USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news
- Thread starter Matej
- Start date
dark sidius
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 August 2008
- Messages
- 875
- Reaction score
- 642
They want China dominate the sky or why ? they want F-15 for the end of the time ? Putting a lot of money in F-15 instead of NGAD is the same bad mistake of closing the F-22 Raptor line. A eighties fighter stay a eighties fighter no possibility for survive in a high technology conflict and they agree to put money a lot in and cut NGAD incredible...
Last edited:
In_A_Dream
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 3 June 2019
- Messages
- 600
- Reaction score
- 526
Nothing the DOD does will ever be efficient or reasonable because the threat environment is constantly changing. It's not easy to forecast needs and have it be picture perfect, cost effective, etc down the road.
I am looking forward to the PCA & the B-21 and how they will change the battlefield.
I am looking forward to the PCA & the B-21 and how they will change the battlefield.
BDF
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 14 March 2009
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 346
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.
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,206
- Reaction score
- 1,322
Regarding the F-16 vs F-35, the F-16 will always win the close in gunfight; it's the basic physics of aircraft design. Wing loading etc. However, The F-35 is the better fighter because I basically give the F-16 close to zero chance of ever getting within guns range of an F-35. Also, the F-35, like most F-16s, is being used mostly as a strike aircraft with self defense capability. So with the F-35, you have an airplane that can deliver stealthy strike like an F-117 with maneuverability just shy of an F-16 and with unmatched S.A. capabilities.
So why the F-15EX? Because, for the most part, the F-35 is a subsonic aircraft. Yes, I know in a war they "could" go supersonic, but that isn't how they're going to use it, regardless of all the Lockheed/Pentagon cheerleading. The F-15EX is going to be used for Air Defense of the CONUS, a role it will be much better at giving it's range/payload capability, which an F-35 can't match. Also, from a scenario where the SAMs have been taken out by F-35s and drones and the F-15EX can operate, the F-15EX will be able to bring more load per aircraft for a given range than the F-35. That means fewer aircraft required to perform the mission, and as a result, fewer support aircraft, such as tankers, required to perform the mission.
I realize to many the F-35 is the dream plane that uses dream math to perform everything ever possible. However, in the end, it's just another airplane designed to provide a specific mission set and it does so very well. My guess is many of the people here pushing the F-35 weren't around in the 80's when the USAF kept pushing the F-16 for every mission possible. It came up short for many of those missions. Some cases it was so obvious that it didn't win the competition and in other cases it got the mission, even though the mission than suffered as a result.
That's the real trade-off. Do you want one airplane to do everything and live with the consequences of the limited mission sets/capabilities or do you want to be prepared to have a greater mix of capabilities? We know how the U.S. navy answered that question, should the USAF do the same? To many, the answer appears to be, "Yes."
So why the F-15EX? Because, for the most part, the F-35 is a subsonic aircraft. Yes, I know in a war they "could" go supersonic, but that isn't how they're going to use it, regardless of all the Lockheed/Pentagon cheerleading. The F-15EX is going to be used for Air Defense of the CONUS, a role it will be much better at giving it's range/payload capability, which an F-35 can't match. Also, from a scenario where the SAMs have been taken out by F-35s and drones and the F-15EX can operate, the F-15EX will be able to bring more load per aircraft for a given range than the F-35. That means fewer aircraft required to perform the mission, and as a result, fewer support aircraft, such as tankers, required to perform the mission.
I realize to many the F-35 is the dream plane that uses dream math to perform everything ever possible. However, in the end, it's just another airplane designed to provide a specific mission set and it does so very well. My guess is many of the people here pushing the F-35 weren't around in the 80's when the USAF kept pushing the F-16 for every mission possible. It came up short for many of those missions. Some cases it was so obvious that it didn't win the competition and in other cases it got the mission, even though the mission than suffered as a result.
That's the real trade-off. Do you want one airplane to do everything and live with the consequences of the limited mission sets/capabilities or do you want to be prepared to have a greater mix of capabilities? We know how the U.S. navy answered that question, should the USAF do the same? To many, the answer appears to be, "Yes."
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,079
- Reaction score
- 12,886
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.
In_A_Dream
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 3 June 2019
- Messages
- 600
- Reaction score
- 526
The unfortunate part for the general public is that there are probably classified requirements that help paint a better picture on why the F-15EX was a necessary purchase for the USAF.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
F-15EX Program Viewed as Pathfinder for Digital Century Series Initiative
F-15EX Program Viewed as Pathfinder for Digital Century Series Initiative
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,206
- Reaction score
- 1,322
I have a feeling CONUS will be coming back once Russia and China start flying their stealth bombers. Having said that, I'm not sure of what we have that will be able to locate them, but I assume it would need advanced IRST.
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?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
A little more information
breakingdefense.com
Boeing Positions F-15EX For ABMS, Digital Century Series - Breaking Defense
Boeing's "selection, and the fact that the production line and all the technical infrastructure that is supporting the F-15EX will be in place for many years, makes the IAF's decision to procure new F-15s and perform a massive upgrade of the existing fleet easier," one senior Israeli source said.
dark sidius
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 August 2008
- Messages
- 875
- Reaction score
- 642
In your opinion what type of plane will born in the digital century series ? Another stealth ? another evolution of F-15 EX ?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,011
Make it a 37,000lb thrust -232.
F/A-18X with twin F110s and a bit more stealthy. (Somebody posted a home grown concept here sometime ago.)
Stretched F-35 with 55,000lb 3-stream.
BDF
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 14 March 2009
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 346
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 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 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.
BDF
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 14 March 2009
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 346
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...
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...
DrRansom
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 15 December 2012
- Messages
- 692
- Reaction score
- 275
I think we'll see a bunch of mission focused UCAVs and 'maybe' some two-manned UCAV controller some LO capability, but the first 'big' airplane I'd like to see is a FB-35XL. Give it a big fuel heavy delta wing, drop any pretense towards dog-fighting or air superiority, and stretch the bomb-bay to fit a LRASM.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,119
- Reaction score
- 4,851
like the above part, maybe more than one optionally manned though.
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.
aviationweek.com
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
Last edited by a moderator:
BDF
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 14 March 2009
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 346
Yes, F-35 production ramp has been a mess, but they are finally getting a hold of it. I believe they're looking for a 15% rate increase for '21 or 22 to ramp to 30% by '24; which is 180 jets a year. LM has hinted that rates over 200 a year is possible. More than enough to handle a modest increase in USAF increase in fighter airframes if desired. I'll concede that a buy of say a wing's worth of 'EXs in the interim is probably worth doing. After that, the money is better spent elsewhere.
'15C will not be getting EPAWSS, only 15Es and 'EXs. Eagles have been mentioned for throwing ARRWs but I still maintain that that budget allocation being set aside for most of this proposed 'EXs would be better spent elsewhere. If we are considering ways to deliver heavy hypersonics then bombers are the way to go and allocated funding to keep the B-1s flying until sufficient B-21s are in service is key IMO. I think this is why the USAF is now looking at retiring the B-2s first now. The 4 operational squadrons of B-1s will be able to throw almost 1,500 ARRWs a day; possibly more depending on sortie rate. Assuming there’s going to be 6 operational ‘EX squadrons, that would require them to be dedicated entirely to launching ARRWs and doing 10 turns a day. Not very likely or practicable. Using the Eagles as a missile truck for the OCA/DCA role does make some sense. Especially in the DCA role which is why I think a smaller buy is not a bad idea.
Getting any fighters close to the Chinese mainland are going to require dedicated DCA fighter CAPs to enable the TSL to move closer to the coast to support stand in ops. This is where the 'EX will probably be most useful in withstanding PLAAF OCA sweeps on HVAA. Even then I suspect they'll be in the backfield behind F-22 and F-35s...
As far as air power studies, it’s generally true that they don’t account for attrition, for anyone. Accounting for attrition is tricky even for stand off heavy scenarios because you still must account for attrition in ISR assets too. These assets are even more critical than for stand in assets which can serve as a sensor/shooter and are far less reliant on dedicated ISR assets. Further, any air campaign will have thousands of aim points that will need to be attacked, many are not suitable for stand off systems. There’s a lot more to an air campaign than attacking critical emitters and TELs….
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 912
Except that the FRP decision has no bearing whatsoever on the actual production rate.
It only influences the mechanisms you can use e.g. MYP for subsequent procurement.
JPO has claimed that the current MYP proposals are not providing a sufficient return
relative to economic order quantity authorization they already got from Congress.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,119
- Reaction score
- 4,851
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.
DrRansom
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 15 December 2012
- Messages
- 692
- Reaction score
- 275
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.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,119
- Reaction score
- 4,851
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.
In_A_Dream
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 3 June 2019
- Messages
- 600
- Reaction score
- 526
The bigger threat is, and has always been China. Russia is a shell of its former self, and isn't modernizing/growing in a threatening manner.
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.
When you say "counter" do you mean hunt and kill TELs or MD?
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,119
- Reaction score
- 4,851
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.
When you say "counter" do you mean hunt and kill TELs or MD?
Last edited:
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 912
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.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,119
- Reaction score
- 4,851
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 vulnerability
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.
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 912
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.
Engines ready in 2025, but the US might already be flying 6th gen prototypes.
Given all of the AFRL and other Air Force sponsored next gen designs were practically built around the engines, not sure if this
story is accurate or if it is if the effort is pointful.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I assume it means they were working on it as a nonpublic component of the program. Only the F-35 drop in replacement was.
dark sidius
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 August 2008
- Messages
- 875
- Reaction score
- 642
Q&A with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein
Q&A with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein
Similar threads
-
Japanese next generation fighter studies (aka i3, F-3)- Started by bobbymike
- Replies: 573
-
Russian 6th Generation Fighter News
- Started by bobbymike
- Replies: 37
-
CNO Greenert Warns Congress of Fighter Shortfall, Hornet Line to Close 2017- Started by Triton
- Replies: 1
-
-