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

[Triton]

Moar! Please!

 

[circle-5]

Sorry, I don't have moar: the top photo is a model on the desk of NGC's Chris Hernandez (published by the Los Angeles Times, if I remember correctly). The bottom illustration came from NGC and was posted on this thread by Flateric about two years ago.

As you can imagine, I could use moar as well ...

 

[kcran567]

The NGC 6th Generation Fighter (6GAFS) has several (eight?) sensors mounted directly on the canopy transparency. Does anybody know their purpose and the reason for their unusual placement?

Synthetic vision

 

[Dynoman]

Circle5, my guess is the elements in the canopy is a system for controlling the transmittance of electromagnetic energy. NGC conducted experiments with energizable liquid crystal panel structures in the late 1990's for a canopy that prevented electromagnetic energy transmittance through the canopy using multi-pane canopies with a liquid crystal structure in the middle. When the system is on the canopy becomes opaque, varying from partially transparent to fully opaque depending on its setting. Not sure if this is the same thing, just a guess.

Interesting facet of the NGC concept: the structure would allow informational displays to be projected in the canopy (e.g. target cueing information, artificial horizon, etc.). Again, just a thought. I don't know if this is the case for this design.

 

[Sundog]

I was thinking that's a UCAV variant of an aircraft that is optionally manned and that is a a view of the "cockpit" on the unmanned version.

 

[flateric]

Circle5, my guess is the elements in the canopy is a system for controlling the transmittance of electromagnetic energy. NGC conducted experiments with energizable liquid crystal panel structures in the late 1990's for a canopy that prevented electromagnetic energy transmittance through the canopy using multi-pane canopies with a liquid crystal structure in the middle. When the system is on the canopy becomes opaque, varying from partially transparent to fully opaque depending on its setting. Not sure if this is the same thing, just a guess.

Interesting facet of the NGC concept: the structure would allow informational displays to be projected in the canopy (e.g. target cueing information, artificial horizon, etc.). Again, just a thought. I don't know if this is the case for this design.

https://www.google.com/patents/US5790209

 

[circle-5]

That patent information from the 1990s corroborates what Dynoman was explaining – thank you Flateric.

What is described here is basically an embedded liquid crystal film, that turns the canopy opaque or transparent when energized, like on the Maybach automobile glass roof.

The HUD and external video projection possibilities are interesting, although today's F-35 helmet visor is capable of doing most of that (except for the EMT and laser shielding of the cockpit and pilot). If this NGC fighter does feature a canopy-opacifying system, I have my doubts that it would take the form of a bunch of 4-5 inch diameter discs stuck directly on the transparent canopy.

So for now, I’m going with Sundog’s suggestion of a temporary sensor suite placed inside the canopy for unmanned mission configurations (replacing the eyes of a pilot and probably more).

Northrop-Grumman engineers working on this program might laugh their heads off if they ever read our interpretation of these dots – assuming we’re way off-base, of course. Which we're not.

 

[starviking]

I was thinking that's a UCAV variant of an aircraft that is optionally manned and that is a a view of the "cockpit" on the unmanned version.

Me too. They do seem optimally placed to replicate a pilot's PoV. Of course, it could also be combined with controlled transmittance to provide a pilot with a synthetic view when the cockpit is 'dark'.

 

[bring_it_on]

In addition, technical risk reduction activities will be performed
to include experimentation, integration and building demonstrative prototypes.

 

[bring_it_on]

Thanks for sharing my tweet George, but all that is also in my post above ..

 

[circle-5]

This illustration was posted earlier, but with the stars-and-bars insignia placed on the top starboard side. Which is wrong. So I flipped it.

 

[bring_it_on]

In addition, technical risk reduction activities will be performed
to include experimentation, integration and building demonstrative prototypes.

Not to be left behind, the Navy too appear to be upping their investment in the "Next Fighter" to $5 Million in FY19. :-[

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/February%202018/Air-Superiority-Account-a-Placeholder-for-Family-of-Systems.aspx?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=

 

[dark sidius]

It seem that the Navy don't take the FA/XX seriously :-\

 

[bring_it_on]

They are putting CFTs on the Super Hornet's, maybe that is their NG fighter.

 

[sferrin]

They are putting CFTs on the Super Hornet's, maybe that is their NG fighter.

That would be true to form with the USN, since the early 80s anyway.

 

[GeorgeA]

Well to be fair, the Navy has a few other fish to fry right now. My supposition is they’re happy to let the Air Force do a lot of the technology development (which they are undoubtedly assisting behind the scenes) and will move forward at the turn of the decade when some of these technologies are more proven. Not exactly “Naval PCA”, but something of a derivative.

Not everything will be transferable. For example, the XA100/101 engines look to be more than is needed for a shipboard fighter (perhaps the loser of that competition gets an “XA400/401” contract).

 

[bring_it_on]

(which they are undoubtedly assisting behind the scenes)

I don't see much evidence of that. Practically all of these bets and investments are being made by the USAF or DARPA. The engines, to advanced prototyping, and the $10 Billion spread over the FYDP on the NGAD allied efforts all comes from the AF. Over the same time-frame, the Navy is projected to spend less than $50 Million. The USAF is spending more over the FYDP on NG Air to Air Missile research and development than the Navy is on its "Next Fighter". A decade down the road, when those Super Hornets begin to have availability issues due to age, the Navy can look back that it spent peanuts on preparing its R&D and industrial base to deliver something that can deliver a replacement in a timely manner.

UCLASS would have been a very interesting and much needed technology investment to propel the carrier air wing into the 2030s and some of the threats that are likely to exist but that morphed into a tanker and the schedule moved to the right. The one bright spot in the Navy investment is their continued investment to move the Joint AEA needs forward with the NGJ Increment-1 and 2 efforts, but there too..we should really be buying more than 160 Growlers..

 

[DrRansom]

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/February%202018/Air-Superiority-Account-a-Placeholder-for-Family-of-Systems.aspx?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=

Oh gosh, another "family of systems" argument. I have yet to that thinking produce anything on time and on budget.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/February%202018/Air-Superiority-Account-a-Placeholder-for-Family-of-Systems.aspx?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=

Oh gosh, another "family of systems" argument. I have yet to that thinking produce anything on time and on budget.

Or anything at all.

 

[DrRansom]

Or anything at all.

The USAF program which is working, the B-21, is explicitly a 'build an airplane' program. The whole system of systems LRS approach has gone by the wayside.

Methinks the USAF should focus on building aircraft with some inherent flexilbity (i.e. big enough to not have rampant thermal issues, F-35...), and then use those airplanes for related missions. Not to think of some complicated architecture on the front end that produces nothing, expect a bunch of AoA studies.

 

[bring_it_on]

The USAF program which is working, the B-21, is explicitly a 'build an airplane' program. The whole system of systems LRS approach has gone by the wayside.

There could be a LR System tasked with ISR, and we know there is a LR strike weapon currently funded. A "System" could very well be a common thread and family of systems, networks, platforms and weapons all linked together to support a particular defined need (In this case LR Strike, while in another case could be Air Superiority). So while they may have taken a SOS approach to solve a particular challenge, individual programs came out of that analysis and were/are being funded.

Regardless of your skepticism, they won't have a platform defined until they complete the AOA and the PCA as an option is very much part of that.

 

[sferrin]

The problem with "system of systems" approach is you can't guarantee ALL the required pieces of the "system" will be purchased. See LCS and the complete CF it's been with regard to all the different modules that were supposed to be purchased to allow them to perform all sorts of things.

 

[bring_it_on]

The problem with "system of systems" approach is you can't guarantee ALL the required pieces of the "system" will be purchased.

And the flip side is that if you roll everything into one system it becomes too complicated, complex, time consuming expensive and risky and that comes with a "price" of its own in terms of political and financial support. There are pros and cons to both approaches but in the end it is how you put together an acquisition system, program and how good and deep your analysis is - that ultimately gives you the choice of going down a certain path. We don't know much about what the USAF is doing other than the broader themes of systems approach, including an AOA, and a weapon research - All in roughly $10 Billion across the FYDP (not counting the pre FY19 investments). The PCA will very much be one option that is likely to be looked at as part of the AOA. We don't really know much beyond that other than that there is demonstrator prototyping that is involved

 

[kcran567]

hope the design has the flexibility built into it from the beginning. A good basic system built for long range, speed and stealth, but with some adaptability built in (ie maneuverability not forgotten).
Lower the cost by having a common "shell" for all missions.

let the avionics be replaceable in large field Modules, swap out various modules in the field for different missions.
That would also allow the aircraft to be re-configurable. Would also allow quick fixes in the field.

Keep the cost down by having contractors offer newer and different modules as they become available.
The aircraft should be basically the same, allow more flexibility in avionics and weapons.

Have an empty space for DEW type system.

 

[marauder2048]

Absent boutique, high heat-sink fuels (JP-900, LNG/other cryogenics etc.), I tend to think that thermal management
as a first-class citizen will preclude loosely coupled designs.

 

[NeilChapman]

At least the funding seems to be going in the right direction. There is a lot of work to be done.

 

[Triton]

"USAF Speeds Next-Gen Fighter Family, With Eye Toward China"
Feb 21, 2018 Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-speeds-next-gen-fighter-family-eye-toward-china

ORLANDO, Florida—U.S. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, armed with the biggest infusion of cash for research and development the service has seen in years, is looking to pivot from the counterterrorism fight in the Middle East to preparing for a potential clash with China.

Key to that effort will be investing in maintaining air and space superiority as new threats emerge, Wilson said Feb. 21 during an interview ahead of the Air Force Association’s annual air warfare symposium here.

In particular, the Air Force is spending $2.7 billion more than planned over the next five years (almost $10 billion in total) to accelerate “Next Generation Air Dominance” (NGAD), a family of systems designed to ensure air superiority well into the century. The effort likely will include a next-generation fighter to replace the F-22, F-35, or both.

NGAD will include a “renewed emphasis” on electronic warfare, Wilson said, declining to elaborate.
China is without a doubt the “pacing threat” for the Air Force because it is rapidly innovating, Wilson stressed. While Russia also is a threat to its neighbors, it is not changing as quickly as China is, she said.

“When we look at what the Air Force has to do, the Air Force has to be prepared for either of those threats, but because China is innovating faster we consider that to be our pacing threat,” Wilson said.
In addition to accelerating NGAD, the Air Force is using the additional cash Congress recently approved for defense to pursue a hypersonic weapon capability through two separate prototyping efforts—the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Capability and the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon.

Meanwhile, even as the Air Force has slowed the ramp-up of F-35 production, the service is investing in modernizing its legacy fighters—the F-15C-E, F-16 and F-22.

The Air Force also is investing in space superiority, as Russia and China develop capabilities that potentially can threaten U.S. access to and assets in space. The Air Force has decided to forgo the purchase of Space Based Infrared satellites 7 and 8, which warn against incoming missiles, because they are not survivable against emerging threats, Wilson said. Instead, the service will shift to a smaller, more agile constellation of satellites.

In the Middle East, the Air Force is committed to buying a new light-attack aircraft that not only will accomplish the mission of protecting troops on the ground in a more cost-effective way—freeing up fourth- and fifth-generation fighters to train for the high-end threat—but also strengthen ties with U.S. allies, Wilson said.

“The National Defense Strategy guides us to counter violent extremism at lower expenditure. It really doesn’t make any sense to me to have an F-22 destroying a narcotics factory in Afghanistan,” Wilson said. “But more than that, it is also an opportunity to engage with our allies on a platform that is designed to be coalition at the core.”

 

[NeilChapman]

"USAF Speeds Next-Gen Fighter Family, With Eye Toward China"
Feb 21, 2018 Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-speeds-next-gen-fighter-family-eye-toward-china

ORLANDO, Florida—U.S. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, armed with the biggest infusion of cash for research and development the service has seen in years, is looking to pivot from the counterterrorism fight in the Middle East to preparing for a potential clash with China.

Key to that effort will be investing in maintaining air and space superiority as new threats emerge, Wilson said Feb. 21 during an interview ahead of the Air Force Association’s annual air warfare symposium here.

In particular, the Air Force is spending $2.7 billion more than planned over the next five years (almost $10 billion in total) to accelerate “Next Generation Air Dominance” (NGAD), a family of systems designed to ensure air superiority well into the century. The effort likely will include a next-generation fighter to replace the F-22, F-35, or both.

NGAD will include a “renewed emphasis” on electronic warfare, Wilson said, declining to elaborate.
China is without a doubt the “pacing threat” for the Air Force because it is rapidly innovating, Wilson stressed. While Russia also is a threat to its neighbors, it is not changing as quickly as China is, she said.

“When we look at what the Air Force has to do, the Air Force has to be prepared for either of those threats, but because China is innovating faster we consider that to be our pacing threat,” Wilson said.
In addition to accelerating NGAD, the Air Force is using the additional cash Congress recently approved for defense to pursue a hypersonic weapon capability through two separate prototyping efforts—the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Capability and the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon.

Meanwhile, even as the Air Force has slowed the ramp-up of F-35 production, the service is investing in modernizing its legacy fighters—the F-15C-E, F-16 and F-22.

The Air Force also is investing in space superiority, as Russia and China develop capabilities that potentially can threaten U.S. access to and assets in space. The Air Force has decided to forgo the purchase of Space Based Infrared satellites 7 and 8, which warn against incoming missiles, because they are not survivable against emerging threats, Wilson said. Instead, the service will shift to a smaller, more agile constellation of satellites.

In the Middle East, the Air Force is committed to buying a new light-attack aircraft that not only will accomplish the mission of protecting troops on the ground in a more cost-effective way—freeing up fourth- and fifth-generation fighters to train for the high-end threat—but also strengthen ties with U.S. allies, Wilson said.

“The National Defense Strategy guides us to counter violent extremism at lower expenditure. It really doesn’t make any sense to me to have an F-22 destroying a narcotics factory in Afghanistan,” Wilson said. “But more than that, it is also an opportunity to engage with our allies on a platform that is designed to be coalition at the core.”

10 Billion over 5 years. That's the kind of money that's being spent on B-21 - and that's in EMD. Wasn't the AoA supposed to be finished in June of this year? Sounds like they plan to hit the ground running.

Range (so altitude for range, no?), payload and electronic warfare (NGJ integration instead of pod?). Probably whatever stealth tech thats available for B-21? Sensor data sharing.

The new engine - or engines? AETP development ends in 2021 with a 45-50k pound thrust engine. Would they design NGAD w/a single engine; saves money, extra room for fuel & munitions? Weight = cost, no? Less cost = more jets?

I guess the question is what is NGAD going to weigh? Will it F-35 'sized' or F-22 'sized? Have materials or manufacturing techniques changed such that it could larger and faster but lighter?

Any thoughts?

 

[dark sidius]

Surely bigger than the F-22, the range is one direction for the futur NGAD.

 

[sferrin]

Surely bigger than the F-22, the range is one direction for the futur NGAD.

I'd be surprised if it was less than XF-108 sized.

 

[Dragon029]

Bigger than the F-22 and it'll definitely be a twin-engine; supercruise is likely still on the agenda, plus if you're heavy and want to stay low observable against IR sensors you don't want to be using your afterburner during >3G turns, etc.

 

[GeorgeA]

You’d also need a lot of generating capacity for very high electrical power requirements, e.g., for non-kinetic attack.

 

[litzj]

Now, fighter goes bigger and bigger like warships before end of WWII.

Missiles and UCAV will take position of small fighters in WWII?

 

[Triton]

Is B-21 Raider escort still on the wish list for PCA? The PCA required to have an unrefueled range of 6,000 nautical miles?

 

[NeilChapman]

Surely bigger than the F-22, the range is one direction for the futur NGAD.

I'd be surprised if it was less than XF-108 sized.

If B-21 will carry 30k lbs of munitions why would you want something that big? Just purchase more B-21's. F-35 carries 18k lbs of munitions. What's the sweet spot?

If Electronic Attack is a focus then what will be included?

It almost sounds like the AF is looking at the MC2A solution but with survivable airframes. NG's new GMTI and MP-RTIP radar seems likely. Makes sense to locate it, share the info and eliminate it all the same platform. Also makes sense for CMD role against a near-peer. Perhaps the AF intends to complete the BMC2 mission suite developed for MC2A or move forward with DARPA's Hallmark program? Need to get that additional capability available to theater commanders.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&tabid=7832363ff7cb60bb368f6046c940819c

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18749/usafs-ground-tracking-radar-plan-desperately-needs-stealthy-flying-sensor-trucks

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/eyes-on-vulnerable-awacs-rivet-joint-etc-air-force-studies-replacements/

I could even see a BMC2 reason for SpaceX's BFR "space junk garbage collection service." Imagine how much easier it would be to manage the Space BMC2 mission if you didn't also have to track thousands of space junk objects as well.

Recall way back when there was talk re:NGJ being integrated into F-35? That wasn't possible, but perhaps it will be with NGAD?

---

Weight = $$$

The part that worries me is cost. B-21 is $550M. Heavy, stealthy and slow.

F-35 is (or will be) $85-110M depending on model. Comparatively light, stealthy and fast enough

If you keep the NGAD PCA light and fast using existing tech then you could target $150-200M per copy + development costs as there won't be 3k of these things built. But if the AF insists on making it heavy, stealthy and fast then the cost is going to rise to B-21 levels. Perhaps, if you allow exports, it might spread the dev costs around somewhat.

Altitude, range, munitions and systems weight I understand. What reason is there for twin engines other than Mach 2+? If nothing else the 2nd engine takes up space and weight. The space is lost opportunity cost for additional lethality for each sortie. Especially when you consider the performance improvements with AETP engines. What good is Mach 2+ if you can't afford to field enough to make a difference.

Wouldn't it still rule the skies at Mach 1.6+?

 

[Sundog]

It's going to be in the 80,000lbs to 100,000 lbs class. We know that because we know the thrust of the engines is around 45,000 lbs each and we can look at the T/W trends to then show the weight class of the new fighter.

 

[Airplane]

What reason is there for twin engines other than Mach 2+? If nothing else the 2nd engine takes up space and weight. The space is lost opportunity cost for additional lethality for each sortie. Especially when you consider the performance improvements with AETP engines. What good is Mach 2+ if you can't afford to field enough to make a difference.
[/quote]

Why 2 engines? Simple mathetics. A single engine aircraft with enough fuel for the range being talked about, along with at minimum 8 AAMs, would be a slushbox turd that would make the F-35 seem like a hotrod in comparison. Unless your single engine dream machine has 75 to 80 thousand pounds of thrust, it would be a turd unless it were small and didn't carry a lot of gas and carried less than 8 AAMs. You're talking about a single engine aircraft with even more fuel than stubby carries.... At that point it shouldn't even be referred to as a fighter.

I don't recall any official releases saying the USAF is requiring mach 2 dash speed. If it's cruise speed is also the max speed and is 1.6 to 1.8M, that's plenty fast. The USAF hasn't given the public any speed requirements.

 

[Dragon029]

If B-21 will carry 30k lbs of munitions why would you want something that big? Just purchase more B-21's. F-35 carries 18k lbs of munitions. What's the sweet spot?

If Electronic Attack is a focus then what will be included?

It almost sounds like the AF is looking at the MC2A solution but with survivable airframes. NG's new GMTI and MP-RTIP radar seems likely. Makes sense to locate it, share the info and eliminate it all the same platform. Also makes sense for CMD role against a near-peer. Perhaps the AF intends to complete the BMC2 mission suite developed for MC2A or move forward with DARPA's Hallmark program? Need to get that additional capability available to theater commanders.

Recall way back when there was talk re:NGJ being integrated into F-35? That wasn't possible, but perhaps it will be with NGAD?

Keep in mind that the F-35 is only carrying ~5000lb stealthily; obviously you can carry stand-off munitions externally, but that's not exactly the mission of the B-21 (a B-52 will suffice if you're just launching JASSM-ERs, etc).

For EW / EA I wouldn't be surprised if they worked to integrate the ALQ-249 into the PCA, like they did with the ALQ-99 in the EF-111 (as a side note, NGJ integration onto the F-35 was going to be in pod-form, but it was canned due to cost and schedule), but I do wonder how they'd go about doing that, given LO constraints, the fact that the NGJ comes in 3 variants for full-spectrum coverage, line-of-sight / aspect angle coverage considerations, etc. Maybe they'll be happy just to use something like the low-band amps / arrays semi-permanently and just rely on the jet's stealthiness and radar's EW modes to defeat SHF, etc bands.

Weight = $$$

The part that worries me is cost. B-21 is $550M. Heavy, stealthy and slow.

F-35 is (or will be) $85-110M depending on model. Comparatively light, stealthy and fast enough

If you keep the NGAD PCA light and fast using existing tech then you could target $150-200M per copy + development costs as there won't be 3k of these things built. But if the AF insists on making it heavy, stealthy and fast then the cost is going to rise to B-21 levels. Perhaps, if you allow exports, it might spread the dev costs around somewhat.

Altitude, range, munitions and systems weight I understand. What reason is there for twin engines other than Mach 2+? If nothing else the 2nd engine takes up space and weight. The space is lost opportunity cost for additional lethality for each sortie. Especially when you consider the performance improvements with AETP engines. What good is Mach 2+ if you can't afford to field enough to make a difference.

Wouldn't it still rule the skies at Mach 1.6+?

That might work and the cost argument is a serious one (if the PCA is going to be larger than the F-22, I fully expect it to cost $200-300m flyaway (in today's dollars) at peak production rate), given that an F-35 with an AETP engine is meant to have an air-to-air combat radius of nearly 1000nmi (and so a clean-sheet tailless cranked arrowhead or something might be faster and longer ranged at the expense of low speed manoeuvrability), but I just wonder if there's enough thermal and energy capacity with one of those engines to power a wishlist of EW and DEW systems (the latter might not be needed at IOC, but should be considered seriously when designing the airframe).

I also don't see top speed as being much of an issue as much as supercruise capability; for an escort, being able to supercruise lets your escorting PCAs go forward and engage inbound fighters, or turn around and destroy radars that pop up behind you, without requiring the B-21 slow down or loiter and wait for the threat to be eliminated / for the PCA to catch back up without losing 200nmi of range by using afterburner. Engines have high thrust-to-weight ratios, so adding a 2nd engine is almost only ever going to increase the clean thrust-to-weight of an aircraft, allowing for more payload, whether that be mission systems, fuel or weapons. Remember, an AETP engine doesn't give you a ~30% increase in range while outputting ~45,000lbf of thrust; it's only giving you those serious range benefits while operating at 10-30,000lbf (depending on the airframe's optimum airspeed and engine's optimum RPM / burn rate). Having 2 engines to allow you to supercruise at 50-100% faster than the airspeed of the bomber, rather than just 0-20% faster is a decent advantage in the role. Ultimately you don't want that bomber stopping, because that helps the enemy pin down its location, helps them communicate and ready defences and also robs your bomber and escorts of fuel needed to reach the target and get home safely.

 

[NeilChapman]

That might work and the cost argument is a serious one (if the PCA is going to be larger than the F-22, I fully expect it to cost $200-300m flyaway (in today's dollars) at peak production rate), given that an F-35 with an AETP engine is meant to have an air-to-air combat radius of nearly 1000nmi (and so a clean-sheet tailless cranked arrowhead or something might be faster and longer ranged at the expense of low speed manoeuvrability), but I just wonder if there's enough thermal and energy capacity with one of those engines to power a wishlist of EW and DEW systems (the latter might not be needed at IOC, but should be considered seriously when designing the airframe).

I also don't see top speed as being much of an issue as much as supercruise capability; for an escort, being able to supercruise lets your escorting PCAs go forward and engage inbound fighters, or turn around and destroy radars that pop up behind you, without requiring the B-21 slow down or loiter and wait for the threat to be eliminated / for the PCA to catch back up without losing 200nmi of range by using afterburner. Engines have high thrust-to-weight ratios, so adding a 2nd engine is almost only ever going to increase the clean thrust-to-weight of an aircraft, allowing for more payload, whether that be mission systems, fuel or weapons. Remember, an AETP engine doesn't give you a ~30% increase in range while outputting ~45,000lbf of thrust; it's only giving you those serious range benefits while operating at 10-30,000lbf (depending on the airframe's optimum airspeed and engine's optimum RPM / burn rate). Having 2 engines to allow you to supercruise at 50-100% faster than the airspeed of the bomber, rather than just 0-20% faster is a decent advantage in the role. Ultimately you don't want that bomber stopping, because that helps the enemy pin down its location, helps them communicate and ready defences and also robs your bomber and escorts of fuel needed to reach the target and get home safely.

Thanks D! That was a helpful explanation. I understand your explanation and see the value in going back to destroy radars that pop up behind you. If I send in something like the MALD-J and radar sites light up which is turn plotted by B-21, PCA or some other high flying, stealthy asset, do I need to go back and eliminate the threat? Are hypersonic weapons 1000 mi out a possible alternative?


If the EW mission is not integrated into this airframe would it be exportable?