Register here

Author Topic: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA  (Read 735763 times)

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1008
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2550 on: August 11, 2018, 12:46:43 pm »
 there most likely will be many "letter designations" variations of the craft and the requiste development time, but internal payload should be fixed over time. Guessing the internal infrastructure for the DEW installation will need to be somewhat modular which would also likely a source of controversy. Dependence on as solid state DEW IMHO would a mistake especially when there are powerful fuel burners already on board and not much volumn and a need for lowest weight. Fuels over batteries. 

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2024
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2551 on: August 12, 2018, 10:45:25 am »
The reason not to do MYP is not that the program might be cancelled, but that the DoD or Congress might want to change numbers in any given year. The F-35 is an excellent example if you look at AF plans in the past few years:  max rate target cut from 80 to 60, delays in the year when max rate is to be attained, and a lot of other chops and changes because they want to hold down the number of aircraft delivered without the TR3 processor.


Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 488
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2552 on: August 12, 2018, 12:18:07 pm »
My favorite detail from that report is the F-22 prototype team suffering >80% turnover because they moved from California to Georgia.

Can't say I blamed the engineers who quit.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1008
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2553 on: August 12, 2018, 12:24:05 pm »
old old news but still no answers

“In the year 2054,” Norman R. Augustine wrote in his book Augustine’s Laws, “the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3 1/2 days each week, except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.”

Offline gtg947h

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2554 on: August 13, 2018, 02:55:23 am »
My favorite detail from that report is the F-22 prototype team suffering >80% turnover because they moved from California to Georgia.

Can't say I blamed the engineers who quit.

Most people don't like being forced to move.  I'd quit if someone tried to make me move to California from Georgia...

Government procurement is broken, and it will remain so as long as cost and schedule projections are treated as Biblical truth vs. the heresy of actual costs. 

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2555 on: August 14, 2018, 12:47:24 pm »
The reason not to do MYP is not that the program might be cancelled, but that the DoD or Congress might want to change numbers in any given year.

Which is why MYPs allow for variation-in-quantity (+/- unit) clauses that let you do just this.

It's how the Navy ended up with fewer Super Hornets in MYP I than authorized without paying
any termination/cancellation penalties.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 845
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2556 on: August 17, 2018, 12:35:16 pm »
old old news but still no answers

“In the year 2054,” Norman R. Augustine wrote in his book Augustine’s Laws, “the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3 1/2 days each week, except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.”

That's because it costs a lot to build bad products.   ::)

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 845
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2557 on: August 17, 2018, 12:51:27 pm »

To the extent NGAD benefits from stable funding...
reportedly the first time it was signed before the start of the fiscal year in over 20 years.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-earliest-signing-the-ndaa-40-years-giant-step-rebuilding-the-military

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1008
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2558 on: August 22, 2018, 07:55:09 am »

To the extent NGAD benefits from stable funding...
reportedly the first time it was signed before the start of the fiscal year in over 20 years.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-earliest-signing-the-ndaa-40-years-giant-step-rebuilding-the-military
Thank you for posting. The Budget Control Act will likely disturb 2020 NGAD development.

 IMHO NGAD should be primarily a UAS mothership and DEW bird. Only bombers make sense for carrying bombs and Air superiority and SEAD are UAS problems (no more endangering pilots). Problem is very few UAS (only some large stealth jet powered) are beyond the "Model A' stage of advancement.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2018, 07:59:45 am by jsport »

Offline Jackonicko

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2559 on: August 25, 2018, 01:09:50 am »
Quote
IMHO NGAD should be primarily a UAS mothership and DEW bird. Only bombers make sense for carrying bombs and Air superiority and SEAD are UAS problems (no more endangering pilots). Problem is very few UAS (only some large stealth jet powered) are beyond the "Model A' stage of advancement.

I think that you're in danger of stating an orthodoxy (UAVs are the future) that has become dated, and is no longer widely accepted. Of course UAVs and UCAVs and RPASs will play an increasingly important role in the future, but serious air power analysts no longer seem to believe that they will replace manned platforms (especially in kinetic roles), only that they will augment manned aircraft.

For some years, there seemed to be a consensus that the era of manned combat aircraft was drawing to a close, and that unmanned aircraft – some remotely piloted, but some autonomous, would take over their roles. The Labour government’s 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy, stated that: “Current plans do not envisage the UK needing to design and build a future generation of manned fast jet aircraft beyond the Typhoon and F-35.” That view is no longer so widely held, with operational experience demonstrating the value of having not only a ‘man in the loop’, but for that man to also be ‘on the scene’. The human pilot can using his eyes to get better situational awareness than is sometimes possible using the imagery gathered by narrow field of view video sensors, and many believe that it would not currently be possible to build a control system to replicate the sensing and processing ability of trained aircrew. Bandwidth limitations can make it difficult to download all of the ‘take’ from an unmanned aircraft’s sensors, while jamming and spoofing can disrupt signals to and from a UAV, including GPS data. The Russian military has already used GPS jamming to effectively block some US UAV operations over Syria.
 
Air Chief Marshal Sir Steven Hillier, the RAF’s Chief of Air Staff believed that unmanned aircraft will play a greater role in the future, but also thinks that there will be “an increased emphasis on precision and being able to do that at the greatest range you can,” and that “so far no-one has come up with a technical solution that is able to replace the manned combat aircraft” in controlling airspace and providing precision effect. He does not rule out technology eventually allowing UAVs to undertake these roles in “fifty years time,” but says that: “you can’t see it at the moment.”

It is not just the technological limitations of UAVs that have driven the UK towards making a manned platform the central element of FCAS. Sometimes societal factors, including RoE, will drive you towards being manned, not technology.

Michael Christie, BAE Systems Strategy Director for Air said that rules of engagement and social acceptability may be the most important factor, and many  legal, moral and ethical issues continue to surround the use of unmanned platforms. The precision available by using manned aircraft can also be a crucial factor. Air Chief Marshal Hillier emphasized the importance of precision in allowing the UK to wage warfare in the way that it does – which he characterized as being highly disciplined and highly responsible, and with a very clear definition of what is the legal use of force. “And most of those who oppose us aren’t. I want to continue to wage warfare in our way, and not theirs,” he observed.



Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 456
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2560 on: August 25, 2018, 03:11:45 am »
As a what-if scenario, could the B-2 be reasonably reconfigured as tankers?  Would that be a cost effective force multiplier?

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2561 on: August 25, 2018, 03:11:31 pm »
I doubt it's cost effective to run a 20 aircraft fleet of maintenance heavy aircraft no matter what the role. If it were cost effective, they wouldn't have earmarked them for (relatively) short-term replacement with the Bone. I imagine they'd prefer to keep them for strike if they could keep them cost effective.

But it absolutely could be done. Just seems like a money sink to maintain a fleet of only 20 unique large VLO aircraft.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 456
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2562 on: August 26, 2018, 04:37:35 am »
Thank you.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1008
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2563 on: August 26, 2018, 05:03:01 pm »
Quote
IMHO NGAD should be primarily a UAS mothership and DEW bird. Only bombers make sense for carrying bombs and Air superiority and SEAD are UAS problems (no more endangering pilots). Problem is very few UAS (only some large stealth jet powered) are beyond the "Model A' stage of advancement.

I think that you're in danger of stating an orthodoxy (UAVs are the future) that has become dated, and is no longer widely accepted. Of course UAVs and UCAVs and RPASs will play an increasingly important role in the future, but serious air power analysts no longer seem to believe that they will replace manned platforms (especially in kinetic roles), only that they will augment manned aircraft.

For some years, there seemed to be a consensus that the era of manned combat aircraft was drawing to a close, and that unmanned aircraft – some remotely piloted, but some autonomous, would take over their roles. The Labour government’s 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy, stated that: “Current plans do not envisage the UK needing to design and build a future generation of manned fast jet aircraft beyond the Typhoon and F-35.” That view is no longer so widely held, with operational experience demonstrating the value of having not only a ‘man in the loop’, but for that man to also be ‘on the scene’. The human pilot can using his eyes to get better situational awareness than is sometimes possible using the imagery gathered by narrow field of view video sensors, and many believe that it would not currently be possible to build a control system to replicate the sensing and processing ability of trained aircrew. Bandwidth limitations can make it difficult to download all of the ‘take’ from an unmanned aircraft’s sensors, while jamming and spoofing can disrupt signals to and from a UAV, including GPS data. The Russian military has already used GPS jamming to effectively block some US UAV operations over Syria.
 
Air Chief Marshal Sir Steven Hillier, the RAF’s Chief of Air Staff believed that unmanned aircraft will play a greater role in the future, but also thinks that there will be “an increased emphasis on precision and being able to do that at the greatest range you can,” and that “so far no-one has come up with a technical solution that is able to replace the manned combat aircraft” in controlling airspace and providing precision effect. He does not rule out technology eventually allowing UAVs to undertake these roles in “fifty years time,” but says that: “you can’t see it at the moment.”

It is not just the technological limitations of UAVs that have driven the UK towards making a manned platform the central element of FCAS. Sometimes societal factors, including RoE, will drive you towards being manned, not technology.

Michael Christie, BAE Systems Strategy Director for Air said that rules of engagement and social acceptability may be the most important factor, and many  legal, moral and ethical issues continue to surround the use of unmanned platforms. The precision available by using manned aircraft can also be a crucial factor. Air Chief Marshal Hillier emphasized the importance of precision in allowing the UK to wage warfare in the way that it does – which he characterized as being highly disciplined and highly responsible, and with a very clear definition of what is the legal use of force. “And most of those who oppose us aren’t. I want to continue to wage warfare in our way, and not theirs,” he observed.


great find
did say NGAD as a mothership so..

A mothership and daughters would have a very wide band ie Light Freq/Laser comms and difficult to jam so...

for example BAE ARGUS is a very wide field of view sensor and they are a given now.

armed, AI enabled, mini UAS searching for and possibly literally blocking AAMs & SAMs allowing a just far enough standoff NGAD redefines for some what 'on the scene' and 'in the loop' really means.

old and bad argument to say one is going to fight on one's own terms. It is one thing to want "responsible warfare".  If your not prepared to counter if not overmatch their worst, you lose. Standoff overmatch is the reason for guns IMHO against such dangerous IADS. Precision effects is a given for the sake of cost/time firstly.


2005 is long time ago...seems they might be a bit dated.

Offline Jackonicko

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2564 on: August 27, 2018, 03:38:02 am »
The point is that for a decade or more (from 2000-ish to 2015-ish) the orthodoxy was that the Rafale/Gripen/Typhoon would be Europe's last manned fighters and that the F-35 would probably be the last US major manned combat aircraft programme. The 2005 Defence Review typified that thinking.

Those at the cutting edge of air power seem to have rowed back really significantly, and there is a growing realisation of the limitations of unmanned and remotely piloted platforms (technologically, doctrinally, politically and societally speaking).

I don't think that Hillier was saying that he was planning to fight on "one's own terms" on a tactical level, but rather that the UK was not going to back away from a disciplined, responsible approach to the legal use of force. That's always been the UK's general approach - avoiding the use of human shields, reprisals against civilian populations, etc.