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

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5885
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 03:45

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:
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 05:46

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5885
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 05:49

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....
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 07:20

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...
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 08:32

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?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5885
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 08:37

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:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 15:25

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??
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 21:05

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5885
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Apr 2019, 08:47

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
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5885
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Apr 2019, 08:59

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:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post23 Apr 2019, 13:24

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..
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2195
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post23 Apr 2019, 16:48

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.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post24 Apr 2019, 15:00

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.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post24 Apr 2019, 16:19

“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
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5885
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 06:11

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........
:?
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests