Page 28 of 28

Re: Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2020, 03:03
by jetblast16
Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance - the twin-engined flying tail-less dorito?

Re: Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2020, 04:05
by quicksilver
Back in the day, a professional colleague was always running off on TAD trips (known as TDY in the USAF) to unnamed locations for unspecified purposes. Much later (when it became public) we learned that he had been part of an ASAP-like (aircrew systems advisory panel) group for an aircraft development program — A-12. We busted his jimmies from sunrise to sunset every day about his great fortune in avoiding the ignominy of having to stroll into happy hour anywhere on the planet and admit he was a ‘Dorito‘ pilot.

Still tickles me to think about it.

Re: Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2020, 04:23
by marauder2048
hkultala wrote:
mixelflick wrote:It took 15 years from X-35 first flight to F-35 introduction, and almost 20 years from X-35 first flight to F-35 until F-35 became really an operational plane that could perform real missions.

That there is "some prototype flying" does not mean the plane will be in service soon. Not in this decade. Not in the beginning of the next decade.


But if you look at the YF-22 to F-22 IOC it was more reasonable and some of the delay there was attributed
to industrial base/partnership issues (the move to Marietta was particularly disruptive).

And many of the other issues that contribute to program delay are AF controllable to some extent.

What the Air Force can't control is DOT&E but what they can do is radically constrain the
armament, flight envelope and mission perf reqs in order to bound the test plan.

Re: Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2020, 08:14
by hkultala
You should fix the broken quotes in your message. I wrote the text quo are quoting.

marauder2048 wrote:
hkultala wrote:It took 15 years from X-35 first flight to F-35 introduction, and almost 20 years from X-35 first flight to F-35 until F-35 became really an operational plane that could perform real missions.

That there is "some prototype flying" does not mean the plane will be in service soon. Not in this decade. Not in the beginning of the next decade.


But if you look at the YF-22 to F-22 IOC it was more reasonable


It was 15 years from YF-22 first flight to F-22 IOC.

and some of the delay there was attributed to industrial base/partnership issues (the move to Marietta was particularly disruptive).

And many of the other issues that contribute to program delay are AF controllable to some extent.


And you seriously believe PCA will not encounter any unexpected delays? Do you know a SINGLE high-tech weapon system that has not had "unexpected delays" during the last 50 years?

What the Air Force can't control is DOT&E but what they can do is radically constrain the
armament, flight envelope and mission perf reqs in order to bound the test plan.


... and then you have a plane that reaches IOC with much less capability than originally planned, and you will still need many years until it achieves the capabilities originally planned for it.

Not a good position to shift production from another, fully tested, much cheaper and more capable plane to your new (crippled) wunderwaffe.

Re: Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2020, 15:54
by jetblast16
:mrgreen:

Pilot unofficial nickname: Cool Ranch.. (Maybe that's the official cover name for the project lol)

73rd-Anniversary-hi-rez-scaled.jpg

Re: Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2020, 17:15
by marauder2048
hkultala wrote:
It was 15 years from YF-22 first flight to F-22 IOC.



see:

and some of the delay there was attributed to industrial base/partnership issues (the move to Marietta was particularly disruptive).



hkultala wrote:And you seriously believe PCA will not encounter any unexpected delays? Do you know a SINGLE high-tech weapon system that has not had "unexpected delays" during the last 50 years?


As much as I hate to say it: the Super Hornet.


hkultala wrote:... and then you have a plane that reaches IOC with much less capability than originally planned, and you will still need many years until it achieves the capabilities originally planned for it.

Not a good position to shift production from another, fully tested, much cheaper and more capable plane to your new (crippled) wunderwaffe.


If you focus very narrowly on A2A in the 25,000ft and above envelope with AIM-260.
Based on what they are guided to, these look like small batches in the 2030s.

Re: Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2020, 22:07
by quicksilver
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/why-an-air ... ears-early

They merely found a way to circumvent the vast bureaucracies of DoD acquisition. It helps that such an effort had high level sponsorship within the department. What remains to be seen is what happens when that sponsorship departs in a new administration.

Re: Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2020, 20:54
by quicksilver
“NGAD Strategy Faces Hill Headwinds”

“...I think experts on the Hill aren’t convinced on Digital Century Series for three reasons: it doesn’t provide force structure for the Air Force, the business case is a naïve bet on out-year operating cost savings – that’s an act the Hill has seen before, and it never pays off,” Rebecca Grant, founder of IRIS Independent Research, tells me in an email. “And finally, it’s premised on a colossal misunderstanding of the R&D environment of the 1940s and 1950s that gave rise to the original Century series.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/nga ... rd%20Brief

Re: Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2020, 06:42
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:“NGAD Strategy Faces Hill Headwinds”

“...I think experts on the Hill aren’t convinced on Digital Century Series for three reasons: it doesn’t provide force structure for the Air Force, the business case is a naïve bet on out-year operating cost savings – that’s an act the Hill has seen before, and it never pays off,” Rebecca Grant, founder of IRIS Independent Research, tells me in an email. “And finally, it’s premised on a colossal misunderstanding of the R&D environment of the 1940s and 1950s that gave rise to the original Century series.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/nga ... rd%20Brief



Honestly, starting to have doubts about Brown and the Digital Century Series. Doesn't sound practical nor affordable.... :|