was combat studies from Vietnam the primary contributing factor to the F-15's design..



Not far off really then - not only does it appear the project got actual backing after 1964 A-A combat results in Nam but was a big influence during the design period - how could it not be. The results in the late 60s gave a lot of fuel to the advocates of manoeuvrability (Agen & Boyd et al) over bigger higher faster concepts like the F-111.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2019, 05:40
by marauder2048
basher54321 wrote:
zero-one wrote:Not only was combat studies from Vietnam the primary contributing factor to the F-15's design..



Not far off really then - not only does it appear the project got actual backing after 1964 A-A combat results in Nam but was a big influence during the design period - how could it not be.


Because there were no Su-15s or MiG-25s encountered over Vietnam. Nor any SA-3s or SA-4s.
But they had all flown by 1964.

Look-down/shoot-down was definitely a requirement driven by Vietnam A-A combat experience though.

basher54321 wrote:The results in the late 60s gave a lot of fuel to the advocates of manoeuvrability (Agen & Boyd et al) over bigger higher faster concepts like the F-111.


Even the mid-60's indicated that air superiority was going to mean prevailing against a SAM + fighter threat.
Particularly given improved Soviet SAM mobility implied by the SA-4 which would make it resistant
to mid-60's SEAD tactics.

Now in an alternate future where TFX had met its supersonic maneuverability requirements....

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2019, 13:42
by mixelflick
sferrin wrote:
crosshairs wrote:1. F-15 was designed in the late 60s and the basic platform was conceived in 66 or 67 - not sure about selection. How many Thuds and Phantoms had been lost to Migs by that time period? It was designed around lessons learned from F-111.

2. The mighty Tomcat was designed solely around lessons learned from the F-111.


1. The F-111 contributed approximately 0.00% to the development of the F-15.

2. The Tomcat was influenced by the need to deal with the Foxbat and bomber-launched antiship missiles as well as have better air combat performance. The only "lesson" from the F-111B was "don't be that fat".


I don't recall anything about the F-14 being designed to deal with the Foxbat. Threat to the fleet from Soviet bombers and cruise missiles? Sure, but nothing I can recall about the Mig-25.

Do you have a source?

I'm not being difficult, just want to know if that really was the case. Because if it was, they certainly succeeded...

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2019, 14:34
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
sferrin wrote:
crosshairs wrote:1. F-15 was designed in the late 60s and the basic platform was conceived in 66 or 67 - not sure about selection. How many Thuds and Phantoms had been lost to Migs by that time period? It was designed around lessons learned from F-111.

2. The mighty Tomcat was designed solely around lessons learned from the F-111.


1. The F-111 contributed approximately 0.00% to the development of the F-15.

2. The Tomcat was influenced by the need to deal with the Foxbat and bomber-launched antiship missiles as well as have better air combat performance. The only "lesson" from the F-111B was "don't be that fat".


I don't recall anything about the F-14 being designed to deal with the Foxbat.


One of the final tests in the test program was to demonstrate it could deal with a high-flying MiG-25 by shooting down a BOMARC target.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2019, 15:57
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:[

If you wait to counter you will always be behind on innovation. What exactly is there to counter on J-20 and Su-57 ?


So we can all agree that the Teen series was at the very least, influenced by the Vietnam war. Maybe not initiated because of it, but certainly Vietnam was an influence, maybe even a major influence.

IIRC The ATF program was initiated because of intelligence reports regarding the T-10 and Mig-29 prototypes that may reach parity levels with the Teen series.

So both the Teen and 5th gen programs were responsive reactions to what future threats are. What exactly is PCA and F/A-XX reacting to? Is the superiority of the F-22/35 compromised already by the J-20 and Su-57?

Furthermore we have this:
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... r-designs/
Officials involved in the effort have described Penetrating Counter Air as a survivable aircraft that may have design elements similar to a bomber in order to give it a longer range.
.

If it pushed through, PCA will forgo traditional fighter characteristics like Speed and Maneuverability and will rely only on Stealth, SA and DI or standoff weapons.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2019, 16:14
by sferrin
zero-one wrote:So both the Teen and 5th gen programs were responsive reactions to what future threats are. What exactly is PCA and F/A-XX reacting to? Is the superiority of the F-22/35 compromised already by the J-20 and Su-57?


1. Presumably you've heard it's better to be proactive rather than reactive?

2. The F-22 was designed with the European theater in mind. Distances are much larger in the Pacific. The F-22 doesn't have the necessary range to be effective there. (Not unless you plan on getting all your tankers shot down in the first few days anyway.)

3. There are fewer than 200 F-22s in existence. About half that that can actually fight at any given moment (training, maintenance, etc.) The F-22 production line is GONE.

As for the F/A-XX for the USN and the F-35C, the F-35 is the LOW-end of the high/low mix. The USAF got the F-22/F-35A. The USN cancelled their F-22 (the NATF).

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2019, 16:48
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:
marsavian wrote:[

If you wait to counter you will always be behind on innovation. What exactly is there to counter on J-20 and Su-57 ?


So we can all agree that the Teen series was at the very least, influenced by the Vietnam war. Maybe not initiated because of it, but certainly Vietnam was an influence, maybe even a major influence.

IIRC The ATF program was initiated because of intelligence reports regarding the T-10 and Mig-29 prototypes that may reach parity levels with the Teen series.

So both the Teen and 5th gen programs were responsive reactions to what future threats are. What exactly is PCA and F/A-XX reacting to? Is the superiority of the F-22/35 compromised already by the J-20 and Su-57?

Furthermore we have this:
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... r-designs/
Officials involved in the effort have described Penetrating Counter Air as a survivable aircraft that may have design elements similar to a bomber in order to give it a longer range.
.

If it pushed through, PCA will forgo traditional fighter characteristics like Speed and Maneuverability and will rely only on Stealth, SA and DI or standoff weapons.


PCA is not reacting to anything, it is pressing an advantage and increasing the range of western fighter stealth. In WWII when the Germans had the potent Panther tank they still developed the even more potent Tiger tank with its big 88mm gun. You are also reading too much into that link, yes it will be big like a bomber and probably tail-less too but that does not mean it will definitely have the speed and maneuverability of a bomber, that's what design innovation will determine and anyway so what if it did if it's the only aircraft capable of being at that extreme range ? I am seeing a very big glass that is half full here not half empty.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2019, 22:20
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:Distances are much larger in the Pacific.


I think that's the real motivator even for Europe where the threat to allied airfields from cruise and
ballistic missile attack is such that you'd be forced to operate from the more distant bases particularly
during the early stages of the campaign.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2019, 22:32
by wrightwing
One thing that can be said with 100% certainty, is that the PCA won't be a stealthy B-1R.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2019, 23:01
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:One thing that can be said with 100% certainty, is that the PCA won't be a stealthy B-1R.


Why would anybody think it would be?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 03:24
by southernphantom
sferrin wrote:
wrightwing wrote:One thing that can be said with 100% certainty, is that the PCA won't be a stealthy B-1R.


Why would anybody think it would be?


Because some folks (myself included) have read too much Dale Brown and are partial to the idea of "flying battleships", especially with talk of PCA being a rather large airframe. I could see how that talk could be taken to an extreme and twisted into a bomber-sized aircraft.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 03:54
by wrightwing
sferrin wrote:
wrightwing wrote:One thing that can be said with 100% certainty, is that the PCA won't be a stealthy B-1R.


Why would anybody think it would be?

A few of the hand wringers here, seem to believe that's what the USAF is considering, instead of something that's agile and with good kinematics.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 05:42
by popcorn
The advent of a podded 150kW- class laser will no doubt factor into the eventual design. Range and payload may trump agility and kinematics as desirable traits.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 08:36
by zero-one
I get what all of you are saying and believe me, part of me agrees.

However my gripe is that in all major wars, kinematics have had good contributions to the outcome of the fight. My opinion is that there will still be times where having good speed, acceleration and maneuverability will contribute to your overall combat effectiveness, regardless if its WVR or BVR. This is the same opinion shared by many pilots including F-35 test pilot Tom Morganfeld. (I've posted his video with that quote on other threads a few times)

Yes I know lasers may further diminish the importance of Kinematics just as HOBS has, but so far that theory isn't combat proven yet. In fact, HOBS isn't combat proven as well if I'm not mistaken. Wouldn't it be nice if PCA has the option to use all kinds of weapons effectively. (Direct Energy weapons, Missiles and guns). If one doesn't work, you can always fall back on the others. Thats what the F-22 and F-35 brings to the table.

Range is the main factor to push for PCA. But in my opinion, ADVENT and stealth tankers which are already in advanced stages of development can give current 5th gens their Pacific theater range requirements.

sefrrin wrote:1. Presumably you've heard it's better to be proactive rather than reactive?

I think designing military hardware is one of the very few exceptions.

The Teen series and both 5th gens were created as responses to upcoming threats. If anything, the F-4 and F-111 were aircraft that were more "pro-active" in nature. They were mainly designed with perceived beliefs of what air combat should look like coming forward.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 11:31
by madrat
Lasers are a fair weather weapon. The Pacific has its fair share of foul weather.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 12:21
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:However my gripe is that in all major wars, kinematics have had good contributions to the outcome of the fight.


None of which contained stealth fighters. The only time stealth aircraft (bombers) were used they were never intercepted by enemy aircraft. You obviously don't feel stealth is a winning fighter strategy by itself without backup from traditional capabilities.

In fact, HOBS isn't combat proven as well if I'm not mistaken.


Ethiopian Su-27 exclusively used R-73 to down Eritrean Mig-29 after the R-27 failed.

Range is the main factor to push for PCA. But in my opinion, ADVENT and stealth tankers which are already in advanced stages of development can give current 5th gens their Pacific theater range requirements.


The Pacific distances are vast and there will never be enough range/endurance to satisfy every conceivable requirement and that doubles for the ME. No-one is saying don't buy ~2500 F-35 in order to buy PCA so I don't see what the issue is. This is about sharpening the tip of the spear not replacing its spine.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 13:59
by sferrin
madrat wrote:Lasers are a fair weather weapon. The Pacific has its fair share of foul weather.


I definitely wouldn't want to have to depend on a laser as a primary weapon. I'd think they'd be so range-limited that stealth almost becomes pointless.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 15:07
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:None of which contained stealth fighters. The only time stealth aircraft (bombers) were used they were never intercepted by enemy aircraft. You obviously don't feel stealth is a winning fighter strategy by itself without backup from traditional capabilities.


Yes I do, because there have been times that when you take away a tried and tested capability and rely solely on capabilities that in theory should give you an advantage, painful lessons happen. Stealth is no longer monopolized and stealth on stealth means detection and engagement ranges will be reduced. I'm not saying we'll go back to dogfights.

All I'm saying is, wait for the F-22 and F-35 to prove them selves in combat first. Once you have a decent sample size of actual combat and see if Stealth really negates the need for Kinematics completely then build the PCA air to air bomber.
Because what if it doesn't. What if against the J-20 the F-22 ends up in a phone booth 3 out of 10 times.

While we wait, the money for PCA can be used to improve the F-22's range, speed up the development of Stealth tankers etc. and hopefully build more Raptors. But thats just my opinion.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 15:18
by sferrin
zero-one wrote:ll I'm saying is, wait for the F-22 and F-35 to prove them selves in combat first.


We already know it works. That's what we have exercises for. What would be the point of waiting anyway? If the F-22/35 fails does that mean you won't build PCA? If they succeed does that mean you won't build PCA? In either case, does that mean it won't be stealthy? That would be, "no, no, and no". So waiting is a pointless delay.

zero-one wrote:Once you have a decent sample size of actual combat and see if Stealth really negates the need for Kinematics completely then build the PCA air to air bomber.
Because what if it doesn't. What if against the J-20 the F-22 ends up in a phone booth 3 out of 10 times.


When has anybody ever suggested an "air to air bomber"?

zero-one wrote:While we wait, the money for PCA can be used to improve the F-22's range, speed up the development of Stealth tankers etc. and hopefully build more Raptors. But thats just my opinion.


The F-22 line is dead. It's NEVER coming back.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 15:37
by krieger22
The X-47 could have been a stealth tanker, but ultimately the MQ-25 Stingray is what we're getting. Both are still much smaller than what the USAF looks for in a tanker, though.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 15:42
by disconnectedradical
Seems like zero-one wants to paint PCA as big and unmaneuverable like a bomber to try to justify making more F-22s. He's such an F-22 fan that he'll try to bend every situation so that the F-22 airframe is the right answer. :bang:

A lot of concepts were explored in ATF days, some were also unmaneuverable, or slow.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 17:39
by zero-one
sferrin wrote:
We already know it works. That's what we have exercises for. What would be the point of waiting anyway? If the F-22/35 fails does that mean you won't build PCA? If they succeed does that mean you won't build PCA? In either case, does that mean it won't be stealthy? That would be, "no, no, and no". So waiting is a pointless delay.


Exactly, thats all we have to show for it, Exercises, Pre Vietnam Simulations also showed that the Aim-7 Sparrow was supposed to have an 80% success rate. I think actual combat was closer to 11%

sferrin wrote:When has anybody ever suggested an "air to air bomber"?

Over here
https://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/sho ... sba-study/
In April 2015, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) released a report concluding that the next-generation U.S. Air Force fighter should be larger and more resembling a bomber than a small, maneuverable traditional fighter.

With the increase of air defense systems using electronic and infrared sensors and high-speed weapons, traditional designs relying on small size, high speed, and maneuverability may be less relevant and easier to intercept. As a result, the CSBA suggests building a fighter significantly larger relying on enhanced sensors, signature control, networked situational awareness, and very-long-range weapons to complete engagements before being detected or tracked. Larger planes would have greater range that would enable them to be stationed further from a combat zone, have greater radar and IR detection capabilities, and carry bigger and longer-range missiles (Long-Range Engagement Weapon).


disconnectedradical wrote:Seems like zero-one wants to paint PCA as big and unmaneuverable like a bomber to try to justify making more F-22s. He's such an F-22 fan that he'll try to bend every situation so that the F-22 airframe is the right answer.


Keep responses in line with the discussion. Don't attack the messenger if you can't attack the message.

We had no problems when some comments here suggested that the F-35, specifically the C variant would be a good candidate as a basis for the 6th gen fighter. But how come when its the F-22 its suddenly "too obsolete". ScorpionAlpha said it perfectly. Some people are too much of F-35 fans that they purposefully downplay the strengths of the F-22 and over emphasize the F-35's capabilities to quote on quote, bend every situation to make the F-35 the right answer.

Thats why we get into long discussions when the F-22 vs F-35 topics come along where it shouldn't be that way. Scorpion1Alpha said it just as Gen. Mike Hostage said it,

The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. The latter aircraft are the kings of air to air combat. The F-35 and the F-16 are the mainstay of the air fleet, designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks.

there should really be no argument already, The F-22 is better in an A-A scenario period. But a lot of people keep twisting those words to make it seem like the F-35 can be better and is a better candidate for a 6th gen basis.

disconnectedradical wrote:A lot of concepts were explored in ATF days, some were also unmaneuverable, or slow.


PCA has that too
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... oo-431023/

That means thinking outside the box about what the definition of a fighter might be. In the classic sense, a fighter is a short-range jet capable of flying at 9Gs, with a single seat, he says. The ECCT is emphasising range and payload, but the platform may not require 9Gs. Unlike most fighters, the PCA will not be short-range, but what space the aircraft will fit into will depend on cost and how the platform fits into the USAF’s tanker fleet. The air force also wants a stealthy signature for survivability, but also a speedy, manoeuvrable platform, he says.


Even they don't really know what they need yet. So why are they rushing to build it? Wait for combat and get a better idea of what you really need. Thats all I'm trying to say here

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 17:45
by wrightwing
Stealth, sensor fusion, HOBS, etc.... are all proven concepts. They've been thoroughly tested time after time, against aircraft/SAMs that are combat tested. In every single instance they've enjoyed overwhelming superiority. That's why every major air force in the world is buying/developing these capabilities. The same hand wringing occurred prior to the first time F-14/15/16/18, AH-64, M-1 Abrams, M-2 Bradley, MV-22 Osprey, etc.... were used in combat. We haven't forgotten prior lessons. Every new capability is built upon prior lessons and emerging threats.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 18:02
by sferrin
zero-one wrote:
sferrin wrote:
We already know it works. That's what we have exercises for. What would be the point of waiting anyway? If the F-22/35 fails does that mean you won't build PCA? If they succeed does that mean you won't build PCA? In either case, does that mean it won't be stealthy? That would be, "no, no, and no". So waiting is a pointless delay.


Exactly, thats all we have to show for it, Exercises, Pre Vietnam Simulations also showed that the Aim-7 Sparrow was supposed to have an 80% success rate. I think actual combat was closer to 11%


Are you saying you don't understand the difference between 50s era simulation and modern exercises? Seriously?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 18:18
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:Keep responses in line with the discussion. Don't attack the messenger if you can't attack the message.


Your message is ridiculous. There are limits to F-22 airframe. Waiting until the next war will give time for Russia and China to catch up or develop their 6th generation aircraft first. Do you want US to be the one reacting instead of leading?

zero-one wrote:We had no problems when some comments here suggested that the F-35, specifically the C variant would be a good candidate as a basis for the 6th gen fighter. But how come when its the F-22 its suddenly "too obsolete". ScorpionAlpha said it perfectly. Some people are too much of F-35 fans that they purposefully downplay the strengths of the F-22 and over emphasize the F-35's capabilities to quote on quote, bend every situation to make the F-35 the right answer.


WTF does F-35 have to do with PCA other than some people here suggesting it? They're not designing PCA or making requirements, are they?

zero-one wrote:PCA has that too
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... oo-431023/

Even they don't really know what they need yet. So why are they rushing to build it? Wait for combat and get a better idea of what you really need. Thats all I'm trying to say here


They didn't know what they ATF was when they started the program in early 1980s either. That's the point, slow and unmaneuverable is just one of several PCA concepts, just like with ATF. Why are you freaking out over PCA then? The whole wait for combat argument is giving Russia and China benefit of time. :bang:

Can you put your F-22 centered view aside and realize that airframe is not end all be all?

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 19:00
by sferrin
disconnectedradical wrote:
zero-one wrote:Keep responses in line with the discussion. Don't attack the messenger if you can't attack the message.


Your message is ridiculous. There are limits to F-22 airframe. Waiting until the next war will give time for Russia and China to catch up or develop their 6th generation aircraft first. Do you want US to be the one reacting instead of leading?

zero-one wrote:We had no problems when some comments here suggested that the F-35, specifically the C variant would be a good candidate as a basis for the 6th gen fighter. But how come when its the F-22 its suddenly "too obsolete". ScorpionAlpha said it perfectly. Some people are too much of F-35 fans that they purposefully downplay the strengths of the F-22 and over emphasize the F-35's capabilities to quote on quote, bend every situation to make the F-35 the right answer.


WTF does F-35 have to do with PCA other than some people here suggesting it? They're not designing PCA or making requirements, are they?

zero-one wrote:PCA has that too
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... oo-431023/

Even they don't really know what they need yet. So why are they rushing to build it? Wait for combat and get a better idea of what you really need. Thats all I'm trying to say here


They didn't know what they ATF was when they started the program in early 1980s either. That's the point, slow and unmaneuverable is just one of several PCA concepts, just like with ATF. Why are you freaking out over PCA then? The whole wait for combat argument is giving Russia and China benefit of time. :bang:

Can you put your F-22 centered view aside and realize that airframe is not end all be all?


Considering the multitude of concepts kicked around pre-ATF and early ATF, and how they compared to the eventual ATFs, I'd said it's a bit early for people to be having histrionics over PCA.

Imagine the squealing from certain members if they'd been told this was going to replace the F-15:

Lockheed Model 090P.jpg


or this:

0235c02e620958fd7800bc11b99eb287.png


or this:

Boe1878parasolwing-s.jpg




Personally, I'd be ecstatic if one (or both) of these ended up in service:

LM.jpg


Boeing.jpg

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 19:25
by wrightwing
The AIM-7M (which is far inferior to any of the C/D AMRAAM variants), had a far better than 11% Pk. During the Gulf War 44 missiles were fired, 30 of which hit their targets (and 19 of which were BVR.) The Pk of missiles fired from F-22/35/PCA will be much higher, than for 4th generation jets, all else being equal. They can get into better firing positions, achieving surprise, that conventional jets just can't achieve. While we don't know the ultimate layout of the PCA, it's safe to assume that it won't have inferior kinematics to the F-35, being the high end mix. That combined with greater range, lower signature, improved EW/laser/MSDM defenses, and large offensive magazine, should make it the most potent A2A fighter yet developed.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 19:29
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:
marsavian wrote:None of which contained stealth fighters. The only time stealth aircraft (bombers) were used they were never intercepted by enemy aircraft. You obviously don't feel stealth is a winning fighter strategy by itself without backup from traditional capabilities.


Yes I do, because there have been times that when you take away a tried and tested capability and rely solely on capabilities that in theory should give you an advantage, painful lessons happen. Stealth is no longer monopolized and stealth on stealth means detection and engagement ranges will be reduced. I'm not saying we'll go back to dogfights.

All I'm saying is, wait for the F-22 and F-35 to prove them selves in combat first. Once you have a decent sample size of actual combat and see if Stealth really negates the need for Kinematics completely then build the PCA air to air bomber.
Because what if it doesn't. What if against the J-20 the F-22 ends up in a phone booth 3 out of 10 times.

While we wait, the money for PCA can be used to improve the F-22's range, speed up the development of Stealth tankers etc. and hopefully build more Raptors. But thats just my opinion.


Improving the F-22's range only gets you a faster supercruising F-35 which tactically doesn't mean very much in the real world if their ranges are broadly comparable. Your shortsighted strategy is basically like the French during the World Wars building the Maginot Gun Line while the Germans perfected Blitzkrieg. Basically entrenchment and reinforcement of what you already have.

So J-20 is your target to beat with an improved F-22 at the limits of its endurance even with tanker support. PCA as a bigger aircraft will have a more powerful radar than F-22/J-20, it will have bigger more powerful IR sensors, it will have a lower RF/IR signature due to its more modern design. It will detect the J-20 before it detects it and maintain first strike stealth advantage. It will also do this at ranges the F-22 can't be at.

Waiting for F-22/F-35 to prove themselves in combat is an open ended proposition, when does this wait end ? How long has it been already since the F-22 hasn't been in combat as stealth aircraft have a deterrent value of their own ? Waiting for something to turn up is a recipe for stagnation.

As for the air to air bomber quip well in the fighter bomber role on long incursions into enemy territory that is primarily what will be needed at a much cheaper price than B-21. Something that will replace the F-15E for everyone but which still retains the ability to defend itself well. Anyway Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop will all bid for the PCA and they can all put their own spin on the requirements and develop their own individual solutions that may go beyond the official requirement. Just as YF-23 perhaps more purely satisfied the ATF requirement it was the more agile YF-22 that won the contract.

All the graphics I have seen for the PCA concept show a Blackbird type delta aircraft not a flying wing like B-2 which indicate to me that maneuverability will be part of the final solution. The way I see this coming out eventually is like a much bigger version of the European NGF with two advent 50klb engines. It will have at least 7g capability and the thrust and wing to sustain that in emergencies but primarily it will be a long range stalker and be the zenith of stealth aircraft before the true hypersonic 6th gens arrive.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 19:35
by wrightwing
Su-57/J-20/J-31 will always be the lesser threats. SAMs are the greatest threats to aircraft. First look/shoot/kill > everything else involved in the design.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 20:45
by jetblast16
Personally, I like the below for the F-X:

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2019, 01:21
by popcorn
I like the idea of a larger platform optimized for range and payload with the latest LO and SA.tech capable of self-escort. To defend itself, give it the latest EW gear and self defense measures,.prioritizing the defensive laser described in the linked article.that will.swat away incoming SAMs and AAMs. Any enemy fighte trying to get within cannon range will get a similarly hot reception. Also, note that 150kW is only the starting point, the power could be scaled up as the tech advances.

https://www.aerospacetestinginternation ... stem.htmlb

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2019, 02:42
by sferrin
With a pair of 60k ADVENTs

ngf (20).jpg

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2019, 13:24
by mixelflick
sferrin wrote:With a pair of 60k ADVENTs

ngf (20).jpg


Something like this is most likely, IMO.

The wing area is going to be massive, as will the engines. We should NOT under any circumstances wait, as that gives Russia/China time to catch up. When PCA emerges it'll make the Flanker/SU-57 look like they have short legs, and its stealth will be the best/most comprehensive to date.

There was mention before of a stealth tanker being far along in development. I hope this isn't the MQ-25, because that's not going to carry nearly enough gas to feed this beast. Something the size of an airliner more likely. The price will probably be astronomical though, so a small(er) production run is more likely. Wouldn't be surprised if they had a silver bullet force now to support the F-22's.

IMO, there's no way the PCA is a scaled up F-35C. No way. It's way too small, too slow and doesn't carry enough weapons. Even doubling all those metrics won't be enough, as this has to be a clean sheet design. What is just as interesting to me is training our men to fly it. If the F-35 required a paradigm shift in thinking/tactics, how much moreso will PCA/F/A-XX??

And for God's sake, keep the air superiority (or air dominance, whatever you want to call it) requirement at the forefront. It's a lot easier to turn an air to air monster into a multi-role platform than vice versa. Or worse, try and turn a lightweight fighter into a heavyweight fighter/bomber. The Super Hornet being the classic example.

Design it to kill everything that flies, then kill everything that threatens it on the ground. Air Dominance, SEAD, ISR in that order. We need to do this one right, and buy enough of them to make a difference...

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2019, 19:32
by vilters
No clue about who's wet dream this is but : Bomb their airframes while they are still on the ground, and you won't have to bother a second longer.

All you need are some B1, B2, B-21, and good Intell to do so.

Blow them into spare parts before they can take off and you won't need these super expensive taxpayers wet dreams.

Does China worry you? (Don't know why because their plane is a joke.)
Send some subs and go say ; "Hello, how are you guys doing today", with Tomahawks.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2019, 22:36
by marauder2048
zero-one wrote:Exactly, thats all we have to show for it, Exercises, Pre Vietnam Simulations also showed that the Aim-7 Sparrow was supposed to have an 80% success rate. I think actual combat was closer to 11%



Source? Sparrow was an anti-bomber weapon pre-Vietnam.
It's why you had follow-on development during Vietnam for things like "dogfight Sparrow."


With the increase of air defense systems using electronic and infrared sensors and high-speed weapons, traditional designs relying on small size, high speed, and maneuverability may be less relevant and easier to intercept. As a result, the CSBA suggests building a fighter significantly larger relying on enhanced sensors, signature control, networked situational awareness, and very-long-range weapons to complete engagements before being detected or tracked. Larger planes would have greater range that would enable them to be stationed further from a combat zone, have greater radar and IR detection capabilities, and carry bigger and longer-range missiles (Long-Range Engagement Weapon).


If defensive DEWs and miniature self-defense munitions are a reality then air-combat starts
to look like a battle of magazine depth.

Even they don't really know what they need yet. So why are they rushing to build it? Wait for combat and get a better idea of what you really need. Thats all I'm trying to say here


They need range and magazine depth. Stealthy tankers are still going to need large hardened aircraft shelters
which don't yet exist.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2019, 00:35
by sferrin
vilters wrote:No clue about who's wet dream this is but : Bomb their airframes while they are still on the ground, and you won't have to bother a second longer.

All you need are some B1, B2, B-21, and good Intell to do so.

Blow them into spare parts before they can take off and you won't need these super expensive taxpayers wet dreams.

Does China worry you? (Don't know why because their plane is a joke.)
Send some subs and go say ; "Hello, how are you guys doing today", with Tomahawks.


LOL, okay sweetie. :roll:

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2019, 07:54
by zero-one
marsavian wrote: PCA as a bigger aircraft will have a more powerful radar than F-22/J-20, it will have bigger more powerful IR sensors, it will have a lower RF/IR signature due to its more modern design. It will detect the J-20 before it detects it and maintain first strike stealth advantage. It will also do this at ranges the F-22 can't be at.


How do you know that, the USAF doesn't even know what PCA will be yet.
A lot of people here already have a pre-conceived version of PCA and F/A-XX which is basically whatever they imagine it to be.

Top brass says it could be a mother ship carrying drones
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... hter-jets/

or a button that makes everything crash
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-402243/

or a family of systems and not another aircraft at all.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... r-designs/

When you look at — through the lens of the network — and you look at air superiority as a mission, as a family-of-systems approach, you can see why you don’t hear me talking a lot about a replacement, A for B,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein told Defense News in March.

“Because the replacement may not be a single platform, it maybe two or three different kinds of capabilities and systems. And so as we look at air superiority in the future, ensuring that we’re advancing to stay ahead of the adversary, we’re looking at all those options.”

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2019, 12:01
by marsavian
If it is a host of those other concepts well that is what analysis has concluded is the best way forward. I don't see why new ideas should be held back because of fear of not even being able to defeat the current opposition. You obviously think F-35 and any new concepts will be found wanting and new improved F-22 are needed to save the day now. Fine but this POV is only held by a narrow dwindling band of anti-F-35 proponents with zero political clout anywhere. Events will proceed forward in the new directions regardless.

p.s. I assumed what the form of PCA would be from all the concept art that is coming out with this proposal. Of course it could be some other esoteric solution but given the conservative nature of the USAF I doubt it as even YF-23 proved too out there for them so I suspect all the trade studies to lead to this super stealthy maneuverable low drag long-range Blackbird Mk 2 with all the sensor bells and whistles. Such an aircraft would also have the maximum export potential compared to a very specific B-21 escort solution.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2019, 12:53
by sferrin
zero-one wrote:
marsavian wrote: PCA as a bigger aircraft will have a more powerful radar than F-22/J-20, it will have bigger more powerful IR sensors, it will have a lower RF/IR signature due to its more modern design. It will detect the J-20 before it detects it and maintain first strike stealth advantage. It will also do this at ranges the F-22 can't be at.


How do you know that, the USAF doesn't even know what PCA will be yet.


Well one indicator is they're already working on the engine and it's bigger than the F135s ADVENT replacement.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 20:08
by blain
marsavian wrote:If it is a host of those other concepts well that is what analysis has concluded is the best way forward. I don't see why new ideas should be held back because of fear of not even being able to defeat the current opposition. You obviously think F-35 and any new concepts will be found wanting and new improved F-22 are needed to save the day now. Fine but this POV is only held by a narrow dwindling band of anti-F-35 proponents with zero political clout anywhere. Events will proceed forward in the new directions regardless.

p.s. I assumed what the form of PCA would be from all the concept art that is coming out with this proposal. Of course it could be some other esoteric solution but given the conservative nature of the USAF I doubt it as even YF-23 proved too out there for them so I suspect all the trade studies to lead to this super stealthy maneuverable low drag long-range Blackbird Mk 2 with all the sensor bells and whistles. Such an aircraft would also have the maximum export potential compared to a very specific B-21 escort solution.


How hard would it be to give the B-2 or B-21 the ability to employ AAMs? You need to a radar mode to the AN/APQ-181 and a helmet mounted display.

Re: The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 21:16
by marauder2048
blain wrote:How hard would it be to give the B-2 or B-21 the ability to employ AAMs? You need to a radar mode to the AN/APQ-181 and a helmet mounted display.


The APQ-181 is completely out-of-band wrt datalinks on all current AAMs; MSDM or SACM might be different.

But general AAM employment was explicitly descoped during the NGB -> LRSB transition.