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

[NeilChapman]

The US could have its next generation of dem/val fighters flying in 4 years if they started today. In production 3 after that.

Pure fantasy.

March '72 Downselect for LWF program
January '74 F16 first flight
--- a year of talking...
January '75 F16 Selected as winner of ACF competition
October '80 1st Squadron IoC

December '69 Downselect - MD
July '72 First flight of F-15A
September '75 1st Squadron IoC

May '75 Downselect (basically)
November '78 First flight of F/A-18
January '83 1st Squadron IoC

October '86 LM and NG Selected for ATF demonstrators
August '90 YF-23 First flight
September '90 YF-22 first flight

There have been many problems with LM's F-22 and F-35. Probably not good to use their dates.

To be fair, processing power, CAD, prototyping and manufacturing techniques have improved by orders of magnitude in the last 10 years. Perhaps we're in a new era? We'll have to see how B-21 goes.

I'm looking forward to seeing the AF "2030" requirements when they leak out.




Don't think the testing would be done in three years - 5 maybe?

 

[sferrin]

The US could have its next generation of dem/val fighters flying in 4 years if they started today. In production 3 after that.

Pure fantasy.

March '72 Downselect for LWF program
January '74 F16 first flight
--- a year of talking...
January '75 F16 Selected as winner of ACF competition
October '80 1st Squadron IoC

December '69 Downselect - MD
July '72 First flight of F-15A
September '75 1st Squadron IoC

May '75 Downselect (basically)
November '78 First flight of F/A-18
January '83 1st Squadron IoC

And if you walk that all the way back, clearly the F-teens were built by incompetents. The P-80 went from clean sheet to first flight in 180 days clean sheet to first delivery in 143 days after all. Hmmm. . .maybe there's something at work there. . .nah.

edit: and another thing. You might want to compare times to the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen too.

 

[Airplane]

You might want to rethink that. The Phantom, Tomcat, and Eagle were EXACTLY that for their day. Just as you are complaining about the next generation the Spreys and Wheelers were complaining about the "gold plated" F-15.

Pure fantasy.

No, they weren't. State of art for the world were the unbuilt Rapier, the XB-70, the YF-12 and a couple of examples I could quote. The F-15/14/4 were incremental improvements over tried and true x-planes in some examples, and incremental improvements over other existing aircraft.

Dem/val technology demonstrators in 4 years is easy unless you want to build something that will be undefeatable for the next 25 years. Again, unless you're building Tie-fighters. Do you know how many detailed design studies have been done over the last 10-15 years..... how much technology has flown in one form or another. No one of the design houses would be starting from scratch.

 

[NeilChapman]

The US could have its next generation of dem/val fighters flying in 4 years if they started today. In production 3 after that.

Pure fantasy.

March '72 Downselect for LWF program
January '74 F16 first flight
--- a year of talking...
January '75 F16 Selected as winner of ACF competition
October '80 1st Squadron IoC

December '69 Downselect - MD
July '72 First flight of F-15A
September '75 1st Squadron IoC

May '75 Downselect (basically)
November '78 First flight of F/A-18
January '83 1st Squadron IoC

And if you walk that all the way back, clearly the F-teens were built by incompetents. The P-80 went from clean sheet to first flight in 180 days clean sheet to first delivery in 143 days after all. Hmmm. . .maybe there's something at work there. . .nah.

edit: and another thing. You might want to compare times to the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen too.

Like I said, we'll have to see where B-21 comes in. But it's worth mentioning that IOC is expected in 2025. So production is expected well before that time if there will be two or more test beds and funding has been let for the first 21 aircraft. B-2 had about 6-years of flight tests. NG must think they can have planes built pretty quick to meet that schedule.

With what they've learned w/F-35 production, what's been disclosed about their partners, and the AF sticking their neck out about the IOC date we'll just have to see what issues come up to slow that schedule.

I just don't get the sense though that NG and the AF agree that having B-21 in production in 7 years is pure fantasy. But maybe I'm reading all this wrong? Are they being too optimistic?

 

[sferrin]

You might want to rethink that. The Phantom, Tomcat, and Eagle were EXACTLY that for their day. Just as you are complaining about the next generation the Spreys and Wheelers were complaining about the "gold plated" F-15.

Pure fantasy.

The F-15/14/4 were incremental improvements over tried and true x-planes in some examples, and incremental improvements over other existing aircraft.

No. The F-4 was an incremental improvement over the F-101. The F-14, F-15? Miles ahead of the F-4. Sorry.

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/03/skunk-works-chief-how-keep-americas-airborne-advantage/126699/?oref=DefenseOneFB

Now that I have more time to respond to this article, this is a blatant attempt by Lockheed to freeze out all competitors to Lockheed's fighter monopoly. What Skunk Works wants is a repeat of the 4th gen to 5th gen fighter crisis. The current USAF has both the most advanced fighter in the world, F-22, and a large number of out-of-date fighters with some of the least advanced electronics among major militaries. USAF 4th gen fighters have delayed or non-existent modernization to ensure funding for the F-22 / F-35 development. If there were a high-intensity war tomorrow, a significant fraction of the USAF won't be ready for it. For some reason, Skunkworks wants to recreate the conditions which lead to this problem.

Furthermore, without a new fighter program in 5 - 10 years, everybody will get out of the fighter design business, expect perhaps Lockheed. The Skunkwork plan ensures that USAF won't have any choice for fighter design. Interesting that he didn't mention this industrial base problem.

Looking to the future, perhaps the best model is USAF development in the Cold War. There, the USAF never had a significant and persistent advantage over the Soviet, as it was never feasible to have sufficiently advanced technology in sufficient numbers. Instead, US fighters appeared about a decade ahead of their Soviet counterparts. That gave technological advantage while keeping cost and technological risk low enough to enable high volume manufacturing.

It would probably be better to commit to a fighter program every 5 to 10 years, with constant development of technology and sub-systems on the side. Fighter construction will allow USAF to respond to improving manufacturing capabilities and changing strategic requirements. As sub-systems are becoming a greater development challenge than the airframe, work has to be done to detach their development from airframe development. Already, the Pentagon is moving towards that in the B-21 program and hinting at similar work for a 6th gen program. One could speculate if this idea was what prompted the Skunkwork chief to have this interview.

Oh you better believe it! LM is well aware of the threats to the F-35 program. They are eager to craft the dialog against cutting F-35 production numbers. I think the only chance they have of being successful is if Congress is worried about other nations backing out of their F-35 purchase commitments.

There has been stated concern in Congress about whether the quantities of F-35 are what the US needs. Especially when we are critically short of air superiority with ~120 combat coded F-22's. The implication is we start on the F-X platform. There is little doubt this will take funds from F-35.

My thought is to build F-X using the same model as B-21, latest versions of existing systems and a new airframe. We need to also build an export version with some limiting technology such as an older rev EWS system (if that's a possibility). Tie F-X export purchase authorization to other US aircraft purchases, some significant quantity of F-35's, several tankers, T-X trainers and associated support systems. This would be one way to assuage LM's fears.

e.g
Purchase three squadrons of F-35's
Purchase 3 KC-46
Purchase appropriate quantity of T-X
+ associated support systems
Meet your NATO financial commitments
You're eligible to purchase 6 F-X

Yes - I know my numbers are nuts. It's somewhere in the neighborhood of $5B US to purchase F-X. But you get the idea. Countries like the prestige of US gear. The problem is they only want to purchase the high end jets and let the US take care of logistics, tankers, support systems, etc etc when we work together. I'd like to offer them an incentive to "adjust" that behavior.

 

[sferrin]

You're veering WELL off into tin-foil hat land.

 

[marauder2048]

Like I said, we'll have to see where B-21 comes in. But it's worth mentioning that IOC is expected in 2025. So production is expected well before that time if there will be two or more test beds and funding has been let for the first 21 aircraft. B-2 had about 6-years of flight tests. NG must think they can have planes built pretty quick to meet that schedule.

I just don't get the sense though that NG and the AF agree that having B-21 in production in 7 years is pure fantasy. But maybe I'm reading all this wrong? Are they being too optimistic?

B-2 had about 9 years of flight testing with six test aircraft for about 5,200 flight test hours.
F-22 ~ 7,600 flight test hours
F-35 ~ 12,000 flight test hours and counting

None of the hours above include flying test bed hours.

 

[Airplane]

You might want to rethink that. The Phantom, Tomcat, and Eagle were EXACTLY that for their day. Just as you are complaining about the next generation the Spreys and Wheelers were complaining about the "gold plated" F-15.

Pure fantasy.

The F-15/14/4 were incremental improvements over tried and true x-planes in some examples, and incremental improvements over other existing aircraft.

No. The F-4 was an incremental improvement over the F-101. The F-14, F-15? Miles ahead of the F-4. Sorry.

Miles ahead of the Phantom because it was designed to turn! Certainly not miles ahead in GD&T, panel gaps, materials, dimensional tolerancing, and it was mostly built out of the very same materials! Miles ahead? Please! Miles ahead? With those sparrows and sidewinders the 15 it was just as effective BVR as the Phantoms sitting on the same flight line. It was miles ahead because the pilot could see out the damned window, and it had wings big enough to turn. Miles ahead? The 15s hydraulics had fewer inspection points. Miles ahead because why? Because it wasn't designed to be a lead sled and had a decent T/W ratio.

I think you're all misunderstanding............................... The F-14/15/16 were NOT state of the art for the world. They were state of the art for fighters. They were not state of the art for world technology. Of course some systems, yes. But with the ATF the US started to design fighters the way it designed space shuttles and ICBMs: it had to be state of the art for the entire world in almost every facet. Materials, computing, stealth, manufacturing. The ATF was the first time, and set the precedent for, fighters had to be developed like the Oxcart; ever facet of the damned thing had to be invented from scratch. The YF-23 infamously had more computing power than all of Northrop. It also had to pioneer new ways in building fighters..... from the outside in, similar to the way boats are built. What was the end result? 20 years of development and 180 airframes + some development articles turned into active duty airframes. Ok, fanboys, have fun tearing this apart!

 

[sferrin]

You might want to rethink that. The Phantom, Tomcat, and Eagle were EXACTLY that for their day. Just as you are complaining about the next generation the Spreys and Wheelers were complaining about the "gold plated" F-15.

Pure fantasy.

The F-15/14/4 were incremental improvements over tried and true x-planes in some examples, and incremental improvements over other existing aircraft.

No. The F-4 was an incremental improvement over the F-101. The F-14, F-15? Miles ahead of the F-4. Sorry.

Miles ahead of the Phantom because it was designed to turn! Certainly not miles ahead in GD&T, panel gaps, materials, dimensional tolerancing, and it was mostly built out of the very same materials! Miles ahead? Please! Miles ahead? With those sparrows and sidewinders the 15 it was just as effective BVR as the Phantoms sitting on the same flight line. It was miles ahead because the pilot could see out the damned window, and it had wings big enough to turn. Miles ahead? The 15s hydraulics had fewer inspection points. Miles ahead because why? Because it wasn't designed to be a lead sled and had a decent T/W ratio.

New type of engines (turbofan vs turbojets), look-down/shoot-down radar, much better aerodynamics, better visibility, better materials, better avionics, etc. etc. etc.

I think you're all misunderstanding............................... The F-14/15/16 were NOT state of the art for the world. They were state of the art for fighters.

Ye gods. And you call others "fanboys".

 

[Airplane]

You might want to rethink that. The Phantom, Tomcat, and Eagle were EXACTLY that for their day. Just as you are complaining about the next generation the Spreys and Wheelers were complaining about the "gold plated" F-15.

Pure fantasy.

The F-15/14/4 were incremental improvements over tried and true x-planes in some examples, and incremental improvements over other existing aircraft.

No. The F-4 was an incremental improvement over the F-101. The F-14, F-15? Miles ahead of the F-4. Sorry.

Miles ahead of the Phantom because it was designed to turn! Certainly not miles ahead in GD&T, panel gaps, materials, dimensional tolerancing, and it was mostly built out of the very same materials! Miles ahead? Please! Miles ahead? With those sparrows and sidewinders the 15 it was just as effective BVR as the Phantoms sitting on the same flight line. It was miles ahead because the pilot could see out the damned window, and it had wings big enough to turn. Miles ahead? The 15s hydraulics had fewer inspection points. Miles ahead because why? Because it wasn't designed to be a lead sled and had a decent T/W ratio.

New type of engines (turbofan vs turbojets), look-down/shoot-down radar, much better aerodynamics, better visibility, better materials, better avionics, etc. etc. etc.

I think you're all misunderstanding............................... The F-14/15/16 were NOT state of the art for the world. They were state of the art for fighters.

Ye gods. And you call others "fanboys".

ALL incremental advancements! The aerodynamics were not revolutionary, BTW. Boyd and a few others just interjected some common sense into a fighter design. There were other jet fighters in the past with better maneuverability than the Phantoms, Voodoos, and Thuds of the world; so that was far from revolutionary. It was just that the DoD finally decided to build a fighter for the first time in a decade that could deal with other fighters! I suppose you want to say the teen series fighters "switchology" was also revolutionary over the previous.

Some have a very liberal definition of the word revolutionary.

Turbofans, look/shootdown, and FBW could have all been ported over to the Phantoms. It lacked wing loading to be a visual ranger fighter like the teen series. That said, I worked with a retired AF General and former Phantom front seater who said the F-15 was hard to beat, but could be beaten in a turning fight (referring to the Phantom). I never asked if that was guns or sidewinders.

Everything was incremental with fighters until the 1980s and then !Wham! if it wasn't able to defeat anticipated threats 20 years out, it wasn't worth doing. Of course some things and technologies and manufacturing techniques are whipped up on the fly.... we do that today in my day job, and it's called "engineering."

To keep going for a quantum leap from gen to gen as we seem to be doing now, is leading to the demise of the force structure we're trying to build. The difference between a Ferrari and a Corvette ain't worth it unless you can afford it.

 

[Airplane]

The US could have its next generation of dem/val fighters flying in 4 years if they started today. In production 3 after that.

Pure fantasy.

March '72 Downselect for LWF program
January '74 F16 first flight
--- a year of talking...
January '75 F16 Selected as winner of ACF competition
October '80 1st Squadron IoC

December '69 Downselect - MD
July '72 First flight of F-15A
September '75 1st Squadron IoC

May '75 Downselect (basically)
November '78 First flight of F/A-18
January '83 1st Squadron IoC

October '86 LM and NG Selected for ATF demonstrators
August '90 YF-23 First flight
September '90 YF-22 first flight

There have been many problems with LM's F-22 and F-35. Probably not good to use their dates.

To be fair, processing power, CAD, prototyping and manufacturing techniques have improved by orders of magnitude in the last 10 years. Perhaps we're in a new era? We'll have to see how B-21 goes.

I'm looking forward to seeing the AF "2030" requirements when they leak out.




Don't think the testing would be done in three years - 5 maybe?

YF-16 First flight = 1974
F-16A Delivery 1979

F-14 First flight 1970
F-14 Introduction 1974

Do you kids living in your parents basement realize how many millions of dollars is funneled every to the defense contractors for DETAILED design studies all the time? Or how many full scale mockups are done every year? It's part of the US's defense strategy by keeping the engineering base competent and to deal with "just in case" global crisis scenarios so that it doesn't take 10 years to have dem/val vehicles on the ramp?

Most of you have spent too much time associated with the development of 1.... count'em.... 1, no 2 airplanes in your entire lives where each one took roughly 20 years. Really!! Go back and look at the B-1, first flight 1974 and operational capability was planned to be 1979.

Decades long R&D programs are GREAT for a business's bottom line, but complete nonsense, unless of course you're inventing the technology and as you go every year and re-writing specs, as in the supersonic dash version of the F-117 otherwise known as the F-35.

 

[sferrin]

ALL incremental advancements!

Sure. That's why they had so much difficulty with the F100. Because it was just an "incremental advancement". That's why the APG-63 had about 4 times the range of the APQ-120 and look-down/shoot down. Because it was just an incremental advancement. That's why the F-15 has a 104 to 0 kill ratio while the F-4 was less than a tenth of that. That's why the F-15 absolutely destroyed the F-4's time-to-climb records. Is any of this sinking in?

Turbofans, look/shootdown, and FBW could have all been ported over to the Phantoms.

And the F119, APG-77, ALR-94, etc could have been "ported over" to the F-15. Ta-da! The F-22 isn't revolutionary after all and you have nothing to complain about. See how that works? :

 

[muttbutt]

Dudes 45 posts in...he'll be long for this world. ;D

 

[Sundog]

You might want to rethink that. The Phantom, Tomcat, and Eagle were EXACTLY that for their day. Just as you are complaining about the next generation the Spreys and Wheelers were complaining about the "gold plated" F-15.

Pure fantasy.

The F-15/14/4 were incremental improvements over tried and true x-planes in some examples, and incremental improvements over other existing aircraft.

No. The F-4 was an incremental improvement over the F-101. The F-14, F-15? Miles ahead of the F-4. Sorry.

Miles ahead of the Phantom because it was designed to turn! Certainly not miles ahead in GD&T, panel gaps, materials, dimensional tolerancing, and it was mostly built out of the very same materials! Miles ahead? Please! Miles ahead? With those sparrows and sidewinders the 15 it was just as effective BVR as the Phantoms sitting on the same flight line. It was miles ahead because the pilot could see out the damned window, and it had wings big enough to turn. Miles ahead? The 15s hydraulics had fewer inspection points. Miles ahead because why? Because it wasn't designed to be a lead sled and had a decent T/W ratio.

I think you're all misunderstanding............................... The F-14/15/16 were NOT state of the art for the world. They were state of the art for fighters. They were not state of the art for world technology. Of course some systems, yes. But with the ATF the US started to design fighters the way it designed space shuttles and ICBMs: it had to be state of the art for the entire world in almost every facet. Materials, computing, stealth, manufacturing. The ATF was the first time, and set the precedent for, fighters had to be developed like the Oxcart; ever facet of the damned thing had to be invented from scratch. The YF-23 infamously had more computing power than all of Northrop. It also had to pioneer new ways in building fighters..... from the outside in, similar to the way boats are built. What was the end result? 20 years of development and 180 airframes + some development articles turned into active duty airframes. Ok, fanboys, have fun tearing this apart!

Why would they have built the F-14 and F-15 out of other materials when the ones they already had met the mission profile spectacularly? Me thinks you know very little about aircraft design. The F-15 was far more revolutionary than the YF-12 for the fighter mission requirement and a hell of a lot more use-able.

Also, the F-16 was easily the most revolutionary fighter designed in the 70's. The technologies used in the F-16 completely changed how fighter aircraft are designed and opened up aircraft performance drastically. It had one of the best fuel fractions of any fighter built and they were able to keep costs down by being able to use a smaller more efficient airframe than they would have been able to without CCV technology. It actually changed the entire paradigm of how high performance combat aircraft are designed. The ATF program owes a hell of a lot to this program. Your metrics are messed up. Go back to the door and recalibrate.

 

[sferrin]

Also, the F-16 was easily the most revolutionary fighter designed in the 70's. The technologies used in the F-16 completely changed how fighter aircraft are designed and opened up aircraft performance drastically. It had one of the best fuel fractions of any fighter built and they were able to keep costs down by being able to use a smaller more efficient airframe than they would have been able to without CCV technology. It actually changed the entire paradigm of how high performance combat aircraft are designed. The ATF program owes a hell of a lot to this program. Your metrics are messed up. Go back to the door and recalibrate.

Not only that look at the number of aircraft that were directly inspired by it, or incorporated feature introduced there.

 

[lantinian]

to Airplane.
The F-22 is an exception to the rule.
I believe the ATF requirement was to create a fighter that won't just challenge the 4th Gen SU-27/MiG-29 but their successors too. That is why they put "advanced" in the program acronym.
One can therefore argue that F-22 was not a 5th Generaltion but rather a 6th Generation fighter....since it was designed to beat 5th Gen fighters what were on the drawing boards at the same time.
The 5th reneration being the MiG 1.44, Grippen, Su-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15E, F/A-18E and all design that were conceived in the 80's.

So how did USAF managed to come out with a 6th gen design 10-15 years years earlier than everybody else? Huge R&D and lots and lots of money.
F-22 was so expensive because the USAF tried to skip a generation to avoid being steamrolled by USSR producing hundreds of 5th gen fighters in the 90s

If they want an affordable F-X, USAF should follow the B-21 approach and based the design on state of the art but working technologies rather than cocepts for such.
IMHO, F-X should actually be a 7th gen fighter

 

[DrRansom]

I guess the question is: Given that money is finite, what degree of overmatch is required for a next generation fighter? Lantinan raises a great point about the F-22, it beats out the F-15 and SU-27 as well as the Rafale/Eurofighter and SU-35. This, however, came at the cost of a 15 year development program and eventually building only 180 copies of the plane.

If we go back to the anti F-22 days, there was quite a lot of comments about how the vastly superior F-22 would clear the sky of all planes, allowing only a few to be purchased. The F-22's success became its own worst weapon.

For the 6th Gen debate, is the 6th Gen supposed to outmatch the F-22 and peers, or is it supposed to outmatch the F-22 and a successor aircraft? The former leads back to Cold War style advances, one every 10-15 years, the latter leads to advances every 30 years.

I tend to lean toward the 15 year cycle. The 30 year cycle has left the USAF with a fraction of the fighters it needs and a fleet which is out of date and not well designed for the strategic environment.

 

[sferrin]

I guess the question is: Given that money is finite, what degree of overmatch is required for a next generation fighter? Lantinan raises a great point about the F-22, it beats out the F-15 and SU-27 as well as the Rafale/Eurofighter and SU-35. This, however, came at the cost of a 15 year development program and eventually building only 180 copies of the plane.

Let's put the reason for the 15 year development to bed. It had little to do with how far they reached. The Typhoon, Gripen, and Rafale ALL had similar development times. It had more to do with, "the Cold War is over" and lack of urgency than anything.

 

[NeilChapman]

I guess the question is: Given that money is finite, what degree of overmatch is required for a next generation fighter? Lantinan raises a great point about the F-22, it beats out the F-15 and SU-27 as well as the Rafale/Eurofighter and SU-35. This, however, came at the cost of a 15 year development program and eventually building only 180 copies of the plane.

Let's put the reason for the 15 year development to bed. It had little to do with how far they reached. The Typhoon, Gripen, and Rafale ALL had similar development times. It had more to do with, "the Cold War is over" and lack of urgency than anything.

Not sure if your implying...

Development = 15 years = norm ... but not because how far they reached
or
Development = 15 years ≠ norm ... but not because how far they reached

 

[sferrin]

I guess the question is: Given that money is finite, what degree of overmatch is required for a next generation fighter? Lantinan raises a great point about the F-22, it beats out the F-15 and SU-27 as well as the Rafale/Eurofighter and SU-35. This, however, came at the cost of a 15 year development program and eventually building only 180 copies of the plane.

Let's put the reason for the 15 year development to bed. It had little to do with how far they reached. The Typhoon, Gripen, and Rafale ALL had similar development times. It had more to do with, "the Cold War is over" and lack of urgency than anything.

Not sure if your implying...

Development = 15 years = norm ... but not because how far they reached
or
Development = 15 years ≠ norm ... but not because how far they reached

Neither. It was an assortment of things. 1. ALL aircraft are getting more complicated. It's unavoidable. 2. The Cold War ended which all of a sudden made getting the next generation into service less urgent. Funds dried up, programs got stretched, etc.

 

[lantinian]

I guess the question is: Given that money is finite, what degree of overmatch is required for a next generation fighter? Lantinan raises a great point about the F-22, it beats out the F-15 and SU-27 as well as the Rafale/Eurofighter and SU-35. This, however, came at the cost of a 15 year development program and eventually building only 180 copies of the plane.

Let's put the reason for the 15 year development to bed. It had little to do with how far they reached. The Typhoon, Gripen, and Rafale ALL had similar development times. It had more to do with, "the Cold War is over" and lack of urgency than anything.

Not sure if your implying...

Development = 15 years = norm ... but not because how far they reached
or
Development = 15 years ≠ norm ... but not because how far they reached

Neither. It was an assortment of things. 1. ALL aircraft are getting more complicated. It's unavoidable. 2. The Cold War ended which all of a sudden made getting the next generation into service less urgent. Funds dried up, programs got stretched, etc.

I can't disagree more with the premise that Aircraft development cycle of the F-22 and F-35 is the way thins are going to be. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Those aircraft are the last result of a practice by the US military that arose during the cold war. The practice being to try to beat the enemy next move instead of countering the one they already made.

While this works when you have a single single adversary with relatively conservative way of doing things, it can't work in today's rapidly evolving technology world in which the US has no idea who they will be at war with a few months from now.

If you want an example of how the US could develop the F-X quickly just check out Textron Scorpion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion

The approach they took should be an example of all aircraft programs in the future

In October 2011, AirLand Enterprises approached Textron with the concept of building the "world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft." .....development of an aircraft began in January 2012. Neither Textron nor its subsidiaries had much experience designing fixed-wing combat aircraft.

At its peak, the production team was 200 people, which eventually decreased to 170, including 120 engineers. The outside contours were made in May 2012, and wing production started in August 2012. Unconventionally, wind tunnel tests were performed after wing parts were already being made.[8] In a traditional aircraft development program, the Department of Defense or a military service would issue detailed requirements, potentially hundreds of pages long. Instead, Textron AirLand did a market and capability analysis to determine what domestic and foreign forces required but didn't have.

The Scorpion was unveiled on 16 September 2013.[2][5][6] In 2014, the development-to-flight time was expected to take 4–5 years, the goal of the first flight within at least 24 months was achieved.

 

[sferrin]

I can't disagree more with the premise that Aircraft development cycle of the F-22 and F-35 is the way thins are going to be. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I didn't say that. I said they'd be the same as the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen. Which are the same as the F-22 and F-35. Hmmm. So of the five new, recent designs all of them are or have taken roughly the same amount of time. Which, compared to the 60s is a long time. Since I "couldn't be further from the truth" perhaps you could show me all the recent NEW designs (Super Hornet ain't new, sorry) that took substantially less to go from clean sheet to in service than those designs.

If you want an example of how the US could develop the F-X quickly just check out Textron Scorpion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion

The approach they took should be an example of all aircraft programs in the future

In October 2011, AirLand Enterprises approached Textron with the concept of building the "world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft." .....development of an aircraft began in January 2012. Neither Textron nor its subsidiaries had much experience designing fixed-wing combat aircraft.

At its peak, the production team was 200 people, which eventually decreased to 170, including 120 engineers. The outside contours were made in May 2012, and wing production started in August 2012. Unconventionally, wind tunnel tests were performed after wing parts were already being made.[8] In a traditional aircraft development program, the Department of Defense or a military service would issue detailed requirements, potentially hundreds of pages long. Instead, Textron AirLand did a market and capability analysis to determine what domestic and foreign forces required but didn't have.

The Scorpion was unveiled on 16 September 2013.[2][5][6] In 2014, the development-to-flight time was expected to take 4–5 years, the goal of the first flight within at least 24 months was achieved.

I hope you don't think the Scorpion is even remotely similar to something like a leading edge fighter plane. You'll also note there are no countries beating down Textrons doors to buy Scorpions in place of real fighters.

 

[LowObservable]

It's self-defeating and not necessarily true to say that any new combat aircraft has to take 15-20 years. The previous generation (not just the 1960s) did better than that.

Actually, I believe that the success of the F-15 and F-16 in particular was a factor in long development times. They moved so quickly to upgraded versions that European planners weren't enthused by starting with "A/B" models - they wanted to start with aircraft that could at least be upgraded to an objective capability.

Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen were also all caught in the post-Cold War suckdown. Not only was there a push to slow defense spending in general, but European forces rapidly shed numbers - with the result that the rise in the average age of their fleets was momentarily reversed.

 

[sferrin]

It's self-defeating and not necessarily true to say that any new combat aircraft has to take 15-20 years. The previous generation (not just the 1960s) did better than that.

And I'm not saying they HAVE to just that there are a combination of factors that make it so. That said I don't think we'll ever see the days of a completely new design in four years simply because aircraft are more complex. There's only so much that can be done in parallel. That said, I don't think there's any excuse for a U-2 replacement, cobbled together from parts of the U-2 and Global Hawk, to take TEN FRIGGIN' YEARS though. I don't know if LM was basing that on recent experience dealing with the US gov. or what.

 

[Sundog]

It's self-defeating and not necessarily true to say that any new combat aircraft has to take 15-20 years. The previous generation (not just the 1960s) did better than that.

And I'm not saying they HAVE to just that there are a combination of factors that make it so. That said I don't think we'll ever see the days of a completely new design in four years simply because aircraft are more complex. There's only so much that can be done in parallel. That said, I don't think there's any excuse for a U-2 replacement, cobbled together from parts of the U-2 and Global Hawk, to take TEN FRIGGIN' YEARS though. I don't know if LM was basing that on recent experience dealing with the US gov. or what.

According to the article, that is based on the rate the flying hours of the U-2 reach the point where they need to be refurbished. It's not that they can't do them faster, it's simply based on when the hours run out on the existing operational airframes.

 

[sferrin]

It's self-defeating and not necessarily true to say that any new combat aircraft has to take 15-20 years. The previous generation (not just the 1960s) did better than that.

And I'm not saying they HAVE to just that there are a combination of factors that make it so. That said I don't think we'll ever see the days of a completely new design in four years simply because aircraft are more complex. There's only so much that can be done in parallel. That said, I don't think there's any excuse for a U-2 replacement, cobbled together from parts of the U-2 and Global Hawk, to take TEN FRIGGIN' YEARS though. I don't know if LM was basing that on recent experience dealing with the US gov. or what.

According to the article, that is based on the rate the flying hours of the U-2 reach the point where they need to be refurbished. It's not that they can't do them faster, it's simply based on when the hours run out on the existing operational airframes.

That makes more sense. The article I saw seemed to be saying that if they started today they could get one on the ramp in ten years.

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force to deliver future air dominance flight plan next month

April 07, 2016


The Air Force will deliver a classified flight plan in May to the commander of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center as part of its pre-analysis of alternatives work for a future air dominance family of systems, the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements said Thursday.

Next month, Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes and Col. Alex Grynkewich, chief of strategic planning integration and 2030 air superiority enterprise-wide capability collaboration team lead, will meet with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh for the plan's final outbrief. The flight plan is part of the Air Force's strategy for exploring next-generation air dominance capabilities and secure American air superiority. The capability team will examine several platforms and strategies including hypersonic weapons, standoff effects and attritable systems.

Although the flight plan has been billed as the "next-generation" of air dominance, Holmes said that title implies the Air Force is building replacement systems which will complete the same missions as their predecessors. Instead, he wants the plan to take a fresh look at developing new capabilities. Grynkewich also took aim at "exquisite capabilities" that take too long to develop, cost too much and are irrelevant by the time they arrive in the battlespace.

In addressing the future of fighter aircraft, Holmes sought distance from the model used to develop the F-35 and advocated for a new process to field the next fighter, F-X.

"When we started this process we delayed a year an F-X AOA," he said. "An F-X would have likely been a classic sixth-gen fighter that would have had a 20- or 30-year development program and what we're trying to do is solve that problem faster than that by looking across the range of options, instead of waiting for that generational leap."

One area in particular the Air Force has struggled is in maintaining the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's schedule. In May, Holmes and Grynkewich will discuss ideas for reigning in program schedules and reducing development time lines.

Grynkewich, who leads the capability team and integrates planning efforts into the Air Force's program objective memorandum, will also contribute to the Air Force's planning choices and help shape the fiscal year 2019 program objective memorandum. His team will continue systems engineering work on the family of systems until the AOA begins in January, he said. -- Leigh Giangreco

 

[bobbymike]

Don’t Call it “Sixth Gen”

—John A. Tirpak

4/8/2016

​There’s probably a new fighter-like airplane in the Air Force’s future, but it won’t be the sole answer to achieving air superiority, senior service planners said Thursday. Speaking at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va., Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, USAF’s strategic planner, revealed that a year-long “Air Superiority 2030” study concluded that a heavily networked and space-dependent “system of systems” approach is the way to go to keep ahead of adversaries who will soon have all the tricks and technologies USAF has now. The key element probably won’t be a successor to the F-22, though. In fact, Holmes and Col. Alex Grynkewich, who headed the study, said they discourage use of the term “sixth generation” to describe the new aircraft, lest people think of it as a mere successor to existing systems. It will be one element in a broader system that will feature cheap, quasi-disposable drones built and fielded in large numbers; enhancements of today’s “roll-back” and standoff capabilities aimed at penetrating heavily defended airspace; space systems delivering connectivity, navigation, and targeting; and rapid “prioritized technology insertion” into all existing systems. Grynkewich said the study indicated long-range and higher payloads will be key for a new platform. While something like the new B-21 bomber will be one alternative looked at for air superiority, he said “speed and agility” were found to “still have value” in air combat of the 2030s and beyond.
___________________________________________________________________________________

In the Year 2025

—John A. Tirpak 4/8/2016

​The Air Force is hoping its new approach to air superiority—one of a system of systems rather than a “silver bullet,” all-in-one platform—will create a new capability as early as 2025, Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, USAF’s top strategic planner, said at an AFA–sponsored, Air Force breakfast on Thursday. That year is a “wildly aspirational” goal, he said, and would depend on a successful “campaign” of experimentation and prototyping, followed by a green light from USAF and Pentagon leaders, and realization of a hoped-for acceleration of the acquisition process. He explained that USAF consciously turned away from couching the study as an F-22 replacement scheme, knowing that a “sixth gen fighter,” or F-X program, would skew toward a “generational leap” that would take 20-30 years to achieve and wind up being too expensive and way too late to need. “What we’re trying to do is solve this problem faster than that by looking across the range of options, and building what we’re able to build, instead of waiting for that generational leap,” Holmes said. He said the Air Force will host a pair of industry day meetings within a few weeks to pulse industry on its ideas for delivering realistic capability on the desired schedule. Air Superiority study leader Col. Alex Grynkewich said a plan will be jelled by “the end of May” and make its way into “planning choices,” which will be the 2019 Program Objective Memoranda. The Air Force has admitted that the period 2023-2025 will be especially challenging, because it’s hoping to go operational with a new trainer, a JSTARS replacement, the B-21 bomber, and some other big-ticket programs during that window, even as it peaks production of F-35 fighters and KC-46 tankers.

 

[flateric]

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-02-15/northrop-grumman-offers-glimpse-future-military-aircraft

in hi-res

 

[AeroFranz]

Funny, it's the first time i noticed the picture shows an unmanned aircraft. I mean, I can't see a cockpit, the lighter gray area doesn't seem to indicate a transparency, so i can only assumed the air vehicle depicted is a UAV. Unless the pilot has a fully synthetic view of the world, which would be odd...

 

[Avimimus]

Funny, it's the first time i noticed the picture shows an unmanned aircraft. I mean, I can't see a cockpit, the lighter gray area doesn't seem to indicate a transparency, so i can only assumed the air vehicle depicted is a UAV. Unless the pilot has a fully synthetic view of the world, which would be odd...

Not necessarily that odd. The British in the 1990s were already working on designs with synthetic views because they were concerned that pilots could be vulnerable to Russian laser weapons.

Since a proliferation of laser weapons seems increasingly likely it seems plausible they could be incorporating such considerations into design studies.

 

[Steve Pace]

Don’t Call it “Sixth Gen”

—John A. Tirpak

4/8/2016

​There’s probably a new fighter-like airplane in the Air Force’s future, but it won’t be the sole answer to achieving air superiority, senior service planners said Thursday. Speaking at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va., Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, USAF’s strategic planner, revealed that a year-long “Air Superiority 2030” study concluded that a heavily networked and space-dependent “system of systems” approach is the way to go to keep ahead of adversaries who will soon have all the tricks and technologies USAF has now. The key element probably won’t be a successor to the F-22, though. In fact, Holmes and Col. Alex Grynkewich, who headed the study, said they discourage use of the term “sixth generation” to describe the new aircraft, lest people think of it as a mere successor to existing systems. It will be one element in a broader system that will feature cheap, quasi-disposable drones built and fielded in large numbers; enhancements of today’s “roll-back” and standoff capabilities aimed at penetrating heavily defended airspace; space systems delivering connectivity, navigation, and targeting; and rapid “prioritized technology insertion” into all existing systems. Grynkewich said the study indicated long-range and higher payloads will be key for a new platform. While something like the new B-21 bomber will be one alternative looked at for air superiority, he said “speed and agility” were found to “still have value” in air combat of the 2030s and beyond.
___________________________________________________________________________________

In the Year 2025

—John A. Tirpak 4/8/2016

​The Air Force is hoping its new approach to air superiority—one of a system of systems rather than a “silver bullet,” all-in-one platform—will create a new capability as early as 2025, Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, USAF’s top strategic planner, said at an AFA–sponsored, Air Force breakfast on Thursday. That year is a “wildly aspirational” goal, he said, and would depend on a successful “campaign” of experimentation and prototyping, followed by a green light from USAF and Pentagon leaders, and realization of a hoped-for acceleration of the acquisition process. He explained that USAF consciously turned away from couching the study as an F-22 replacement scheme, knowing that a “sixth gen fighter,” or F-X program, would skew toward a “generational leap” that would take 20-30 years to achieve and wind up being too expensive and way too late to need. “What we’re trying to do is solve this problem faster than that by looking across the range of options, and building what we’re able to build, instead of waiting for that generational leap,” Holmes said. He said the Air Force will host a pair of industry day meetings within a few weeks to pulse industry on its ideas for delivering realistic capability on the desired schedule. Air Superiority study leader Col. Alex Grynkewich said a plan will be jelled by “the end of May” and make its way into “planning choices,” which will be the 2019 Program Objective Memoranda. The Air Force has admitted that the period 2023-2025 will be especially challenging, because it’s hoping to go operational with a new trainer, a JSTARS replacement, the B-21 bomber, and some other big-ticket programs during that window, even as it peaks production of F-35 fighters and KC-46 tankers.

In the year 2525 - Zager and Evans - One hit wonder. -SP

 

[Airplane]

For the new fighter-type-aircraft, all they need to do is dust off a couple of the ATF proposals like Northrop's refined F-23 design and Boeing's concept, and fill with the obligatory new engines, sensors, and avionics. Honestly, looking at the new Russian and Chinese a/c, a couple of the ATF designs, updated, would be more than a sufficient countermeasure.

 

[Ian33]

For the new fighter-type-aircraft, all they need to do is dust off a couple of the ATF proposals like Northrop's refined F-23 design and Boeing's concept, and fill with the obligatory new engines, sensors, and avionics. Honestly, looking at the new Russian and Chinese a/c, a couple of the ATF designs, updated, would be more than a sufficient countermeasure.

YF23 with ADVENT and today's top tier skin and sensors. Lordy a thing of great beauty would be born!

 

[bobbymike]

For the new fighter-type-aircraft, all they need to do is dust off a couple of the ATF proposals like Northrop's refined F-23 design and Boeing's concept, and fill with the obligatory new engines, sensors, and avionics. Honestly, looking at the new Russian and Chinese a/c, a couple of the ATF designs, updated, would be more than a sufficient countermeasure.

YF23 with ADVENT and today's top tier skin and sensors. Lordy a thing of great beauty would be born!

Just the thought of that warms my aviation loving heart. What a great aircraft that would make.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/08/beyond-fighter-jet-air-force-2030/82767356/

 

[red admiral]

For the new fighter-type-aircraft, all they need to do is dust off a couple of the ATF proposals like Northrop's refined F-23 design and Boeing's concept, and fill with the obligatory new engines, sensors, and avionics. Honestly, looking at the new Russian and Chinese a/c, a couple of the ATF designs, updated, would be more than a sufficient countermeasure.

But those ATF designs don't offer the increased range or weapon payload that is desired. By the time you're re-jigging the configurations to accommodate those, you might as well start from scratch.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/716175/af-introduces-air-superiority-2030-study.aspx

Keep your eyes open for this study/presentation have not read it was classified and appears to have been released in a public forum.

 

[Sundog]

For the new fighter-type-aircraft, all they need to do is dust off a couple of the ATF proposals like Northrop's refined F-23 design and Boeing's concept, and fill with the obligatory new engines, sensors, and avionics. Honestly, looking at the new Russian and Chinese a/c, a couple of the ATF designs, updated, would be more than a sufficient countermeasure.

But those ATF designs don't offer the increased range or weapon payload that is desired. By the time you're re-jigging the configurations to accommodate those, you might as well start from scratch.

If they're using the ADVENT based powerplants, they do have increased range. Whether or not it's enough of a range increase one can't say without knowing the actual mission requirements and the powerplant's spec's. The F-23 seems like it would meet the range requirements with those engines, based on the latest designs, size wise, from Northrop-Grumman. Of course, those aren't the actual configurations they would use, since they're showing them to us. The ATF designs just don't have the increased weapons load, at least not without a combination of weapons bay redesigns and weapon redesigns.