Register here

Author Topic: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA  (Read 758384 times)

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2037
  • I am not actually here.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2685 on: September 20, 2018, 04:05:28 pm »
There are a alot of tanks in Asia.

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

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2059
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2686 on: September 20, 2018, 05:34:11 pm »
CAS requirement:

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

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

Numero Three-O - Precision low-yield weapons

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

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2687 on: September 20, 2018, 05:44:54 pm »
CAS requirement:

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

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

Numero Three-O - Precision low-yield weapons

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

Bombers have other jobs like winning the strategic battle.

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

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

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

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

The F-111 was the first turbofan so if these ADVENT Turbofans w/ advanced bypass are all that then winning design will move F-111-like size/weight around and at range. Modern wing and material science could allow an F-111 size plane to even possess decent maneuver and at speed. Yeah F-111 tried to do too much for too many but it taught alot.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2018, 06:39:37 pm by jsport »

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2688 on: September 20, 2018, 06:56:28 pm »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The move away from cluster munitions also seems premature, especially when you consider the limited window any defenses would have to intercept whatever is carrying the submunitions. If I were leading a tank platoon down a road one of the last things I'd want is for a JSOW-A to detonate above my column.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2689 on: September 20, 2018, 07:42:44 pm »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The move away from cluster munitions also seems premature, especially when you consider the limited window any defenses would have to intercept whatever is carrying the submunitions. If I were leading a tank platoon down a road one of the last things I'd want is for a JSOW-A to detonate above my column.
Would only say that according to text on this forum AFTI flying in a acending or decending circle w/ completely off -axis nose guided by a computer might be much for the pilot but impossible for ADA gun to follow. Recoil is not a contemporary issues if you dont want it to be. The software/
actuators would allow a light non-gatling gun(s).

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

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

PS: am a F-23 but something bigger but not bomber requires consideration.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2018, 07:45:00 pm by jsport »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2690 on: September 21, 2018, 03:42:53 am »
PS - if you're penetrating the IADS, you're not CAS. And if you're doing CAS, LO means silent.

Pretty sure there is such a thing as CAS within range of air-defenses.  (Unless you're an A-10 anyway.  ;) )
« Last Edit: September 21, 2018, 03:44:41 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2059
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2691 on: September 21, 2018, 05:30:17 am »
I said "the IADS". You can expect guns and MANPADS. And use third-party targeting and standoff to take out any Pantsyr-type threats.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2692 on: September 21, 2018, 05:47:27 am »
I said "the IADS". You can expect guns and MANPADS. And use third-party targeting and standoff to take out any Pantsyr-type threats.

There are things between strategic IADS and MANPADs.  Things like TOR, Pantsir, Buk, S-350, etc.  will make using A-10s impossible. If your thinking is clear away ALL threats then there is no need for the A-10 and you could just use a lightweight, cheap, COIN aircraft.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2018, 06:07:47 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2693 on: September 21, 2018, 07:37:55 am »
Why bother updating F-16s for BAI/CAS... It will never have the weapons load & range of the F-35 and can only have the same sensors if they spend ADDITIONAL BILLIONS (above the already planed SLEPs) updating them while they only have a few thousand hrs of life left in them.

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

250 new build F-15's would make a nice mach 2 CAS platform. With todays sensors. . . Why not!? Speed, legs, payload. The ability to turn around on the same sortie and do A2A. No LO, but hell neither does the 16 nor the 10 that people are trying to save.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.
General George S. Patton

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 909
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2694 on: September 21, 2018, 07:49:39 am »
F-15s cost more to buy and maintain than the F-35 while offering no advantage except for max speed & range.  In A2A the F-35 is better so that is no real advantage for the F-15 and it's gun is even weaker than the F-35's.

Modern CAS is about information and PGMs.

Now, can we please have a F-35 discussion thread?
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 535
  • Hellcat
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2695 on: September 21, 2018, 08:00:36 am »


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

Don't forget the Battle Herk: you can CAS in low intensity fight or  project your CAS capability with a minimal (and stealthy) logistical burden.

Moreover it makes even more senses once you fight peer adversaries where your logistics suddenly comes at the fore front of your capabilities. Turn the Hercules back in its cargo mode and bingo, you managed to ready your forces for two different type of crisis with a sane and efficient budgeting policy. What the USMC did with this concept is amazing. Hope we will see more of the HarvestHawk V2.0 sporting Eu markings.

(Sorry for the OT b/w...)

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2696 on: September 21, 2018, 08:00:47 am »
F-15s cost more to buy and maintain than the F-35 while offering no advantage except for max speed & range.  In A2A the F-35 is better so that is no real advantage for the F-15 and it's gun is even weaker than the F-35's.

Modern CAS is about information and PGMs.

Now, can we please have a F-35 discussion thread?

Don't "poo poo" range. Remember, we don't have bases everywhere and not everyone is willing to base US fighters. I would dare say that range can out-trump LO as long as we're not fighting a peer state, and range definitely out-trumps LO when the battlefield is dominated by decoys and SEAD aircraft.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.
General George S. Patton

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10943
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2697 on: September 21, 2018, 08:33:57 am »
F-15s cost more to buy and maintain than the F-35 while offering no advantage except for max speed & range.  In A2A the F-35 is better so that is no real advantage for the F-15 and it's gun is even weaker than the F-35's.

Modern CAS is about information and PGMs.

Now, can we please have a F-35 discussion thread?

Don't "poo poo" range. Remember, we don't have bases everywhere and not everyone is willing to base US fighters. I would dare say that range can out-trump LO as long as we're not fighting a peer state, and range definitely out-trumps LO when the battlefield is dominated by decoys and SEAD aircraft.

Might I suggest that if that sort of range is going to enter the equation the need for CAS will have long since passed by the time you get there. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2698 on: September 21, 2018, 11:04:22 am »
F-15s cost more to buy and maintain than the F-35 while offering no advantage except for max speed & range.  In A2A the F-35 is better so that is no real advantage for the F-15 and it's gun is even weaker than the F-35's.

Modern CAS is about information and PGMs.

Now, can we please have a F-35 discussion thread?
STOVL F-35s have an external gun only.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2699 on: September 21, 2018, 11:28:37 am »
F-15s cost more to buy and maintain than the F-35 while offering no advantage except for max speed & range.  In A2A the F-35 is better so that is no real advantage for the F-15 and it's gun is even weaker than the F-35's.

Modern CAS is about information and PGMs.

Now, can we please have a F-35 discussion thread?

Don't "poo poo" range. Remember, we don't have bases everywhere and not everyone is willing to base US fighters. I would dare say that range can out-trump LO as long as we're not fighting a peer state, and range definitely out-trumps LO when the battlefield is dominated by decoys and SEAD aircraft.

Might I suggest that if that sort of range is going to enter the equation the need for CAS will have long since passed by the time you get there.

Not true. Loiter time. The 15 can loiter all day with fast packs and drop tanks and add in tanker support and it will fly till the pilot fatigues out. If you're saying CAS depends on being within a few minutes of a battle, they you're stuck with Apache gunships as they can be prepositioned near hot spots. Also Warthogs were providing CAS during Desert Shield Storm hundreds and hundreds of miles from their bases. An advanced Eagle could do it better and faster. If you study ground combat and history, most battles last a LONG time. It's not over in 5 minutes like a movie. Plenty of time for a Eagle to travel a hundred or 2 hundred miles and make a difference. For example from recent history, Benghazi was 13 hours. and if you know there will be a battle because you are the initiator, then 15s can be pre-positioned loitering.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2018, 11:30:56 am by Airplane »
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.
General George S. Patton