Sundog said:It's just concept art from the "Need for Speed" lecture at the AIAA conference that Flateric linked to up thread.
The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept
Grey Havoc said:Looks like another FCS type fiasco in the making, unfortunately.
sublight is back said:The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept
Well that didn't take long.....
bobbymike said:Defining the Next Air Superiority Platform
—John A. Tirpak
The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept, but will rather be a key flying sensor platform with lots of weapons and long range that will enable USAF’s existing fighters.
Brig. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, Deputy Director for Global Operations on the Joint Staff, who just a year ago headed up USAF’s enterprise capability collaboration team effort on Next-Generation Air Dominance, speaking at a joint Mitchell Institute/“War on the Rocks” symposium said the ECCT deliberately avoided using terms like “fighter” or “F-X” in its study of what’s needed to achieve air superiority in 2030, not wanting to prejudice the outcome.
This new aircraft is needed to penetrate enemy air defenses and keep all the other fighters relevant, he said, calling it mainly a sensor platform but one that could “finish” enemy targets “as long as it’s in the area anyway.”
Col. Tom Coglitore, who succeeded Grynkewich and is now the lead for Air Superiority 2030 concept development, said the PCA concept is six months into an 18-month analysis of alternatives that will refine the platform’s attributes, under the budgetary program element “Next Generation Air dominance.” He added that the PCA’s missions will include air escort, fighter sweep, suppression of enemy air defenses, and defensive counter-air. It fills a “gap” identified in the late 2020s that neither the F-22 nor F-35 can adequately fill, Coglitore said, and it will “enable the joint force” as well.
Grynkewich said the long range is necessary to both permit basing beyond the range of enemy ballistic or cruise missiles, and to allow “persistence” in the target area.
The sensors onboard will also provide coordinates for standoff weapons. The sensors and the ability to target for standoff weapons are “the key pieces” of what the PCA is all about, Grynkewich asserted. While there may be some overlap with the Strategic Capabilities Office “arsenal plane” concept, they’re not the same and will likely fulfill different roles, he added.
Jeff Saling, who was the analysis lead for Air Superiority 2030, said it’s not a certainty the PCA will have directed energy weapons. DE has “a lot of promise” due to its potential “deep magazine” of shots, but Saling said the program wouldn’t be held up to wait for them. DE weapons would “have to deliver” to earn their way on the platform, and will be considered not only for their combat utility but in the context of logistics support, as well.
“I want directed energy as soon as I can get it and as soon as it works,” Grynkewich summed up. He also said future efforts at advancing air superiority will have to be a series of very rapid incremental improvements, because without them, “you’ll fall behind.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two AETDs with 100k total thrust plus many, many next generation AAMs is a good start.
sferrin said:sublight is back said:The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept
Well that didn't take long.....
Didn't take long for what? If something like a stealthy F-108 with deep magazines will do the job better, why not use it? One would significantly limit themselves if they allowed themselves to be constrained by a, "must do Cobra at airshows" mentality.
Triton said:sferrin said:sublight is back said:The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept
Well that didn't take long.....
Didn't take long for what? If something like a stealthy F-108 with deep magazines will do the job better, why not use it? One would significantly limit themselves if they allowed themselves to be constrained by a, "must do Cobra at airshows" mentality.
The supermanuevable fighter is obsolete in an era of standoff weapons, BVR air-to-air missiles, low-cost attritable drones, and networked sensors and weapon systems in the battlespace. Why invite comparisons between Penetrating Counter-Air and the F-22, T-50, J-20, or any other manned fighter? If you have to be up-close and personal, send in a cheap drone or smart weapon.
sferrin said:It's still going need speed, range, altitude, payload, and sensors. A B-21 with missiles won't cut it.
sferrin said:How so? They're looking at what the F-22 and F-35 are doing now, how they're changing air combat, and designing the next generation to maximize its potential. When radar came along, the way air wars were waged changed, and fighters were subsequently designed to take advantage of it.
Void said:sferrin said:How so? They're looking at what the F-22 and F-35 are doing now, how they're changing air combat, and designing the next generation to maximize its potential. When radar came along, the way air wars were waged changed, and fighters were subsequently designed to take advantage of it.
The way they describe it this teams vision places too much emphasis on enabling other platforms and not enough on the aircraft's own performance destroying other aircraft. It sounds network-centric, and network-centric design is a mistake that introduces electronic vulnerabilities faster than it eliminates physical vulnerabilities. Whatever the best way to shoot down planes is (and it may well turn out to be a missile truck of some kind) in the future, destroying other planes should remain the primary focus of the design. Not enabling other things to destroy planes. There is no guarantee that whatever it is supposed to "enable" will actually be available or effective especially if it depends on coordination through a vulnerable communication network.
sublight is back said:sferrin said:It's still going need speed, range, altitude, payload, and sensors. A B-21 with missiles won't cut it.
Speed is now out. Power projection through extended range is now in......
sferrin said:Void said:sferrin said:How so? They're looking at what the F-22 and F-35 are doing now, how they're changing air combat, and designing the next generation to maximize its potential. When radar came along, the way air wars were waged changed, and fighters were subsequently designed to take advantage of it.
The way they describe it this teams vision places too much emphasis on enabling other platforms and not enough on the aircraft's own performance destroying other aircraft. It sounds network-centric, and network-centric design is a mistake that introduces electronic vulnerabilities faster than it eliminates physical vulnerabilities. Whatever the best way to shoot down planes is (and it may well turn out to be a missile truck of some kind) in the future, destroying other planes should remain the primary focus of the design. Not enabling other things to destroy planes. There is no guarantee that whatever it is supposed to "enable" will actually be available or effective especially if it depends on coordination through a vulnerable communication network.
Yeah, being overly network dependent gives me the heebs. It should be able to roam around with a significant ability in it's own right. If it lifts the ability of others, like the F-22 and F-35 do, great, but it shouldn't stop being a deadly asset if (when) the network is compromised.
Void said:sferrin said:How so? They're looking at what the F-22 and F-35 are doing now, how they're changing air combat, and designing the next generation to maximize its potential. When radar came along, the way air wars were waged changed, and fighters were subsequently designed to take advantage of it.
The way they describe it this teams vision places too much emphasis on enabling other platforms and not enough on the aircraft's own performance destroying other aircraft. It sounds network-centric, and network-centric design is a mistake that introduces electronic vulnerabilities faster than it eliminates physical vulnerabilities. Whatever the best way to shoot down planes is (and it may well turn out to be a missile truck of some kind) in the future, destroying other planes should remain the primary focus of the design. Not enabling other things to destroy planes. There is no guarantee that whatever it is supposed to "enable" will actually be available or effective especially if it depends on coordination through a vulnerable communication network.
I hope this isn't true, even now the AIM-120 is getting a bit long in the tooth.sferrin said:Given there is no new AAM likely to enter service in the US in the next 20 years, leaving them stuck with AIM-120. . .
sferrin said:sublight is back said:sferrin said:It's still going need speed, range, altitude, payload, and sensors. A B-21 with missiles won't cut it.
Speed is now out. Power projection through extended range is now in......
Well that will certainly be useful in the Pacific. <facepalm> So I guess they spent the last couple decades developing the next generation of fighter engines for nothing. <double facepalm> Given there is no new AAM likely to enter service in the US in the next 20 years, leaving them stuck with AIM-120. . .well, I'm all outta facepalms.
Triton said:sferrin said:sublight is back said:sferrin said:It's still going need speed, range, altitude, payload, and sensors. A B-21 with missiles won't cut it.
Speed is now out. Power projection through extended range is now in......
Well that will certainly be useful in the Pacific. <facepalm> So I guess they spent the last couple decades developing the next generation of fighter engines for nothing. <double facepalm> Given there is no new AAM likely to enter service in the US in the next 20 years, leaving them stuck with AIM-120. . .well, I'm all outta facepalms.
Really? When did the United States Air Force cancel the Adaptive Engine Transition Programme (AETP) contracts with GE and Pratt & Whitney to develop adaptive cycle engines? You act as though PCA will be powered by a subsonic engine.
sferrin said:Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?
sferrin said:Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?
Harrier said:sferrin said:Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?
Some studies in the 1980s showed doing this gives an aircraft that will beat, say, an F-16 in close combat. As much thrust but less structure weight = winning in a subsonic knife fight. I doubt PCA is taking that approach though.
Triton said:sferrin said:Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?
Where does the article state that Penetrating Counter-Air is a subsonic aircraft?
sferrin said:Harrier said:sferrin said:Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?
Some studies in the 1980s showed doing this gives an aircraft that will beat, say, an F-16 in close combat. As much thrust but less structure weight = winning in a subsonic knife fight. I doubt PCA is taking that approach though.
I sure hope not if they intend to be at all useful over the Pacific. Speed will be more important than it's ever been.
Harrier said:sferrin said:Harrier said:sferrin said:Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?
Some studies in the 1980s showed doing this gives an aircraft that will beat, say, an F-16 in close combat. As much thrust but less structure weight = winning in a subsonic knife fight. I doubt PCA is taking that approach though.
I sure hope not if they intend to be at all useful over the Pacific. Speed will be more important than it's ever been.
Well, the same studies showed that the subsonic plane would fly further too, as it could have a higher aspect ratio, thicker wing. Range matters over the pacific. But I can't see fighter pilots voting for a subsonic fighter, whatever the supposed benefits.
sferrin said:Harrier said:sferrin said:Harrier said:sferrin said:Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?
Some studies in the 1980s showed doing this gives an aircraft that will beat, say, an F-16 in close combat. As much thrust but less structure weight = winning in a subsonic knife fight. I doubt PCA is taking that approach though.
I sure hope not if they intend to be at all useful over the Pacific. Speed will be more important than it's ever been.
Well, the same studies showed that the subsonic plane would fly further too, as it could have a higher aspect ratio, thicker wing. Range matters over the pacific. But I can't see fighter pilots voting for a subsonic fighter, whatever the supposed benefits.
A subsonic aircraft would be of limited use if it can't get to where you need it in time. Unless they plan on having numerous aircraft on 24/7 orbits like AWACS, that's going to be a problem.
sferrin said:Great. So what's the source of Void's "speed is out" comment I wonder? ???
:'(When the Cold War ended, the U.S. had a force structure of 3,212 fighters capable of air-to-air combat. However, the 1990s saw this number almost halved to 1,814 F-15s and F-16s. Today, the service possesses just under 1,000 aircraft capable of air-to-air combat — F-15s, , F-22s, and F-35s
The Air Force already has a big hole in its capabilities for the future: it needs what it is calling Penetrating Counter Air, a very fast, long-range, sensor-loaded and furiously lethal aircraft.
sublight is back said:t just isn't going to be economically feasible to build a big fast gas guzzling screamer to perform air dominance with microscopic loiter times and short range, when you can send drones in there from longer distances with no tanker support that can loiter all day long.
sublight is back said:I don't think AETD is going to be the miracle everybody is assuming it is. In the Air Forces own estimates, it is projected to take the F-35 fuel burn from 593 gallons an hour to 474 an hour, flying Mach .75 @ 40k feet.
bobbymike said:The Air Force already has a big hole in its capabilities for the future: it needs what it is calling Penetrating Counter Air, a very fast, long-range, sensor-loaded and furiously lethal aircraft.
sublight is back said:I don't think AETD is going to be the miracle everybody is assuming it is. In the Air Forces own estimates, it is projected to take the F-35 fuel burn from 593 gallons an hour to 474 an hour, flying Mach .75 @ 40k feet. Compare that to something like Global Hawk with 77 gallons an hour, Mach .6 @ 60k feet.
It just isn't going to be economically feasible to build a big fast gas guzzling screamer to perform air dominance with microscopic loiter times and short range, when you can send drones in there from longer distances with no tanker support that can loiter all day long.
Oh and seriously, good luck with VLO and Mach 2 speeds. That is definitely not going to happen.