USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[Stargazer]

Garbage.

Please refrain from using such words within an otherwise decent discussion. They can only fuel frustration and aggressiveness and do not make for very constructive criticism.

 

[HeavyG]

The Super Hornet was originally designed as relatively inexpensive replacement for the Tomcat. The Navy needed something quick and easy to develop and aircraft like the A/FX and others were still a ways down the road.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Oh no, the 'drifting' in absolutely necessary. thank you VERY MUCH F-14D for clarifing what has been long forgotten and its importance forgotten as well. The severe compromises called F-18, and now JSF display how USG procurement has been endangering US servicemen for decades now.

Garbage.

Procurement system is less than ideal in some instances, but the idea that F/A-18E/F is an example of the "endangering of US servicemen" is idiotic. It's perfectly adequate for any threat in the world right now. The many airforces around the World that are buying it tend to agree. I know that these sentiments are popular with enthusiasts on the internet, but reality is more complex. Yes, it costs too much to develop these things and there are problems (seem to be over the hump on JSF) of a technical nature in fighter development that must be overcome. Somehow, the US still ends up with world beating systems. Imagine that!

I probably shouldn't say this on this topic, but I've always been a blabberkey...

Except for Australia, which had a very specific requirement for maximum commonality in an interim aircraft to tide them over until the aircraft they really needed (F-35) was available, no air force around the world has bought the F/A-18E/F. In fact, in most actual competitions, it hasn't even made the finals.

There are a number of reasons for that, but some are related to why the Navy really wants and needs F/A-XX.

The Superbug is a naval strike fighter and so it won't be 1st in line for many other countries. ....but it's the best fighter operating off of any aircraft carrier out there today. So it really can't be said to be a "threat to our servicemen". It is, rather, quite effective at its job.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Oh no, the 'drifting' in absolutely necessary. thank you VERY MUCH F-14D for clarifing what has been long forgotten and its importance forgotten as well. The severe compromises called F-18, and now JSF display how USG procurement has been endangering US servicemen for decades now.

Garbage.

Procurement system is less than ideal in some instances, but the idea that F/A-18E/F is an example of the "endangering of US servicemen" is idiotic. It's perfectly adequate for any threat in the world right now. The many airforces around the World that are buying it tend to agree. I know that these sentiments are popular with enthusiasts on the internet, but reality is more complex. Yes, it costs too much to develop these things and there are problems (seem to be over the hump on JSF) of a technical nature in fighter development that must be overcome. Somehow, the US still ends up with world beating systems. Imagine that!

I probably shouldn't say this on this topic, but I've always been a blabberkey...

Except for Australia, which had a very specific requirement for maximum commonality in an interim aircraft to tide them over until the aircraft they really needed (F-35) was available, no air force around the world has bought the F/A-18E/F. In fact, in most actual competitions, it hasn't even made the finals.

There are a number of reasons for that, but some are related to why the Navy really wants and needs F/A-XX.

The Superbug is a naval strike fighter and so it won't be 1st in line for many other countries. ....but it's the best fighter operating off of any aircraft carrier out there today. So it really can't be said to be a "threat to our servicemen". It is, rather, quite effective at its job.

See my edited response above; I didn't intentionally allude to the Super as being a big seller. I was intending to point to the much maligned JSF, which is doing pretty well in my estimation, after some technical (not unusual) challenges.

The Navy does need F/A-XX. I wholeheartedly agree. ...but until it's available, the F35/Super Hi-Lo mix will be more than sufficient for any contingency.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

It is an interesting issue though - it is much harder to do effective IR reduction and sensors are pushing out the detection ranges to 25 km or more.

This means that RCS reduction shortens engagement ranges by only about 50% compared to 1980s levels. In any case this is well within the no-escape zone of modern missiles - which may mean that kinetic performance will become less important (allowing an aircraft like the JSF to stand toe-to-toe with the PAK-FA). However, the characteristics which allow escaping IR missiles are another story.

Anyway, I suspect that the effectiveness of low RCS designs in avoiding Early Warning radars is by far the most critical factor.

P.S.
I find it quite interesting that the Russian design emphasizes kinetic performance - including larger air-to-air missiles. This suggests a very traditional philosophy for air-to-air combat, which in turn suggests that they belief that counter-measures to low observability can be effectively developed.

I have a different take on that. The Russians have been emphasizing kinematics for a long time. The US already had tested many supermaneuverability technologies decades ago. X29, F18HARV, F15ACTIV, F-16 MATV and others. The Raptor has it....but almost never uses it when performing the mission it was designed for: sniffing with it's advanced ESM, staying passive, sniping from BVR at high altitude. Outside of canned training exercises, I don't think this has much of a place for these platforms. Still, I would not count the F22 or F35 out when it comes to a WVR fight. Situational awareness on these birds is phenomenal.

I think this emphasis on kinematics more likely points out that the Russian LO technology level is not yet high enough to produce an F22 class LO platform. It does seem that most of the Air Forces of the World are thoroughly sold on stealth technology and the US, China, JSF partners, the Euros with nEUROn and UK with Taranis, Japans next project, KF-X, the Indians with their AMCA (or whatever it's called), Turkey, etc. all seem to have grasped that a non-lo platform is not survivable in the future. The Russians have put LO features, many of them, on the PAKFA besides. I'm sure it's no slouch in that department... To go further would mean greater expense. The Chinese certainly seem to be in on the game.

Kinematics are great, but that all falls apart if you're getting AMRAAMs and Meteors out of the blue. The PAKFA, SU-35s type planes will lose this advantage if they take evasive action. How can they use their kinematic advantage (over an F35 type) in a tactically sound way? How do they even know which direction to fly in?

Adding in now the system of systems philosophy, or NCW, of the US/Western forces in general, there is just no comparison. Situational awareness is everything. This has been manifestly evident at least since the first gulf war.

Imagine if I tried to promote a new fighter for the USAF and international customers by saying that, yes, it will get shot at first, but it will always be able to dodge the missile, close to WVR and there defeat the opponent. I don't think that would go very far.

 

[F-14D]

The Super Hornet was originally designed as relatively inexpensive replacement for the Tomcat. The Navy needed something quick and easy to develop and aircraft like the A/FX and others were still a ways down the road.

We're getting dangerously close to getting into the old F-14 vs. SH debate.

Let me try to give a simple chronology.


Navy needs something to replace aging A-6s. A-6F abandoned because A-12 was just around the corner.

Dick Cheney/DoD cancels F-14D as it's about to enter service.

A-12 program implodes

DoD announces Super Hornet as interim a/c pending arrival of whatever takes A-12's place (AX, later A/FX). It is not there to replace Tomcat, that a/c is A/FX.

Grumman offers F-14D Quickstrike (also known as "Block IV upgrade") also as interim a/c, pending A/FX. Initially estimates are it will cost 1/22 of SH R&D and be available years sooner, because it's not as extensive a change over the -14D as SH is over Classic Hornet. R&D ratio deteriorates a bit after one year because now $150 million plus must be factored in to restart F-14D production/rebuild line, but still favorable.

DoD makes it clear that's not going to happen. F-14 (and A-6 re-winging) fade away in budget

Looking at IOC dates of SH and A/FX, they are too close together for both to be affordable. Deciding bird in hand is worth two in bush and wanting to make sure there's something on CVs' decks in short to mid-term, A/FX dies.

What parts of A/FX requirements that can be shorehorned into what becomes JSF result in F-35C.

A/FX requirement still exists, thus leading to F/A-XX (someday).

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

The Super Hornet was originally designed as relatively inexpensive replacement for the Tomcat. The Navy needed something quick and easy to develop and aircraft like the A/FX and others were still a ways down the road.

We're getting dangerously close to getting into the old F-14 vs. SH debate.

Let me try to give a simple chronology.


Navy needs something to replace aging A-6s. A-6F abandoned because A-12 was just around the corner.

Dick Cheney/DoD cancels F-14D as it's about to enter service.

A-12 program implodes

DoD announces Super Hornet as interim a/c pending arrival of whatever takes A-12's place (AX, later A/FX). It is not there to replace Tomcat, that a/c was A/FX.

Grumman offers F-14D Quickstrike (also known as "Block IV upgrade") also as interim a/c, pending A/FX. Initially estimates will cost 1/22 of SH R&D and be available years sooner, because it's not as extensive a change over the -14D as SH is over Classic Hornet. R&D ratio deteriorates a bit after one year because now $150 million plus must be factored in to restart F-14D production/rebuild line, but still favorable.

DoD makes it clear that's not going to happen. F-14 (and A-6 re-winging) fade away in budget

Looking at IOC dates of SH and A/FX, they are too close together for both to be affordable. Deciding bird in hand is worth two in bush and wanting to make sure there's something on CVs' decks in short to mid-term, A/FX dies.

What parts of A/FX requirements that can be shorehorned into what becomes JSF result in F-35C.

A/FX requirement still exists, thus leading to F/A-XX (someday).

Completely agree with you that F/A-XX is necessary at some point. We will have to wait quite a while and even then we'll have to cross our fingers and pray that the program succeeds though. At least with the F35C we get a powerful naval stealth strike capability in the somewhat-near term. Is it ideal? No, but it certainly is a large increase in capability.

 

[donnage99]

I have a different take on that. The Russians have been emphasizing kinematics for a long time. The US already had tested many supermaneuverability technologies decades ago. X29, F18HARV, F15ACTIV, F-16 MATV and others. The Raptor has it....but almost never uses it when performing the mission it was designed for: sniffing with it's advanced ESM, staying passive, sniping from BVR at high altitude. Outside of canned training exercises, I don't think this has much of a place for these platforms. Still, I would not count the F22 or F35 out when it comes to a WVR fight. Situational awareness on these birds is phenomenal.

Kinetics isn't exactly just super maneuverability. Its acceleration, sustained top speed and dash speed, altitude, etc. All of these are crucial in beyond visual range engagement. You need the kinetic performance to get the geometry advantage, and maximize the kinetic performance of your missiles. The super hornets are adequate so far, because all of our missions so far were against very low threat environment, against oppositions that were significantly inferior in capabilities to ours. The JSF were a compromise that the Navy has to settle for. It lacks the kinetic performance, radar bandwidth, internal weapon load, and stealth of a true high end strike aircraft, thus why the navy is more concerned about getting to the F/A-XX than Air Force with their 6th generation program.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

I can agree with that, in general, but it's the Navies responsibility to get the F/A-XX. If they skip the F35C, then it'll be 15 years at the minimum that they don't have a stealthy striker on the deck. They've fallen down at the chance to do this before. I think we should wait and see how the Navy receives and applies the F35.

I know that kinematics covers multiple aspects of performance. I just don't see a likely threat out there in the near future that can leverage that into a winning advantage. I don't see many scenarios in the next 10-15 where F/A-18s and F-35s are overwhelmed by large numbers of kinematically superior fighters. Who can mass this many fighters in one spot? The Chinese for example couldn't consolidate these numbers in the South China Sea area immediatel. Their numbers are dispersed. By the time these can be mustered, there will be other allied assets moving in too. In the future? Yes. Definitely, but the numbers aren't there yet. There's a lot of F15s and 16s in the area and some F22s as well.

How does the kinematically superior (assuming this is really valid with a warload) opponent then properly locate VLO airframes so that they can apply their advantage? I'm convinced that the advantages provided by better situational awareness, staying silent via LPI, MADL, passive sensors and offboard ISR advanced ESM and EW systems, operating in a network with AEGIS destroyer/cruisers, E-2D, EA-18G, USAF assets that may nearby, MALD-J, etc. These complexities make a platform vs. platform comparison less useful.

If you sent say an SU-35 on it's own against a Super, all sensors being equal (which they're not), the Sukhoi would have a strong advantage, but that's not the real world. It'll be system against system vs. platform vs. platform. I believe the better system will negate any kinematic advantages out there.

For the future though, I'm on board 100% for F/A-XX. It will be needed....but we'll probably make it till then. I think it would be a huge gamble for the Navy to get out of the F35 program. F/A-XX could fail too.

 

[donnage99]

You're talking with a defensive operation mindset, where our system of systems have no competition. However, the offensive operation mindset where you penetrate deep into enemy's densely populated air defense system to provide the shock and awe effect requires a different mindset. It's not impossible to penetrate Syria with f-15I, which is a not a stealthy aircraft, in peration Orchard. This is a fine example of system vs system you're talking about. However, this isn't the whole point of having a high performance very stealthy aircraft. The point of a highly capable with very low obserbable characteristics is to provide the decision makers the operation VERSALTILITY, TIME, and COST EFFECTIVENESS. The lower the performance of your individual platform, the more reliance it is on other assets, which equates to higher operational cost, less versatility, etc.

 

[aam641]

The US already had tested many supermaneuverability technologies decades ago. The Raptor has it....but almost never uses it when performing the mission it was designed for: sniffing with it's advanced ESM, staying passive, sniping from BVR at high altitude.
I think this emphasis on kinematics more likely points out that the Russian LO technology level is not yet high enough to produce an F22 class LO platform.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]IMO, the Russian approach is a counter to the above mentioned tactic. If F-22/35 is alone and remains passive, PAKFA should be able to close into an engagement range where kinematic performance becomes important. I think that their use of LO is meant primarily against AWACS and surface radars. It is just good enough to close into the effective range of their missiles before being detected. If PAKFA can use a long range AAM to take out or suppress E-3 before it is itself detected, it would force the otherwise stealthy fighters to rely more on their own active sensors (and thus reducing their LO advantage).
[/font]

 

[Avimimus]

That would certainly fit with Russian emphasis on taking out EW and command assets in the 1980s... I'd have hated to be an AWACs crew.

 

[jsport]

Oh no, the 'drifting' in absolutely necessary. thank you VERY MUCH F-14D for clarifing what has been long forgotten and its importance forgotten as well. The severe compromises called F-18, and now JSF display how USG procurement has been endangering US servicemen for decades now.

Procurement system is less than ideal in some instances, but the idea that F/A-18E/F is an example of the "endangering of US servicemen" is idiotic. It's perfectly adequate for any threat in the world right now. The JSF will do this in the future. The many airforces around the World that are buying it tend to agree. I know that these sentiments are popular with enthusiasts on the internet, but reality is more complex. Yes, it costs too much to develop these things and there are problems (seem to be over the hump on JSF) of a technical nature in fighter development that must be overcome. Somehow, the US still ends up with world beating systems. Imagine that!

Speaking of idiotic.. anyone who peddles the lies that these compromises w/ no decent stealth internal capacity (volumn, weight) w/their short legs would be great a campaign planner for a high intensity deep strike campaign against say a peer competior such as Eritrea..

 

[aam641]

Speaking of idiotic.. anyone who peddles the lies that these compromises w/ no decent stealth internal capacity (volumn, weight) w/their short legs would be great a campaign planner for a high intensity deep strike campaign against say a peer competior such as Eritrea..

It is this kind of approach that ruined JSF. Every aircraft is a compromise. An aircraft with long range, excellent stealth, large internal weapons capacity and good maneuverability will be the size of F-111 and cost $500M each. Trying to come close to that turned an affordable 40,000 pound proposal into the 55,000 pound "thing" we are going to get. I'd like to think that relevant people learned their lesson, but it seems unlikely.

 

[sferrin]

The US already had tested many supermaneuverability technologies decades ago. The Raptor has it....but almost never uses it when performing the mission it was designed for: sniffing with it's advanced ESM, staying passive, sniping from BVR at high altitude.
I think this emphasis on kinematics more likely points out that the Russian LO technology level is not yet high enough to produce an F22 class LO platform.

IMO, the Russian approach is a counter to the above mentioned tactic. If F-22/35 is alone and remains passive, PAKFA should be able to close into an engagement range where kinematic performance becomes important.

How do you figure? How will PAKFA know where the F-22/35 are?

 

[aam641]

IMO, the Russian approach is a counter to the above mentioned tactic. If F-22/35 is alone and remains passive, PAKFA should be able to close into an engagement range where kinematic performance becomes important.

How do you figure? How will PAKFA know where the F-22/35 are?

Here is what I was thinking: If PAKFA has larger signature than F-22/35, it would be stupid to fly with active radar. It would be detected long before it gets a useful return. In absence of AWACS or a ground radar[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif], and with enemy fighters know to be in the area, US fighters would also be stupid to scan with active radar. It would give away their biggest advantage (LO).[/font] So the solution for both sides seemed to be to fly around hoping to stumble on the enemy. With both sides flying dozens of fighters over a battlefield, they are bound to meet eventually.
Reading this, it seems kind of a stupid thing to do, doesn't it?

 

[sferrin]

IMO, the Russian approach is a counter to the above mentioned tactic. If F-22/35 is alone and remains passive, PAKFA should be able to close into an engagement range where kinematic performance becomes important.

How do you figure? How will PAKFA know where the F-22/35 are?

Here is what I was thinking: If PAKFA has larger signature than F-22/35, it would be stupid to fly with active radar. It would be detected long before it gets a useful return. In absence of AWACS or a ground radar, and with enemy fighters know to be in the area, US fighters would also be stupid to scan with active radar. It would give away their biggest advantage (LO). So the solution for both sides seemed to be to fly around hoping to stumble on the enemy. With both sides flying dozens of fighters over a battlefield, they are bound to meet eventually.
Reading this, it seems kind of a stupid thing to do, doesn't it?

When's the last time the US flew CAPs or intercepts with no AWACS cover?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Exactly, Sferrin.

The F35 won't fly blind. I thought i made it pretty clear that I envision it will function as a node in a system. The information it will use to target a PAKFA or SU35 will come from the ESM or AWACS, or another 35 that is actively beaming from another location. This can't be countered by "going fast and high" as the opponents energy will be broken when an AAM, or many, arrives on the scene

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

You're talking with a defensive operation mindset, where our system of systems have no competition. However, the offensive operation mindset where you penetrate deep into enemy's densely populated air defense system to provide the shock and awe effect requires a different mindset. It's not impossible to penetrate Syria with f-15I, which is a not a stealthy aircraft, in peration Orchard. This is a fine example of system vs system you're talking about. However, this isn't the whole point of having a high performance very stealthy aircraft. The point of a highly capable with very low obserbable characteristics is to provide the decision makers the operation VERSALTILITY, TIME, and COST EFFECTIVENESS. The lower the performance of your individual platform, the more reliance it is on other assets, which equates to higher operational cost, less versatility, etc.

The offensive mission is the one where the systems warfare approach works beat. Along with route planning, cooperative EW, standoff weapons, intel about the state of defenses (I wouldn't expect the Syrian IADS to be a big challenge right now, as the country is in turmoil and opposition forces to the govt occupy some areas) are all part of the package. The Israelis would love to have a stealthy strike capable aircraft to help them do these things.

 

[malipa]

Don't forget that the F-35 uses AESA, which keep the aircraft stealthy when emitting radar signals.

 

[Triton]

Comrades, you are anticipating the future needs of the United States Navy by looking into your crystal balls and predicting future conflicts. The reality is that future events rarely unfold as we predicted.

What is the probability that the F/A-XX will have to face a foe armed with the Sukhoi PAK-FA? Are you predicting an armed clash between the United States and the Russian Federation or India? When, or if, will an ally of the Russian Federation be able to purchase the PAK-FA? Who will be the first to adopt outside the Russian Federation and India? Will it be Venezuela? Syria? Iran? Do we predict armed conflicts with these nations?

The same goes for the Chengdu J-20 and the Shenyang J-31? Will there be an armed clash between the United States and the People's Republic of China or with an ally or client.

This discussion so far has also ignored the S-300 SAM which is being deployed in Syria and may be deployed in Iran. There is also the S-400 SAM and future derivatives or new SAMs. There are also the SAMs developed and deployed by the People's Republic of China and its allies or clients.

Further, no one predicted the "Arab Spring" that began on December 18, 2010 and is ongoing. What if a current ally of the United States, say for example, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia experiences a revolution that overthrows the House of Saud? What if the new regime was hostile to the United States and its interests? How would the F/A-XX fair against the F-15SA or F-15D? How will other platforms operated by the United States Navy fair? Consider the possibility that a future foe may be armed with American weapons that inherited these weapons from a previous regime. Further, consider a future combatant using European or UK produced weapon systems.

Isn't it short sighted to just consider the PAK-FA or J-20 as a potential adversary of the F/A-XX?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Oh no, the 'drifting' in absolutely necessary. thank you VERY MUCH F-14D for clarifing what has been long forgotten and its importance forgotten as well. The severe compromises called F-18, and now JSF display how USG procurement has been endangering US servicemen for decades now.

Procurement system is less than ideal in some instances, but the idea that F/A-18E/F is an example of the "endangering of US servicemen" is idiotic. It's perfectly adequate for any threat in the world right now. The JSF will do this in the future. The many airforces around the World that are buying it tend to agree. I know that these sentiments are popular with enthusiasts on the internet, but reality is more complex. Yes, it costs too much to develop these things and there are problems (seem to be over the hump on JSF) of a technical nature in fighter development that must be overcome. Somehow, the US still ends up with world beating systems. Imagine that!

Speaking of idiotic.. anyone who peddles the lies that these compromises w/ no decent stealth internal capacity (volumn, weight) w/their short legs would be great a campaign planner for a high intensity deep strike campaign against say a peer competior such as Eritrea..

Awww! Did I make baby upset!


Once again, make your complaints to the 3 major services of the US, or to the services of the dozen or so premier air forces that are purchasing it. Your commentary is insubstantial and not interesting to me. Keypubs must be missing you. Do you really believe that the USAF or NATO have peer competitors?

In the future? Yes, probably someone will challenge this, but it will be a system that challenges IS, not a platform.

To Donnage:

I'd say that F35 range with a combat load is pretty good for a multi role. It can carry a belly full of SDBII if you need to hit more targets. If the IADS had been rolled back, it will carry 18,000 lbs. that's not bad. That's good. It has wet stations on the wings, so there's some more mileage. They probably will be the low drag/LO tanks that we've seen some pics of. Otherwise, roll back that IADS and bring the tanker line closer. For the really big scenario, ie the Pacific theatre your efficacy will be reduced, I agree, but your LRSB, B2, UCLASS will be used initially for this stuff.

I'd love for the F35 to have more speed, but it seems to me that you must compromise, with survavability and mission effectiveness as the priority over flashy performance characteristics. Throwing the AMRAAM harder and farther is excellent too, but getting close before detection from an optimal position accomplishes the same thing.


F/A-XX gentlemen? I believe that we'll be moderated soon if we don't return to form.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

double post.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Comrades, you are anticipating the future needs of the United States Navy by looking into your crystal balls and predicting future conflicts. The reality is that future events rarely unfold as we predicted.

What is the probability that the F/A-XX will have to face a foe armed with the Sukhoi PAK-FA? Are you predicting an armed clash between the United States and the Russian Federation or India? When, or if, will an ally of the Russian Federation be able to purchase the PAK-FA? Who will be the first to adopt outside the Russian Federation and India? Will it be Venezuela? Syria? Iran? Do we predict armed conflicts with these nations?

The same goes for the Chengdu J-20 and the Shenyang J-31? Will there be an armed clash between the United States and the People's Republic of China or with an ally or client.

This discussion so far has also ignored the S-300 SAM which is being deployed in Syria and may be deployed in Iran. There is also the S-400 SAM and future derivatives or new SAMs. There are also the SAMs developed and deployed by the People's Republic of China and its allies or clients.

Further, no one predicted the "Arab Spring" that began on December 18, 2010 and is ongoing. What if a current ally of the United States, say for example, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia experiences a revolution that overthrows the House of Saud? What if the new regime was hostile to the United States and its interests? How would the F/A-XX fair against the F-15SA or F-15D? How will other platforms operated by the United States Navy fair? Consider the possibility that a future foe may be armed with American weapons that inherited these weapons from a previous regime. Further, consider a future combatant using European or UK produced weapon systems.

Isn't it short sighted to just consider the PAK-FA or J-20 as a potential adversary of the F/A-XX?

I agree with that. Most conflicts (I pray there are no conflicts at all, but that's not going to happen) will not be between F22s and PAKFAs/J20s. The Middle East is less than stable and those Saudi F15s would be among the best fighters the US has gone up against in a long time....but there at least, we know very well what they have and how it's operated.

F/A-XX seems to be aimed at meeting the higher end threats though, so how it performs against J-20 is definitely important.

 

[sferrin]

Isn't it short sighted to just consider the PAK-FA or J-20 as a potential adversary of the F/A-XX?

I don't think the people who matter are. They also have to consider the PAK-FA and J-20's respective follow-ons. Just like the F-22 wasn't planned just to deal with the Flanker.

 

[donnage99]

The offensive mission is the one where the systems warfare approach works beat. Along with route planning, cooperative EW, standoff weapons, intel about the state of defenses (I wouldn't expect the Syrian IADS to be a big challenge right now, as the country is in turmoil and opposition forces to the govt occupy some areas) are all part of the package. The Israelis would love to have a stealthy strike capable aircraft to help them do these things.

I dont think you understand the point I was making. The point isn't just to achieve said mission. As I have said, even Israel managed to penetrate Syria without a stealthy platform, using the system approach as you mentioned. However, you lose time as you are hampered by complex route planning due to a lower stealth characteristics of your strike fighter. You have to spend more time, taking out key enemy's defenses because you don't have the ability to penetrate deeply without detection, and because your aircraft has lower performance, it relies on other assets, which means it takes more platforms to perform one mission, thus boosting up operational cost. The mission can be achieved, but this wasn't my point.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

The offensive mission is the one where the systems warfare approach works beat. Along with route planning, cooperative EW, standoff weapons, intel about the state of defenses (I wouldn't expect the Syrian IADS to be a big challenge right now, as the country is in turmoil and opposition forces to the govt occupy some areas) are all part of the package. The Israelis would love to have a stealthy strike capable aircraft to help them do these things.

I dont think you understand the point I was making. The point isn't just to achieve said mission. As I have said, even Israel managed to penetrate Syria without a stealthy platform, using the system approach as you mentioned. However, you lose time as you are hampered by complex route planning due to a lower stealth characteristics of your strike fighter. You have to spend more time, taking out key enemy's defenses because you don't have the ability to penetrate deeply without detection, and because your aircraft has lower performance, it relies on other assets, which means it takes more platforms to perform one mission, thus boosting up operational cost. The mission can be achieved, but this wasn't my point.

We are talking about the same thing. I don't agree that the aircraft has low performance, but even if I give you that, it relies much less on other assets than say a 4.5 gen aircraft.

Should an F/A-XX, B2, or LRSB do better? Of course. Not my argument. The F35 is a tactical strike fighter, with very good range characteristics compared to it's contemporaries. Put the gas bags under the wings and give me an AETD type engine by 2025 and I don't see where it is particularly challenged in it's role.

 

[sferrin]

The offensive mission is the one where the systems warfare approach works beat. Along with route planning, cooperative EW, standoff weapons, intel about the state of defenses (I wouldn't expect the Syrian IADS to be a big challenge right now, as the country is in turmoil and opposition forces to the govt occupy some areas) are all part of the package. The Israelis would love to have a stealthy strike capable aircraft to help them do these things.

I dont think you understand the point I was making. The point isn't just to achieve said mission. As I have said, even Israel managed to penetrate Syria without a stealthy platform, using the system approach as you mentioned. However, you lose time as you are hampered by complex route planning due to a lower stealth characteristics of your strike fighter. You have to spend more time, taking out key enemy's defenses because you don't have the ability to penetrate deeply without detection, and because your aircraft has lower performance, it relies on other assets, which means it takes more platforms to perform one mission, thus boosting up operational cost. The mission can be achieved, but this wasn't my point.

A good comparison would be the high value targets in Bagdhad during Desert Storm. F-16s had limited success and large tail to teeth while F-117s handled the targets alone with no problem.

 

[latenlazy]

Kinematics are great, but that all falls apart if you're getting AMRAAMs and Meteors out of the blue. The PAKFA, SU-35s type planes will lose this advantage if they take evasive action. How can they use their kinematic advantage (over an F35 type) in a tactically sound way? How do they even know which direction to fly in?

Adding in now the system of systems philosophy, or NCW, of the US/Western forces in general, there is just no comparison. Situational awareness is everything. This has been manifestly evident at least since the first gulf war.

Imagine if I tried to promote a new fighter for the USAF and international customers by saying that, yes, it will get shot at first, but it will always be able to dodge the missile, close to WVR and there defeat the opponent. I don't think that would go very far.

In LO vs LO combat BVR could be neutralized though. I think that's where kinematics takes over. The direction of an approaching weapon usually gives you a decently good idea of the direction you would expect your opponent to be in. That would be where one would focus their sensors.

 

[jsport]

Oh no, the 'drifting' in absolutely necessary. thank you VERY MUCH F-14D for clarifing what has been long forgotten and its importance forgotten as well. The severe compromises called F-18, and now JSF display how USG procurement has been endangering US servicemen for decades now.

Procurement system is less than ideal in some instances, but the idea that F/A-18E/F is an example of the "endangering of US servicemen" is idiotic. It's perfectly adequate for any threat in the world right now. The JSF will do this in the future. The many airforces around the World that are buying it tend to agree. I know that these sentiments are popular with enthusiasts on the internet, but reality is more complex. Yes, it costs too much to develop these things and there are problems (seem to be over the hump on JSF) of a technical nature in fighter development that must be overcome. Somehow, the US still ends up with world beating systems. Imagine that!

Speaking of idiotic.. anyone who peddles the lies that these compromises w/ no decent stealth internal capacity (volumn, weight) w/their short legs would be great a campaign planner for a high intensity deep strike campaign against say a peer competior such as Eritrea..

Awww! Did I make baby upset!


Once again, make your complaints to the 3 major services of the US, or to the services of the dozen or so premier air forces that are purchasing it. Your commentary is insubstantial and not interesting to me. Keypubs must be missing you. Do you really believe that the USAF or NATO have peer competitors?

In the future? Yes, probably someone will challenge this, but it will be a system that challenges IS, not a platform.

Substantiating facts to you and interesting you are of course my life's goal..let me work on that :-*
keypubs, are we talking about bars?
Pretty sure you've never done any this professionally have you?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Kinematics are great, but that all falls apart if you're getting AMRAAMs and Meteors out of the blue. The PAKFA, SU-35s type planes will lose this advantage if they take evasive action. How can they use their kinematic advantage (over an F35 type) in a tactically sound way? How do they even know which direction to fly in?

Adding in now the system of systems philosophy, or NCW, of the US/Western forces in general, there is just no comparison. Situational awareness is everything. This has been manifestly evident at least since the first gulf war.

Imagine if I tried to promote a new fighter for the USAF and international customers by saying that, yes, it will get shot at first, but it will always be able to dodge the missile, close to WVR and there defeat the opponent. I don't think that would go very far.

In LO vs LO combat BVR could be neutralized though. I think that's where kinematics takes over. The direction of an approaching weapon usually gives you a decently good idea of the direction you would expect your opponent to be in. That would be where one would focus their sensors.

When you're receiving inbound AAMs, your situational awareness is bound to go in the toilet as you try to maneuver. There are videos of F16s dodging SAMS out there. You can tell from the chatter that it's not a good situation to be in from an SA standpoint. That's usually what happens to a pilot in that situation. It's not the best time to target your opponent. You lose your energy pretty comprehensively taking evasive action and then if you make it to the merge you will have to worry about HOBS missiles cued by HMCS. I just can't help but conclude that missile kinematics and sensor quality, ECM, etc are going to trump platform kinematics...including in close in fighting. Dodging helmet-cued AIM-9X sounds pretty scary to me.

If you have MAWS or EODAS, you have some warning of the AAM on it's way in. If not, you won't necessarily know until the seeker head goes active. I'd assume that the PAKFA, J20 etc have pretty good MAWS systems, but it's not really true that this gives you a good idea where the opponent is.

I agree with the thrust of your point that the playing field will be levelled by opposing 5th gen fighters, but in this instance the level of system integration and quality of the system (meaning the AWACS, APG-81 and NGJ jamming, AEGIS, F22, EA18G, NGJ, MALD-J, E-2D, the whole network), level of VLO, EW, tactics, weapons kinematics, intelligence, data links, data sharing, tanker support, sensor quality will be at least as decisive (in my opinion more decisive) than platform kinematics.

This in no way should be taken as an argument that kinematic capability is not useful. The J20, PAKFA, F/A-XX, F-22 all can leverage their altitude, supercruise etc in effective ways, but once one of these fighters has to avoid an incoming missile their energy advantage is damaged. It's not like they're only going to get 1 missile inbound every time. Why not keep firing? The advantage of having an F35 in numbers to complement the F22, or F/A-XX, like the hordes of F16s backing the F15C/Ds in earlier times, is that you can have numbers as well as quality. Sacrifices were made to raw performance in the 35, in exchange for better SA, tri-service compatibility, allied needs, VLO stealth etc. The choice to sacrifice some performance was the right choice, in my opinion. For the F/A-XX, those restrictions don't apply at all and it will excel as a high end naval fighter in performance, stealth and sensors.....but you don't have the benefit of economies of scale, raw numbers, flexibility and interoperability with the F/A-XX. The F35 program gets a very capable asset into the hands of a lot of allies, and the 3 flying US services in a way that wouldn't be possible if the right compromises weren't made.

With the F35 in the Pacific for instance, there are potentially going to be really large numbers of them, operating off of land, carrier and VTOL capable ships as well. In US hands and allied nations as well. You can't get that many F/A-XX, or F22...I'm pretty sure of that. To counter this, the Chinese should invest in not just the J20, but also the J31 or something of it's type that can be acquired in large numbers and they should (I'm sure they are doing this) knit it all together into a cohesive system of systems. I'm sure the J20 is the more costly high end system, right? Will there be 300? Or less? If you have 1500 J31, flying off of ships and shore, you have a more effective force. You can saturate the enemies defenses, attack more targets, share more info, generate more sorties etc. There are advantages. Of course, ideally there should be lots F15s and 16s/18s in the near future, some F22s, strategic bombers.

This is an F/A-XX thread after all. The Navy recognizes the need for a higher performing platform. It has a role in the future. I agree. In the future. It's apples and oranges comparing it with the 35 anyway. Different roles. The Navy is just worried the the F35 will suck up their F/A-XX funding. It's political to a large degree. With the USN we'll have to wait till they start to operate the C before we know how they really feel about it.

 

[donnage99]

We are talking about the same thing. I don't agree that the aircraft has low performance, but even if I give you that, it relies much less on other assets than say a 4.5 gen aircraft.

Should an F/A-XX, B2, or LRSB do better? Of course. Not my argument. The F35 is a tactical strike fighter, with very good range characteristics compared to it's contemporaries. Put the gas bags under the wings and give me an AETD type engine by 2025 and I don't see where it is particularly challenged in it's role.

I don't think anyone disagree that f-35 will be significant better than the aircraft it intended to replace. Neither did I make the argument for canceling the JSF program. It's too big to fail at this point even in the face of its cost overrun, delays, and basically failed to deliver the very vision in which it built upon, which was 5th generation fighter with cheap development cost, cheap unit cost, and cheap operational cost. It will most likely carry american air dominance decently well, at least til F/A-XX. However, I express my regret at the failure of the program in term of the cost per capability.

BTW, its combat range isn't that much better compared to its contemporaries. It carries significantly higher internal fuels, but that doesn't necessarily translate to higher range pound for pound.

 

[Avimimus]

When it comes to kinematics - I'd still worry about the inability of medium fighters like the JSF to pick their engagements when faced with super-cruising opponents. Throughout the history of air-warfare being in the plane that is forced to commit to the fight has never been a good thing.

What is the probability that the F/A-XX will have to face a foe armed with the Sukhoi PAK-FA?
[...]
The same goes for the Chengdu J-20 and the Shenyang J-31? .

The driving arms race is between the FGFA and the J-20... that is the interesting comparison.

This discussion so far has also ignored the S-300 SAM which is being deployed in Syria and may be deployed in Iran. There is also the S-400 SAM and future derivatives or new SAMs. There are also the SAMs developed and deployed by the People's Republic of China and its allies or clients.

Is this is what the PAK-FA was truly designed to defeat? Certainly there were supersonic maneuverability requirements driven by this (as much has been said).

 

[latenlazy]

Kinematics are great, but that all falls apart if you're getting AMRAAMs and Meteors out of the blue. The PAKFA, SU-35s type planes will lose this advantage if they take evasive action. How can they use their kinematic advantage (over an F35 type) in a tactically sound way? How do they even know which direction to fly in?

Adding in now the system of systems philosophy, or NCW, of the US/Western forces in general, there is just no comparison. Situational awareness is everything. This has been manifestly evident at least since the first gulf war.

Imagine if I tried to promote a new fighter for the USAF and international customers by saying that, yes, it will get shot at first, but it will always be able to dodge the missile, close to WVR and there defeat the opponent. I don't think that would go very far.

In LO vs LO combat BVR could be neutralized though. I think that's where kinematics takes over. The direction of an approaching weapon usually gives you a decently good idea of the direction you would expect your opponent to be in. That would be where one would focus their sensors.

When you're receiving inbound AAMs, your situational awareness will go in the toilet as you try to maneuver away. That's usually what happens to a pilot in that situation. It's not a good time to go on the offense. You lose your energy pretty comprehensively taking evasive action and then if you make it to the merge you will have to worry about HOBS missiles cued by HMCS. I just can't help but conclude that missile kinematics and sensor quality, ECM, etc are going to trump platform kinematics pretty decisively...especially in close in fighting.

If you have MAWS or EODAS, you have some warning of the AAM on it's way in. If not, you won't necessarily know until the seeker head goes active. I'd assume that the PAKFA, J20 etc have pretty good MAWS systems, but it's not really true that this gives you a good idea where the opponent is.

There's probably still room for software to grow in helping detect threats from afar. After all, improved sensors and software shape both defensive and offensive abilities.

I think your point about energy bleed through evasive maneuvers actually highlights the advantages of better kinematics. If you start off with more speed and altitude and you have more power available to you you have a better chance to survive the better kinematics of missiles and to make it to the merge in an advantageous position.

I'm still doubtful that in an encounter between two LO platforms, combat will be dictated in BVR instead of WVR though. Both detection and lock of radar homing missiles are hampered by stealth, and even with a lock, it's much easier for an LO platform to shake off that missile.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Kinematics are great, but that all falls apart if you're getting AMRAAMs and Meteors out of the blue. The PAKFA, SU-35s type planes will lose this advantage if they take evasive action. How can they use their kinematic advantage (over an F35 type) in a tactically sound way? How do they even know which direction to fly in?

Adding in now the system of systems philosophy, or NCW, of the US/Western forces in general, there is just no comparison. Situational awareness is everything. This has been manifestly evident at least since the first gulf war.

Imagine if I tried to promote a new fighter for the USAF and international customers by saying that, yes, it will get shot at first, but it will always be able to dodge the missile, close to WVR and there defeat the opponent. I don't think that would go very far.

In LO vs LO combat BVR could be neutralized though. I think that's where kinematics takes over. The direction of an approaching weapon usually gives you a decently good idea of the direction you would expect your opponent to be in. That would be where one would focus their sensors.

When you're receiving inbound AAMs, your situational awareness will go in the toilet as you try to maneuver away. That's usually what happens to a pilot in that situation. It's not a good time to go on the offense. You lose your energy pretty comprehensively taking evasive action and then if you make it to the merge you will have to worry about HOBS missiles cued by HMCS. I just can't help but conclude that missile kinematics and sensor quality, ECM, etc are going to trump platform kinematics pretty decisively...especially in close in fighting.

If you have MAWS or EODAS, you have some warning of the AAM on it's way in. If not, you won't necessarily know until the seeker head goes active. I'd assume that the PAKFA, J20 etc have pretty good MAWS systems, but it's not really true that this gives you a good idea where the opponent is.

There's probably still room for software to grow in helping detect threats from afar. After all, improved sensors and software shape both defensive and offensive abilities.

I think your point about energy bleed through evasive maneuvers actually highlights the advantages of better kinematics. If you start off with more speed and altitude and you have more power available to you you have a better chance to survive the better kinematics of missiles and to make it to the merge in an advantageous position.

I'm still doubtful that in an encounter between two LO platforms, combat will be dictated in BVR instead of WVR though. Both detection and lock of radar homing missiles are hampered by stealth, and even with a lock, it's much easier for an LO platform to shake off that missile.

I'm doubtful that there will be encounters between two LO platforms at all. There will be encounters between systems that include VLO fighters and other systems that include VLO fighters.

Maybe it sounds like a minor quibble, but it's really fundamental. Who has the better picture of the battlespace? I don't think a supercruising J20 has any advantage unless it knows where the enemy is. The same is true for the F22. How does it find the enemy? Using ESM, LPI radar. Not by just flying into the unknown. The characteristics of these systems and their employment are closely guarded, but I would venture to say that there must be something to it. The AFs of the world have are all signed on to a "kinematically inferior" platform, flying in the face of the conventional wisdom that is the currency online. I would also venture to say that WVR combat will come down to a suicidal exchange of helmet cued HOBS missiles. Having a good post-stall nose pointing authority, or a slightly better turn rate is not going to matter as much as having good sensors and weapons.

I don't disagree with you that a high performing fighter can get back up to speed faster after dodging a missile. The ECM and MAWS and LO features will make a big difference here too. What about cooperative jamming from multiple APG-81s? I wonder what that will do to a missile. Also, efficacy of the AMRAAM shot, for example, will depend on datalink updates, which can be provided more effectively by a platform with good sensing and networking qualities.

I guess I've made my points. Definitely don't think performance is a bad thing! Don't get me wrong. I love the F22, PAKFA etc., I'm just pleased that there is a platform that can be deployed in large numbers, to lots of allies, that is highly survivable. I just want to avoid losing the forest for the trees. Systems! Not platforms!!

 

[bobbymike]

And since we are talking about a possible 6th generation system as the original topic on this thread we really will throw a wrench into the machinery of LO, VLO, maneuver when we probably add defensive lasers that might be powerful enough to blind the pilot or the sensors in a close in dogfight.

Or am I being too optimitic?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

And since we are talking about a possible 6th generation system as the original topic on this thread we really will throw a wrench into the machinery of LO, VLO, maneuver when we probably add defensive lasers that might be powerful enough to blind the pilot or the sensors in a close in dogfight.

Or am I being too optimitic?

I think getting a defensive DEWS is going to be doable at some point. If 6th generation really is a change in paradigm and not just a marketing term for a newer 5th gen, then it should by definition change the game.

 

[SpudmanWP]

In WVR combat the kinematics of the missile will play a much higher role than the kinematics of the fighter.

Sensors will play the biggest role of all.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

In WVR combat the kinematics of the missile will play a much higher role than the kinematics of the fighter.

Sensors will play the biggest role of all.

Yes! If you're ceding the first shot to your opponent, you'be got it backwards.

 

[jsport]

Kinematics are great, but that all falls apart if you're getting AMRAAMs and Meteors out of the blue. The PAKFA, SU-35s type planes will lose this advantage if they take evasive action. How can they use their kinematic advantage (over an F35 type) in a tactically sound way? How do they even know which direction to fly in?

Adding in now the system of systems philosophy, or NCW, of the US/Western forces in general, there is just no comparison. Situational awareness is everything. This has been manifestly evident at least since the first gulf war.

Imagine if I tried to promote a new fighter for the USAF and international customers by saying that, yes, it will get shot at first, but it will always be able to dodge the missile, close to WVR and there defeat the opponent. I don't think that would go very far.

In LO vs LO combat BVR could be neutralized though. I think that's where kinematics takes over. The direction of an approaching weapon usually gives you a decently good idea of the direction you would expect your opponent to be in. That would be where one would focus their sensors.

When you're receiving inbound AAMs, your situational awareness will go in the toilet as you try to maneuver away. That's usually what happens to a pilot in that situation. It's not a good time to go on the offense. You lose your energy pretty comprehensively taking evasive action and then if you make it to the merge you will have to worry about HOBS missiles cued by HMCS. I just can't help but conclude that missile kinematics and sensor quality, ECM, etc are going to trump platform kinematics pretty decisively...especially in close in fighting.

If you have MAWS or EODAS, you have some warning of the AAM on it's way in. If not, you won't necessarily know until the seeker head goes active. I'd assume that the PAKFA, J20 etc have pretty good MAWS systems, but it's not really true that this gives you a good idea where the opponent is.

There's probably still room for software to grow in helping detect threats from afar. After all, improved sensors and software shape both defensive and offensive abilities.

I think your point about energy bleed through evasive maneuvers actually highlights the advantages of better kinematics. If you start off with more speed and altitude and you have more power available to you you have a better chance to survive the better kinematics of missiles and to make it to the merge in an advantageous position.

I'm still doubtful that in an encounter between two LO platforms, combat will be dictated in BVR instead of WVR though. Both detection and lock of radar homing missiles are hampered by stealth, and even with a lock, it's much easier for an LO platform to shake off that missile.

I'm doubtful that there will be encounters between two LO platforms at all. There will be encounters between systems that include VLO fighters and other systems that include VLO fighters.

Maybe it sounds like a minor quibble, but it's really fundamental. Who has the better picture of the battlespace? I don't think a supercruising J20 has any advantage unless it knows where the enemy is. The same is true for the F22. How does it find the enemy? Using ESM, LPI radar. Not by just flying into the unknown. The characteristics of these systems and their employment are closely guarded, but I would venture to say that there must be something to it. The AFs of the world have are all signed on to a "kinematically inferior" platform, flying in the face of the conventional wisdom that is the currency online. I would also venture to say that WVR combat will come down to a suicidal exchange of helmet cued HOBS missiles. Having a good post-stall nose pointing authority, or a slightly better turn rate is not going to matter as much as having good sensors and weapons.

I don't disagree with you that a high performing fighter can get back up to speed faster after dodging a missile. The ECM and MAWS and LO features will make a big difference here too. What about cooperative jamming from multiple APG-81s? I wonder what that will do to a missile. Also, efficacy of the AMRAAM shot, for example, will depend on datalink updates, which can be provided more effectively by a platform with good sensing and networking qualities.

I guess I've made my points. Definitely don't think performance is a bad thing! Don't get me wrong. I love the F22, PAKFA etc., I'm just pleased that there is a platform that can be deployed in large numbers, to lots of allies, that is highly survivable. I just want to avoid losing the forest for the trees. Systems! Not platforms!!

The west will have fewer systems and platforms from a broken procurement system while adversaries have more and more of increasingly capable systems as long as people like you continue to defend inferior platform and system decisions. " Definitely don't think performance is a bad thing!" The JSF is a dogfight dud and poor internal payload.
Beside babble about systems which only defend the craft (and are assumed just to survive) not win a conflict (SEAD, CMT tgtng EW against grd tgts etc. ) I haven't heard a single "interesting" thing from your posts yet.