That's not the flyaway cost...
The F-15EX is going to be used for Air Defense of the CONUS
That's not the flyaway cost...
No its not, last estimate I saw for the F-15EX was around $85M which may be a bit dated. Right now it appears that the potential $23B deal would encompass up to 200 jets. Still doesn't translate favorably for the F-15 vis-a-vis the F-35. I get that part of the problem is timing but still argue that the money would be better spent on increasing production rates for F-35 and moving up PCA & F-22 upgrades.
The F-15EX is going to be used for Air Defense of the CONUS
Really?
No, it's going to go to a bunch of ANG units in CONUS (and probably at Kadena as well) but that doesn't mean they are intended for use in CONUS. Continental air defense is barely a thing anymore, and those ANG units all deploy overseas.
Well that's also I suppose part of the question, although the 15 carries them on rails likesidewinders. The 22 has the 9x on rails. I amnot a military pilot but are there not limitations when not launching off rails like a bottle rocket?Probably means kinematics are same as a legacy.How is the F-35 "disasterous"? In what way is it inferior to the aircraft it is meant to replace (F-16, legacy Hornet, and Harrier)?The United States needs more F-22s, full stop. The F-35 is a disastrous dead end at best, and that is if one is being generous.
Except they're not. Don't make the mistake of comparing a clean F-35 to a clean F-16. Compare the two going into battle. The F-35 wins hands down.
What's the launch envelope of its slammers when in a turning fight? It's got to punch them out with force before the rocket fires. Not like a rail launch from another platform.
How's that different than an F-22 or F-15?
Make it a 37,000lb thrust -232.F-16XL - but with no vertical stabilizer and vectored thrust. pilot is optional.
Then you would have to factor in the F-35's EMD and service too. A missile truck doesn't need to be stealthy.
Then you would have to factor in the F-35's EMD and service too. A missile truck doesn't need to be stealthy.
Why? F-35's EMD cost are basically sunk costs since you're going to be paying any remaining development going forward anyway. I'm not interested comparing the programs I'm talking about budget allocation going forward. They're discussing spending $23B over current procurement programs for a 4th + gen airplane and potentially up to 200 units. Yes its good but it is not a 5th Gen platform. As I said, Lot 12-14 contract prices you could get over 320 F-35s for the same price. You don't need a missile truck with stand in capability. Any heavy lift that they might provide should go to expanded B-21 buy. This doesn't even account for the additional fleet type which increases O&S costs for the fighter force.
The 22 doesn't carry any missiles externally like the 15? Ever? Like when its carrying drop tanks? I know the 15 uses a mix of options for amraam. I am just asking if the amraam is a "dogfight" missile when not fired from rail. If its not then the 35 doesn't have a dogfight missile except externally carried. I don't type out everything on a tablet because it constantly screws up words. Recall 35 phot firing 9x while in a roll? That's a dogfight missile.Well that's also I suppose part of the question, although the 15 carries them on rails likesidewinders. The 22 has the 9x on rails. I amnot a military pilot but are there not limitations when not launching off rails like a bottle rocket?
The F-22 does not launch AIM-120s off rails. The F-15 does it both ways (rails and ejectors) depending on where it's mounted.
View attachment 637453
The problem is that the F-35 was late, so now that air power has to be recapped, especially quicker than ever. There's decreased O&S because the F-15E is going to be in the fleet for awhile and a B-21 is wasted in this role because you don't need stealth because it's getting nowhere near the enemy. It fills in the more arsenal plane/B-1B role.
The problem is that the F-35 was late, so now that air power has to be recapped, especially quicker than ever. There's decreased O&S because the F-15E is going to be in the fleet for awhile and a B-21 is wasted in this role because you don't need stealth because it's getting nowhere near the enemy. It fills in the more arsenal plane/B-1B role.
The F-35 production line is not at full rate yet but is expected to happen shortly. It could handle the increased demand for airframes which is currently set at 20 a year for this new F-15; i.e. a ten year production run which is ridiculous. The 'EX version will not have much mission systems in common with the F-15E fleet, not even motors which is why CSBA separates it as a different fleet type. This is why O&S costs for the fighter fleet will go up because now we'll have a separate supply chain requirement for this new type.
I don't understand the obsession for adding stand off platforms. Its been shown through the years with multiple studies that its a very expensive way to run a war. As I've said, if you have sufficient stand in capability to you won't need stand off capability (or won't need to add stand off capability.) In this case, by buying more F-35s you could move any potential heavy stand off requirement (ARRW et al) to bombers or F-15Es as the latter will not be entering contested or highly contested environments until the defenses have been rolled back.
This program is a solution in search of requirement...
In your opinion what type of plane will born in the digital century series ? Another stealth ? another evolution of F-15 EX ?
like the above part, maybe more than one optionally manned though.In your opinion what type of plane will born in the digital century series ? Another stealth ? another evolution of F-15 EX ?
I think we'll see a bunch of mission focused UCAVs and 'maybe' some two-manned UCAV controller some LO capability,
If skyborg/loyal wingman don't fail, I can see F-35 with its internal bay filled with fuel while drones carry the munitions while F-35 brings the sensors.
The F-35 line will max out. LM was late, and delayed the full rate decision causing this mess. You want the AF to buy outdated systems? EPAWSS is coming to the older F-15s, and I assume that the F-15Es will get more updates too.
A F-35 doesn't have the legs to get anywhere near close to the Mainland. And even then it'll be launching the SiAW, which is getting close to standoff range. I always found those studies to be weak because they assume no attrition. And I'm pretty sure a stand off weapon like the ARRW has a much higher pK.
Obviously, what the USAF really needs is a LOCAAS-type solution...
The F-35 line will max out. LM was late, and delayed the full rate decision causing this mess.
a faster twin engine craft w/ a sizeable internal payload is necessary to counter ASBMs. likely an ability to accomplish a mixed high/low altitude penetration and even loiter beckons a craft closer to all aspect stealth F-111like craft.I guess this whole tangent could be construed as off-topic, but the whole point of the Century Series is to de-emphasize the individual fighter and focus more on the system of systems. Given that the main US adversary is the PRC and they have a huge arsenal of ASBM, I would think that one of the US' next fighter program would focus on hunting them.
We can already see the F-35 moving in that direction with TR-3.
Lengthy F-35 Upgrade List To Transform Strike Fighter’s Future Role | Aviation Week Network
Leaps in computing power, sensors and weapons will benefit the F-35 in the next eight years—if Lockheed can keep modernization on track.aviationweek.com
a faster twin engine craft w/ a sizeable internal payload is necessary to counter ASBMs. likely an ability to accomplish a mixed high/low altitude penetration and even loiter beckons a craft closer to all aspect stealth F-111like craft.
The bigger ASBM threat is Russia. Per USMC doctrine threat...have no confidence the PLAN is ever going to invade any Asian island. It is too risky for them. When Japan, SK, Taiwan all have hypersonics, the "Divine Wind/Wave" threatening the PLAN will really them questioning their plan.a faster twin engine craft w/ a sizeable internal payload is necessary to counter ASBMs. likely an ability to accomplish a mixed high/low altitude penetration and even loiter beckons a craft closer to all aspect stealth F-111like craft.
I'm not so sure about that focus. Instead of trying to counter ASBMs, why not focus on sinking Chinese amphibious ships, laying mines in Chinese waters, and wrecking their port infrastructure? If China's naval lift is on the bottom of the ocean, it doesn't matter how many ASBMs or triple digit SAMs, or LACMs they have, China can't do anything.
The bigger ASBM threat is Russia. Per USMC doctrine threat...have no confidence the PLAN is ever going to invade any Asian island. It is too risky for them. When Japan, SK, Taiwan all have hypersonics, the "Divine Wind/Wave" threatening the PLAN will really them questioning their plan.
a faster twin engine craft w/ a sizeable internal payload is necessary to counter ASBMs. likely an ability to accomplish a mixed high/low altitude penetration and even loiter beckons a craft closer to all aspect stealth F-111like craft.I guess this whole tangent could be construed as off-topic, but the whole point of the Century Series is to de-emphasize the individual fighter and focus more on the system of systems. Given that the main US adversary is the PRC and they have a huge arsenal of ASBM, I would think that one of the US' next fighter program would focus on hunting them.
We can already see the F-35 moving in that direction with TR-3.
Lengthy F-35 Upgrade List To Transform Strike Fighter’s Future Role | Aviation Week Network
Leaps in computing power, sensors and weapons will benefit the F-35 in the next eight years—if Lockheed can keep modernization on track.aviationweek.com
Generally, DEW should work, but what about when micro-UAS start wearing tin foil conspiracy hats and have an fuselage thermal load based auto jink programed in their flight control. Especially quick fixed wings are going to start challenging DEW intercept.Speaking of gun systems against the swarm:
"Advanced Battle Management Systems (ABMS) Counter Cruise Missile (c-CM) Experimentation Program: Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP) All-Up-Round (AUR) Experiment"
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/cd07843329...-modifiedDate&index=opp&is_active=true&page=1
Skeptical of ANY bullet-shooting gun being able to deal with a couple hundred of these coming over the trees:
IMO it's a waste of resources to even try. Energy weapons are the only way.
I think the utility of DEWs is going to be mainly against commercial derivative types or the earlier military types
where the costs or retrofitting them with EM shielding or anything ablative or more laser resistant is prohibitive.
A designed-in resistance to these weapons is not particularly costly (I've read estimates in the 10 - 20% range)
though there's naturally a weight penalty and for shielding apertures a complexity penalty.
In-band lasers will probably ultimately win the battle against conventional IR apertures. Less clear on in-band microwave weapons against apertures.
One will need to hunt across the vastness for almoar everything even a mobile asat truck. Software upgrades to the 35 is not enough. One needs a larger plane w the same software upgrades. Russia:s new anti Sat laser is mobile, for instance. It will be guarded by mobile iads. The PLA will remain dependant on Russian tech for sometime. Russian mobile nuke and non nuke missiles will remain the largest threat. Point defenses can limit pla strike effectiveness in the Pacific, if H ypersonics can to defeated w point defense.a faster twin engine craft w/ a sizeable internal payload is necessary to counter ASBMs. likely an ability to accomplish a mixed high/low altitude penetration and even loiter beckons a craft closer to all aspect stealth F-111like craft.I guess this whole tangent could be construed as off-topic, but the whole point of the Century Series is to de-emphasize the individual fighter and focus more on the system of systems. Given that the main US adversary is the PRC and they have a huge arsenal of ASBM, I would think that one of the US' next fighter program would focus on hunting them.
We can already see the F-35 moving in that direction with TR-3.
Lengthy F-35 Upgrade List To Transform Strike Fighter’s Future Role | Aviation Week Network
Leaps in computing power, sensors and weapons will benefit the F-35 in the next eight years—if Lockheed can keep modernization on track.aviationweek.com
When you say "counter" do you mean hunt and kill TELs or MD?
Point defenses can limit pla strike effectiveness in the Pacific, if H ypersonics can to defeated w point defense.
On the basis of this analysis, the committee concluded that the vulnerability of hypersonic missiles may be loosely related to speed (in the range Mach 6.5 to Mach 8). By continuing to reduce the radar cross section below 0.1 square meter, the performance level of the defensive system continues to fall; the system’s effectiveness is limited eventually by radar sensitivity and interceptor fly-out. The useful defended area is minimal for a combination of hypersonic missile speed of Mach 8 and a radar cross section of 0.01 square meter. This analysis suggests that reducing a hypersonic missile’s radar cross section is a meaningful way of reducing its vulnerabilityPoint defenses can limit pla strike effectiveness in the Pacific, if H ypersonics can to defeated w point defense.
NAP was suggesting in 1999 ("Vulnerability of a Hypersonic Missile to Surface-to-Air Defensive Missiles" attached) that
they will be defeated without some major munition signature reduction efforts. And then a THAAD style interceptor would still be a threat.
Budget Shows Flightworthy Sixth-Generation Fighter Engines Ready By 2025 | Aviation Week Network
The Pentagon identified two programs to support NGAD in 2014, then went silent; one has reemerged in budget documents this year.aviationweek.com
Engines ready in 2025, but the US might already be flying 6th gen prototypes.
Budget Shows Flightworthy Sixth-Generation Fighter Engines Ready By 2025 | Aviation Week Network
The Pentagon identified two programs to support NGAD in 2014, then went silent; one has reemerged in budget documents this year.aviationweek.com
Engines ready in 2025, but the US might already be flying 6th gen prototypes.
Budget Shows Flightworthy Sixth-Generation Fighter Engines Ready By 2025 | Aviation Week Network
The Pentagon identified two programs to support NGAD in 2014, then went silent; one has reemerged in budget documents this year.aviationweek.com
Engines ready in 2025, but the US might already be flying 6th gen prototypes.
So that means, working the timeline backwards, that the designs are near completion since it takes so long to build tooling and slowbuild the first few examples.