Multi-Role fighter (MR-X) F-16 Replacement ("4.5 Generation Fighter")

[Foo Fighter]

I have only one thing to say, "Wibble". Pencil a delete option.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

What capabilities does an F-16 replacement need to have when the F-35 inventory grows to a large size? If we go by how the Viper is actually to be used now, first day A2A clearly is secondary (leave it for 5th gens). The hot rod performance can be found in cheaper already existing platforms like the T-7A that can be converted to single seat and increased wing area for greater lifting power for A2G.

 

[Fluff]

If you think about which elements of the hourly costs you can vary, and those that basically you cant. - assuming a manned system.

-Pilot - slightly lower skill, some minor savings, but minimal.
-Fuel - lower speed, lower potential/top speed - stick to subsonic capability - some saving
- Engine life - lower power - lower stress, no afterburner - some saving
- simpler avionics - some savings on purchase, and on groundcrew
- simple robust structure - some savings
- fat tyres - some savings.
-No fancy starting fluids, 'civil' rules on pre-flights etc. - some savings.
More robust airframe, less maintenance - cost saving.
-from my earlier post, purchase cost does play a part as well, so if you can lower both I can see you coming out 30-40% less than buying new F16. Over say 2000 aircraft thats a lot of money.

Appreciate you will spend money on the design, but if you started with say the T7A then you already have the bulk of the aerodynamics sorted, just the weapons to certify etc.

Of course there are some trade-offs in capability, but I assume USAF knows what its aircraft have been doing for the last 500,000 flight hours.

 

[Nick]

A while back the USAF were talking about buying small numbers of multiple different designs as a means to keep competition and design variations in the aviation world.
Then it was all about the 'Loyal Wingman' scheme.
Now they want to bring in some sort of new manned low-cost F-16 replacement.

It is possible (if you squint hard enough) to make all 3 of those become the same thing.

I think the USAF have no idea what they want or really need. They have the F-15, F-16, F-22 and F-35 as fighters AND the B-1, B-2, B-52 and B-21 as bombers. 8 types for 2 roles where most air forces have 8 types all-told for fighter, bomber, trainer, transport, recon and helicopter.
The US have more choice across their fleets then nearly every other air force has for everything combined.

 

[Jimmo952]

A while back the USAF were talking about buying small numbers of multiple different designs as a means to keep competition and design variations in the aviation world.
Then it was all about the 'Loyal Wingman' scheme.
Now they want to bring in some sort of new manned low-cost F-16 replacement.

It is possible (if you squint hard enough) to make all 3 of those become the same thing.

I think the USAF have no idea what they want or really need. They have the F-15, F-16, F-22 and F-35 as fighters AND the B-1, B-2, B-52 and B-21 as bombers. 8 types for 2 roles where most air forces have 8 types all-told for fighter, bomber, trainer, transport, recon and helicopter.
The US have more choice across their fleets then nearly every other air force has for everything combined.

The Airforce knew what it wanted. F22, F35 and B21.

It turns out they couldn't afford it.

The F22 got cut short. The F35 turned out to be slower to produce, more expensive to operate and more difficult to fully debug than anticipated.

So here we are....

 

[shin_getter]

The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.

How many flight hours does the guy whose job is to turn it off and turn it on again need? After all the plane can do the ACM with a download~

Without a low flying cost airframe, this result may be forced on the airforce. I don't think it would be taken well.

Removing any characteristic just creates a weak spot that will be exploited by your rivals.

Oh ho ho, a low cost military equipment with no weak spots, what can go wrong?

 

[Jimmo952]

The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.

How many flight hours does the guy whose job is to turn it off and turn it on again need? After all the plane can do the ACM with a download~

Without a low flying cost airframe, this result may be forced on the airforce. I don't think it would be taken well.

Removing any characteristic just creates a weak spot that will be exploited by your rivals.

Oh ho ho, a low cost military equipment with no weak spots, what can go wrong?

To make that work, the US would have to change its foreign policy.

Plus, it takes practice to be good at stuff. Leaving the equipment in the hanger until really, really needed is a recipe for less than fully competent operators.

 

[red admiral]

The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.

But flying less just increases the per hour cost?

Sure you burn less fuel, but fuel is a tiny component of fast jet operating and support costs. Sure less time based maintenance but you don't really save that much money because you still need all the maintenance guys for when you're operating at high rate in wartime. So basically you're paying people to sit around and get really bored in peacetime.

So costs decrease a little from flying less, but cost per hour massively increases.

 

[LMFS]

The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.

That is why you need UCAVs, those things do not need to train, at least not individually as humans do. Fly some as companions of your human pilots when they train and leave the rest in the ground. There you have your reduction in flight hours...

 

[Jimmo952]

The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.

That is why you need UCAVs, those things do not need to train, at least not individually as humans do. Fly some as companions of your human pilots when they train and leave the rest in the ground. There you have your reduction in flight hours...

Yep. On paper UCAVs are the way to go, but are they soup yet? Are they technically mature enough yet to do all the things an F16 can do??

 

[LMFS]

Yep. On paper UCAVs are the way to go, but are they soup yet? Are they technically mature enough yet to do all the things an F16 can do??

No, that is why some people are proposing to make manned and unmanned versions of the same aircraft. So you can start with the unmanned ones being simple auxiliaries of the manned force, but maybe ten years down the road they outnumber the manned fighters and take care of most of the tasks. It allows to develop a flexible platform and develop SW technology, experience and doctrine without having to scrap your fleet several times in the process...

 

[skyblue]

The problem with optionally manning aircraft, particularly small fighter sized ones is that you'd need to bake in a lot of the compromises needed to keep a human alive. The unmanned version later down the road won't be able to capitalize on the full potential that removing a pilot from the get-go would have allowed.

 

[LMFS]

The problem with optionally manning aircraft, particularly small fighter sized ones is that you'd need to bake in a lot of the compromises needed to keep a human alive. The unmanned version later down the road won't be able to capitalize on the full potential that removing a pilot from the get-go would have allowed.

For instance?

 

[Foo Fighter]

A lot of weight goes into supporting the organic aspect of the piloted aircraft that are not needed, seat and instruments alone are a sizeable reduction when removed, not to mention oxygen and the organic aspect itself.

 

[red admiral]

A lot of weight goes into supporting the organic aspect of the piloted aircraft that are not needed, seat and instruments alone are a sizeable reduction when removed, not to mention oxygen and the organic aspect itself.

2-300kg at most? Even with a Gripen sized fighter that's well under 5% of empty mass

 

[TomcatViP]

Don't forget the volume needed to host a human that reflect in extra surrounding structure, bigger airframe, higher mass, extra fuel, higher tank volume, bigger wings, higher drag...
You can make it a 30% of net aircraft weight.

 

[LMFS]

A lot of weight goes into supporting the organic aspect of the piloted aircraft that are not needed, seat and instruments alone are a sizeable reduction when removed, not to mention oxygen and the organic aspect itself.

The unmanned version would not have cockpit and life support systems, obviously. You just need to put the required systems at one place so they can be removed in the unmanned versions with little influence, in which that space would be used with additional avionics and fuel. Additionally you would benefit from lack of canopy that would appreciably reduce drag.

Don't forget the volume needed to host a human that reflect in extra surrounding structure, bigger airframe, higher mass, extra fuel, higher tank volume, bigger wings, higher drag...
You can make it a 30% of net aircraft weight.

The same (small) human cannot cause a 30% of the weight on a 200 kg ultralight, on a 5- t light fighter or on a 20+ t heavy fighter or interceptor. The size of the plane, be it manned or unmanned, is going to depend mainly on range, performance and payload requirements.

 

[UpForce]

... I think the USAF have no idea what they want or really need. ...

Uncertainty in and of itself isn't necessarily such a bad thing, it's the quality of uncertainty (or sometimes, indeed, undue certainty) that is decisive.

Akin to thermodynamics, in procurement there are inefficiencies involved especially as the primary objective is functional deterrent instead of a continuously hot conflict - while the product obviously needs to perform in the latter. So I wouldn't necessarily hold USAF or their overall believability to account on the basis of displaying hesitancy, hedging bets or admitting to a less than perfect strategic vision. Technological advancements are only so predictable and the latitude within which potential adversaries can choose to act cannot be entirely predicted or restricted in a constructive way.

The problems I'm most concerned about (with regard to procurement) at the moment are perhaps 1) structural corruption (read: not so much in a legalistic sense but having to do with entrenched interests - even outright oligarchy - superfluous or even detrimental to actual defense purpose and performance) and 2) purchasing power parity against adversaries (especially with regard to disruptive technologies). Neither of these seems such a great risk in considering how to augment and creatively find new configurations of existing technologies.

So I'm cautiously optimistic in exploring this - perhaps reflexively but mistakenly thought of as reactionary - path. To me, at least in this early stage, the idea is well within possible desirable futures forward and promises to be less costly than pushing entirely towards the unknown with every aspect of development even if the individual effort as so many preceding it ultimately comes to (in true "secret projects" fashion) naught.

 

[TomcatViP]

You know, someone probably teased them with a cheap 4,5++ Gen design and that got their interest. I wouldn't think that they would have jumped into the unknown risking their career on nothing substantial (not written in a pejorative way).

 

[Grey Havoc]

A lot of weight goes into supporting the organic aspect of the piloted aircraft that are not needed, seat and instruments alone are a sizeable reduction when removed, not to mention oxygen and the organic aspect itself.

The unmanned version would not have cockpit and life support systems, obviously. You just need to put the required systems at one place so they can be removed in the unmanned versions with little influence, in which that space would be used with additional avionics and fuel. Additionally you would benefit from lack of canopy that would appreciably reduce drag.

Don't forget the volume needed to host a human that reflect in extra surrounding structure, bigger airframe, higher mass, extra fuel, higher tank volume, bigger wings, higher drag...
You can make it a 30% of net aircraft weight.

The same (small) human cannot cause a 30% of the weight on a 200 kg ultralight, on a 5- t light fighter or on a 20+ t heavy fighter or interceptor. The size of the plane, be it manned or unmanned, is going to depend mainly on range, performance and payload requirements.

I hesitate to mention this, but two possible (though highly controversial) approaches would be 'solid armor' or the even more infamous 'brain in a box'.

 

[shin_getter]

Assuming a standoff combat regime that do not demand much out of the airframe:

How much more cost effective is cargo jet aircraft at moving stuff relative to a fighter (with mission systems counting as part of the cargo)? I don't know enough to get a direct operating costs per available ton mile out of the mess that is all the cost accounting~ This calculation should enable the cost floor be checked.

 

[Hobbes]

If you think about which elements of the hourly costs you can vary, and those that basically you cant. - assuming a manned system.

-Pilot - slightly lower skill, some minor savings, but minimal.
-Fuel - lower speed, lower potential/top speed - stick to subsonic capability - some saving
- Engine life - lower power - lower stress, no afterburner - some saving
- simpler avionics - some savings on purchase, and on groundcrew
- simple robust structure - some savings
- fat tyres - some savings.
-No fancy starting fluids, 'civil' rules on pre-flights etc. - some savings.
More robust airframe, less maintenance - cost saving.
-from my earlier post, purchase cost does play a part as well, so if you can lower both I can see you coming out 30-40% less than buying new F16. Over say 2000 aircraft thats a lot of money.

Take a look at the Gripen, which has the lowest cost per flying hour of the modern Western fighters. They achieved this by designing the plane to be easy to maintain (which reduces the number of maintenance hours required) and have a long service life.
They didn't simplify the avionics, they made them more advanced. They added sensors to monitor aircraft systems (simplifying maintenance because you need fewer physical checks). Sweden was an early adopter of network-centric warfare, so the capability to share data with other aircraft and with ground systems was built in.
It's also small compared to e.g. the Hornet, which means it uses less fuel without suffering in performance.

 

[bring_it_on]

We will see if the Gripen E is even cheaper to operate than the Gripen C. We should know by 2030 or so when a sizable number of Gripen E's are in service. After all, SAAB has had a couple of decades (The Gripen E has been in development for a long time) to add even more combat capability, electronics, mission system upgrades while still making the aircraft cheaper to operate than something they designed decades earlier (which must be a generation or more in terms of tech maturity). Ultimately, that's the trend we're trying to reverse so that is what is relevant here i.e. can you keep making the aircraft more capable, more survivable, and continue to add performance while staying OPEX neutral or actually reducing what you spend to keep it flying. Similarly, SAAB should be able to do its magic and make the tempest, which should be at a min 20-30 years more advanced than the Gripen C, come in at even a lower OPEX cost than the Gripen C.

 

[jsport]

The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.

But flying less just increases the per hour cost?

Sure you burn less fuel, but fuel is a tiny component of fast jet operating and support costs. Sure less time based maintenance but you don't really save that much money because you still need all the maintenance guys for when you're operating at high rate in wartime. So basically you're paying people to sit around and get really bored in peacetime.

So costs decrease a little from flying less, but cost per hour massively increases.

Increasing automation should allow more pilots to be trained on multiple craft. Can the AF Guard/Reserve pilot model be enhanced/maximized so there is increasingly less pilot down time? Airlines can stay afloat w/ USAF/USG compensation for pilot availablility. Private incentives keeps the airlines and the AF in business. The pilot culture is important and there should be creative ways to perpetuate it. Demographic trends are going to demand drastic change in the pilot model anyway.

PS: If dont start w/ the most tricked out pony (all F-16 technology already looked at/tested +plus maximized logistics etc) then a new bird is going to cost much more to start from scratch...and as far trusting 'foreign princes'..well..
Is there a financial connection between SAAB Automotive and Saab Aerospace?

Saab sold to Chinese-Swedish investment group

Bankrupt Swedish carmaker Saab has been sold to an investment group which aims to develop the company into a maker of electric cars.

www.bbc.com

 

[TomcatViP]

@jsport : I do also forsee pilots being more platform agnostic in the long term. And among Brown statements this envisioned direction is present without doubts.
@bring_it_on : it will be hard to have the Tempest operational costs equal to that of a Gripen C. Just because of their probable size difference. I however, understand that Tempest is an effect based project with a probable degree of discreteezation among several airframes. One that could have such advertised low CPFH.

 

[uk 75]

One of the problems in this discussion is the lack of urgency following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
F22 was designed to cope with whatever the Soviets devloped to replace the SU27 Flanker. Thirty years later the Russians and Chinese are still only flying prototypes which may or may not be equal to the F22.
The F16 and F18 proved at least equal and in many respects to the Mig 29 family. Russia and China still have not deployed a newer fighter in large numbers.
F35 is the new standard fighter of the West, an heir to the F4.
Job done.

 

[LMFS]

Ultimately, that's the trend we're trying to reverse so that is what is relevant here i.e. can you keep making the aircraft more capable, more survivable, and continue to add performance while staying OPEX neutral or actually reducing what you spend to keep it flying.

I think that is a political issue rather than a technical one, which holds also the answer to why the JSF has ended with a plane way bigger and more expensive than it was planned. When asking politicians and military if they want something so so, but cheap, or some high tech platform with greater capabilities, the second is far easier to defend in the public opinion and the one that will have more budget to gain support among decision makers. To prevent this capability and cost creep is the proof that there is a sane government running the country, or some other form of less optimal governance.

One of the problems in this discussion is the lack of urgency following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
F22 was designed to cope with whatever the Soviets devloped to replace the SU27 Flanker. Thirty years later the Russians and Chinese are still only flying prototypes which may or may not be equal to the F22.
The F16 and F18 proved at least equal and in many respects to the Mig 29 family. Russia and China still have not deployed a newer fighter in large numbers.
F35 is the new standard fighter of the West, an heir to the F4.
Job done.

Certainly the fall of the USSR created the conditions for US to rest on their laurels, many weapons programs of that age were abject failures of unrealistic expectations and happy engineering.

What I cannot agree is that the job is done, rather the opposite. The 4.5th and 5th gen being deployed by Russia and China, together with a non very successful force planing in USAF and USN, have rather created a (potentially) substantial capability gap at the platform level in the US side that needs to be addressed. What we hear lately with the accelerated development of the 6G platforms, the discussions about air superiority at the USN, the apparent doubts about F-35, the high prio of fielding adaptive engines, are IMHO all related to the fact that F-22 and F-35 as programs were not perfectly attached to reality. I assume this opinion can be polemic, so I propose to defer judgement until we see what happens in the end with the current US 5G platforms, if they serve for the expected time with the expected quantities and roles, or are somehow sidelined in favour of other models. Buying F-15EX instead of F-22 is not a good start, let us see what happens with the F-35.

 

[tequilashooter]

There is always a downside of being the country that 1st throws 5th gens on production lines than a country that takes there time later with the latest technology and depending how costly upgrades will be with said huge amount of 5th gens being produced from the 1st country that started their 5th gens 1st.

 

[Fluff]

There is always a downside of being the country that 1st throws 5th gens on production lines than a country that takes there time later with the latest technology and depending how costly upgrades will be with said huge amount of 5th gens being produced from the 1st country that started their 5th gens 1st.

only if there is a firm date, when we will need 5th gen, if not the country that first got them may be right. Alternatively, New Zealand has it right, with their 8th gen stealth wing.

 

[Deleted member 18851]

The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.

But flying less just increases the per hour cost?

Sure you burn less fuel, but fuel is a tiny component of fast jet operating and support costs. Sure less time based maintenance but you don't really save that much money because you still need all the maintenance guys for when you're operating at high rate in wartime. So basically you're paying people to sit around and get really bored in peacetime.

So costs decrease a little from flying less, but cost per hour massively increases.

Increasing automation should allow more pilots to be trained on multiple craft. Can the AF Guard/Reserve pilot model be enhanced/maximized so there is increasingly less pilot down time? Airlines can stay afloat w/ USAF/USG compensation for pilot availablility. Private incentives keeps the airlines and the AF in business. The pilot culture is important and there should be creative ways to perpetuate it. Demographic trends are going to demand drastic change in the pilot model anyway.

PS: If dont start w/ the most tricked out pony (all F-16 technology already looked at/tested +plus maximized logistics etc) then a new bird is going to cost much more to start from scratch...and as far trusting 'foreign princes'..well..
Is there a financial connection between SAAB Automotive and Saab Aerospace?

Saab sold to Chinese-Swedish investment group

Bankrupt Swedish carmaker Saab has been sold to an investment group which aims to develop the company into a maker of electric cars.

www.bbc.com

SAAB auto was spun off in 1990 and is not related to SAAB aerospace.

 

[uk 75]

I find it hard to compare US with Chinese/Russian designs.
Because we have such detailed media and parliamentary/congressional supervision of US and European aircraft we know all about their shortcomings.
China has NO recent combat experience and Russian performance in Syria looks pretty Soviet era to me.
Even Turkish F16s seem well up to dealing with them.

 

[tequilashooter]

I guess the soviet era approach isnt that bad consudering who before funded the FSA and now the only supporters being left are Turkey and Qatar. No oil pipelibe to Europe i guess and no overthrowing the biggest oil reserve country known as Venezuela. But definetly a close completion to nordstream 2 along with arctic and antarctic projects which I created a thread for.

If we are not making big gains than its pointless funding huge projects with nothing in return which i am not complaining about a 4th gen + aircraft or drone wingmen option.

 

[Flyaway]

Or they could buy the KFX. I mean the South Koreans appear to be building a good 4.5 aircraft with the potential to go full 5th generation.

 

[Jimmo952]

Its probable the USAF has already seen concepts of aircraft that would fit the bill.

That they may not be able to afford and operate enough F35s is probably not a sudden revelation.
That the F35 is not optimal for every scenario is surely not a surprise either.

Comments advocating a new Century-series approach and touting new digital design capabilities mean the USAF and their favorite manufacturers have spent some time looking at what is possible.

 

[jsport]

shameless or too ignorant to have ever been a GO

Air Force: Don’t Buy Old Combat Aircraft

The Air Force’s business case must be driven by what it costs to achieve a mission objective, or “cost-per-effect,” rather than the lowest lifecycle cost of individual aircraft absent operational realities.

www.forbes.com

 

[rooster]

Its probable the USAF has already seen concepts of aircraft that would fit the bill.

That they may not be able to afford and operate enough F35s is probably not a sudden revelation.
That the F35 is not optimal for every scenario is surely not a surprise either.

Comments advocating a new Century-series approach and touting new digital design capabilities mean the USAF and their favorite manufacturers have spent some time looking at what is possible.

That's funny. The country that spends trillions on a stimulus for money to be spent unrelated to the disaster that the country itself created for political reasons can't afford magically to buy an operate a single engine fighter plane. I have a great idea: lets cancel another aircraft in production and spend another 75b to engineer another aircraft purposely obsolete. Only in America.

How is the 35 not optimal for every situation? Where is it lacking? BVR or CAS? And when did my country begin to feel bad about bringing overwhelming technical superiority fight?

And now magically after purposely building an aircraft that can't supercruise the USAF needs a fighter that's faster than the f16 (and by default the 35) as I read about the wish list. We've seen this movie before when the USAF built the 22 and decided it needed something else.

 

[Jimmo952]

Its probable the USAF has already seen concepts of aircraft that would fit the bill.

That they may not be able to afford and operate enough F35s is probably not a sudden revelation.
That the F35 is not optimal for every scenario is surely not a surprise either.

Comments advocating a new Century-series approach and touting new digital design capabilities mean the USAF and their favorite manufacturers have spent some time looking at what is possible.

That's funny. The country that spends trillions on a stimulus for money to be spent unrelated to the disaster that the country itself created for political reasons can't afford magically to buy an operate a single engine fighter plane. I have a great idea: lets cancel another aircraft in production and spend another 75b to engineer another aircraft purposely obsolete. Only in America.

How is the 35 not optimal for every situation? Where is it lacking? BVR or CAS? And when did my country begin to feel bad about bringing overwhelming technical superiority fight?

And now magically after purposely building an aircraft that can't supercruise the USAF needs a fighter that's faster than the f16 (and by default the 35) as I read about the wish list. We've seen this movie before when the USAF built the 22 and decided it needed something else.

Range.

 

[trose213]

Its probable the USAF has already seen concepts of aircraft that would fit the bill.

That they may not be able to afford and operate enough F35s is probably not a sudden revelation.
That the F35 is not optimal for every scenario is surely not a surprise either.

Comments advocating a new Century-series approach and touting new digital design capabilities mean the USAF and their favorite manufacturers have spent some time looking at what is possible.

That's funny. The country that spends trillions on a stimulus for money to be spent unrelated to the disaster that the country itself created for political reasons can't afford magically to buy an operate a single engine fighter plane. I have a great idea: lets cancel another aircraft in production and spend another 75b to engineer another aircraft purposely obsolete. Only in America.

How is the 35 not optimal for every situation? Where is it lacking? BVR or CAS? And when did my country begin to feel bad about bringing overwhelming technical superiority fight?

And now magically after purposely building an aircraft that can't supercruise the USAF needs a fighter that's faster than the f16 (and by default the 35) as I read about the wish list. We've seen this movie before when the USAF built the 22 and decided it needed something else.

Range.

And designing a new fighter is now a relatively trivial task.

 

[jsport]

NGAD/digital series is a F-22 follow on and should be a son of F-111 and has nothing to do w/ a 16 V Block 70/72 ++ resembling an XL w/ all the previous 16 tricks, including a new engine as well as the latest manufacturing, materials, and logistics some of it paid for by the Gulf states, would possess only the form factor of a 16 of old.

 

[jsport]

How is the 35 not optimal for every situation? Where is it lacking? BVR or CAS?


A laggardly maneuvering, hangar hound which cant be built in the numbers needed (see earlier) cant accomplish CAS because if it flew slow enough and low enough w. the proper load it would fall out the sky, which a former acting SecDef called a 'piece of S..' in an era where the utility of its particular stealth is diminished by the month and which can barely carry enough even when flying dirty to get the job done of two engine plane (f-15) which some think it replaces. .