USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis

Status
Not open for further replies.
_Del_ said:
I think IR detection technology is a bit overrated at the moment, but it's worth noting you made detection a lot more likely at those speeds. There has to be a pretty good reason to burn that much gas, afterburner or no.
Click to expand...

For either NGAD or the Boxer/J-36, their moment will be end of decade (probably later for NGAD). The U.S. at least will have an orbital network of missile tracking satellites in multiple orbital altitudes with the LEO segment entering its third iteration. The PRC is presumably not far behind. These aircraft obviously are not at the speeds and altitudes of the hypersonic weapons that this network is intended to track, but they are a lot larger. The U.S. is also quite clearly experimenting with small inexpensive networked UAVs with IR, not just CCA sized aircraft but also more attritable platforms like air launched UTAP-22 (likely just surrogate but likely representative in size/scale of future NGAD components). I think supercruise at Mach 1.5 - 2 is likely the upper practical limit for both reasons of fuel consumption and IR detection.
 
There is a study of high speed bombers from the 1990's or early 2000's. There is a longer version but I did not find it. This is the short version. The thing to keep in mind here is that the entire system needs to be optimized, not 1 parameter. RAND looked at building a supersonic bomber not to be more survivable in the air, but to make the air bases more survivable by keeping them in CONUS.

1. The bombers still need RCS reduction to be survivable (obvious).
2. The bombers cannot be low IR emissions. Not a problem then, a huge problem now.
3. The bombers deliver low cost shorter range munitions.
4. The bombers need F-22 and tanker support.
5. The bombers are more efficient than subsonic bombers because they complete more sorties per unit time.
6. The study seems to ignore the entire history of supersonic flight, ie that whenever an air force or an airline has a choice, they choose subsonic. It can be said that USAF moved back to subsonic to increase bomber survivability (low altitude) but the airlines never went supersonic. In the end, the bomber is a delivery system. A study that trades off R&D cost, production cost, operating cost, munitions delivery per unit time, survivability, and the types of munitions that can be delivered due to that level of survivability has, to my knowledge, not been released. No RAND or CNA study that I have seen looks at this issue. It is germane to the issue we are discussing here though. A further complication is the fact that capabilities can be offloaded to other platforms much more easily than when the RAND study appeared. I suspect that the complexity of this study is why NGAD has been paused. I suspect that a technological development occurred that caused the USAF to redo the study of the type described here, a study they must have performed. The results of this study will not be available to us although we will see the results in NGAD. A further complication is that NGAD has to have A2A capability, a capability ignored in the RAND study. I think the sheer difficulty of developing a model, then crunching numbers while factoring in tech changed over the life of NGAD that will need to be accommodated in the program makes this vastly more complex than anything we have ever seen before.

The study below is a good start to see why speed is a good idea though.

RAND Supersonic Bomber Study
 
Airbus A340 said:
There is a study of high speed bombers from the 1990's or early 2000's. There is a longer version but I did not find it. This is the short version. The thing to keep in mind here is that the entire system needs to be optimized, not 1 parameter. RAND looked at building a supersonic bomber not to be more survivable in the air, but to make the air bases more survivable by keeping them in CONUS.

1. The bombers still need RCS reduction to be survivable (obvious).
2. The bombers cannot be low IR emissions. Not a problem then, a huge problem now.
3. The bombers deliver low cost shorter range munitions.
4. The bombers need F-22 and tanker support.
5. The bombers are more efficient than subsonic bombers because they complete more sorties per unit time.
6. The study seems to ignore the entire history of supersonic flight, ie that whenever an air force or an airline has a choice, they choose subsonic. It can be said that USAF moved back to subsonic to increase bomber survivability (low altitude) but the airlines never went supersonic. In the end, the bomber is a delivery system. A study that trades off R&D cost, production cost, operating cost, munitions delivery per unit time, survivability, and the types of munitions that can be delivered due to that level of survivability has, to my knowledge, not been released. No RAND or CNA study that I have seen looks at this issue. It is germane to the issue we are discussing here though. A further complication is the fact that capabilities can be offloaded to other platforms much more easily than when the RAND study appeared. I suspect that the complexity of this study is why NGAD has been paused. I suspect that a technological development occurred that caused the USAF to redo the study of the type described here, a study they must have performed. The results of this study will not be available to us although we will see the results in NGAD. A further complication is that NGAD has to have A2A capability, a capability ignored in the RAND study. I think the sheer difficulty of developing a model, then crunching numbers while factoring in tech changed over the life of NGAD that will need to be accommodated in the program makes this vastly more complex than anything we have ever seen before.

The study below is a good start to see why speed is a good idea though.

RAND Supersonic Bomber Study
Click to expand...
I don't understand the link between a supersonic bomber study and the NGAD ? Lockheed built a supersonic cruiser with the F-22 , I don't see why it could be more complicated for the NGAD.
 
I think the post was a response to contentions that an aircraft could be optimized for higher speeds given an optimized airframe for said speed. You can supercruise, but the faster you go, the steeper the cost in other speed ranges, and historically very few operational aircraft flew that way (SR-71 and?).
 
Josh_TN said:
It’s worth noting that there were a rather small number of supersonic bombers that actually entered service, and almost all were only briefly supersonic on afterburner (Tu22, Tu-22M, Tu-160, F-111, B-1B marginally). The only exception I can think of is the B-58.
Click to expand...

One thing I did not think of when first posting this is that almost all of the examples are variable geometry on top.
 
I wonder if the B-1A could super cruise as it was a Mach-2 design.
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if the B-1A could super cruise as it was a Mach-2 design.
Click to expand...
Not a great engine candidate for supercruise. There are a lot of Mach 2 designs. Almost none of them supercruise.
 
In the early 2000s NASA was doing work on efficient supersonic cruise. While NASA did focus on civil applications DoD did certainly participate and benefit from this research. Some of the research could clearly be applied to NGAD.
 

Attachments

  • 20080005526.pdf
    698.4 KB · Views: 56
Airbus A340 said:
There is a study of high speed bombers from the 1990's or early 2000's. There is a longer version but I did not find it. This is the short version. The thing to keep in mind here is that the entire system needs to be optimized, not 1 parameter. RAND looked at building a supersonic bomber not to be more survivable in the air, but to make the air bases more survivable by keeping them in CONUS.

1. The bombers still need RCS reduction to be survivable (obvious).
2. The bombers cannot be low IR emissions. Not a problem then, a huge problem now.
3. The bombers deliver low cost shorter range munitions.
4. The bombers need F-22 and tanker support.
5. The bombers are more efficient than subsonic bombers because they complete more sorties per unit time.
6. The study seems to ignore the entire history of supersonic flight, ie that whenever an air force or an airline has a choice, they choose subsonic. It can be said that USAF moved back to subsonic to increase bomber survivability (low altitude) but the airlines never went supersonic. In the end, the bomber is a delivery system. A study that trades off R&D cost, production cost, operating cost, munitions delivery per unit time, survivability, and the types of munitions that can be delivered due to that level of survivability has, to my knowledge, not been released. No RAND or CNA study that I have seen looks at this issue. It is germane to the issue we are discussing here though. A further complication is the fact that capabilities can be offloaded to other platforms much more easily than when the RAND study appeared. I suspect that the complexity of this study is why NGAD has been paused. I suspect that a technological development occurred that caused the USAF to redo the study of the type described here, a study they must have performed. The results of this study will not be available to us although we will see the results in NGAD. A further complication is that NGAD has to have A2A capability, a capability ignored in the RAND study. I think the sheer difficulty of developing a model, then crunching numbers while factoring in tech changed over the life of NGAD that will need to be accommodated in the program makes this vastly more complex than anything we have ever seen before.

The study below is a good start to see why speed is a good idea though.

RAND Supersonic Bomber Study
Click to expand...
There was a civilian-side comparison done: 2707 versus 707 and 747, for a flight from eastern US to London or Paris.

Cost is a bit higher, about twice that of the slower planes due to fuel burn, but you get ~3x as many trips at Mach 2.7.



Airbus A340 said:
The RAND study called for a flight profile that was supersonic except for takeoff, climb, descent, and aerial refueling. When I read the study, it just screamed "unrealistic".
Click to expand...
Funny, that's basically the same flight profile as the Blackbird.

Not so unrealistic.
 
Scott Kenny said:
There was a civilian-side comparison done: 2707 versus 707 and 747, for a flight from eastern US to London or Paris.

Cost is a bit higher, about twice that of the slower planes due to fuel burn, but you get ~3x as many trips at Mach 2.7.




Funny, that's basically the same flight profile as the Blackbird.

Not so unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Reuse the SR-71 engine concept with today technology, for less fuel burning with the same speed.
 
sferrin said:
Don't know that I'd want to put all my eggs in one basket. All it takes is the datalink being jammed, or otherwise compromised, and that's that.
Click to expand...

I guess they better get to work on improving that data link.

Has anybody been talking about at what altitude these cca's will be operating?
 
sferrin said:
Don't know that I'd want to put all my eggs in one basket. All it takes is the datalink being jammed, or otherwise compromised, and that's that.
Click to expand...

Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment, other programs. They have been working on it for a long time.
 
quellish said:
Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment, other programs. They have been working on it for a long time.
Click to expand...

Incr1 is geared to work with F-35, so I would expect similar cruise altitude. Other increments will vary.
 

Attachments

  • 2025 Shaping the future of air power [TubeRipper.com].mp4_snapshot_00.02_[2025.01.07_19.27.23].jpg
    2025 Shaping the future of air power [TubeRipper.com].mp4_snapshot_00.02_[2025.01.07_19.27.23].jpg
    292.4 KB · Views: 71
  • 2025 Shaping the future of air power [TubeRipper.com].mp4_snapshot_01.41_[2025.01.07_19.31.52].jpg
    2025 Shaping the future of air power [TubeRipper.com].mp4_snapshot_01.41_[2025.01.07_19.31.52].jpg
    350.4 KB · Views: 45
  • 2025 Shaping the future of air power [TubeRipper.com].mp4_snapshot_01.42_[2025.01.07_19.31.57].jpg
    2025 Shaping the future of air power [TubeRipper.com].mp4_snapshot_01.42_[2025.01.07_19.31.57].jpg
    324.8 KB · Views: 88
Last edited by a moderator:
Airbus A340 said:
There is a study of high speed bombers from the 1990's or early 2000's. There is a longer version but I did not find it. This is the short version. The thing to keep in mind here is that the entire system needs to be optimized, not 1 parameter. RAND looked at building a supersonic bomber not to be more survivable in the air, but to make the air bases more survivable by keeping them in CONUS.

1. The bombers still need RCS reduction to be survivable (obvious).
2. The bombers cannot be low IR emissions. Not a problem then, a huge problem now.
3. The bombers deliver low cost shorter range munitions.
4. The bombers need F-22 and tanker support.
5. The bombers are more efficient than subsonic bombers because they complete more sorties per unit time.
6. The study seems to ignore the entire history of supersonic flight, ie that whenever an air force or an airline has a choice, they choose subsonic. It can be said that USAF moved back to subsonic to increase bomber survivability (low altitude) but the airlines never went supersonic. In the end, the bomber is a delivery system. A study that trades off R&D cost, production cost, operating cost, munitions delivery per unit time, survivability, and the types of munitions that can be delivered due to that level of survivability has, to my knowledge, not been released. No RAND or CNA study that I have seen looks at this issue. It is germane to the issue we are discussing here though. A further complication is the fact that capabilities can be offloaded to other platforms much more easily than when the RAND study appeared. I suspect that the complexity of this study is why NGAD has been paused. I suspect that a technological development occurred that caused the USAF to redo the study of the type described here, a study they must have performed. The results of this study will not be available to us although we will see the results in NGAD. A further complication is that NGAD has to have A2A capability, a capability ignored in the RAND study. I think the sheer difficulty of developing a model, then crunching numbers while factoring in tech changed over the life of NGAD that will need to be accommodated in the program makes this vastly more complex than anything we have ever seen before.

The study below is a good start to see why speed is a good idea though.

RAND Supersonic Bomber Study
Click to expand...

Air forces have consistently chosen supersonic delivery systems tbf. Ballistic missiles are just an evolution of the B-17 bomber in use case.

A few NGBs were supersonic regional or intercontinental class bombers though.
 
joshjosh said:
Honestly, I'm not sure how valuable the Sentinel program is. Does nuclear sponge theory really work when your opponents will still have enough warheads left over for all your major population centers? Cutting Sentinel and moving to a two-leg 'triad' would save $160B and counting. Half of that could be invested into the submarine industrial base to get Columbia faster and in greater quantities, and simultaneously help with capacity for Aukus. The rest could get invested into NGAD. I know this is just a fantasy, congress won't allow it, but there it is.
Click to expand...
All the basing studies (from Minuteman to MX era) said broadly the same thing. When hidding ballistic missiles, nothing beat nuclear submarines roaming the ocean depths.
Since 1998 British nuclear deterrent is only submarines.
Since 1996 and the shutting down of Plateau d'Albion, French nuclear deterrent is only submarines + ASMP (a very secondary, nice-to-have capability : for its flexibility and showdown)
Let's face it: whatever Congress and the Air Force think, Minuteman or MX or Sentinel in silos make little sense. Bombers at least can be use as a very visible threat - nuclear and conventional. The B-52 has excelled at that role over the last 60 years.
 
The MM force requires you to attack it with a lot of resources or else leave it behind as a potential second strike. That seems to add a lot of padding to the deterrent posture. Outside the boats at sea, the current U.S. nuclear bomber and SSBN fleets, along with US nuclear storage areas, could be readily be handled by a couple dozen warheads. Were the boats at sea under any risk, that could be a problem. Silos are also an incredibly cheap to maintain force compared to submarines - the current expense is the coast of letting infrastructure rot for nearly half a century.
 
Last edited:
yeetmahboi said:
Dug this up. No idea what the formulas and technojargons mean honestly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675525149393559556
View: https://x.com/drchriscombs/status/1675525149393559556?s=46
Click to expand...
If anyone thinks that's a Mach 6 platform, they're wrong. There are other reasons for the wing sweep. It reminds me of when the USAF first showed pics of the F-117 to intel people from a spysat perspective and due to the faceting and wing sweep they all thought it was a hypersonic aircraft. Rightly so, because a hypersonic aircraft would have those features, but they must have concealed it's size, as it was much too small to be a hypersonic vehicle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom