Ok, but that strategy sounds like looking for "your lost keys under the streetlight because that is what you can see when you're drunk". You even have mentioned the limited cargo craft available. Minus more B-21s, the speculated LM Penetrating ISR/Strike, or a Penetrating Counter-Air. (IMHO a new build Bone) your keys will not be found before the police show up.

It is simply a case of using the best tool for the job. There is no realistic way for USN embarked aircraft to penetrate deep into China. If nothing else, they almost certainly lack the range, and moving carriers closer simply exposes them to a larger number of less expensive weapons. B-21s can make that trip with a realistic chance of survival and enough warload to engage numerous targets per aircraft.

There is hardly going to be a shortage of PRC naval targets in most any U.S.-PRC conflict, and if the carriers run out of this type of target then the war is likely already won.

ETA: this assumes attacks against mainland China are even on the menu. In the CSIS wargames, sometimes the blue team did not allow such strikes, and in other scenarios they were allowed but either not attempted or discontinued as cost ineffective. B-21 hopefully changes that dynamic, along with a far more pervasive and persistent ISR situation than predicted in 2021. But the carriers were never used to attack the mainland even in the scenarios in which they survived.
 
It is simply a case of using the best tool for the job. There is no realistic way for USN embarked aircraft to penetrate deep into China. If nothing else, they almost certainly lack the range, and moving carriers closer simply exposes them to a larger number of less expensive weapons. B-21s can make that trip with a realistic chance of survival and enough warload to engage numerous targets per aircraft.

There is hardly going to be a shortage of PRC naval targets in most any U.S.-PRC conflict, and if the carriers run out of this type of target then the war is likely already won.
The PLA knows the best plan is AshBM so that is their likely play..dont want to have to repeat the analogy. If you cant defend your toy then you need to stay in the garage.
 
That is one reason why the US Navy developed the AIM-174 and should design the F/A-XX around that missile, if they don't want the F/A-XX as a multi role fleet defence fighter then what is the point?
 
Range depends on:
  • Specific Fuel Consumption
  • Aerodynamic Efficiency (Lift/Drag at cruise)
  • 1 - Fuel Fraction
Just scaling it up bigger doesn't actually make it fly further.

SFC = maybe +20-30% over current from ACE
Cruise efficiency = maybe +20-30% over current. Difficult to get much better with a supersonic design.
Fuel Fraction = Maybe 10% over current

Right and agree with that. I was merely pointing that you don't need a dramatic increase in size over F-22A to get a substantial increase in range. In other words it probably doesn't need to be F-111 size or bigger to be able to get something like 1K nautical mile combat radius. That's obviously a different story if you want very large AIM-174 class air to air weapons or long range land attack weapons but I don't think carrying something like that internally is going to be a requirement on NGAD/F-47.
 
Last edited:
The PLA knows the best plan is AshBM so that is their likely play..dont want to have to repeat the analogy. If you cant defend your toy then you need to stay in the garage.
AShBMs were their main play 10 to 5 years ago. Since then, situation for US deteriorated a lot.
PLAN is within short range from establishing (not contesting) sea superiority well away from mainland, and using sea to its advantage. For now in EASTPAC, but that "for now" will go away by 2030. Just a couple large decks in service and another 4-5 years of current tempo of SSN production away, basically.
All I can think of is that the reveal artwork is showing a side-by-side seating arrangement. And the NLG is pure photoshop.
It is 99% not a side by side arrangement. Unless there is candelier there.
Personally I expect plane somewhat smaller (and significantly lighter empty) than F-22.
 
The PLA knows the best plan is AshBM so that is their likely play..dont want to have to repeat the analogy. If you cant defend your toy then you need to stay in the garage.

It is certainly the case that carriers cannot directly engage the launch units that can target them. I do not know if that requires them to stay home or not, but certainly their defense relies on soft and hard kills against the missiles themselves, not the launchers.

ETA: along with deception and attacks against the kill chain by both USN assets and other services.
 
Last edited:
That is one reason why the US Navy developed the AIM-174 and should design the F/A-XX around that missile, if they don't want the F/A-XX as a multi role fleet defence fighter then what is the point?

It seems unlikely AIM-174B has a big role in ABM defense. The numbers carried aloft are pretty low. They are best suited to engaging ISR assets (which might feed data to ballistic missiles as well) or against masses subsonic bombers that almost certainly will generate a raid warning. The travel time of ballistic missiles is too short for the air group to achieve much density with such a large weapon, assuming it retains any ABM capability in the first place.

As to what the point is: increase the strike range that the air wing can operate at such that there is more ocean to search and more early warning from the ABM network of a missile launch.
 
Here's the podcast TWZ is cribbing notes from:


Transcript posted here:

 
AShBMs were their main play 10 to 5 years ago. Since then, situation for US deteriorated a lot.
PLAN is within short range from establishing (not contesting) sea superiority well away from mainland, and using sea to its advantage. For now in EASTPAC, but that "for now" will go away by 2030. Just a couple large decks in service and another 4-5 years of current tempo of SSN production away, basically.

I would argue the PLAN surface fleet is still primarily defensive regardless of how much it has grown, and that it has to weather many of the same risks as the USN. U.S. capabilities against surface ships is hardly holding still; practically everything in inventory is being given an anti ship mode. Sans AShBMs, a conflict would be quite one sided for the foreseeable future.
 
One thing I do not think I have seen discussed in this thread yet: hard points. Do we think there are any at all? Would there be some major structural weight savings by simply not having external attachment arrangements at all? Also if the wing is indeed dihedral as the renders, does that not complicate Pylon placement somewhat?
 
From a signatures perspective, not really. Conformal carriage was seen as a possible solution back in the 1980s but didn't pan out very well for many reasons, including signature. The external weapons still have to work with the geometry of the parent aircraft, which is actually somewhat harder with conformal vs. a pylon. A pylon with a "stealth pod" like what was proposed for the F-18E is generally superior to conformal carriage for a number of reasons including signature. There were also solutions that involved putting low observable "facades" on the weapons that would be mounted to pylons, I believe there was a patent on that (Northrop?).
Huh, well I didn’t know that. Interesting.

Perhaps this makes sense of Lockheed Martin’s claims that the proposed FB-22’s podded "wing weapons bays" didn’t significantly affect signature.
 
I would argue the PLAN surface fleet is still primarily defensive regardless of how much it has grown, and that it has to weather many of the same risks as the USN. U.S. capabilities against surface ships is hardly holding still; practically everything in inventory is being given an anti ship mode. Sans AShBMs, a conflict would be quite one sided for the foreseeable future.
Since 1945, USN only twice ever bothered to even procure dedicated asuw weapons other than torpedoes - in 1980s (by "adding anti-ship capability; harpoon from 1970s doesn't fully count as its genesis is as much ASW as it is ASuW), and now(also by "adding anti-ship capability"). It of course now evolves towards actually deploying dedicated asuw weapons, but realistically - US simply slept through the changes in Eastpac, belatedly reacting when things already happened.

F-47 from USAF is one such reaction - and it is very serious that it is a belated reaction, that only in 2024 was forced to adjust to a wastly different world. As are all others, that are turning US Armed forces into Pacific fighting machine; otherwise, F-47 wouldn't be just selected, it would be entering IOC. For PLA is already one (as it was always aimed squarely at US threat), and is on a verge of reaching peer status. In my subjective opinion, it'll happen this very year, and solidify by the year 2030.

USN hasn't fought peer opponent since 1944; that's about when, or before most of members' fathers were born; that's good for stories and service tradition, but it's about as useful as Navarino(1853) for Coronel(1914). At the moment, both are drilled/conceptual forces.
Yes, USN is a far more proven one, yes PLA is a black horse. But still - it's unquantifiable.
What's quantifiable is that Chinese one is tightly localized (far stronger within region by all metrics), newer, and rapidly grows, instead of struggling to contain degradation and being unable to disconnect from unsustainable commitments all over.

China moved from "defensive navy" from mid-late 2000s onwards - they simply stopped procuring ships that could be qualified as such (051b, 052, 052b, 956/EM series). I.e. all the "strike ships" with big, heavy ASCMs, capable of (trying their luck at) denial of sea superiority to the opponent.

Since then, they're building exclusively sea superiority units as their destroyers. They are not to be used to defend; no need to place HQ-9 on a sinkable ship to patrol off Shanghai.
They can, however, be used to effectively (temporarily) defend or deny attack vectors at something that's going to be forward-positioned: say, landing operation. I.e. attack.

And within year(s) from now, as soon as PLAN will get ability to reliably perform forced entry in the region and will get enough decks to support such operations (which is really not that high a number, 4 arguably will suffice, even if without room for losses) - it'll have more than enough forces to do Japanese 1941-2 things against whatever US&allies deploy in the region. Or US things against Japan, from 1943-45.
I.e. Bite. Hold. Build a base. Move A2AD assets and logistics. Push the enemy surface activity the hell out. Repeat.

Scary part isn't PLARGF in Gobi desert (which is about as realistic as great battle of battleships near Marianas). Scary thing is PLARGF on Luzon, Rabaul and in Iwo Jima. Or you guess where they can end up in already foreseeble future, where PLAN will reach contestable parity(von Tirpitz criteria, i.e. 0.66) in even carrier decks.
But it is indeed scary, that hunting PLARGF launchers in Gobi is even considered important, because it's sort of task that lost appreciable relevance no later than 2019-2020. That's 5 years ago. That's a lot of lag when things change yearly.

Perhaps this makes sense of Lockheed Martin’s claims that the proposed FB-22’s podded "wing weapons bays" didn’t significantly affect signature.
One may wonder why LO aircraft with their endless volume contradictions are needed then in the first place.
Just make a skinny airframe, add podded wing weapon bays and LO tanks.
 
Yet not including volume for bombs means that the replacement for the F-15E MUST BE additional B-21s, instead of F-47s. Remember, the USAF has still not talked about CCAs carrying bombs, and dropped the idea of a CCA adjunct for B-21s due to lack of savings.

The current Air Force plan is to divest all but about 99 of the F-15Es (less than half the fleet). Some number of the remaining F-15Es will receive EW upgrades.
The Air Force currently plans to have 98 F-15EX (or as low as 80). Some of those may perform some of the roles of the F-15E.

There is no direct replacement for the F-15E planned, and the Air Force seems to think none is necessary.
 
With regards to future great power competition - I shall simply say I hardly see either side being able to impose a unilateral military solution on the other in 2030. We can opera separate topic if necessary, otherwise I will agree to disagree with @Ainen’s assessment.

Does anyone have any insight into external hard points for F-47?
 
Long range / combat radius as being something is prioritized on US 6GFA but that can be achieved by a combination of many factors rather than purely scaling up in size. A102 / A103 ACE promise something like 38% increase in range given a subsonic and supersonic combat radius requirement for NGAD platform. That's why adaptive engines were such a core requirement for NGAD platform (and the long road to develop and test this capability placing a constraint on induction and fielding timelines for the platform).

Wasn't the F-22 originally expected to carry some 15-20% more fuel than it carries now? then if NGAD platform has 25K lbs of internal fuel capacity you are looking at just about 20% more fuel than that original amount or under 40% more than what raptor carries today..So 38% increase in range via A series engines, and another 38% more fuel should give you a pretty sizable increase in sub/sup range over F-22A (plus aero improvements) without a need to field a very large air vehicle and thus drive up cost even further. CSAF referenced a need to field NGAD in greater numbers of F-22..a very large vehicle would be cost prohibitive and would not allow that to happen.
40% more internal fuel and 38% better fuel efficiency could give you 1.9x the range of an F-22, in a more or less F-22 sized package.

I must admit I was not expecting the new engines to be that much more efficient, which is why I was expecting an F-111 sized monster like the J-36.


One thing I do not think I have seen discussed in this thread yet: hard points. Do we think there are any at all? Would there be some major structural weight savings by simply not having external attachment arrangements at all? Also if the wing is indeed dihedral as the renders, does that not complicate Pylon placement somewhat?
Despite the long range assumed in the design without external fuel tanks, I still expect the F-47 to have external hard points. At least 2, and probably 4, all plumbed for fuel tanks. Because even the FB-111s had and occasionally used all their hardpoints for fuel tanks in ferry missions.

And just like the F-35, I expect the F-47 to have a Beast Mode.

That said, I'm not sure what the effects of strongly dihedral wings would have on pylons. WW2 and Korean war vintage airframes all had strongly dihedral wings with pylons under them, and apparently without too much difficulty.


The current Air Force plan is to divest all but about 99 of the F-15Es (less than half the fleet). Some number of the remaining F-15Es will receive EW upgrades.
The Air Force currently plans to have 98 F-15EX (or as low as 80). Some of those may perform some of the roles of the F-15E.

There is no direct replacement for the F-15E planned, and the Air Force seems to think none is necessary.
The problem is that you said "the Chair Farce seems to think." They don't. /service bashing
 
August, 1995
A report was submitted to NASA containing information and data regarding wind tunnel testing for a “porous” forebody and nose strakes for yaw control on a Boeing designed multirole fighter.
The strange aircraft appeared to possess various traits of multiple different aircraft, including the F-22, F-35, and the F-16.
Low-speed wind-tunnel tests were conducted in the Langley 12-Foot Low-Speed Tunnel on a model of the Boeing Multirole Fighter (BMRF) aircraft. This single-seat, single-engine configuration was intended to be an F-16 replacement that would incorporate many of the design goals and advanced technologies of the F-22.
Perhaps, the F-47 incorporates such a porous forebod
y? I know not the technicalities of aeronautical design but would this not improve maneuverability and agility?
1743384325802.png 1743384361934.png 1743384445996.png
 
F-22 suffered from the USSR closing up shop and having nothing left to shoot at. If that happens again with China, it would be a great problem to have, but I’m pretty confident F-47 will always have plenty of A2A competition.
Never underestimate the shortsightedness and the bullshido hearings to kill a program 'cause some hotshot politician wants to run for president against the incumbent in a year time so he must showcase waste and fraud
 
Never underestimate the shortsightedness and the bullshido hearings to kill a program 'cause some hotshot politician wants to run for president against the incumbent in a year time so he must showcase waste and fraud
One may argue that USAF did it themselves by choosing single-trick "better F-15A".
I honesty don't even know what's worse - not enough F-22, or being thoroughly invested into an unsuitable and aging platform.

Range and iwb depth are arguably not even the main problems for this aircraft. It's that it's opposition was conceived after production F-22 took the first flight, and it's development finished after f-22 tooling was already stored.
 
Last edited:
One may argue that USAF did it themselves by choosing single-trick "better F-15A".
I honesty don't even know what's worse - not enough F-22, or being thoroughly invested into an unsuitable and aging platform.

Range and iwb depth are arguably not even the main problems for this aircraft. It's that it's opposition was conceived after production F-22 took the first flight, and it's development finished after f-22 tooling was already stored.

The f-22 was simply caught on the wrong side of history. It made absolute sense in the context of the Cold War, but with the rapid dissolution of the Soviet threat, there was no need for most of the NATo apparatus that opposed it. The bigger mistake was not so much specific programs but general trend of de-industrialization and disarmament. The west did not just demobilize, it largely offshored the means of production. And Europe largely disposed of its unused weapons while Russia simply moved them east. Even then, but for the massive Chinese military buildup, no one would have lamented the modest size of the F-22 fleet or its obsolescent technology - it would have been quite adequate. Even today, the primary capability complaint against the F-22 is range, not a lack of faith in its combat capability.
 
The f-22 was simply caught on the wrong side of history. It made absolute sense in the context of the Cold War
I'd personally argue that even then F-23 was more forward looking option, but I know arguments and they're sensible for ca.2000 ETO against massive peer threat.

But same arguments made F-22 cancellation inevitable. Same argument , evfn if weaker, could be predicted even with Soviet Union; for example, SU wasn't a single theater pony.
Even then, but for the massive Chinese military buildup, no one would have lamented the modest size of the F-22 fleet or its obsolescent technology - it would have been quite adequate. Even today, the primary capability complaint against the F-22 is range, not a lack of faith in its combat capability.
I'd say that belief is fine (and F-22 is still the best performing fighter in the world overall), but programs (external ir and comm pods; F-47) tell a different story.
This plane struggles to keep up.
 
It has a similar planform (minus the canted vertical stabilizers) to the Lockheed NGAD. If not a CGI created model, then possibly a 3/4 scale demonstrator, similar to a HAVE BLUE. The centerline is 18 inches for a non-precision runway and 36 inches for a precision runway for scale. Area 51 has precision runway markings (if that's where it is supposed to be filmed) for Runway 32R. Based on the scale of the stripe my calculation is a wingspan of 37 feet or slightly larger than an F-16.
 
Last edited:
I'd personally argue that even then F-23 was more forward looking option, but I know arguments and they're sensible for ca.2000 ETO against massive peer threat.

But same arguments made F-22 cancellation inevitable. Same argument , evfn if weaker, could be predicted even with Soviet Union; for example, SU wasn't a single theater pony.

I'd say that belief is fine (and F-22 is still the best performing fighter in the world overall), but programs (external ir and comm pods; F-47) tell a different story.
This plane struggles to keep up.

I think it’s a little far fetched to say the Soviets were multi theater, and in any case I cannot picture a theater where the F-22 would not have done well in its heyday.

Updating an aircraft does not mean it was ineffective. F-22 has been in service for two decades; it is not surprising that some of it avionics need replacement or that new sensors are added to address new threats. That hardly seems to be a failure of the design.
 
I think it’s a little far fetched to say the Soviets were multi theater, and in any case I cannot picture a theater where the F-22 would not have done well in its heyday.
Japan and Alaska would like to have a word here... as is Soviet Navy, which was going to get carrier heavy by the very same ~2000.
Worth pointing out, that original 1980s scare - flanker - was primarily used by VVS in the far east.
Updating an aircraft does not mean it was ineffective. F-22 has been in service for two decades; it is not surprising that some of it avionics need replacement or that new sensors are added to address new threats. That hardly seems to be a failure of the design.
Failure to even connect a supercruising, stealth aircraft without interrupting its stealth and supercruise isn't good; you're essentially giving up the sacrifices you've paid for so dearly. Same for FLIR.
J-20 may not fly as good as clean F-22 - but it, say, has both, now. And it will still have both, clean.

Other shortcomings (slow pace of weapon and hms integration), coming from irrelevant coding language, are just with it - it relies on pool of programmers, who will have to go down with this ship.
Basically, being ahead of your time is not that good of a thing in a long run. You have to continue running.
 
Japan and Alaska would like to have a word here... as is Soviet Navy, which was going to get carrier heavy by the very same ~2000.
Worth pointing out, that original 1980s scare - flanker - was primarily used by VVS in the far east.

There is a wing of F-22s in Alaska right now, so it hard to picture them having issues engaging Soviet aircraft there or in Japan.


Failure to even connect a supercruising, stealth aircraft without interrupting its stealth and supercruise isn't good; you're essentially giving up the sacrifices you've paid for so dearly. Same for FLIR.
J-20 may not fly as good as clean F-22 - but it, say, has both, now. And it will still have both, clean.

Other shortcomings (slow pace of weapon and hms integration), coming from irrelevant coding language, are just with it - it relies on pool of programmers, who will have to go down with this ship.
Basically, being ahead of your time is not that good of a thing in a long run. You have to continue running.

F-22 updates have historically lagged due to lack funding, perceived lack of need, and the difficulty in updating aircraft of that generation in general. If you are arguing it should have been updated sooner or that a replacement should have been launched long before F-47, no argument. But that is not a failure of the original design or program - the F-22 found its funding cut when the threat dried up, and that applied not only to the number built but also its improvements.

I have little doubt J-20 has a largely superior avionics package, having been designed and manufactured a decade and change later. The F-35s avionics are probably superior in most ever measurable way as well. Blk 4 I expect will blow F-22 out of the water.
 
Last edited:
There is a wing of F-22s in Alaska right now, so it hard to picture them having issues engaging Soviet aircraft there or in Japan.
It isn't, given that they're shorter ranged than already insufficient F-15s(NORAD doesn't get what it wants since 1970s).
North is big and empty.

It's sort of enough to bully modern Russian interceptors pretending to cover absolutely empty flank: Russia doesn't even have fighters here, only a sq of interceptors in Kamchatka and rotating detachment of fighters on Kurils.
Though even that is debatable: not for the capability, but simply because this is one hell of a theater for combined ~100 fixed wing combat aircraft of all types between two sides.

Soviet Union had massively more there, and of all things, fighters deployed there didn't lack range.
F-22 updates have historically lagged due to lack funding, perceived lack of need, and the difficulty in updating aircraft of that generation in general. If you are arguing it should have been updated sooner or that a replacement should have been launched long before F-47, no argument. But that is not a failure of the original design or program - the F-22 found its funding cut when the threat dried up, and that applied not only to the number built but also its improvements.
Agreed. My point is basically that US model(outpacing competition by being ahead of the curve) is very reliant on that - being ahead of the curve. F-15 got a lucky ticket out: Soviet Union collapsed right around the moment when Eagle would've gotten inadequate in arms rance. F-22 got an unlucky one: neither adequate upgrades, nor timely replacement, when US basically slept through emergence of a high tech superpower. Events overcame reaction, and results of our previous exchange aggrevated it for US, massively. (previous big baddy being Soviet Union, massively drawing attention to eastern Europe even now).
I have little doubt J-20 has a largely superior avionics package, having been designed and manufactured a decade and change later. The F-35s avionics are probably superior in most ever measurable way as well. Blk 4 I expect will blow F-22 out of the water.
And here i have my reasons to doubt.
While looking at commercial hardware and software is subjective, it is a way to measure relevant fields; we have no better way anyway. With this approach, there is little room for giving F-35 superiority; given how Lockheed visibly struggles with things that are rather normal outside of military, it's frankly a bit of discount even to expect J-20 to be equally troubled.
And the later we take the pairs(for example, for blk.4 F-35 that would be J-35A and J-20B), the higher my personal assesment of chinese capability will be.
 
It's that it's opposition was conceived after production F-22 took the first flight
What again?
I honesty don't even know what's worse - not enough F-22, or being thoroughly invested into an unsuitable and aging platform.
The F-22 could be easily upgraded to support multirole functionalities. We know it had the SWAPC margins for AIRST, so a dumbed down EOTS is fairly manageable, especially with further iterations of F119. SDB/JDAM integration all have been done without meeting major hurdles. Had the Raptor line been kept hot and running, I could see eventual fits to bring back the originally conceived combat systems, just like what the Eagle went through, and undoubtedly benefitting from concurrent stealth projects.

The simplest solution is to simply Army's hand off big funds and route those bills over to the USAF. And have Congress mandate an ICBM, PGS and JSF before 2012, else everyone in the brass greets new friends in Guantanamo.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom