Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter (USAF)

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

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post24 Jul 2021, 00:12

krieger22 wrote:Missing the forest for the trees there: the idea was that instead of one (potentially modular) aircraft to do it all, you'd have something like the current relationship between F-35A/B/C, where you have common avionics, mission systems and cousin parts even if the airframes are different. The last bit he wanted to actively embrace, with continuous improvements resulting in "improved" or different airframes every few years.

However it does highlight how utterly terrible Roper is at explaining things without a tech convention's worth of buzzwords. Yes, he's quotable as hell but that doesn't mean the quotes are good at conveying relevant information.

This is what bothers me about him. In my experience guys like him spruiking vague and nebulous concepts drowned in buzzwords turn out to be snake oil salesmen.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3894
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post24 Jul 2021, 19:59

If a force of ~130 combat coded aircraft is economically difficult to maintain/sustain, I'm not sure how a force of 50-100 aircraft will be a more viable solution.
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 457
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post30 Jul 2021, 22:09

wrightwing wrote:If a force of ~130 combat coded aircraft is economically difficult to maintain/sustain, I'm not sure how a force of 50-100 aircraft will be a more viable solution.


The economies of sustainability and maintainability are prime factors, as well as technological innovation. As technology iterates, being fixed to an airframe that for 50 years seems unreasonable, too. Something along the lines of fifties era or century series iterations to allow engine, stealth and electronics to mature.
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7418
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post30 Jul 2021, 22:26

strykerxo wrote:
wrightwing wrote:If a force of ~130 combat coded aircraft is economically difficult to maintain/sustain, I'm not sure how a force of 50-100 aircraft will be a more viable solution.


The economies of sustainability and maintainability are prime factors, as well as technological innovation. As technology iterates, being fixed to an airframe that for 50 years seems unreasonable, too. Something along the lines of fifties era or century series iterations to allow engine, stealth and electronics to mature.


I'm not sure if I am fully understanding your post, so I apologize if I did not get it, but that doesn't seem viable and I've never seen the century series held up as a model to follow.

not be a retard, but a great way to give this amazing innovative digital century series to emerge at an amazing cost savings that escapes everything we know about military aircraft. lets build a hundred or so eF-22s with the new Roper methods and then we can compare. Since this is so easy and cheap and all. once thats been established, lets just build 300 more and get the original 381 the USAF requested from the start-- no we can't do that! then that would affect NGAD! no it wouldn't silly, just make NGAD too, then when that hits the fleet make NGAD II and start on NGAD III. Thats the plan right?
what about the old F-22s? throw them away stupid. just pile them up and light em on fire.

The problem for me is how quickly this stuff fails even basic stuff like the above. If its cheaper to constantly buy new, why are we limping along with decades old garbage? why SLEP? I can come up with a whole host of things like eB-1s. and other "disposable super planes" that I would love to see, and we can just toss them when we are done in 5 years or whatever and build more. For some reason those wacky people who run air forces do life enxtension programs since they are under the ridiculous impression that its cheaper to fix and extend aircraft, instead of just buying more airplanes


I'm not trying to be difficult. If I am missing something please help me. I am dumb sometimes. But this just does not make a lick of sense. Are we really trying to say its cheaper, faster, to design and buy entire new airplanes?

I don't think that is even slightly practical. moreover I don't think the government even had the speed or wherewithal to even keep up with that. We can't even retire A-10s. it takes years alone to set up program offices. years for testing. years for training and conversion programs, and then tear it all down and start anew? Sounds like a great recipe for about a half dozen different types of fighters in constant collapse.

I will give them credit though, its the opposite of all that silly stability they wanted from things like F-35. Hasn't Russia been engaging in a kind of make it/scrap it loop for about the last 30 years? cool ideas, none of them widely adopted. Don't know if thats something we want to emulate but ok
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7418
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post30 Jul 2021, 22:44

zero-one wrote:Just wanted to know your thoughts on this. Can NGAD retain or even exceed the traditional fighter characteristics of 5th gen fighters not because it is a requirement but simply because advancements in aerodynamics make it so easy for manufacturers to do that.

When I think about it, the most modern aircraft being built today surpass the traditional kinematic characteristics of their predecessors even if it is not a requirment.

I.E
-F-15C to F-15EX

-F/A-18C to F/A-18E block 3 (advantages are pronounced when in a standard combat configuration)

-Gripen C to Gripen E.

-F-16C and F/A-18C to F-35 (combining the best of the 2 and advantages pronounced when in a combat configuration)

These are the most recent iterations of 4th gen fighters and from what I've read, every single one of them had no requirments for increased speed or maneuverability over their predecessors but they ended up improving upon them anyway simply due to the advancements in engine technology and digital flight controls.


Also a little unrelated, but according to Eric Able, the F-111F with increased thrust engines was actually a pretty good performer very agile and can actually dogfight. So my take away is, as long as you have good engines, you're pretty much more than half way to becoming a good performing aircraft, if they can do that with 1960s F-111 whats stopping them from doing it to NGAD.


little things like decades and tens of billions of dollars.

Future pilots “will fly multiple versions of air superiority aircraft over a career.”
Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, USAF requirements chief


and they say the military is drug free!
Choose Crews
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4545
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post01 Aug 2021, 16:33

A good point about the prior Russian model of making things that don't last long. That never got them to the grocery store, and it's not exactly a selling point when marketing their wares to foreign air arms. Virtually none of which have the $ or resources to order a shiny new fleet of planes every 5 years.

Roper was apparently encourged by... something. Perhaps how quickly PCA/NGAD flew - as a prototype. It will be a different story when they get the green light to stamp out hundreds. Much easier said than done...
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post02 Aug 2021, 01:37

The whole concept is just odd to me. There is nothing cheap or disposable about AESA radars, advanced IRST, MAWS, RAM, RAS, onboard computers, variable bypass engines... but integrate them into a shiny new airframe and we can afford to flick them after 5 years? Makes no sense.
Online

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3106
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post02 Aug 2021, 03:38

boogieman wrote:The whole concept is just odd to me. There is nothing cheap or disposable about AESA radars, advanced IRST, MAWS, RAM, RAS, onboard computers, variable bypass engines... but integrate them into a shiny new airframe and we can afford to flick them after 5 years? Makes no sense.

It does when everything is released in LRIP condition. Nothing uniform from Model A to B.
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02
  • Location: Finland

Unread post02 Aug 2021, 07:19

zero-one wrote:Just wanted to know your thoughts on this. Can NGAD retain or even exceed the traditional fighter characteristics of 5th gen fighters not because it is a requirement but simply because advancements in aerodynamics make it so easy for manufacturers to do that.

When I think about it, the most modern aircraft being built today surpass the traditional kinematic characteristics of their predecessors even if it is not a requirment.


Depends on the versions.

I.E
-F-15C to F-15EX

-F/A-18C to F/A-18E block 3 (advantages are pronounced when in a standard combat configuration)


Late F-18C's with F404-GE-402 engines had clearly better T/W ratio and kinematic performance than any Super Hornet.

-Gripen C to Gripen E.


About the same, not really clearly better

-F-16C and F/A-18C to F-35 (combining the best of the 2 and advantages pronounced when in a combat configuration)

These are the most recent iterations of 4th gen fighters and from what I've read, every single one of them had no requirments for increased speed or maneuverability over their predecessors but they ended up improving upon them anyway simply due to the advancements in engine technology and digital flight controls.


F-35 clearly had increased speed requirements over F-16: F-16 had no requirement for mach 1.6 speed with bomb load.

Also a little unrelated, but according to Eric Able, the F-111F with increased thrust engines was actually a pretty good performer very agile and can actually dogfight.


Source for this claim?

Does not sound very credible.

If the comparison point was an old version of F-111 which was REALLY inmanuverable, then of course version with improved engines my seem agile compared to it, but then it's just because of biased/wrong comparison pint.
Online

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3106
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post02 Aug 2021, 11:51

New words pop up around here all the time, with "inmanuverable" clearly a terrible one. Inmanuverable? SMH.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7418
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post02 Aug 2021, 15:19

madrat wrote:
boogieman wrote:The whole concept is just odd to me. There is nothing cheap or disposable about AESA radars, advanced IRST, MAWS, RAM, RAS, onboard computers, variable bypass engines... but integrate them into a shiny new airframe and we can afford to flick them after 5 years? Makes no sense.

It does when everything is released in LRIP condition. Nothing uniform from Model A to B.



What could go wrong!?!?! :doh:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7418
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post02 Aug 2021, 15:44

boogieman wrote:The whole concept is just odd to me. There is nothing cheap or disposable about AESA radars, advanced IRST, MAWS, RAM, RAS, onboard computers, variable bypass engines... but integrate them into a shiny new airframe and we can afford to flick them after 5 years? Makes no sense.


I'm right there with ya. And I'm not trying to be an old fart, I'm not trying to be edgy or countervailing just to have fun. I genuinely do not understand this. I also have no idea how it goes in the public and political spheres. Theyre going to have to do an amazing job of salesmanship. Because I don't know how you're going to constantly have congress on board, and I don't think the American public is going to like seeing billions scrapped after 5-10 years. The same F-35 and F-22 bashers are gonna be all over it. The export concept is wrecked because most countries take years to decide anything in the first place.

And speaking of scrapped what happens when you build your temporary fighter and then congress scraps the follow on? You're just stuck? oops! I guess NGAD mod 0.8 is what we go to war with.

I just can't help but look at the last 30 years, we have airplanes flying in amounts we never dreamed. SLEPed, upgraded, cannabilized. I don't understand how we can look at recent history and think this is viable. How many aircraft are we still flying now that were supposed to be replaced but weren't? B-52s, A-10s, Tankers, F-15Cs.

You can imagine if we built F-15s with the idea we wouldn't still be flying these things in 15 years let alone 40?

I just genuinely do not get this. Digitial engineering revolution seemingly does little more than reduce the Wright Curve, but the problem has not been the Wright Curve or engineering-- its politics, its testing, its avionics, its beauracrats, its mismanagement. The digital century series is seeming to try and somehow "penetrate" all these defenses and be done before they can be brought to bear, but I'm telling you, that is not going to happen, so what happens when your'e brilliant little "e series" fighter gets delayed? What happens when Congress says that theyd rather buy NGAD II because it sounds better than NGAD I?

You'll notice how carefully defense programs have to be in order to not "self subvert" Theres a reason the USMC never bought Super Hornets, or Blackhawks. Remember what a hooplah CSAF caused in Mid February by suggesting another non F-35 fighter? 'member?

I can see it now "congressthing Xir/xe, I can't have NGAD air dominance 5, unless I have all my NGAD dominance 3"

Its a joke, In order to get even a minimum amount of required warplanes service chiefs have to go completely all in now. couldn't get the required number of Raptors, and my god if you had mentioned NGAD back then, you would have gotten even less for obvious reasons.

and if this is a viable thing, Then let the Air force just buy 80 F-35 Block 3s right now, since we are just going to scrap things anyway. Who cares? in 10 years buy 80 F-35 Block 5 to replace them. This is how it works right? why is the USAF holding order back until block 4 is ready to order more? Don't they understand the new red pill Roper model? oh no wait, its because its a dumb idea that won't work

The Air Force, in a statement, said multiple issues are inhibiting the Red Hawk’s progress toward production. For example, the Milestone C decision, or full-rate production, slipped from 2022 to 2023 because of supplier-side critical parts shortages, initial design delays, and the need for more testing after the “discovery of aircraft wing rock,” which means the T-7 can be unstable in the roll axis when flying at high angles of attack.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. reassured members of the House Armed Services Committee on June 16 that despite the decrease in funding, the service remains committed to replacing its aging T-38s with the T-7.

“Our focus and commitment to the T-7 has not waned,” Brown said. “We want to make sure the money aligns with where the program is.”

The Air Force has touted the use of digital engineering for the T-7, with then-Air Force Secretary Barbara M. Barrett announced in September 2020 that Boeing’s Red Hawk trainer jet would be the first plane to earn an “e” designation, as the eT-7A, signifying it was designed and tested using digital engineering. Digital engineering uses advanced computer modeling and simulation, and technology like virtual and augmented reality, to quickly draw up hardware blueprints and vet how various configurations would work in the real world without building a physical prototype.

However, officials told Air Force Magazine on June 16 there is an “inherent schedule risk because of the aggressive nature of the program’s schedule.”


I guess they just forgot to digitally test for all the problems they are now having :doh:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7418
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post02 Aug 2021, 15:51

madrat wrote:New words pop up around here all the time, with "inmanuverable" clearly a terrible one. Inmanuverable? SMH.


not everyone's first language is english. I'm not the worlds best speller or essayist myself but without the excuse of being new to the language
Choose Crews
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 457
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post02 Aug 2021, 23:04

"CREWS"

My suggestion, that the rate of technology advancements is so rapid that fixating on a single airframe for 50+ years is not feasible either. Roper and others have said the F-35 "is an inflection point" regarding sustainment costs, proposed a F-16 replacement, "silver bullet fleets", retire the F-22, as well as comment about the airframe not being the prime issue to costs and the supposed development of NGAD vehicle flying in record time.

Multiple airframes using common engines, SA, EW, stealth, ETC. or an airframe like the Su-27 family makes sense in a unknown future, tier 1 thru 3 conflict. F-22 variant (delta, no tail), fuselage plug or conformal tanks, F-35 components (engines, SA, EW, stealth, ETC.) or better.

Russian or Chinese developments may warrant something other than a F-35 option. Both countries have to prove they are on par with the West. China is worrying because they're ambitions seem obvious, together with the cash we flow through them and willingness to expand/leap frog their military.
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7418
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post03 Aug 2021, 17:43

doge wrote:
Roper also said the NGAD concept is to rapidly design, develop, and field airplanes using the digital thread construct, but in limited numbers; perhaps as few as 50 to 100. ..

...the next future pilots won’t spend their careers flying one plane, he suggested. Instead, they will fly “multiple versions of air superiority aircraft over a career.” That, Hinote said, should be exciting to today’s fighter pilots.


>50-100
>fly “multiple versions of air superiority aircraft over a career.


Image
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: madrat, Majestic-12 [Bot], pron and 14 guests