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

[DrRansom]

The problem with the F-35 is that is no longer the obvious future design for air fighters. The USAF may not want to double-down on F-35 production because other aircraft designs are becoming more fitted to future operating environments.

would have to agree. Incrementals are unlikely to meet the bill. Requirements need to be realistic for the Air Dominance . Stealth fighters doesn't equate to dominance of all air force projection capability.

Looking at what has been said about the F-X, I think what the USAF wants is incremental system upgrades, total airframe redesign. The systems can use existing F-35 capabilities and F-135 --> Advent engine route. But the airframe will have to be changed for long range, high endurance, high payload. Any program will allow existing airframes, but I don't know if that will be a meaningful advantage as those airframes will have to be heavily redesigned to meet aerodynamic performance requirements.

 

[NeilChapman]

The problem with the F-35 is that is no longer the obvious future design for air fighters. The USAF may not want to double-down on F-35 production because other aircraft designs are becoming more fitted to future operating environments.

would have to agree. Incrementals are unlikely to meet the bill. Requirements need to be realistic for the Air Dominance . Stealth fighters doesn't equate to dominance of all air force projection capability.

Looking at what has been said about the F-X, I think what the USAF wants is incremental system upgrades, total airframe redesign. The systems can use existing F-35 capabilities and F-135 --> Advent engine route. But the airframe will have to be changed for long range, high endurance, high payload. Any program will allow existing airframes, but I don't know if that will be a meaningful advantage as those airframes will have to be heavily redesigned to meet aerodynamic performance requirements.

Here's what I understand you're saying...

We've seen the results of the EWS promise from ATF program. Look-down, shoot-down was somewhat managed by the last 25 years of EWS and stealth development.

During that time we've "put a bow" on several things...(granted in just the past couple of years)
1. DOD procurement methods have been abysmal
Some examples that lessons have been learned?
B-21 - Low risk, fixed price (except EMD), open source, planned continuous upgrades
DDG-51 Flight III - Zumwalt tech not ready - Restart of DDG-51 with SPY-6 S-Band NG AN/SPQ-9B X-band horizon search radar
Upgraded HM&E to support it all, new missiles, still saving at least $500M per ship.
Virginia Class Fast Attack Subs - Virginia Payload Module will be added to all boats - Replaces Tomahawk and medium
ballistic missile capability from Ohio-Class guided missile boats. Saves big money on Ohio replacement quantity.
2. RAM maintenance maturation - B-2 was a originally a pig to maintain - a week to patch - reduced to 20 minutes - new solutions available
3. EWS maturation - B-2 DMS from LM was a problem child. BAE in F22, F35 much better - new solutions available
4. Open Source - Now a rule - Upgrades planned
5. Engines - We were stuck with efficiencies in narrow performance bands - PW GTF breakthrough - AETP follow-on to ADVENT - efficiencies
across wider performance requirements coming
6. Software Dev is the new pig - takes too long - DARPA initiatives for new code base
7. Lasers would be great - $6B spent but no timeline on maturation.

So we have critical airframe quantity shortages and some improvement in existing systems and tech with some techmat to go on others. What do we do today.

You're saying, the AF wants to design a new airframe around the requirements you stated, fill it with existing tech and get the damn thing built planning on upgrades in the future.

--

Sounds great to me!

So based on these parameters, what does that airframe look like? What is the planform for a big, large-payload, fast, stealthy F/A beast using engines based on the F135 size/performance characteristics? Based on what's been published PW has thrust and economy improvements already designed for F135 so at least 30k lbs thrust will be available if not 35-40.

Weren't the GE engines in YF-23 35k lbs thrust? And that was f.a.s.t!

 

[DrRansom]

So we have critical airframe quantity shortages and some improvement in existing systems and tech with some techmat to go on others. What do we do today.

You're saying, the AF wants to design a new airframe around the requirements you stated, fill it with existing tech and get the damn thing built planning on upgrades in the future.

--

Sounds great to me!

So based on these parameters, what does that airframe look like? What is the planform for a big, large-payload, fast, stealthy F/A beast using engines based on the F135 size/performance characteristics? Based on what's been published PW has thrust and economy improvements already designed for F135 so at least 30k lbs thrust will be available if not 35-40.

Weren't the GE engines in YF-23 35k lbs thrust? And that was f.a.s.t!

From what we know about the B-21, it appears that the USAF is trying to disconnect airframe development from system development. This is one of the lessons from the F-35 program, the simultaneous development of the F-35 radar, EWS, IR pod has contributed to program delay. The F-22 is worse, the systems for that plane are probably unusable for anything else. These represent major outlays in money and time which aren't having a great impact on follow-on systems and are delaying airframe production, to the point where the USAF is looking at a crisis in the 2020s.

For airframe, look at the ESAV research posted earlier in this thread. That research pointed towards a F-111 sized, supersonic cruising, large payload airframe. Range is probably the killer feature here, F-22 doesn't have enough range for Pacific.

 

[NeilChapman]

So we have critical airframe quantity shortages and some improvement in existing systems and tech with some techmat to go on others. What do we do today.

You're saying, the AF wants to design a new airframe around the requirements you stated, fill it with existing tech and get the damn thing built planning on upgrades in the future.

--

Sounds great to me!

So based on these parameters, what does that airframe look like? What is the planform for a big, large-payload, fast, stealthy F/A beast using engines based on the F135 size/performance characteristics? Based on what's been published PW has thrust and economy improvements already designed for F135 so at least 30k lbs thrust will be available if not 35-40.

Weren't the GE engines in YF-23 35k lbs thrust? And that was f.a.s.t!

From what we know about the B-21, it appears that the USAF is trying to disconnect airframe development from system development. This is one of the lessons from the F-35 program, the simultaneous development of the F-35 radar, EWS, IR pod has contributed to program delay. The F-22 is worse, the systems for that plane are probably unusable for anything else. These represent major outlays in money and time which aren't having a great impact on follow-on systems and are delaying airframe production, to the point where the USAF is looking at a crisis in the 2020s.

For airframe, look at the ESAV research posted earlier in this thread. That research pointed towards a F-111 sized, supersonic cruising, large payload airframe. Range is probably the killer feature here, F-22 doesn't have enough range for Pacific.

Yes - I agree with you. I can see a required airframe variations in common sensor/weapons platforms for Navy and AF in 2600-3k nm supercruise plane. Not sure I've seen anything F111 size (80-100k lbs) from the traditional primes though.

Boeing F/A-XX is said to be in the 40k lb class. LM drawing doesn't look much bigger - but does look very familiar ;-). Anyone speculated the size of the NG design from the commercial?

I'm just wondering if any of the primes have come to the same conclusions we have - or -
if they've decided this "size" is not what we need based on smaller munitions (+ future lasers) and more efficient engines and airframe design based on advances in flight control systems.

If you can do what a 1969 designed 80-100k lb plane can do in 2016 designed 40k-50k lbs it would seem that it makes a heck of a difference in capital and operational costs, logistics, etc. The F111F carried ~34,000 lbs of fuel internally for ~2600nm range. With 50 years of efficiencies what capacity of fuel is required for this range based on the aircraft designs we have today?

Can we get a 1969 designed 100k lb plane performance in a 2016 designed 40-50k lb all-aspect stealth package?

 

[marauder2048]

From what we know about the B-21, it appears that the USAF is trying to disconnect airframe development from system development. This is one of the lessons from the F-35 program, the simultaneous development of the F-35 radar, EWS, IR pod has contributed to program delay. The F-22 is worse, the systems for that plane are probably unusable for anything else. These represent major outlays in money and time which aren't having a great impact on follow-on systems and are delaying airframe production, to the point where the USAF is looking at a crisis in the 2020s.

It's possible to disconnect airframe development from systems development on a subsonic heavy bomber because you aren't confronting the exacting SWaP-C constraints that in part dominate fighter design.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-air-supremacy-fading-fast-15458

Seven more years of production we would be approaching 400+ F-22s

 

[bobbymike]

All For One and All for All

—John A. Tirpak

3/14/2016

​It’s a pretty safe bet the Air Force and Navy won’t be teaming up on a sixth-generation fighter in hopes of saving money by having a mostly common airplane. Joint Strike Fighter program manager Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, speaking at a McAleese and Associates seminar on Feb. 10, was asked if he’d recommend the next fighter also be joint. He wouldn’t rule it out, but “it’s hard,” he said. “I’m not saying [joint programs are] good, I’m not saying they’re bad. I’m just saying, they’re hard.” He told reporters afterwards that going into the F-35 JSF, Air Force, Navy,​ and Marine Corps planners anticipated three airplanes with 70 percent commonality. Instead, “it’s 20-25 percent commonality … almost like three separate production lines.” That commonality is chiefly in cockpits, displays, and “how you fly the airplane,” which means that pilot training is highly common and anyone who learns to fly one can easily transition to the others. “Test pilots do it all the time,” he said. But the services were reluctant to compromise on capabilities they demanded from the F-35, and each accommodation resulted in diverging designs: the Air Force demanded a 9G airplane; the Marine Corps wanted vertical takeoff; the Navy needed larger, folding wings, etc. Compromise, Bogdan said, is “a hard thing to do when you’re spending billions of dollars. You want what you want,” but only through compromise will a joint program work. Lt. Gen. James Holmes, USAF’s chief planner, told reporters after last month’s budget rollout that while USAF and Navy will strive to use “common technologies” on their next fighters, the missions will differ enough that “it won’t be the same airplane.”

 

[DrRansom]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-air-supremacy-fading-fast-15458

Seven more years of production we would be approaching 400+ F-22s

This article shows the disconnect between the USAF thinking on 6th generation fighters and the general public.

Looking at the USAF view, posted earlier, a 6th gen fighter needs: nearly al aspect stealth, persistence, large payload. The general public wants the F-22, a plane focused on maneuverability at the expense of all aspect stealth, payload, and range.

If the USAF doesn't want the F-22 forced on it and a corresponding multi-decade delay in 6th gen, the USAF will have to sell its story better.

 

[sferrin]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-air-supremacy-fading-fast-15458

Seven more years of production we would be approaching 400+ F-22s

This article shows the disconnect between the USAF thinking on 6th generation fighters and the general public.

Looking at the USAF view, posted earlier, a 6th gen fighter needs: nearly al aspect stealth, persistence, large payload. The general public wants the F-22, a plane focused on maneuverability at the expense of all aspect stealth, payload, and range.

If the USAF doesn't want the F-22 forced on it and a corresponding multi-decade delay in 6th gen, the USAF will have to sell its story better.

Fortunately for us the general public doesn't decide what airplanes the USAF does or doesn't use.

 

[donnage99]

Fortunately for us the general public doesn't decide what airplanes the USAF does or doesn't use.

It would be nice if that's the case but it's not entirely true. Lawmakers with no military expertise nor interest often keep alive programs that the military branch says it doesn't need because the plants that make those parts are in their states.

 

[Airplane]

The problem with the F-35 is that is no longer the obvious future design for air fighters. The USAF may not want to double-down on F-35 production because other aircraft designs are becoming more fitted to future operating environments.

The problem with the F-35 is that it was born out of the glory days of the F-117 in GW-I when lugging around 2 2k-lb bombs with limited range was the bee's knees in theaters like the mid east desert and small nations in the EU. Never was the F-35 an air superiority fighter unless you listen to the fanboys who think only a x-wing fighter can defeat it.

 

[marauder2048]

Fortunately for us the general public doesn't decide what airplanes the USAF does or doesn't use.

Lawmakers with no military expertise nor interest often keep alive programs that the military branch says it doesn't need because the plants that make those parts are in their states.

And what the military branch says it does and does not need is in turn heavily dictated by the politicians (often with no military experience or interest) in charge of the executive branch.

 

[sferrin]

Fortunately for us the general public doesn't decide what airplanes the USAF does or doesn't use.

It would be nice if that's the case but it's not entirely true. Lawmakers with no military expertise nor interest often keep alive programs that the military branch says it doesn't need because the plants that make those parts are in their states.

Sure, the A-10 is a prime example (it's based in McCain's state). However you'll note there are no plans to start building the A-10 again, they just made the USAF keep them.

 

[Airplane]

Lawmakers with no military expertise nor interest often keep alive programs that the military branch says it doesn't need because the plants that make those parts are in their states.

They also kill programs like the F-22, forcing the USAF to look into purchasing a 45 year old F-15 design. Here's an idea.... Let's keep the F-22 line open in low rate production just-in-case of XYZ....... Nope, "Kill it!"

 

[Jeb]

The problem with the F-35 is that it was born out of the glory days of the F-117 in GW-I when lugging around 2 2k-lb bombs with limited range was the bee's knees in theaters like the mid east desert and small nations in the EU. Never was the F-35 an air superiority fighter unless you listen to the fanboys who think only a x-wing fighter can defeat it.

Or the Pentagon/White House screwheads who said the F-35 could do the F-22's job. That's where the real problem lies, if you ask me.

 

[DrRansom]

Fortunately for us the general public doesn't decide what airplanes the USAF does or doesn't use.

The problem is that this mistaken view of 6th gen capabilities is shared across the entire political spectrum. The USAF has done virtually no work to inform Congress about what it wants for a 6th gen program, even for a short dev cycle 6th gen program. This will matter when Congress tells the USAF to go back and endlessly analyze restarting F-22 versus something else.

There's also the issue that the USAF requires the general support of the public in a democratic republic. By ignoring the job of informing the public, the USAF makes itself vulnerable to a Congress which, as driven by the constituents, puts USAF modernization at a lower priority than other tasks.

 

[NeilChapman]

Fortunately for us the general public doesn't decide what airplanes the USAF does or doesn't use.

The problem is that this mistaken view of 6th gen capabilities is shared across the entire political spectrum. The USAF has done virtually no work to inform Congress about what it wants for a 6th gen program, even for a short dev cycle 6th gen program. This will matter when Congress tells the USAF to go back and endlessly analyze restarting F-22 versus something else.

There's also the issue that the USAF requires the general support of the public in a democratic republic. By ignoring the job of informing the public, the USAF makes itself vulnerable to a Congress which, as driven by the constituents, puts USAF modernization at a lower priority than other tasks.

Emphasis above mine. I don't know if I agree completely with your assessment. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement?

AF asked specifically about fighter requirements going forward at hearings a couple of weeks ago. AF stated that they presented draft "2030" requirements presentation to Chief several weeks ago (a month ago now). Expects to be ready to present to Congress this time next year for FY2018 budget hearings. It's always possible that "things may come up" whereby Congress asks for information early.

The job of oversight is held by Congress. The AF has reported to Congress that they are short Air Superiority fighters. Congress represents the people. Congress is to inform their constituents of the need. On top of that, many (most) of the reporting on F-22's mentions the limited number and how stretched they are.

My view (and perhaps yours as well) is that the technical feasibility of restarting F-22 production has been done. In fact, it's been reported that they went "to the crates" to get tooling and instructions for some parts and the crates were empty. The expertise of the production line is gone. On top of that you'd be spending well over $10B to restart a production line of equipment that was designed 20+ years ago. I have to think there are better ways to do what was done on F-22 that will result in a different overall design today.

Engine technology - size - performance - Improved FADEC
Smaller space requirements for comm/nav/flight control/EWS systems
Stealth techmat
antenna integration
etc
etc

We've already seen folks talking recently about what they speculate the AF will be looking for moving forward. Perhaps these are "leaked" ideas from the "2030" presentation? The consultants so like to ensure they are not wrong. Perhaps we'll be seeing more of these in the next few weeks!

 

[NeilChapman]

Fortunately for us the general public doesn't decide what airplanes the USAF does or doesn't use.

It would be nice if that's the case but it's not entirely true. Lawmakers with no military expertise nor interest often keep alive programs that the military branch says it doesn't need because the plants that make those parts are in their states.

Sure, the A-10 is a prime example (it's based in McCain's state). However you'll note there are no plans to start building the A-10 again, they just made the USAF keep them.

...at this time.

I believe that Fairchild assists are owned by Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense contractor. Same group providing Apache Aviator Integrated Helmets for the US Army. They own a number of US defense and security companies as well.

I agree it's not going to happen but... technically...

 

[sferrin]

Fortunately for us the general public doesn't decide what airplanes the USAF does or doesn't use.

It would be nice if that's the case but it's not entirely true. Lawmakers with no military expertise nor interest often keep alive programs that the military branch says it doesn't need because the plants that make those parts are in their states.

Sure, the A-10 is a prime example (it's based in McCain's state). However you'll note there are no plans to start building the A-10 again, they just made the USAF keep them.

...at this time.

I believe that Fairchild assists are owned by Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense contractor. Same group providing Apache Aviator Integrated Helmets for the US Army. They own a number of US defense and security companies as well.

I agree it's not going to happen but... technically...

Technically nothing. The tooling is long gone.

 

[NeilChapman]

Fortunately for us the general public doesn't decide what airplanes the USAF does or doesn't use.

It would be nice if that's the case but it's not entirely true. Lawmakers with no military expertise nor interest often keep alive programs that the military branch says it doesn't need because the plants that make those parts are in their states.

Sure, the A-10 is a prime example (it's based in McCain's state). However you'll note there are no plans to start building the A-10 again, they just made the USAF keep them.

...at this time.

I believe that Fairchild assists are owned by Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense contractor. Same group providing Apache Aviator Integrated Helmets for the US Army. They own a number of US defense and security companies as well.

I agree it's not going to happen but... technically...

Technically nothing. The tooling is long gone.

Perhaps it's not needed for a platform with the redundancies of the A-10? If you've got a model, you can pretty much build whatever you want today. The project at the link was almost 10 years ago. Rapid prototyping and composite build time efficiencies have come a long way since then.

http://www.compositesworld.com/columns/advanced-composite-cargo-aircraft-proves-large-structure-practicality

Just having a bit of fun with the speculation.

Back to our topic. Is there a list of current AtA and AtG munitions development projects? I'd like to look over what's likely to be carried by F/A-XX.

Thanks!

 

[AeroFranz]

I'm not a gluehead (how we affectionately call composite structures designers and stress analysts), but they would probably say that it makes more sense to start from scratch than build a 'black alluminum' (swap composites for metal) airplane.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

 

[jsport]

I'm not a gluehead (how we affectionately call composite structures designers and stress analysts), but they would probably say that it makes more sense to start from scratch than build a 'black alluminum' (swap composites for metal) airplane.

amen brother

 

[sferrin]

I'm not a gluehead (how we affectionately call composite structures designers and stress analysts), but they would probably say that it makes more sense to start from scratch than build a 'black alluminum' (swap composites for metal) airplane.

Never heard the term "gluehead" before despite working with lots of composite structures designers and stress analysts. Lots of planes / helicopters out there made of "black aluminum". Often times the trade is how big/complex/expensive of a part do you want to lose when (not if) you scrap one. That tends to cut back the amount of part consolidation there ends up being. (Though usually still fewer parts than an all aluminum aircraft.)

 

[DrRansom]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Someone doesn't want an intermediate fighter program... A 5+ Gen using existing tech and new airframe.

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Someone doesn't want an intermediate fighter program... A 5+ Gen using existing tech and new airframe.

They like being bold...with Other Peoples Money.

;D ;D ;D

 

[sferrin]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Someone doesn't want an intermediate fighter program... A 5+ Gen using existing tech and new airframe.

They like being bold...with Other Peoples Money.

;D ;D ;D

Much better than to cheap out and lose the war.

 

[AeroFranz]

I'm not a gluehead (how we affectionately call composite structures designers and stress analysts), but they would probably say that it makes more sense to start from scratch than build a 'black alluminum' (swap composites for metal) airplane.

Never heard the term "gluehead" before despite working with lots of composite structures designers and stress analysts. Lots of planes / helicopters out there made of "black aluminum". Often times the trade is how big/complex/expensive of a part do you want to lose when (not if) you scrap one. That tends to cut back the amount of part consolidation there ends up being. (Though usually still fewer parts than an all aluminum aircraft.)

I guess the term must have originated and stayed within my company...but you get the gist.
Yeah, i agree that the part count advantage of composites cannot always be realized. What i was referring to specifically, was the notion of simply swapping an aluminum part for a carbon one. That's a gross oversimplification that does not take advantage of the directional properties of composites, or takes into account the several practical reasons that make metal and composite manufacturing very different and not interchangeable. As I mentioned, i'm not much of a structure guy, but i hear my colleagues complain all the time about coefficients of thermal expansion, and electric properties of carbon and aluminum one next to the other (big no-no).

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Someone doesn't want an intermediate fighter program... A 5+ Gen using existing tech and new airframe.

They like being bold...with Other Peoples Money.

;D ;D ;D

Much better than to cheap out and lose the war.

It would be if those were the only two options. I don't think that's the case.

 

[Sundog]

I'm not a gluehead (how we affectionately call composite structures designers and stress analysts), but they would probably say that it makes more sense to start from scratch than build a 'black alluminum' (swap composites for metal) airplane.

Never heard the term "gluehead" before despite working with lots of composite structures designers and stress analysts. Lots of planes / helicopters out there made of "black aluminum". Often times the trade is how big/complex/expensive of a part do you want to lose when (not if) you scrap one. That tends to cut back the amount of part consolidation there ends up being. (Though usually still fewer parts than an all aluminum aircraft.)

I guess the term must have originated and stayed within my company...but you get the gist.
Yeah, i agree that the part count advantage of composites cannot always be realized. What i was referring to specifically, was the notion of simply swapping an aluminum part for a carbon one. That's a gross oversimplification that does not take advantage of the directional properties of composites, or takes into account the several practical reasons that make metal and composite manufacturing very different and not interchangeable. As I mentioned, i'm not much of a structure guy, but i hear my colleagues complain all the time about coefficients of thermal expansion, and electric properties of carbon and aluminum one next to the other (big no-no).

Are they expanding into into additive manufacturing (3D printing to the layman )? Or is that still mostly in the realm of R&D at your company? You can see some serious cost savings there, for the more complex parts, with regard to geometry and stress flow.

 

[sferrin]

There are parts you can make with 3D printing that you can't make with normal methods (even with composites).

 

[AeroFranz]

I'm seeing a big push within AFRL for additive manufacturing. It aligns very well with their current push for Low Cost / affordable /attritable technologies. There is indubitably a weight and performance penalty using the less exotic FDM plastics, but boy, do they simplify design A LOT. If you care about quick and cheap, there are some real savings to be had. For prototyping it's almost a no brainer. It dramatically cuts down on tooling cost. For production articles, it's not clear at this point (at least to me). I have yet to deal with the more expensive and high performance materials, like metals, so i have no opinion on those at this point. I can only assume that at this pace it won't be long before they become more mainstream and we'll adopt them as well.

 

[DrRansom]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Now that I have more time to respond to this article, this is a blatant attempt by Lockheed to freeze out all competitors to Lockheed's fighter monopoly. What Skunk Works wants is a repeat of the 4th gen to 5th gen fighter crisis. The current USAF has both the most advanced fighter in the world, F-22, and a large number of out-of-date fighters with some of the least advanced electronics among major militaries. USAF 4th gen fighters have delayed or non-existent modernization to ensure funding for the F-22 / F-35 development. If there were a high-intensity war tomorrow, a significant fraction of the USAF won't be ready for it. For some reason, Skunkworks wants to recreate the conditions which lead to this problem.

Furthermore, without a new fighter program in 5 - 10 years, everybody will get out of the fighter design business, expect perhaps Lockheed. The Skunkwork plan ensures that USAF won't have any choice for fighter design. Interesting that he didn't mention this industrial base problem.

Looking to the future, perhaps the best model is USAF development in the Cold War. There, the USAF never had a significant and persistent advantage over the Soviet, as it was never feasible to have sufficiently advanced technology in sufficient numbers. Instead, US fighters appeared about a decade ahead of their Soviet counterparts. That gave technological advantage while keeping cost and technological risk low enough to enable high volume manufacturing.

It would probably be better to commit to a fighter program every 5 to 10 years, with constant development of technology and sub-systems on the side. Fighter construction will allow USAF to respond to improving manufacturing capabilities and changing strategic requirements. As sub-systems are becoming a greater development challenge than the airframe, work has to be done to detach their development from airframe development. Already, the Pentagon is moving towards that in the B-21 program and hinting at similar work for a 6th gen program. One could speculate if this idea was what prompted the Skunkwork chief to have this interview.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Now that I have more time to respond to this article, this is a blatant attempt by Lockheed to freeze out all competitors to Lockheed's fighter monopoly.

And? That's what businesses do. No Dr. Evil necessary. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter, because if somebody else has a better design/plan they'll win. If not then they shouldn't win anyway. I'm not seeing the problem. Yes, yes, I get the whole industrial base thing but I don't how buying an inferior product for the sake of industrial base is suppose to help anything.

 

[DrRansom]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Now that I have more time to respond to this article, this is a blatant attempt by Lockheed to freeze out all competitors to Lockheed's fighter monopoly.

And? That's what businesses do. No Dr. Evil necessary. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter, because if somebody else has a better design/plan they'll win. If not then they shouldn't win anyway. I'm not seeing the problem. Yes, yes, I get the whole industrial base thing but I don't how buying an inferior product for the sake of industrial base is suppose to help anything.

It is what businesses do, but, in that light, the whole Lockheed proposal is bad.

The problem is the definition of Inferior Product. The F-22 has conditioned some people to expect that each new US fighter must be a 'game-changing' 'paradigm-breaking' 'supremacy-assuring' vehicle. In reality, such aircraft are very rare, especially for fighters. In the last superpower conflict, there was no period of permanent advantage, technological advantages had a lifespan which was years or one decade, two for exceptional advantages. Pursuing the most advanced fighter at all times properly means that no fighter will be built. Even if we relax the definition, it still means buying very expensive fighters very rarely.

As the US moves back to great-power competition, aircraft development has to shift towards providing affordable mass and recognizing that massive advantages are impossible.

 

[Airplane]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Now that I have more time to respond to this article, this is a blatant attempt by Lockheed to freeze out all competitors to Lockheed's fighter monopoly.

And? That's what businesses do. No Dr. Evil necessary. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter, because if somebody else has a better design/plan they'll win. If not then they shouldn't win anyway. I'm not seeing the problem. Yes, yes, I get the whole industrial base thing but I don't how buying an inferior product for the sake of industrial base is suppose to help anything.

It is what businesses do, but, in that light, the whole Lockheed proposal is bad.

The problem is the definition of Inferior Product. The F-22 has conditioned some people to expect that each new US fighter must be a 'game-changing' 'paradigm-breaking' 'supremacy-assuring' vehicle. In reality, such aircraft are very rare, especially for fighters. In the last superpower conflict, there was no period of permanent advantage, technological advantages had a lifespan which was years or one decade, two for exceptional advantages. Pursuing the most advanced fighter at all times properly means that no fighter will be built. Even if we relax the definition, it still means buying very expensive fighters very rarely.

As the US moves back to great-power competition, aircraft development has to shift towards providing affordable mass and recognizing that massive advantages are impossible.

It's an awesome business model, the F-22 and F-35. 20+ years to develop one product!? Then another (except for the F-22) 20 years of production. A company that wins an aircraft contract is assured to be in business for 50 years! Talk about $$$$$ and long term company security.

Not everything needs to be a bloody x-wing fighter. The Phantom, Tomcat, Eagle and Falcon were not state of the art technology for the entire world, and minus the tomcat, are all still flying today.

Save the state of the art for submarines, ICBMs, bombers, space craft, and specialty black aircraft with limited runs.

The US could have its next generation of dem/val fighters flying in 4 years if they started today. In production 3 after that.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Now that I have more time to respond to this article, this is a blatant attempt by Lockheed to freeze out all competitors to Lockheed's fighter monopoly.

And? That's what businesses do. No Dr. Evil necessary. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter, because if somebody else has a better design/plan they'll win. If not then they shouldn't win anyway. I'm not seeing the problem. Yes, yes, I get the whole industrial base thing but I don't how buying an inferior product for the sake of industrial base is suppose to help anything.

It is what businesses do, but, in that light, the whole Lockheed proposal is bad.

Not if that's what the customer wants. "Business" is all about giving the customer what they want, or convincing them that what you have is what they want. There is nothing "bad" about the Lockheed proposal as there is nothing preventing NG or Boeing from doing exactly the same thing.

The problem is the definition of Inferior Product.

That is defined by the customer. "Inferior" is the one that loses in an objective competition.

The F-22 has conditioned some people to expect that each new US fighter must be a 'game-changing' 'paradigm-breaking' 'supremacy-assuring' vehicle.

You mean like the F-15 was? 104 to 0.

In reality, such aircraft are very rare, especially for fighters.

Not really. Both the F-15 and F-14 were such aircraft. The Su-27/30/33/35/37 is/was meant to be. The F-22 was, the J-20 and T-50 are meant to be.

In the last superpower conflict, there was no period of permanent advantage, technological advantages had a lifespan which was years or one decade, two for exceptional advantages. Pursuing the most advanced fighter at all times properly means that no fighter will be built.

Huh? That's not what's going on here.

Even if we relax the definition, it still means buying very expensive fighters very rarely.

You get very expensive fighters BECAUSE they're bought so rarely.

As the US moves back to great-power competition, aircraft development has to shift towards providing affordable mass and recognizing that massive advantages are impossible.

If company A proposes a design that will meet all requirements and you come along and tell them they could buy a bazillion of your aircraft if they just overlook the fact that yours doesn't meet requirements, guess who's going to win.

 

[sferrin]

It's an awesome business model, the F-22 and F-35. 20+ years to develop one product!? Then another (except for the F-22) 20 years of production. A company that wins an aircraft contract is assured to be in business for 50 years! Talk about $$$$$ and long term company security.

Don't like it blame the government. They're the reason procurement is so screwed up, not the evil "MIC".

Not everything needs to be a bloody x-wing fighter. The Phantom, Tomcat, Eagle and Falcon were not state of the art technology for the entire world, and minus the tomcat, are all still flying today.

You might want to rethink that. The Phantom, Tomcat, and Eagle were EXACTLY that for their day. Just as you are complaining about the next generation the Spreys and Wheelers were complaining about the "gold plated" F-15.

The US could have its next generation of dem/val fighters flying in 4 years if they started today. In production 3 after that.

Pure fantasy.

 

[DrRansom]

Not if that's what the customer wants. "Business" is all about giving the customer what they want, or convincing them that what you have is what they want. There is nothing "bad" about the Lockheed proposal as there is nothing preventing NG or Boeing from doing exactly the same thing.

Perhaps we can view this on two levels:
- As a business strategy, this is brilliant.
- As a national security strategy, I believe that this is awful

The question then is what is the superior national security strategy. That guides whether a requirement is sufficient.

You mean like the F-15 was? 104 to 0.
...
Not really. Both the F-15 and F-14 were such aircraft. The Su-27/30/33/35/37 is/was meant to be. The F-22 was, the J-20 and T-50 are meant to be.

Was the F-15 / F-14 meaningfully technologically superior to the Su-27? Maybe as an initial consideration, but after 10 years, probably not. There was no multi-decade period of unquestioned superiority. That only occurred in the modern era when major states stopped participating in super-power competition for two and a half decades. Interestingly enough, as Russia and China have stepped back into major-power conflict, the advantage of fighters decreases rapidly.

What superiority occurred was due to highly trained crews and the opportunity to use the aircraft. The actual airplane is not massively superior; today, F-15C's probably have worse electronics than new build Su-35s.

If company A proposes a design that will meet all requirements and you come along and tell them they could buy a bazillion of your aircraft if they just overlook the fact that yours doesn't meet requirements, guess who's going to win.

You seem to be missing the argument here. The argument is whether certain requirements are the best, not if specific proposals meet / do not meet those requirements.

You might want to rethink that. The Phantom, Tomcat, and Eagle were EXACTLY that for their day. Just as you are complaining about the next generation the Spreys and Wheelers were complaining about the "gold plated" F-15.

That's true, to an extent, but the F-4, F-14, and F-15 all represent a high degree of continuity in aircraft construction and design. Their operating parameters were similar, their design challenges were similar, their degree of relative improvement was similar. At no point was it envisioned that any of those planes would represent a two to three decade plus period of unquestioned superiority. This forum has the many studies that were conducted for the ATF program immediately after the F-15 was produced.

This is the major change from then to today, the Lockheed statement, which is not unique, believes that an airframe can have multiple decades of unquestioned dominance in the face of superpower competition. That isn't very realistic.

 

[sferrin]

Was the F-15 / F-14 meaningfully technologically superior to the Su-27? Maybe as an initial consideration, but after 10 years, probably not.

You need to check your history. The Su-27 was to the F-15 what the T-50 is to the F-22. Both the F-14 and F-15 were substantially superior to the Mig-23 and Mig-25.