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

[overscan (PaulMM)]

What would that alter? Unless you want me to say "former editor" - but he wasn't the former editor when he said it...

 

[Airplane]

250 or thereabouts 15x would sure be nice to supplement the dismally small Raptor fleet, allowing it to perform more critical missions than escorting Russians away from Alaska's and the Big Sur's coastline. Considering that it is useless to send up stealth fighters to within visual range of Russians, new build 15s would do very well in homeland defense. Not to mention in non near peer conflicts or hot zones where its simply important to have aircraft with red, white, and blue flags on them. Plus as missile trucks for the 22 and 35 and if loyal wingman comes to fruition. I would be willing to concede 35a's would be better, but they are not being built fast enough even at the full line speed if it ever comes to be

But everyone is betting the farm on something that is 12+ years away from reality. There is no fallback plan.

 

[jsport]

What would that alter? Unless you want me to say "former editor" - but he wasn't the former editor when he said it...

Maybe "Editor in Chief (years he was in parentheses)"

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

250 or thereabouts 15x would sure be nice to supplement the dismally small Raptor fleet, allowing it to perform more critical missions than escorting Russians away from Alaska's and the Big Sur's coastline. Considering that it is useless to send up stealth fighters to within visual range of Russians, new build 15s would do very well in homeland defense.

I'd leave that up to the new T/X fleet. Would be good training for new combat pilots to intercept intruders and probers.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I think the USAF is being very foolish to completely rule out the possible F-22/F-35 "hybrid" that Lockheed was talking about. In the (admittedly unlikely) event that Japan and Lockheed pay for most of the development of the latter it would certainly be advantageous for the USAF to make an order.

As for upgraded F-15s from Boeing it doesn't seem a terribly bad idea either. It seems like it might be a better option that pouring more money into upgrading F-15Cs with the known airframe limitations on those long-serving aircraft. With new AESA radars, ECM, IRST, and whatever else they're adding to the F-15C I'm sure the USAF will ask for a SLEP eventually and that's bound to be costly.

 

[TomcatViP]

I second to that but They just got 90 F-35 from the senate this year (LRIP). How many years would it then take to replace 200ish F-15C? Let's be realistic, unless they want to diversify their contractor's base, there is no hard concrete reason into that.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I second to that but They just got 90 F-35 from the senat this year (LRIP). How many years would it then take to replace 200ish F-15C? Let's be realistic, unless they want to diversify their contractor's base, there is no hard concrete reason into that.

True, but for whatever reason the USAF has continued pursing upgrades for the F-15C despite the progress the F-35 is making. So they presumably think the F-15 offers something in the air-superiority role that the F-35 doesn't.

 

[_Del_]

It's hard to imagine them spending $65Million on a new build F-15 when they could sign up for a new F-35 at ~$80M. If you committed to enough of them, you could drive the cost down even more.

 

[jsport]

Updating 22s to the 35 avionics sensor standard and 15Cs w/ IRST, AESA and even engines etc near 35/22 standard, maybe. Two engine craft.

 

[starviking]

Updating 22s to the 35 avionics sensor standard and 15Cs w/ IRST, AESA and even engines etc near 35/22 standard, maybe. Two engine craft.

I have to wonder about the costs of integrating F-35 tech with F-22. IIRC the tech standards are very different. Could end up with a situation that a clean-sheet design would have been cheaper.

 

[DrRansom]

It's hard to imagine them spending $65Million on a new build F-15 when they could sign up for a new F-35 at ~$80M. If you committed to enough of them, you could drive the cost down even more.

You go for the F-15X because it has 2/3 the CPFH of the F-35. That is the biggest selling argument for the F-15X program - the lifecycle costs will be much smaller than buying an extra 200-300 F-35s.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Um, no.

As of this moment the RCPFH (The only type of CPFH that is tracked annually) of a F-15E is virtually identical to an . The CPFH of the is getting cheaper every day and is projected to be only 14% higher than an F-16C/D. There is no way that the CPFH of an F-15X will ever be smaller than that of an given the economy of scale and PHM advantages that the enjoys.

The RCPFH numbers are released every fall. Here is a chart showing the history of RCPFH numbers since they started releasing them for the along with other 4th gen fighters.

----Edit--
I changed the graphic to an attached one as it was too large for the screen.

Source (DoD)

 

[Airplane]

It's hard to imagine them spending $65Million on a new build F-15 when they could sign up for a new F-35 at ~$80M. If you committed to enough of them, you could drive the cost down even more.

You go for the F-15X because it has 2/3 the CPFH of the F-35. That is the biggest selling argument for the F-15X program - the lifecycle costs will be much smaller than buying an extra 200-300 F-35s.

Considering most airframes around the world are going to be nonstealthy aluminum cans for decades to come, the 15x makes a lot of sense, but only because they terminated the 22 line. Airframe and cost to operate are very appealing. Stealth fighters are overkill for homeland defense where you fly up to within meters of the bogey and lose the advantages of stealth. The 15x also has good legs and awesome load carrying capability. I imagine we will have something longer ranged than amraam and in a pacific theater environment could be missile trucks for PCA and 35s and 22s. It just seems to make sense to supplement 35 production with a few hundred 15x which would be a nonstealthy jack of all trades Swiss army knife. Its going to be a long time before PCA and the raptor fleet is tiny.

 

[TomcatViP]

If it's all about trucking load of missiles close to the fight, How many Loyal Wingman UCAS can you buy per each 15X? Think at the logistical footprint, the manning, the training or the complexity of various aging systems that would have to be maintained. It would be like relaunching Uber today but restricted to Pontiac GTOs.

 

[LowObservable]

What I see on Spud's cost chart is that the USAF F-35 fleet, brand new and now in mass numbers, costs about 2x to operate per flight hour as a combat-used, overstretched F-16 force that hasn't seen a major upgrade in a while. I'm sure that's exactly what was promised a decade ago and I await the F-35 fans producing evidence of such.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Doesn't seem that strange for a new aircraft to have a higher CPFH than a well established one. The spare parts pool has to be built up, the rate at which certain parts need to be replaced needs to be determined, more technicians are needed around for unexpected problems that may occur, etc.

 

[LowObservable]

C-M - define "new aircraft", please. The F-35 has been under development since 1996 and in production since 2007. and more than 300 have been delivered. It has been operational, by the definition accepted by all its supporters, since 2015, and it is well on the way to defined levels of maturity, in terms of flying hours.

If more than that is required to stabilize operating costs today, we need to do much better for NGAD/PCA.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Several things are keeping the RCPFH of the artificially high right now when compared to the F-16:
--The F-16 enjoys a greater than 10x increase in parts pools
--The F-16 has a well established depot network
--The lack of a depot network means that the relies on more new parts instead of refurbished parts until the depots are built.
--The existing s are fragmented in multiple Blocks so the economy of scale benefits of the F-16 are even more

One thing that you will notice is that the 's RCPFH continues to drop significantly while the F-16's is relatively flat. This shows the benefit of the increasing parts economy of scale and reduced price of refurb parts vs new ones. It will reduce even further as early LRIP jets are brought up to Block 3F.

I attached a graphic that shows the different types of CPFH.

 

[jsport]

The F-16 proved nearly 30 yrs ago it is more survivable replacement to the A-10 w/ unprecedented ability for direct fire accuracy (a means to destroy many vehicles on single sortie while remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire) and is the most maneuverable platform in US inventory. Why not upgrade it?

 

[sferrin]

The F-16 proved nearly 30 yrs ago it is more survivable replacement to the A-10 w/ unprecedented ability for direct fire accuracy (a means to destroy many vehicles on single sortie while remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire) and is the most maneuverable platform in US inventory. Why not upgrade it?

Because nobody wants to. As for "remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire" several have been shot down by surface-based weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

What would upgrading F-16s bring to the table that won't be filled by other aircraft?

 

[jsport]

The F-16 proved nearly 30 yrs ago it is more survivable replacement to the A-10 w/ unprecedented ability for direct fire accuracy (a means to destroy many vehicles on single sortie while remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire) and is the most maneuverable platform in US inventory. Why not upgrade it?

Because nobody wants to. As for "remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire" several have been shot down by surface-based weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

What would upgrading F-16s bring to the table that won't be filled by other aircraft?

Only Ground troops that want to survive would like a AFTi F-16 as F-35 will leave nothing but dead troops either because it cant do the job (which it can not) or because there are way too few and that will always be the case. A dog is dog and we are stuck w/ it but it is an expensive answer for very few problems and there are a aot of problems.

 

[sferrin]

The F-16 proved nearly 30 yrs ago it is more survivable replacement to the A-10 w/ unprecedented ability for direct fire accuracy (a means to destroy many vehicles on single sortie while remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire) and is the most maneuverable platform in US inventory. Why not upgrade it?

Because nobody wants to. As for "remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire" several have been shot down by surface-based weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

What would upgrading F-16s bring to the table that won't be filled by other aircraft?

Only Ground troops that want to survive would like a AFTi F-16 as F-35 will leave nothing but dead troops either because it cant do the job (which it can not) or because there are way too few and that will always be the case. A dog is dog and we are stuck w/ it but it is an expensive answer for very few problems and there are a aot of problems.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Actual FACs, who've worked with the F-35, say pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming.

 

[jsport]

The F-16 proved nearly 30 yrs ago it is more survivable replacement to the A-10 w/ unprecedented ability for direct fire accuracy (a means to destroy many vehicles on single sortie while remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire) and is the most maneuverable platform in US inventory. Why not upgrade it?

Because nobody wants to. As for "remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire" several have been shot down by surface-based weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

What would upgrading F-16s bring to the table that won't be filled by other aircraft?

Only Ground troops that want to survive would like a AFTi F-16 as F-35 will leave nothing but dead troops either because it cant do the job (which it can not) or because there are way too few and that will always be the case. A dog is dog and we are stuck w/ it but it is an expensive answer for very few problems and there are a aot of problems.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Actual FACs, who've worked with the F-35, say pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming.

FACs directing dropping bombs.. Yeah it aint carry many bombs... The 35 and cannons is ongoing joke.

When the competition between the A-10 and F-35 results becomes public. We can start to discuss. IF that study isn't "Corporate captured" (likely) as well. The 35 had to fly w/ 1000 less lbs already because it couldn't hang at A-10 low altitudes.

Once UAS handles the SEAD mission AFTIs could individually pick off vehicles all day w/ three rd busts. Fatty ain't doin that w/ falling out of the sky.

 

[sferrin]

The F-16 proved nearly 30 yrs ago it is more survivable replacement to the A-10 w/ unprecedented ability for direct fire accuracy (a means to destroy many vehicles on single sortie while remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire) and is the most maneuverable platform in US inventory. Why not upgrade it?

Because nobody wants to. As for "remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire" several have been shot down by surface-based weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

What would upgrading F-16s bring to the table that won't be filled by other aircraft?

Only Ground troops that want to survive would like a AFTi F-16 as F-35 will leave nothing but dead troops either because it cant do the job (which it can not) or because there are way too few and that will always be the case. A dog is dog and we are stuck w/ it but it is an expensive answer for very few problems and there are a aot of problems.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Actual FACs, who've worked with the F-35, say pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming.

FACs directing dropping bombs.. Yeah it aint carry many bombs... The 35 and cannons is ongoing joke.

When the competition between the A-10 and F-35 results becomes public. We can start to discuss. IF that study isn't "Corporate captured" (likely) as well. The 35 had to fly w/ 1000 less lbs already because it couldn't hang at A-10 low altitudes.

How many A-10s made it past the IADS?

 

[jsport]

As has been obvious since the for decades now avionics/sensors can be updated to match and perceive advantage of the "modern" aircraft.

 

[jsport]

The F-16 proved nearly 30 yrs ago it is more survivable replacement to the A-10 w/ unprecedented ability for direct fire accuracy (a means to destroy many vehicles on single sortie while remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire) and is the most maneuverable platform in US inventory. Why not upgrade it?

Because nobody wants to. As for "remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire" several have been shot down by surface-based weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

What would upgrading F-16s bring to the table that won't be filled by other aircraft?

Only Ground troops that want to survive would like a AFTi F-16 as F-35 will leave nothing but dead troops either because it cant do the job (which it can not) or because there are way too few and that will always be the case. A dog is dog and we are stuck w/ it but it is an expensive answer for very few problems and there are a aot of problems.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Actual FACs, who've worked with the F-35, say pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming.

FACs directing dropping bombs.. Yeah it aint carry many bombs... The 35 and cannons is ongoing joke.

When the competition between the A-10 and F-35 results becomes public. We can start to discuss. IF that study isn't "Corporate captured" (likely) as well. The 35 had to fly w/ 1000 less lbs already because it couldn't hang at A-10 low altitudes.

How many A-10s made it past the IADS?

Only UAS and msles are ever going to make it past IADS. Vice our previous
"engagement" some targets will even be protected against precision munitions. Thus another need to remember the gun.

 

[sferrin]

The F-16 proved nearly 30 yrs ago it is more survivable replacement to the A-10 w/ unprecedented ability for direct fire accuracy (a means to destroy many vehicles on single sortie while remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire) and is the most maneuverable platform in US inventory. Why not upgrade it?

Because nobody wants to. As for "remaining nearly invulnerable to returning direct fire" several have been shot down by surface-based weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

What would upgrading F-16s bring to the table that won't be filled by other aircraft?

Only Ground troops that want to survive would like a AFTi F-16 as F-35 will leave nothing but dead troops either because it cant do the job (which it can not) or because there are way too few and that will always be the case. A dog is dog and we are stuck w/ it but it is an expensive answer for very few problems and there are a aot of problems.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Actual FACs, who've worked with the F-35, say pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming.

FACs directing dropping bombs.. Yeah it aint carry many bombs... The 35 and cannons is ongoing joke.

When the competition between the A-10 and F-35 results becomes public. We can start to discuss. IF that study isn't "Corporate captured" (likely) as well. The 35 had to fly w/ 1000 less lbs already because it couldn't hang at A-10 low altitudes.

How many A-10s made it past the IADS?

Only UAS and msles are ever going to make it past IADS. Vice our previous
"engagement" some targets will even be protected against precision munitions. Thus another need to remember the gun.

Call me crazy, but I'm fairly certain that any system that can shoot down a PGM would make short work of the A-10.

 

[jsport]

Russian systems work very close to the protected site to defeat the PGM almost like APS. Covered in previous discussion.

Battlefield IADS reduced by msles, UAS followed by tedious time consuming "tank plinking" from a gun toter stifles a ground advance. There are a alot of tanks in Asia.

 

[sferrin]

Russian systems work very close to the protected site to defeat the PGM almost like APS. Covered in previous discussion.

Battlefield IADS reduced by msles, UAS followed by tedious time consuming "tank plinking" from a gun toter stifles a ground advance. There are a alot of tanks in Asia.

This may come as a surprise to you but many of those systems are designed to fire on the move and support the advance. Good luck in your A-10.

 

[jsport]

Russian systems work very close to the protected site to defeat the PGM almost like APS. Covered in previous discussion.

Battlefield IADS reduced by msles, UAS followed by tedious time consuming "tank plinking" from a gun toter stifles a ground advance. There are a alot of tanks in Asia.

This may come as a surprise to you but many of those systems are designed to fire on the move and support the advance. Good luck in your A-10.

This discussion was about updating F-16s for BAI/CAS. Modern high speed Fire Control as a component to an AFTI like upgrade would easily allow slow moving tanks to be engaged.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Why bother updating F-16s for BAI/CAS... It will never have the weapons load & range of the F-35 and can only have the same sensors if they spend ADDITIONAL BILLIONS (above the already planed SLEPs) updating them while they only have a few thousand hrs of life left in them.

Question: Why are we spend so much time talking about the F-35 in this thread?
Answer: We need a general F-35 "not news" thread.

 

[sferrin]

Why bother updating F-16s for BAI/CAS... It will never have the weapons load & range of the F-35 and can only have the same sensors if they spend ADDITIONAL BILLIONS (above the already planed SLEPs) updating them while they only have a few thousand hrs of life left in them.

Question: Why are we spend so much time talking about the F-35 in this thread?
Answer: We need a general F-35 "not news" thread.

'cuz da F-35 is just a fat pig that's why.

 

[jsport]

Why bother updating F-16s for BAI/CAS... It will never have the weapons load & range of the F-35 and can only have the same sensors if they spend ADDITIONAL BILLIONS (above the already planed SLEPs) updating them while they only have a few thousand hrs of life left in them.

Question: Why are we spend so much time talking about the F-35 in this thread?
Answer: We need a general F-35 "not news" thread.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/lockheed-martins-new-f-16-block-70-fighting-falcon-has-f-22-26419

add AFTI capability including against small ground moving targets w/ autocannon bursts. BAI/CAS realistic vs what appears to be the plan. Oh dogfight survivor on top of that vs....

 

[quellish]

There are a alot of tanks in Asia.

A pair of B-1s with WCMD and Skeets would fix that.
Get the external hardpoints back and just one would do.

 

[LowObservable]

CAS requirement:

Numero Uno - Be there when required (persistence, response time)

Numero Two-O - C2 between the team on the ground and the airplane. "I want to see your TDP video so you're not targeting us". That is, ROVER and follow-ons.

Numero Three-O - Precision low-yield weapons

PS - if you're penetrating the IADS, you're not CAS. And if you're doing CAS, LO means silent.

 

[jsport]

CAS requirement:

Numero Uno - Be there when required (persistence, response time)

Numero Two-O - C2 between the team on the ground and the airplane. "I want to see your TDP video so you're not targeting us". That is, ROVER and follow-ons.

Numero Three-O - Precision low-yield weapons

PS - if you're penetrating the IADS, you're not CAS. And if you're doing CAS, LO means silent.

Bombers have other jobs like winning the strategic battle.

What really is needed is a F/A-XX like the F-111.

https://fighterjetsworld.com/2018/09/20/the-a-10-is-not-a-real-tank-killer-its-forgotten-f-111-aardvark/

Given the number of threats 2030+ CAS "plinking" and CAS supporting SEAD will need to be near simultaneous and accomplished by the generally the same the craft

If there are dedicated pure SEAD supporting Deep, Medium range (BAI) and Close battle (CAS) they would need to carry as many UAS/msles as possible internally and/or stealth conformal ..but these craft would be required to attack vehicles as far from troops as possible as well (Assaultbreaker/Warbreaker like).. so not pure SEAD either. The end of pure SEAD as a mission the new emphasis defeating APS and Counter-PGM at standoff takes ex/internal space and volume for these munitions.

The F-111 was the first turbofan so if these ADVENT Turbofans w/ advanced bypass are all that then winning design will move F-111-like size/weight around and at range. Modern wing and material science could allow an F-111 size plane to even possess decent maneuver and at speed. Yeah F-111 tried to do too much for too many but it taught alot.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

What really is needed is a F/A-XX like the F-111. Bombers have other jobs like winning the strategic battle.

https://fighterjetsworld.com/2018/09/20/the-a-10-is-not-a-real-tank-killer-its-forgotten-f-111-aardvark/

The F-111 was the first turbofan so if these ADVENT Turbofans w/ advanced bypass are all that then winning design will move F-111-like size/weight around and at range. Modern wing and material science could allow an F-111 size plane to even possess decent maneuver and at speed. Yeah F-111 tried to do too much for too many but it taught alot.

I do think a strike aircraft with a lot of the same characteristics the F-111 had (size, weight, speed) is needed. I don't know if such an aircraft would be ideal for F/A-XX but it definitely would work as an eventual F-15E replacement and could even supplement the B-21 in some roles. The FB-23 comes to mind for a lot of this although it may have been a bit on the large side.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/lockheed-martins-new-f-16-block-70-fighting-falcon-has-f-22-26419

add AFTI capability including against small ground moving targets w/ autocannon bursts. BAI/CAS realistic vs what appears to be the plan. Oh dogfight survivor on top of that vs....

I know the 30mm GAU-13 wasn't fully integrated with the F-16 as the software wasn't finalized but supposedly it just shook around the aircraft and the gun pod too much. At those ranges you also expose yourself to every form of short range air defenses the enemy has down to trash fire from every MG they have on the roof of a vehicle.

Seems to me that more weapon choices for the F-35 might be a better answer. SDB-II should be very useful but I imagine something like Brimstone II would be harder to intercept. Originally JAGM was supposed to be integrated on the F-35 and be significantly more capable. Now it is just a Hellfire-R with dual-mode MMW/SALH seeker.

The move away from cluster munitions also seems premature, especially when you consider the limited window any defenses would have to intercept whatever is carrying the submunitions. If I were leading a tank platoon down a road one of the last things I'd want is for a JSOW-A to detonate above my column.

 

[jsport]

What really is needed is a F/A-XX like the F-111. Bombers have other jobs like winning the strategic battle.

https://fighterjetsworld.com/2018/09/20/the-a-10-is-not-a-real-tank-killer-its-forgotten-f-111-aardvark/

The F-111 was the first turbofan so if these ADVENT Turbofans w/ advanced bypass are all that then winning design will move F-111-like size/weight around and at range. Modern wing and material science could allow an F-111 size plane to even possess decent maneuver and at speed. Yeah F-111 tried to do too much for too many but it taught alot.

I do think a strike aircraft with a lot of the same characteristics the F-111 had (size, weight, speed) is needed. I don't know if such an aircraft would be ideal for F/A-XX but it definitely would work as an eventual F-15E replacement and could even supplement the B-21 in some roles. The FB-23 comes to mind for a lot of this although it may have been a bit on the large side.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/lockheed-martins-new-f-16-block-70-fighting-falcon-has-f-22-26419

add AFTI capability including against small ground moving targets w/ autocannon bursts. BAI/CAS realistic vs what appears to be the plan. Oh dogfight survivor on top of that vs....

I know the 30mm GAU-13 wasn't fully integrated with the F-16 as the software wasn't finalized but supposedly it just shook around the aircraft and the gun pod too much. At those ranges you also expose yourself to every form of short range air defenses the enemy has down to trash fire from every MG they have on the roof of a vehicle.

Seems to me that more weapon choices for the F-35 might be a better answer. SDB-II should be very useful but I imagine something like Brimstone II would be harder to intercept. Originally JAGM was supposed to be integrated on the F-35 and be significantly more capable. Now it is just a Hellfire-R with dual-mode MMW/SALH seeker.

The move away from cluster munitions also seems premature, especially when you consider the limited window any defenses would have to intercept whatever is carrying the submunitions. If I were leading a tank platoon down a road one of the last things I'd want is for a JSOW-A to detonate above my column.

Would only say that according to text on this forum AFTI flying in a acending or decending circle w/ completely off -axis nose guided by a computer might be much for the pilot but impossible for ADA gun to follow. Recoil is not a contemporary issues if you dont want it to be. The software/
actuators would allow a light non-gatling gun(s).

Hellfire based msles are the issue as likely defeatable by developing APS and counter PGM systems. Thus the need for UAS/msle development as ideally it defeats this counter tech more than once before being expended.

Understand some clusters are prohibited. Damocles submunition in JSOWs of number again require a large craft and vehicles highly dispersed in antiscipation so JSOW...

PS: am a F-23 but something bigger but not bomber requires consideration.

 

[sferrin]

PS - if you're penetrating the IADS, you're not CAS. And if you're doing CAS, LO means silent.

Pretty sure there is such a thing as CAS within range of air-defenses. (Unless you're an A-10 anyway. )

 

[LowObservable]

I said "the IADS". You can expect guns and MANPADS. And use third-party targeting and standoff to take out any Pantsyr-type threats.